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.
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
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.
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.
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.
While this definition addresses the safety of accessing the panelbox, it does not address removing its cover.
That’s what readily accessible means and is defined as such.
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? :-k
And we are not required to remove the covers IF they (the covers) are not redily accessible.
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.
If we are speaking solely of the iNACHI SOP the answer would be no.
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.
It would be very difficult in my opinion, however, to inspect the electric panel without removing the cover.
Sorry Jeff, probably the first time in many moons I’ve disagreed with you…
My answer would be no also based on that same description of Readily Accessible.
Although I still remove them. :mrgreen:
If I am not mistaken, somewhere I saw where accessible meant "without the use of tools.
And that description above sure talks about disengagement of connecting or securing devices:)
With this, I completely agree.
I don’t believe that every inspector is qualified to remove every cover, nor do I believe that an inspector should make every reasonable effort to remove a cover if there is a concern for safety.
The way it’s worded,** I agree** that our SOP requires removal of the cover, but I don’t feel it should be required.
Ben, sometimes less is better. Maybe Nachi should eliminate All of the “Not Required To” verbiage and keep it simple like the Illinois SOP. Which only states what we are required to inspect. Then includes these 2 lines…
e) At the** conclusion** of the home inspection,
B) Disclose any systems or components designated for inspection, that were present at the time of the home inspection, but were not inspected and a reason they were not inspected.