ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Recent Posts
Electricians revenge
by gfretwell - 05/23/24 11:15 AM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by emolatur - 05/18/24 06:12 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 49 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 308
Steve T Offline OP
I did a search and couldn't locate this topic--I'm pretty sure it's been discussed before. Pointers to an existing thread is great if someone has it. Otherwise--

1) What was the purpose/substantiation for not having a service disco in a bathroom?

2) Does anything prohibit passing 'through' a bathroom to gain access to the service disco?

3) (Lets get real silly)--Can the working clearance for the service disco be in the bathroom, while the service disco itself is actually out of the bathroom? e.g. closet door.

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:

>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,273
I work commercial... even so...

1) Too wet.

2) That's one weird bathroom layout. I wouldn't dream of it since no fireman would ever think to look there when time is critical.

3) Too wet.

More generally, a SERVICE disconnecting means is a critical piece of safety gear and is not to be shoe-horned in to a home.

This is the last item one should think about scrimping on.

Out my way, most SERVICE disconnects will be outside: NEMA3R, even in snow country. When needed, a 'bird house' is set. (micro-roof)

If I were to run into cramped quarters... I'd put the disco outside. It'd usually be quicker, too.

As for the history of various Code provisions... I don't have the interest or the time.

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,936
Likes: 34
Reading the ROP to the 1996 where this came from, I say no to both ideas.

4-112- (230-70(a)): Accept
Note: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee
that this Proposal be referred to Code-Making Panels 1, 2, and 10 for
SUBMIT'rER: Raymond E. Harper, Seattle, WA
RECOMMENDATION: A new paragraph be added to Section 230-
70(a) to read:
Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in the bathrooms.
A bathroom shall be as defined in Section 210-8.
SUBSTANTIATION: Many bathrooms are not readily accessible
when occupied and the door locked. Servicing the unprotected
conductors in such a confined space with the grounded plumbing
fixtures could be hazardous. This is not a proper location for a
service disconnect. This would be in accord with Section 240-24(e).
PANEL STATEMENT: The Panel recommends that the Correlating
Committee review this based on the actions of Panel 10 under
Section 240-24(e)

Greg Fretwell
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,384
Likes: 7
Thanks for that Greg!
I'm putting that in my book!!

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,936
Likes: 34
All of this stuff is available on the NFPA web site these days.

Go down and change the "edition to display" to the cycle you want to look at.

Greg Fretwell
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 308
Steve T Offline OP
Greg, Thanks. I was looking for that link on NFPA too. Very helpful. I had recalled some language regarding 'access' to the bathroom vs. the damp or wet location substantiation. The 'access' substantiation is more helpful in dealing with the question about passing through the bathroom.

People come up with all kinds of creative ways to layout their basements.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5