SOP requirement

[Ben J. Gromicko]

According to Residential SOP:
2.7. Electrical
II. The inspector is not required to:
C. remove panelboard cabinet covers or dead front covers, if they
are not readily accessible.

So therefore, if they ARE readily accessible, an inspector is required to remove panelboard dead front covers.

Agree?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

Attachment 32398
According to Residential SOP:
2.7. Electrical
II. The inspector is not required to:
C. remove panelboard cabinet covers or dead front covers, if they
are not readily accessible.

So therefore, if they ARE readily accessible, an inspector is required to remove panelboard dead front covers.

Agree?

Disagree.

There are safety considerations that must come first.

I will not remove a panelboard dead front cover that is holding in place 40 loose stablock breaker switches. Nor will I remove a panelboard cover that is rusted, wet or hot to the touch, for starters.

In other words, it is at the discretion of the inspector as to whether he will removed the panelboard dead front cover or not.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

http://www.nachi.org/glossary.htm

Accessible: Can be approached or entered by the inspector safely, without difficulty, fear or danger.

Answer to your question - Yes.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jpope

http://www.nachi.org/glossary.htm

Accessible: Can be approached or entered by the inspector safely, without difficulty, fear or danger.

Answer to your question - Yes.

Ditto

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jpope

http://www.nachi.org/glossary.htm

Accessible: Can be approached or entered by the inspector safely, without difficulty, fear or danger.

Answer to your question - Yes.

NEC 2005, Article 100

readily accessible: Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.

Answer to Ben's question.....still "No".

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by jbushart

NEC 2005, Article 100

readily accessible: Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.

Answer to Ben's question.....still "No".

LOL I think I'll have to side with Jim on this one. However question is in a court of law would they side with the industry standard definition or would they side with the NEC definition? Ben if you really want to know I think they SOP needs to be relooked at. Shouldn't be any questions at all by now. We should all have a industry standard set in stone that we all are required to follow. Black and white delete the grey.

[Rick Maday]

NACHI SOP

4.31. Readily Accessible: An item or component that is, in the judgment of the inspector, capable of being safely observed without the removal of obstacles, detachment or disengagement of connecting or securing devices, or other unsafe or difficult procedures to gain access.


The safety considerations are in the definition.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

The definitions provided by the inspection association should be applied in conjunction with the standards of the association.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jpope

The definitions provided by the inspection association should be applied in conjunction with the standards of the association.

Perhaps...but as Ben points out on another thread, "any confusion and the client wins".

How many clients do you have who know the NACHI definitions by heart?

I would use, for electrical terms, the terminology of the electrical industry...and so forth....in communicating with anyone outside of the association.

Others may disagree.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rmaday

NACHI SOP

4.31. Readily Accessible: An item or component that is, in the judgment of the inspector, capable of being safely observed without the removal of obstacles, detachment or disengagement of connecting or securing devices, or other unsafe or difficult procedures to gain access.


The safety considerations are in the definition.

While this definition addresses the safety of accessing the panelbox, it does not address removing its cover.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Disagree.

There are safety considerations that must come first.

I will not remove a panelboard dead front cover that is holding in place 40 loose stablock breaker switches. Nor will I remove a panelboard cover that is rusted, wet or hot to the touch, for starters.

In other words, it is at the discretion of the inspector as to whether he will removed the panelboard dead front cover or not.

That's what readily accessible means and is defined as such.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Perhaps...but as Ben points out on another thread, "any confusion and the client wins".

How many clients do you have who know the NACHI definitions by heart?

I would use, for electrical terms, the terminology of the electrical industry...and so forth....in communicating with anyone outside of the association.

Others may disagree.

None.

But if we refer to the SOP in our PIA and report, we should indeed use those definitions.

More confusing would be if you did not reference the NEC and relied on those definitions. Further confusion if you used some definitions from any code and some from the SOP.

All that aside, Ben seems to be hinting at somethings, wonder what they could be?

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jbushart

While this definition addresses the safety of accessing the panelbox, it does not address removing its cover.

And we are not required to remove the covers IF they (the covers) are not redily accessible.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

The SOP seems to be implying to me this single point:

If the panelboard is readily accessible, an inspector is required to remove the dead front cover.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

The SOP seems to be implying to me this single point:

If the panelboard is readily accessible, an inspector is required to remove the dead front cover.

I cannot do an inspection without removing the dead front cover.

Still....this is NACHI. Without sounding too much like Joe Tedesco, I have read posts on this message board that convince me that not everyone should be removing the dead front cover.

If they judge themselves accordingly, nothing we do should compel them to do otherwise, IMO.