Frankenstein's electrical panel?

[Welmoed Sisson]

Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!

[Jack Feldmann]

I very surprised you didn't have a crescent wrench, nut drivers, robo grips, or something to get bolts off.
I always carry bits for 1/4, 5/16, 3/8. and 7/16 since those are the sizes I see all the time.
Off hand, I think you owe it to your client to make a return trip to open the panel. I would be embarrassed to admit I didn't' have a wrench to remove some bolts.

[John Kogel]

Right. They appear to be lag screws, which usually go into wood. That looks like an old fuse box, so I wonder what those screws are going into, maybe past the box into the studs. I carry a small crescent wrench which I use occasionally, and a few nutdrivers, too small for those heads. I would have gone out to my truck, where I have a larger crescent wrench, a few spanners, water pump pliers, vise grips, hammer, shovel, etc etc.

A simple multitool can come in handy as well.

[Jerry Peck]

What did it say inside that hinged door? FPE?

If so, then the above posters open FPE panels regardless, I presume. ;)

[Billy Stephens]

Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!
.
Lag Bolts (my wag) would be considered a Permanent Fastener much like a drywall screw is and out of the scope of HI " I got the Tools or no". http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/general-chit-chat-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/16888-readily-visible-readily-accessible.html
.

[Bruce Ramsey]

I have a crescent wrench and slip joint pliers in the truck. Don't carry them around on every inspection because should not need them.

Agree looks like lag bolts. If FPE, once door is open, would know enough to continue or disclaim. Lag bolts is a bad sign anyway.

[Garry Sorrells]

Sorry,,,,,"...Didn't have the tool necessary to open it...." was a poor, even if factual, excuse. The fastener used is not one designed to prevent anyone from easy access to removal. Unlike "security screws" which require an unusual bit or driver for removal. Even though I say unusual "security bits/drivers' are readily available if you look for them and are not hard to find.

Take a trip to Harbor Freight Tools and you can load up on tools for just a few dollars. Socket set SAE and Metric with a coupon $3, Security Bit set $3 to $6 and so on. For $30 you could get some tools and a bag to carry them in. That way you would not look incompetent the next time.

I say look, not to say that you are, incompetent. The best carpenter will look incompetent showing up without a hammer.

Did you check to see if the box was energized? Possible if the bolts tips were not cut off or were to long. Just one of the first things I would do seeing the bolts as upposed to the common box screws typically used.

[Jack Feldmann]

Here is the tool holder I made so I have bits handy. By the way, my idea was published in this months ShopNotes magazine.
Even if it was a FPE, I would probably still attempt to open it.
Sorry about the three photos, I was getting the image is too large error message.

[Jeff Draper]

What am I missing here? It looks like it's got a hinged door in the center of the cover plate. It's the cover plate that's mounted to the wall with the lag bolts. The only thing keeping the door closed looks to be the paint.

[Welmoed Sisson]

I couldn't determine the manufacturer as both the outside AND the inside of the door was painted. The unit used to be an apartment, so there was no separate meter (condo fee included all utilities... no furnace or water heater either). If I can't open something with a screwdriver or nut driver, I don't open it. Like a previous poster said, "readily accessible."

[Jerry Peck]

I couldn't determine the manufacturer as both the outside AND the inside of the door was painted.

Welmoed,

Did you take a photo of the breakers? If so, we might be able to identify it from the photo.

Could you describe the breakers - color of breaker, color of handle, shape of handle, was handle 'on' facing outward from the center or inward toward the center, etc.?

The concern some have raised about those being lag bolts is that if they are into wood, is there a panel enclosure back there, is the correct cover on the enclosure, etc., because if those are into framing on each side, then it is the wrong cover and all else is installed incorrectly too (if not "all else", then "mos all else").

[Jack Feldmann]

And you didn't have this size nut driver?

Its up to you to determine your comfort level, and where you draw the line on inspecting stuff. I understand that.

However, 7/16" or 1/2" nut drivers are not uncommon. I wonder what the standard of care is in your area (how many other inspectors carry those size nut drivers and would remove that cover).

No offense, but pulling the "readily accessible" card seems a little lame in this case.

[Brad Richter]

Readily accessible does not mean easily opened.

[Jim Port]

It would take no more effort to remove those fasteners than if the original panel screws were used.

[Nick Ostrowski]

Don't hold back Jack. Tell us what you really think.

[Jerry Peck]

If the panel cover is painted shut, do all of you guys use a razor knife and cut through the paint to remove the cover?

If the panel cover is plastered over and shut, do all of you guys use a razor knife and cut through the paint to remove the cover?

If a panel is wallpapered over, do all of you guys use a razor knife and cut through the wallpaper to remove the cover?

If not, why not ... I did. Almost all of the time, unless I was specifically told not to.

That seems to be the thinking in this thread - *if I do it, then everyone else should do it*.

I was specifically told not to a few times, to which I replied 'No problem, I will just write it up as requiring an electrical contractor to remove the cover and inspect the inside of the panel.' - worked almost every time in getting them to change their mind and allow me to do it as I was going to do it neater than the electrical contractor would.

There were a few times the seller did not budge, so the buyer said 'Take $1,000 of the price of the house and I will take care of it myself.' - those few sellers freaked out, usually the cost ended up being around $500 as I recall. Hey, it was my client's call and they made it.

[Rick Cantrell]

If the panel cover is painted shut, do all of you guys use a razor knife and cut through the paint to remove the cover?

If the panel cover is plastered over and shut, do all of you guys use a razor knife and cut through the paint to remove the cover?

If a panel is wallpapered over, do all of you guys use a razor knife and cut through the wallpaper to remove the cover?

If not, why not ... I did. Almost all of the time, unless I was specifically told not to.

That seems to be the thinking in this thread - *if I do it, then everyone else should do it*.

I was specifically told not to a few times, to which I replied 'No problem, I will just write it up as requiring an electrical contractor to remove the cover and inspect the inside of the panel.' - worked almost every time in getting them to change their mind and allow me to do it as I was going to do it neater than the electrical contractor would.

There were a few times the seller did not budge, so the buyer said 'Take $1,000 of the price of the house and I will take care of it myself.' - those few sellers freaked out, usually the cost ended up being around $500 as I recall. Hey, it was my client's call and they made it.

Yes, I use a razor to cut through paint, wallpaper, and (you forgot) caulk.
I have not seen one "plastered" over.
I have seen some located:
in a kitchen cabinet filled with cans and other stuff,
inside a closet covered by clothes,
and behind a refrigerator.
Those, I did not inspect.

[Billy Stephens]

.
and behind a refrigerator.
Those, I did not inspect.
.
You Don't Have and carry one of These in Your Truck ?? :eek:
( or at least go to Rent-a-Center !! :D
.

[John Kogel]

Yes, I use a razor to cut through paint, wallpaper, and (you forgot) caulk.
I have not seen one "plastered" over.
I have seen some located:
in a kitchen cabinet filled with cans and other stuff,
inside a closet covered by clothes,
and behind a refrigerator.
Those, I did not inspect.It's going to depend on your comfort level sometimes. Antique panel needs to be replaced anyway.
I've posted pics of the junk I've climbed over to get to the panel. I kneeled on the seat of a vintage Triumph motorbike one time. And I've unloaded the cupboard. When I do that I'm thinking "Don't be lazy. The clients need to know, and the cover hasn't been off since black and white TV." :D

[Nick Ostrowski]

There is a limit to how far I will go to remove a panel cover. I've seen some panels in living areas where the cover had become part of the wall. Somebody decided to use as much spackle as possible to make the edges of the cover blend in. I guess they thought it looked better. Without a seller present to say it was OK for me to cut into that glob and screw up their paint and wall finish (no matter how bad it may look), I'm not doing it. I'm a guest in people's homes and I intend to leave them as I found them. And I don't feel like getting a call from a PO'd homeowner either. Being an HI doesn't mean I can come in start pulling things apart. I get to what I can within reason and move on.

I've disclaimed service panels that were blocked by china cabinets and big screen TVs too. The buyers have often volunteered to help move these items but I tell them to not touch or move anything. I once let somebody talk me into moving a fiberboard panel storage cabinet and the thing started cracking at the joints as soon as we moved it. The seller was pissed and I ended up working for free that day. Never again.

I'll make an attempt at any panel but when I see I can't remove it without chipping part of the wall away and screwing up the paint surface, I stop and call it inaccessible.

[Billy Stephens]

.
the cover hasn't been off since black and white TV." :D
.
But I Like me some B & W TV shows. :eek:
.
Wild Man From Borneo - YUM YUM EEAAAAT EM UP! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm-UzSz5UmY)
.

[Jerry Peck]

While not my most inaccessible panel, and certainly not one of the ones wallpapered, painted, plastered, or, yes, lest I forget, caulked in, it is a favorite of mine.

Dang! Where can that panel be? (scratches head walking around looking for panel)

Agent asks 'What are you looking for?'

Me 'The electrical panel.'

Agent responds "Oh, that, that is over here.' (and points to a cabinet with no panel visible)

[Jack Feldmann]

Opening a panel with hex head screws is really no different that one with phillips head, or slotted head. The effort to remove the screws is the same in all cases. The only difference is the tool used.

Just because the panel is old does not always mean it needs to be replaced anyway. After inspecting it, that might be the conclusion, but not just by looking at the closed cover.

I have taken a knife to cut paint, wallpaper, and caulk. I have chipped out caulk and drywall mud from more screw slots than I can remember. I owe it to my client to inspect the panel, and I will try my best to get into it. I had a house recently where a very large entertainment center blocked my access to the electrical panel as well as the fireplace. I included a photo and explained why I couldn't inspect those two items, or evaluate the condition of the walls/floor in that area.

[Garry Blankenship]

My guess is that panel has been converted into a junction box. When that happens the guts that often support the cover are removed and "different" fasteners are often used. The real panel is likely somewhere else. Was there another panel in the space - - - near by most likely ?

[Michael Thomas]

I would have removed it.

However... my level of concern is raised anytime I find non-standard fasteners... too easy for them to nick insulation.

______________

For me, the decision is based on manufacturer/model + condition + access + fasteners, at some point, some dead fronts are just too problematic to remove, for example because a breaker is too likely to be moved to the OFF position.

Like the Supreme Court Justice, "I know it when I see it".

[Garry Sorrells]

I guess I must have dated a lot of bride to be of Frankenstin; not perfect, not easy and not readily accessible.

I have to say that I am taken back that someone would consider a not to strange fastener making the panel not "readily accessible".

I would be embarrassed to say "if I can not open something with screw driver I can not open it". Disclaiming the opening and inspection on the basis of non approved fastener, not original fastener, to cheep to have a nut driver/ socket to fit would cause the entire report to be in question.

Maryland's SOP is part of the Lic Law. Which follows ASHI SOP. It is a visual inspection (min requirement by law) with the exception of the service panel cover which is expected to be removed for the inspection though not specifically stated by law. We also have rental unit inspections that also expect the panel cover to be removed for the inspection.

There is a great difference between moving a china cabinet, tires stacked to the ceiling or a 72" projection TV and only using a screw driver for a service panel inspection.

[Rick Cantrell]

I'm with Welmoed on this one, but not for the reason she has.
The color of the paint almost makes me puke.
I seem to remember reading somewhere in an SOP that,
"The inspector shall not inspect any panel box that will make the inspector puke".

[Mark Fisher]

I just keep a Leatherman multi-tool on my belt. Have for years. Unless those bolt are really cranked on, it'll get them. Plus has the knife for cutting paint, etc., and the pliers work well as a wood probe in most cases. And of course it has both types of screwdrivers.

I used to haul a tool belt around, now I just carry my flashlight, Leatherman, pen-type voltage detector, and outlet tester and leave everything else in the truck.

I would have accessed that panel.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Using an uninsulated tool to open a panel, esp. one with obstructed access (apparently countertop in front in this case) and without PPE is especially unwise. Inquiry to building maintenance and primary shut off to main power feeder to unit. Doubtful 120/240 service to building and doubtful 120/240V main power feeder to unit as per circumstances described by OP.Disclaim and defer is not a problem. Improperly mounted bonding uncertain, unreliable bonding, unknown flash potential, unknown building system, Non-exclusive non-dedicated supply system, common (limited but not dedicated) system, as per OPs 2nd post. 70E, PPE.

[Mark Fisher]

Frankenstein's Bride?

[Rick Cantrell]

Frankenstein's Bride?

Looks more like Medusa.

[Nick Ostrowski]

Frankenstein's Bride?

Mark, I didn't know you work in Philadelphia.

[Mark Fisher]

Mark, I didn't know you work in Philadelphia.

I'm sure I'd be right at home. Have plenty of those 'flat' roof row-houses, too. Philly, Baltimore, Cumberland, and to a certain extent Pittsburgh have a lot of similar housing types, especially 1950's and earlier.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I guess I must have dated a lot of bride to be of Frankenstin; not perfect, not easy and not readily accessible.

I have to say that I am taken back that someone would consider a not to strange fastener making the panel not "readily accessible".

I would be embarrassed to say "if I can not open something with screw driver I can not open it". Disclaiming the opening and inspection on the basis of non approved fastener, not original fastener, to cheep to have a nut driver/ socket to fit would cause the entire report to be in question.

Maryland's SOP is part of the Lic Law. Which follows ASHI SOP. It is a visual inspection (min requirement by law) with the exception of the service panel cover which is expected to be removed for the inspection though not specifically stated by law. We also have rental unit inspections that also expect the panel cover to be removed for the inspection.

There is a great difference between moving a china cabinet, tires stacked to the ceiling or a 72" projection TV and only using a screw driver for a service panel inspection.

It is NOT a service panel!!! I can only guess that you did not read/follow-along all of Mrs. Sisson's posts in this discussion thread.

[Jack Feldmann]

Service panel or not.....SOP's say inspectors shall inspect "the interior components of service panels and sub panels."
I'm baffled how HG could determine that it was doubtful that the building did not have 120/240V, and what that had to do with inspecting the panel.

[Jerry Peck]

Service panel or not.....SOP's say inspectors shall inspect "the interior components of service panels and sub panels."
I'm baffled how HG could determine that it was doubtful that the building did not have 120/240V, and what that had to do with inspecting the panel.

Jack,

His Majesty knows all and sees all ... he is the Wizard and the Wizard knows all and sees all and ... ("pay no attention to that man behind the curtain") ... :D

Well, I'll give it a guess ... then I will discount the guess based on actual experience ...

That panel is in a condo: "Found this at a condo inspection today."

I have seen *a few* condos which have 120/208 volt power, sooooo ... based on that knowledge I will guess that Watson *KNOWS* that the old condo (that panel cover sure looks old) *HAD TO* have been supplied with 120 volt / 208 volt.

I will now discount that guess as *MOST* of the condos I have inspected, either as a home inspector or as a code inspector, have had 120 volt / 240 volt power to the panels.

I guess we just need to go with "THE JOKER KNOWS ALL ... and then makes up what he does not know and states it as fact." :)

[Steven Turetsky]

I've also seen condos that have multi circuits/wire that share a common neutral between two (or more separate units). There is usually electrical closet in the hallway or even on a different floor.

If two apartments share a common neutral and are not tied together at the main breaker (or even sub breaker (I know I'm going to get called on this)) there can be back feeding problems (dangers).

[Jim Port]

Using an uninsulated tool to open a panel, esp. one with obstructed access (apparently countertop in front in this case) and without PPE is especially unwise. Inquiry to building maintenance and primary shut off to main power feeder to unit. Doubtful 120/240 service to building and doubtful 120/240V main power feeder to unit as per circumstances described by OP.Disclaim and defer is not a problem. Improperly mounted bonding uncertain, unreliable bonding, unknown flash potential, unknown building system, Non-exclusive non-dedicated supply system, common (limited but not dedicated) system, as per OPs 2nd post. 70E, PPE.

All that from this?


Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!

Must have missed the part about the countertop. I don't see a countertop in the picture either.

[Jerry Peck]

I've also seen condos that have multi circuits/wire that share a common neutral between two (or more separate units). There is usually electrical closet in the hallway or even on a different floor.

If two apartments share a common neutral and are not tied together at the main breaker (or even sub breaker (I know I'm going to get called on this)) there can be back feeding problems (dangers).

Steven,

We are talking earth-bound structures here, not underwater boat structures :) , but I understand what you mean ...

If you have separate apartments or condos with common circuits, especially multiwire circuits, there are some problems there, some of which may be serious problems.

[Garry Sorrells]

The inspected property was described as a condo. The term "condo" covers many type of structures. A group of individual homes on 1/2 acre lots could be legally described as a "condo" as a descriptor.

We have no idea of the type of "condo" that was inspected. Yes it could be a converted apartment building with 300 units or not. There may be a electrical service room in the hall, on the roof in the basement, but we do not know. We have no idea if the picture of the covering on the wall is the service panel or something else. I apologize for taking it as a service panel as the first source of electric past the meter with out knowing the electrical system design. I always look at a panel as the main service and treat it as such until I determine that it is not. Silly personal way of looking at I guess. Actually we have no idea what it is since it was not inspected, nor what was behind the door. The picture could have been a safe in disguise, someones idea of art or the entrance to a new dimension in a parallel universe.

We all take leaps of faith and assume things. We take a situation and extrapolate different scenarios and that is part of the reason people have home inspections they want to understand what may happen. H.G. can take it to a new unknown level of extrapolation. Which can be interesting at times.;)

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Get over yourselves.

A tap or feeder is NOT A SERVICE, main power to the condo or otherwise.

The service is to the building. There is no individual to the formerly apartment, now "condo unit" SERVICE. Mrs. Sisson has TOLD YOU SO.

As far as the obvious in the picture - and those who may scan but do not look or see the obvious which has been pictured ...too bad, so sad.

[Jack Feldmann]

HG, I have gone over the original photo several times, yet can not see the counter top. While I can see an unidentifiable object at the bottom of the photo, I am not able to confirm that it is resting on a counter top.

Could you please share your photo that shows the counter top?
Thanks

[Garry Sorrells]

H.G.,
I understand your reluctance to share your methods of insight, trade secrets and location of the mother ship.
.
Found you a great opportunity if you are not already providing service.
.
Independent Contractor you work a flexible schedule, full or part time.
.

If you are a gifted and experienced Psychic, Medium, Clairvoyant.
.
HOME - The Psychics Connection Inc offers work at home Psychic ... (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=psychic%20conection&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepsychicsconnection.com%2F&ei=HH03UOirJO620AGKl4DQDA&usg=AFQjCNE3Xf3nHvNjf7rak98HoWTsPWGGVA) ;)

[Jerry Peck]

HG, I have gone over the original photo several times, yet can not see the counter top. While I can see an unidentifiable object at the bottom of the photo, I am not able to confirm that it is resting on a counter top.

Could you please share your photo that shows the counter top?
Thanks

Jack,

Watson was referring to the photos I posted, which includes a countertop, while referencing and discussing the original post.

I suspect his x-ray vision must not have been able to penetrate the photos I posted and see through them to the original post's photos. ;)

While the rest of use are referencing the original post and its photo, Watson had wandered afield amongst the poppies and was a bit high. :cool:

[Garry Sorrells]

It is possible that H.G. may have been looking at the bottom right corner of the original post picture, there is also something at the bottom of the pict.. Combined with Jerry's picture creating an entire new picture experience.

[Jerry Peck]

It is possible that H.G. may have been looking at the bottom right corner of the original post picture, there is also something at the bottom of the pict.

The original post's photo shows the panel next to an upper cabinet. One could then assume that there is a counter below it ... which does not necessarily mean there actually is a counter below it, but it could be a reasonable assumption to make.

[Steven Turetsky]

The term "condominium" is not a description of construction, but is a type of ownership. A "condo" could also be commercial.

Regardless of the type of building (or ownership), it doesn't matter if it is the main service to the building, a sub-panel :eek:, a remote electrical room or closet, or a panel in a particular unit. If it is relevant (generally) it should evaluated. If it is not evaluated, the reason why it was not evaluated should be included.

The only thing this photo tells me is that the screws have been changed. The tool needed is not uncommon and should have be gotten.

It could have had this, that or the other thing is why it should have been opened.

[Jerry Peck]

It is possible that H.G. may have been looking at the bottom right corner of the original post picture, there is also something at the bottom of the pict.. Combined with Jerry's picture creating an entire new picture experience.


The original post's photo shows the panel next to an upper cabinet. One could then assume that there is a counter below it ... which does not necessarily mean there actually is a counter below it, but it could be a reasonable assumption to make.

Let's not forget to mention that "assumed to be there" countertop below the panel encroaches on the required safe working space in front of that panel and should not be there - if it was there - so one more item to write up.

If there was a perceived unsafe potential for opening that panel, that assumed to be there countertop makes that condition worse.

[Garry Sorrells]

Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!


I couldn't determine the manufacturer as both the outside AND the inside of the door was painted. The unit used to be an apartment, so there was no separate meter (condo fee included all utilities... no furnace or water heater either). If I can't open something with a screwdriver or nut driver, I don't open it. Like a previous poster said, "readily accessible."

Thought I would take things back to the original posting and information provided.
Things become muddled as a post takes different twists along the was.

Taking a look back over the posts something occurred to me.
Welmoed do not take the comments personally, even thought it may seem personally directed. There is no desire to beat up on you by my self or others. For myself often it is a general comment on a specific situation.

Thought it was gutsy to say why you did not remove the face of the panel, many others would not. I give you credit for exposing yourself in such a manor.

Apologies if I offended you in any way.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

"Mrs. Bob" has clearly described a common (limited as it may be) element.

She has explained that there is no unit metered power, and that the electrical energy to the unit is supplied by the Building. We do not know if same is via a riser, tap, or feeder. We do NOT know the amperate or voltage of same. We do NOT know ANYTHING about the electrical service or distribution system(s) (secondary or otherwise) of the building.

The HI is NEVER required to "perform ANY procedure or operation that MAY be, in the opinion of the inspector, dangerous to the inspector or other persons OR damage the property, or its systems or components.

Too many on this discussion have made mention of using any old tool (uninsulated, the "Leatherman" tool post, etc.), ignore 70E, and ignore the obvious visual clues regarding the vintage of the equipment appearance AND installation location, as well as what the inspector has indicated in the original post and her followup posts to this discussion thread.

The MD licensing law SOP does not apply to the inspection of a dwelling unit in buildings containing in excess of 4 family living units ("C. Scope. The standards of practice set forth in this chapter apply only to the inspection of a residential building containing one to four dwelling units."). We do not know how many dwelling units are in the building, nor that the building is strictly residential occupancy, so for that matter Garry Sorrells reference to the MD HI SOPs may not apply at all; however, he mischaracterizes just WHAT the requirements SOPs are and ARE NOT regarding the infomation provided by the OP in this discussion which pertain to the subject topic.

There is nothing in the MD licensing law which requires a HI to inspect common (or limited common) elements of multi-unit housing (such as condominimums), neither does it require inspection of a common condominum component or system.

There is nothing in the MD licensing law which requires a HI to cut paint, plaster, spackle, caulk, or any other "seal" to explore an electrical panelboard, cabinet, etc.

There is nothing in the MD licensing law (or the SOPs within) which requires an HI to move/remove personal property from any area to inspect any aspect of an "installation".



"Readily accessible" AND "readily openable access panels" are defined in MD as:
20) "Readily accessible" means available for visual inspection without requiring moving of personal property, dismantling, destructive measures, or any action that will likely involve risk to a person or property.


(21) "Readily openable access panel" means a panel provided for homeowner inspection and maintenance that:
(a) Is within normal reach;
(b) Can be easily removed by one person; and
(c) Is not sealed in place.

During an electrical inspection, it's your judgment call. Document your judgment.

In the final analysis then, the precise safety steps to be taken are up to the judgment of the inspector at the scene. The inspector should also document his or her action.

If the building management is not available, access to the main power feeder, tap, etc. disconnect is not available, you find conditions unsafe, (or for example a control room which requires supervision and/or specialized training, precautions, or is unsafe for the HI to enter) or otherwise unwise to proceed, WHATEVER that may be. Memorialize those conditions, factors, etc. report same, and move on. There is nothing wrong, whatsoever, with reporting that additonal inspections, evaluations, verifications regarding conditions, coordination with building management, etc. are necessary. That includes removing the "dead front" cover when appearance suggests same is not properly "installed" or BONDED in the first place. The MD HI licensing law spells out same.


The Commission regulates individuals who provide home inspection services pursuant to the provisions of Business Occupations and Professions Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, Title 16 and Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 9, Subtitle 36.

The MD HI licensing law can be viewed on-line for free & without subscription here:

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=09.36.*



Garry Sorrells,

I Suggest you actually read 09.36.02 (General), 09.36.03 (Limitations and Exclusions) before you continue in your mischaracterizations of what 09.36.08 (Electrical Systems) really says on the subject. (Note site above will be down this Saturday & Sunday). You seem to have "a load" of opinions on how Maryland HIs "should" perform their professional activites for a home improvement contractor and not actually being a licensed HI in MD yourself.

"Mrs. Bob" has not only recently acquired, and is most recently familiar with the current, she works with "Mr. Bob" who, also unlike you, is a long-practicing local HI, and IS a licensed HI in MD.

[Steven Turetsky]

Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!
I don't see anything about counters in the way, or any other unsafe situation.

[Jerry Peck]

Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!


I don't see anything about counters in the way, or any other unsafe situation.

That may have been one of those things we think about when on-site, then don't think about when we are some place else and describing what was there.

There was no mention of the paint, but it looks like she would have had to have cut through the paint too.

There was also no mention of possibly not being able to get those bolts back in as she did not know what they were into or how.

I believe it to be a bit short-sighted of us to pounce 'on the bolts' only when there are other things which could potentially be a problem too. At least those of us who have never forgotten to include some fact in a post and then lived to regret it and have to say 'Okay, let me start over, not only was there the bolts, there was ... and then there was ... and ... and, oh, yeah, there was this ... too.'

[Steven Turetsky]

That may have been one of those things we think about when on-site, then don't think about when we are some place else and describing what was there.

There was no mention of the paint, but it looks like she would have had to have cut through the paint too.

There was also no mention of possibly not being able to get those bolts back in as she did not know what they were into or how.

I believe it to be a bit short-sighted of us to pounce 'on the bolts' only when there are other things which could potentially be a problem too. At least those of us who have never forgotten to include some fact in a post and then lived to regret it and have to say 'Okay, let me start over, not only was there the bolts, there was ... and then there was ... and ... and, oh, yeah, there was this ... too.'

I agree with you whole heartily. I am just going by the post, which is nothing more than a learning experience that I'm sure we all have had, and occasionally continue to have.

I just find it weird. Every possibility that there is absolutely no indication of is being piled onto a simple occurrence turning it into a possible nuc_u_ler moment.

Welmoed, If there were phillips head screws, would you have opened it?
and please Wel, put an end to the suspense. Is there a countertop in front of the panel? (I guess no, just something hanging on the wall.)

Anyway, while we are adding possibilities not at all indicated, let me add to the list:

There may have been a Rottweiler chained below.
There might be a claymore somewhere.
There's a guy with a machine gun....

[Jerry Peck]

Anyway, while we are adding possibilities not at all indicated, let me add to the list:

There may have been a Rottweiler chained below.
There might be a claymore somewhere.
There's a guy with a machine gun....

Now you are getting into Watson's clairvoyance area - heck, Watson can probably smell through the computer links whether or not there was a dog there, what breed, its weight, and how friendly it was.

The claymore ... well, that is where Watson's PPE comes in.

The guy with the machine gun? Uh, we'd probably walk up to him and tell him he can't shoot us like that, and when he says 'why not', some here would tell him 'because you the safety on' ... :eek:

[John Kogel]

Things become muddled as a post takes different twists along the was.

I give you credit for exposing yourself in such a manor.

Apologies if I offended you in any way.OK, these bold conjectures have gone too far.
It was a condo. Not a manor. :D
Garry, mind your manners, eh? :D

[Billy Stephens]

.
I agree

There may have been a Rottweiler chained below.
There might be a claymore somewhere.
There's a guy with a machine gun....
.
:D..............:D
.

[Welmoed Sisson]

Yes, there was a counter under the panel, which would have made it more difficult to access it.
It's been quite interesting following this whole thread. I'm learning a lot... especially that one needs to have a thick skin to post! :rolleyes:
There were other electrical issues in the condo (loose outlets, complete lack of GFCIs) that I had already recommended evaluation by an electrician. Since this particular condo ownership was "paint inwards", the wiring/plugs/etc was the responsibility of the condo association, so the seller was going to arrange for repairs to be made prior to closing.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Yes, there was a counter under the panel, which would have made it more difficult to access it.
It's been quite interesting following this whole thread. I'm learning a lot... especially that one needs to have a thick skin to post! :rolleyes:
There were other electrical issues in the condo (loose outlets, complete lack of GFCIs) that I had already recommended evaluation by an electrician. Since this particular condo ownership was "paint inwards", the wiring/plugs/etc was the responsibility of the condo association, so the seller was going to arrange for repairs to be made prior to closing.

Of course there was, shame you had to "confirm" the obviously already shared.

"Plugs", I'm assuming you meant to say "receptacle outlets" or something similar, so you can now ignore the additional truckload of b.s. of trollish commentary that will likely follow.

You can also ignore the Peckish "not underwater - "Sub" comments. Since he pretends to not read posts that preceed his own 'eureka' comments (such as, no one mentioned the paint, three posts after someone mentions seals & paint) and refuses to follow links and read on his own, he (as Garry Sorrells, apparently an HI wannabe) obviously isn't aware that the HI licensing law for MD, refers to "subpanels", etc. i.e. terms in the LAW.

[Jack Feldmann]

HG,
Sorry, but I view your post with amazement. Are you seriously trying to pull the "not readily accessible" and "potentially unsafe" card with this panel, because of a little paint, or hex head bolts? REALLY??????

We also apparently have a different interpretation of the SOP regarding dwellings with 4 or more units. When I inspect a condo in a high rise that may have 40 units, I still adhere to the ASHI and TN SOP. I'm only inspecting ONE UNIT. Of course, there is the possibility that I am incorrect in sticking to the SOP.

If I didn't inspect a panel because: 1. there was a table or counter in front of it, 2. It had the wrong screws, or 3. there was a little paint on the cover. I would be laughed out of town.

I run into panels with padlocks on them all the time. I call the listing agent and ask if they know where the key is, and if they don't, do I have permission to cut the lock off. I then cut the lock off. Same with crawlspaces. I carry spare padlocks and will leave the seller a key to the new padlock with a note explaining why I had to cut the lock. Not once in 23 years have I had a seller complain that I cut their lock off, NOT ONCE!

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

HG,
Sorry, but I view your post with amazement. Are you seriously trying to pull the "not readily accessible" and "potentially unsafe" card with this panel, because of a little paint, or hex head bolts? REALLY??????

We also apparently have a different interpretation of the SOP regarding dwellings with 4 or more units. When I inspect a condo in a high rise that may have 40 units, I still adhere to the ASHI and TN SOP. I'm only inspecting ONE UNIT. Of course, there is the possibility that I am incorrect in sticking to the SOP.

If I didn't inspect a panel because: 1. there was a table or counter in front of it, 2. It had the wrong screws, or 3. there was a little paint on the cover. I would be laughed out of town.

I run into panels with padlocks on them all the time. I call the listing agent and ask if they know where the key is, and if they don't, do I have permission to cut the lock off. I then cut the lock off. Same with crawlspaces. I carry spare padlocks and will leave the seller a key to the new padlock with a note explaining why I had to cut the lock. Not once in 23 years have I had a seller complain that I cut their lock off, NOT ONCE!

Jack,

First off I pointed out EARLY ON that the Photo posted on the original first post SUGGESTED ("apparent") presence of a countertop encroaching on the WORKING SPACE clearance of the picture-frame cover. You've disputed that repeatedly, Mrs. Sisson has JUST CONFIRMED its (the encroaching countertop's) presence just two posts prior to your post. Are you intentionally obtuse, ignorant or oblivious to the implications, potential hazards and consequences regarding same regarding what has been pictured, described in Mrs. Sissons multiple contributions to the instant topic discussion?

Apparently, YOU DO NOT GET that what is beyond that deadfront cover DOES NOT BELONG TO THE SELLER, it belongs to the BUILDING the building provides power & maintenance of same. If you go around cutting padlocks, entering building/condo common elements, etc. which are intended to be accessed and serviced only by permission and control of building managment and by QUALIFIED persons - you're potentially subjecting yourself and your client, to "all kinds of hurt". Of course, in your stomping grounds, I suspect you don't deal much with older multi-family buildings with more than four living units organized as a condominimum or co-op that are without a dedicated main power feeder, or without dedicated individual metered power.


You're creating your own version (like others' fabrications) as to what I have said, "am saying", and ignored what I have NOT SAID, but you've "created" in your own mind, and that which has been said by others (NOT ME), etc. MY POSTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES (As does the Standards of Practice for MARYLAND HOME INSPECTORS, in the MARYLAND Codes and Regulations!)

As far as accessing a live electrical panel, removing a supposed dead front cover, and invading a common element system, which is neither the property or control of the seller, nor would it be that of the buyer, and most especially in opposite to the safety provisions, and when obstructed by flamable, static, obstructive personal property, and when obstucted by the presence of objectional, invasive, dangerous frankly should they exist in the working space clearance in front of the ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT - there is NO REASON, whatSOEVER, for Mrs. B, or any HI in Maryland to have done so. The obsolete panel cover, defaced, painted, questionably bonded, and of unknown supply should NOT be accessed. The panel, AGAIN as "Mrs. Bob" has TOLD YOU in her most recent post - IS NOT "condo" property. Removing of the dead front in this case REQUIRES permission of the building management, knowledge of the BUILDING SYSTEM, and very well may contain OTHER THAN JUST or EVEN 120/240V DEDICATED to THIS dwelling unit ONLY conductors, feeders, taps, risers, trunks, etc.).

There ARE standards for safety regarding the inspection of existing electrical installations. THIS is NOT a free standing self-contained single-family dwelling OR single family building. IT IS NOT an IRC-type structure.

I can only guess you don't inspect many mixed-occupancy or multi-family (more than 4-dwelling unit) type structures, OR you enter and/or "inspect" with common building systems which are under building managment control and/or serve more than one dwelling unit? Please show me exactly where the ASHI SOP applies to Common elements and system BEYOND the wall surface of the OP's subject converted apartment to condo unit AS SHE DESCRIBED IT.

Your assumptions as to what the MARYLAND HI SOPs are and are NOT are in conflict with the LAW in Maryland for Home Inspectors - the reference for which I provided previously, and provided the LINK to same.

If you, Garry S, and Jerry P, spent less time re-writing or presuming to stuff words and inject your own thoughts into what I actually said in a post (for example - I said "apparent..." with regards to countertop present - as what was IN the photo - that ribbon you couldn't identify suggested something bearing the ribbon supported by same - as did the upper cabinet area - and the other "clues" provided by Mrs. B in both her posts prior) you might have actually READ what the LAW and REGULATIONS in Maryland has to say on the subject. Don't be a Jim Port (and others) and continuously ignore all contributions of an Original Poster - and LOOK at the photo provided by same.

The state site hosting the ann. codes will be down for maintenance this weekend, so hurry on over to the link and READ the sections I REFERENCED already - esp. 09.36.02 and 09.36.03.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=09.36.*

individuals who provide home inspection services pursuant to the provisions of Business Occupations and Professions Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, Title 16 and Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 9, Subtitle 36.

<B>(16) "Inspect" means to examine readily accessible systems and components of a building in accordance with the standards of practice set forth in this chapter, using normal operating controls and opening readily openable access panels.

(17) "Installed" means attached such that removal requires tools.

(20) "Readily accessible" means available for visual inspection without requiring moving of personal property, dismantling, destructive measures, or any action that will likely involve risk to a person or property.



<B>(21) "Readily openable access panel" means a panel provided for homeowner inspection and maintenance that:
(a) Is within normal reach;


(b) Can be easily removed by one person; and
</B></B>
(c) Is not sealed in place.
02 General.

A. Purpose. In the general public interest, the standards of practice set forth in this chapter are promulgated to establish a minimum and uniform standard of performance to be exercised by a home inspector licensed by the Maryland State Commission of Real Estate Appraisers and Home Inspectors.

B. Conflicts. If this chapter conflicts with other federal or State requirements, the home inspector shall follow the more stringent requirements.

C. Scope. The standards of practice set forth in this chapter apply only to the inspection of a residential building containing one to four dwelling units.

D. Inspections.


<B>
(1) The standards of practice set forth in this chapter:


</B>

(a) Identify the items, components, systems, and certain terms included in the scope of a home inspection; and
(b) Apply to a visual inspection of the readily accessible areas of the included items, components, and systems to determine if, at the time of the home inspection, the items, components, and systems are performing their intended function or are determined to be significantly deficient.

(2) A home inspection performed in accordance with the standards of practice set forth in this chapter:
(a) Is intended to provide a client with objective information regarding the condition of the systems and components of a home at the time of the home inspection;
(b) Acts to identify visible defects and conditions that, in the judgment of the home inspector, adversely affect the function or integrity of the items, components, and systems inspected, including those items or components near the end of their serviceable life;
(c) May not be construed as a compliance inspection pursuant to any code or governmental regulation;
(d) Is not intended to be construed as a guarantee, warranty, or any form of insurance;
(e) Is not an express or implied warranty or a guarantee of the adequacy, performance, or useful life of any item, component, or system in, on, or about the inspected property;
(f) Is based on the visual observation of the home inspector; and
(g) Shall be performed in a time period sufficient to allow compliance with the provisions of the standards of practice set forth in this chapter.

E. Representative Number. For the purpose of making a finding or conclusion as a result of a home inspection, a home inspector may consider for representative number:
(1) Electrical outlets;
(2) Exterior windows;
(3) Exterior shutters;
(4) Doors; and
(5) Siding materials.

F. Report. A home inspection report:
(1) Shall contain the written opinion of the home inspector based on the judgment and experience of the home inspector;
(2) Is not intended to be technically exhaustive; and
(3) May identify items in need of further evaluation.
03 Limitations and Exclusions.



A. A home inspection performed in accordance with the standards of practice set forth in this chapter:
(1) Is not technically exhaustive; and
(2) May not identify concealed conditions or latent defects. <B>B. Except as may be required by lawful authority, a home inspector is not required to perform any action or make any determination unless specifically stated in the standards of practice set forth in this chapter.



C. A home inspector is not required to determine any of the following:
(1) Condition of a system or component that is not readily accessible;


</B>(2) Remaining life of any system or component;
(3) Strength, adequacy, effectiveness, or efficiency of any system or component;
(4) Causes of any condition or deficiency;
(5) Methods, materials, or costs of corrections;
(6) Future conditions, including, but not limited to, failure of systems and components;
(7) Suitability of the property for any specialized use;
(8) Property boundary lines or encroachments;
(9) Compliance of the structure with applicable provisions of local ordinances, regulations, or codes;
(10) Market value of the property or its marketability;
(11) Advisability of the purchase of the property;
(12) Indoor air quality or sickness of any building, including, but not limited to, the presence or absence of all manner of biological activity, such as carcinogens, mold, insects, birds, pets, mammals, and other flora and fauna, and their consequent damage, toxicity, odors, waste products, and noxiousness;
(13) Effectiveness of any system installed or methods utilized to control or remove suspected hazardous substances;
(14) Operating costs of a system or component;
(15) Acoustical properties of any system or component; or
(16) Existence of manufacturer's recalls.

D. A home inspector is not required to offer or perform any of the following:
(1) Any act or service contrary to law;
(2) Engineering services;
(3) Work in any trade or any professional service other than home inspection; or
(4) Warranties or guarantees of any kind.

E. A home inspector is not required to operate any system or component that:
(1) Is shut down or otherwise inoperable; or
(2) Does not respond to normal operating controls.

<B>F. A home inspector is not required to enter:
(1) Any area that may be, in the opinion of the home inspector, dangerous to the inspector or other persons or may damage the property or its systems or components; </B>
or
(2) Under-floor crawl spaces or attics that are not readily accessible.

<B>G. A home inspector is not required to inspect any of the following:
(1) Underground items, including, but not limited to, underground storage tanks or other underground indications of their presence, whether abandoned or active;
(2) Systems or components that are not installed;
(3) Decorative items;
(4) Systems or components located in areas that cannot be entered in accordance with the standards of practice set forth in this chapter;
(5) Detached structures other than garages and carports;
(6) Common elements or common areas in multiunit housing, such as condominium properties or cooperative housing; or
</B>(7) A common condominium component or system or evaluated condominium reserve accounts.

H. A home inspector is not required to:
(1) Perform any procedure or operation that may be, in the opinion of the inspector, dangerous to the inspector or other persons or damage the property or its systems or components;
(2) Move suspended ceiling tiles, personal property, furniture, equipment, plants, soil, snow, ice, or debris;
(3) Dismantle any system or component, except as explicitly required by the standards of practice set forth in this chapter; or
(4) Include in a written report any information from any source concerning previous:
(a) Property, geological, environmental, or hazardous waste conditions;
(b) Manufacturer recalls or conformance of proper manufacturer's installation of any component or system; or
(c) Information contained in a consumer protection bulletin of publication.

[Jerry Peck]

MY POSTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

Watson,

Your posts certainly do speak for themselves ... no one else can make up stuff as well as you do.

You tend to throw in a few obvious facts, a few obvious WTF items, and then some general nonsense, the hit puree. After that you had your infamous food coloring to make the already inedible concoction putrid in color.

[Garry Sorrells]

The problem with relying on SOP to be the default to not doing something is that all SOPs are minimum based as in the least that has to be done. Any job can be done to the minimal required standard ...........But to exceed the minimal is what makes something valuable.

As with MD SOP and other SOPs it is the underlying mind set of being a minimal generalist and many are happy with that in life (which is an opinion). You seem to have an issue with opinions. Going beyond a minimal foundation of an SOP is a personal judgement and the reasoning may be just a personal opinion.

02 General.
A. Purpose. In the general public interest, the standards of practice set forth in this chapter are promulgated to establish a minimum and uniform standard of performance to be exercised by a home inspector licensed by the Maryland State Commission of Real Estate Appraisers and Home Inspectors.

I found the font and color just like HG>:)

H.G., The 4 unit section is to differentiate between residential, small commercial investment and that of large commercial. It has no bearing on a a particular unit in a condo association. It would pertinent if it was an inspection of the entire combined condo entity where there were more than 4 units or a building with more than 4 apartments. It differentiates between a home inspector and a commercial inspection. But I am sure you know that.


It is a shame that you seem to have so little humor in your life and also seem to become overwhelmed when comfronted with dissidence. And have to lash out. So sad.:(

As said in a song "Don't be sad------ be happy":)

[Mark Fisher]

H.G. -

By your reading of "readily openable access panel", we don't need to remove panel covers at all since "homeowner inspection" is limited to looking at the breakers or fuses. I think you are missing something - like when in conflict with other applicable standards, the stricter applies.

Secondly, you contradict yourself by saying that she was within the standards to not open the panel, but then point out the standards don't even apply in a larger-than-four-unit building. So, technically, she wasn't even doing a "Home Inspection" governed by Maryland law and none of your exhaustive research and color-coded annotation applies.

Whether or not she should be looking in the panel since the unit-owner doesn't own it is another question. You can argue the legal aspect all you want, but if it affects my client's unit (or life safety), or is in my client's unit, I'm going to look at it. By your logic, I could ignore a failed wall since the condo owns the framing. Or a failed flue located in a chaseway running through the unit since the condo owns the chaseway.

[Jack Feldmann]

" and ignored what I have NOT SAID,......"

WTF does THAT mean????

A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man. :-)

Ignore what I have not said????? Sheeesh!

Please read MY post where I said that I always ask permission to cut padlocks.

[Steven Turetsky]

H.G. -

Whether or not she should be looking in the panel since the unit-owner doesn't own it ....


When did this become a fact, or shall we add it to the list... after the machine gun. Billy get out the machine gun.

[Welmoed Sisson]

Steve, I stated in my previous reply that this condo unit ownership was "paint inwards." The electrical panel is "behind the paint" and therefore owned by the condo association.

H.G., yes, I did mean electrical receptacles. My bad. :rolleyes:

[Steven Turetsky]

Steve, I stated in my previous reply that this condo unit ownership was "paint inwards." The electrical panel is "behind the paint" and therefore owned by the condo association.

H.G., yes, I did mean electrical receptacles. My bad. :rolleyes:

Yes you did, but that is a strange situation. So what can you report on?

... someone drew on the wall with crayon?


seriously.


Aren't loose outlets behind the paint?


I've built out a number of condos and the unit owner was always responsible individually for anything that his unit needs. I've had situations where the unit owner wanted more power than the feed to his unit could supply. I know that everything was at his expense.

Regardless of who's expense or ownership it is an important item. I would make a note of it and a rec.

[Steven Turetsky]

So let me ask you this;

If the person purchasing the condo wishes to move, remove or add a partition can it be done.

I'm sure approved plans, permits, board approvals and building fees and building rules may apply.

If you tell me no, my next question is; is this a rental? or a co-opertively owned building?

[Jerry Peck]

So let me ask you this;

If the person purchasing the condo wishes to move, remove or add a partition can it be done.

I'm sure approved plans, permits, board approvals and building fees and building rules may apply.

If you tell me no, my next question is; is this a rental? or a co-opertively owned building?

The answer is: It depends.

If the wall is not a common wall, and is not a chase or a wall containing common items, and is not fire-rated, which means that the wall is a partition within the condo and that is all that wall is, then the owner can remove it and take it down.

However, if it is a common wall, a chase, or a wall containing common items, then it would be fire-rated and the owner should not be doing anything to that wall as they will be affecting the fire-rating of the common wall (which is owned by the owner - the condo association).

One of the stranger constructions I have seen was were the electrical feeders all ran up a common wall in the middle of the condo, from the first floor electrical room to the second floor to the third floor to the fourth floor. That wall was fire-rated and anyone going into that wall could damage or cut through the PVC containing the feeders to each floor above (the fourth floor was the safest as that wall only contained their feeders).

Then there were the common walls containing the DWV piping, then the common walls containing the water piping, then the common walls containing the fire-sprinkler piping, there really was very few wall area which the owner could do anything with on those structures.

[Steven Turetsky]

Of course you cannot move or remove something that can't be moved or removed or altered. That is the reason for approved plans and approved by the board (which usually involves the building's architect.

So, as I already knew, the answer is ... YES.

So why would one not be permitted to open a panel inside a unit?

Once again, I already know the answer is yes.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I'm disgusted at the completely unjustified comments by those that imply that Mrs. Sisson in anyway failed to meet the SOPs of either Maryland or generic ASHI.

She not only met the standards, and the exclusions and limitations (which are restrictive), the unit is a condominimum unit, formerly an apartment. Its electrical supply and maintenance of electrical system(s) is via building management. Athough implied "condo unit" inspected is currently a 'dwelling unit', that's an assumption, we've all made (in theory it may not be). We do not know if the building is solely multi-family or is of mixed occupancy. We DO know that electrical supply and maintenance is provided by building management - we've been told this by Mrs. Bob Sisson, the OP. We have also been advised that the building occupancy is other than solely the single condo unit.

Frankly, its an ASSUMPTION this door-containing face covers a panelboard in the first place. (i.e. in theory it *could* be a switchboard, and in further theory and unknown vintage of building or 'condo conversion' branch circuit disconnects which may or may not be exclusively serving the condo unit may be elsewhere, e.g. beyond the confines of the 'condo unit').

THERE IS NO METERED dedicated electrical service to just this condo unit, What is behind the branch circuit disconnects (front) of this panel front IS LIKELY NOT EXCLUSIVE to this condo unit occupancy, and likely NOT EXCLUSIVE to supplying SOLELY the branch circuit disconnects accessible at the FACE!!! (i.e. supplied by taps, access to other conductors in addition, etc.). It is under the exclusive ownership, supply, and control of the building ownership/maintenance.

Keep this phrase in mind, for example, at 2008 NEC Exception to 230.72(C) and 2008 NEC 240.24(B)(1):

"In a multiple-occupancy building where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management"


Nothing has been discussed to suggest there isn't "continuous management supervision", nor that there isn't a remote location which is accessible to an owner or other where a dedicated or a non-exclusive disconnect or group of disconnects is present. In either case - and even in neither case if the building & electrical supply system is of greater age, is there any requirement for same.

Dwelling Units are not required to have a service nor an exclusive main power feeder nor a singularly phased power feeder, nor individual metered power supply in multiple-occupancy buildings.

The State SOP does NOT require TRESSPASSING, it does NOT require inspection of any COMMON area, or COMMON BUILDING SYSTEM(S) or componant(s) on behalf of a dwelling unit inspection in multi-family (more than 4) or mixed-occupancy buildings. The LIMITATIONS expressly provide for this. THE UNIT does NOT have a "SERVICE". It is supplied by a non-exclusive, unmetered, unknown ratings, source of supply PROVIDED by the building, which may or may not be a dedicated secondary feeder(s) but more likely (secondary) tap(s).

The building may have multiple transformers, it may have a varried and complicated distribution system. The "service" is to the building not to the "condo unit".

As long as the occupant has access to branch disconnects or continuous management supervision, good enough. The unit owner or occupant does NOT have to have access or inspection behind the face of branch disconnects - and they do not have to be IN the unit itself - depending on vintage of the building and/or condo conversion from apartment.

The limitations and what the unit owner and/or occupnant may or may not do, alter, install, own and doesn't own, would be spelled out in the condo documents, rules, regulations, etc, which ownership and use is subject to, and applicable Law.

Finally, the "assumptions" that there must be ANY "fire-rated walls" (as Jerry Peck just declared two posts prior!!!) anywhere in the building are just that - assumptions, not facts. Containing the 'condo unit' of topic, is just that - erroneous assumptions. There has been NOTHING indicating the AGE of the building itself, the vintage of the establishment of the former apartment 'unit', nor the vintage of the conversion of the former 'apartment unit' to a 'condo unit' of unknown occupancy type, restriction, etc. Finally, it has not been disclosed WHERE in Maryland the 'condo unit' is located. Maryland has an interesting configuration of county authorities, city authorities, which are excluded from the state-adopted, and a LONG HISTORY of building and development which PRE-DATES even "electrification". We do NOT know the number of occupancy units, type of occupancy, vintage of building, description of building, NOTHING.

We could easily "guess" the building could easily be of pre-war II construction, unknown type, could have been broken up further to multiple apartments at some unknown time, and sometime later converted to condo late 70s or early 80s, heck IIRC some MD areas were still using decades old editions of heavily ammended NEC quite recently even, and not requiring any alterations of electrical systems for vintage apartment bldgs to condo conversions 30 yrs ago. Point being - unknown building history unknown description.

How does that adage go???..those ignorant of history being doomed.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Steve T,

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

What CAN be done does not equate to what MAY be done.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

H.G., The 4 unit section is to differentiate between residential, small commercial investment and that of large commercial. It has no bearing on a a particular unit in a condo association. It would pertinent if it was an inspection of the entire combined condo entity where there were more than 4 units or a building with more than 4 apartments. It differentiates between a home inspector and a commercial inspection. But I am sure you know that.




Nope. That is NOT correct. There is no such "commercial" distinction in the Maryland SOP, Code or regulation LIMITATIONS and EXCLUSIONS regarding same. There is no such "apartments" distinction in the SOPs either. Your assertions are false.

The limitations in the regulations to the Maryland SOP previously quoted SPEAK presicely to the circumstances Mrs. Sisson described. There is no requirement to remove the painted over and behind, improperly installed, questionably bonded, picture frame front to inspect a non-dedicated, non-unit COMMON system or COMMON componant BEYOND that which is subject to Unit Occupant (Home Owner) Inspection AND MAINTENANCE. In fact the licensed HI is (according to the circumstances, conditions, and fact-set provided by Mrs. Sisson) limited, from accessing/doing so without building management consent.

She is in no way compelled to access common building systems or common componants, and is in no way compelled to remove any installed FRONT of any panel, cabinet, or switchboard or hand-hold cover which does not have working space clearance, or that which is BEYOND the "paint" on the walls, ceiling, or floor covering demarkation confines of the individual condo unit, is sealed, or if for any reason in HER OPINION at the time of inspection, she determines a risk or potential compromise of safety, injury, or damaging building, system or componant, and that includes cutting paint, reaching over, moving personal property, (cutting a ldoes or may present itself by doing so, or would be violative of any law, regulation, rule, etc.

When the regulations expressly LIMIT one from doing so, AS does the exclusive supply, control, and maintenance provisions of occupancy and access, WITHOUT permission (and likely the attendance of building management representation), one MAY NOT do so.

Just as one may not enter and "nose around" areas posted or locked as RESTRICTED ACCESS, such as fire system panels, building system boiler rooms, transformer vaults, nor de"install" as in take covers off of integrated alarms, call stations/buttoms, or detection componants, tamper with sprinkler head caps and other aspects of integrated or not building systems or componant supression and containment systems, open integrated security annunciation/communication covers, remove riser panels, etc.

[Steven Turetsky]

Steve T,

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

What CAN be done does not equate to what MAY be done.

Careful...

[Jack Feldmann]

HG, your potificating aside... the original post was:.......
"Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before".

The original post said nothing about being a condo, old apartment, etc. All it said was..Didn't have the right tool, so I didn't open the panel.

The **** storm that followed brought other details to light, as well as a fair amount of conjecture and clairvoyance from some posters.

While the thread has revealed many new details about the subject property. I am still shocked that Ms Sisson does not carry a nut driver (appears to be either 7/16 or maybe 1/2") to remove bolts of this size that may be encountered on any given inspection.

You have brought up issues that I have, frankly never encountered. In my area we do not have such properties that everything "from paint in" belongs to the association. I have never seen such a property. Fair enough! I get it.

However, based on the original post, I hold my original position of being shocked that an inspector does not carry, what I consider BASIC inspection tools.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

HG, your potificating aside... the original post was:.......
"Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before".

The original post said nothing about being a condo, old apartment, etc. All it said was..Didn't have the right tool, so I didn't open the panel.

OMG, Are you SERIOUSLY "going with that" falsehood????!!!!


Mrs. Sisson's ORGINAL POST clearly made plain the picture was taken at a Condominimum! Sheesh!! Double Sheesh!!!



Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!


You've made a special point of harassing and condeming another HI continually, and don't have a CLUE as to WHAT the discussion is ABOUT.

You've repeatedly mischacterized the history and what has actually been said and by whom in this discussion thread. Your latest post's opening is a PRIME example.


She followed up quickly (and despite your assignations) at post #10, you ignored that as well.

YOU OWE MRS. SISSON APOLOGIES, as well as others. YOUR OVERSIGHT, YOUR IGNORANCE, YOUR ERROR.


You have brought up issues that I have, frankly never encountered. In my area we do not have such properties that everything "from paint in" belongs to the association. I have never seen such a property. Fair enough! I get it.



No you don't "get it" STILL. You've got it backwards. The unit owner owns from the paint upon the walls IN and the floor covering, up. The right to occupy the space within. The Condo Association owns what is behind the paint, the floor under the finish, the ceiling above the finish, the walls themselves. No point in discussing limited common elements if you're still backwards on who owns the wall itself.

Now you're claiming you've never seen a condominimum, hmmm,
"that's interesting". How would you know?

[Jack Feldmann]

HG, Sorry, you are right on ONE point, she did say it was a condo (my oversight). However, I stand behind my comment about not having a proper tool to remove a cover.
According to her post: "Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it.", it sounds to me that she would have opened the cover if she had the correct tool.

Condos, townhomes, PUD's aside, not having the right tools on hand, to do a proper job, is my issue.

While the thread has taken a life of its own regarding condos, and paint, etc, it started with the simple post about not having the proper tool to open a panel and having to disclaim it.

You are right, I do apologize to Ms Sisson for not recognizing this was about a condo. I made the mistake of thinking the post was about the bolts on the panel cover and not having the proper tool to open it.

While we are at it, YOU should consider apologizing to this entire forum for your overbearing behavior.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Again, you ignoreThe contertop in front,The fact that the cover has been painted onto the wall,The markings/labels have been painted over,AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,The UNKNOWN ratings of what lies behindandThat the Panel and what lies behind is NOT SUBJECT to Home Owner Inspection OR MAINTENCE -- it is NOT property of the owner -- FOR GOOD REASON.YOU continue to OVERLOOK that removing this cover by other than "qualified persons" and those authorized to do so, without PPE and in compliance with 70E is UNWISE and UNSAFE.NOT a "simple" SFH "service"!!!

[Steven Turetsky]

Again, you ignoreThe contertop in front,The fact that the cover has been painted onto the wall,The markings/labels have been painted over,AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,The UNKNOWN ratings of what lies behindandThat the Panel and what lies behind is NOT SUBJECT to Home Owner Inspection OR MAINTENCE -- it is NOT property of the owner -- FOR GOOD REASON.YOU continue to OVERLOOK that removing this cover by other than "qualified persons" and those authorized to do so, without PPE and in compliance with 70E is UNWISE and UNSAFE.NOT a "simple" SFH "service"!!!

HG, YOU are the one that is ignoring. As Jack stated repatedly and as I stated repeatedly; this thread was about not opening the panel because lack of tool.

If I cared enough, perhaps I would start at the beginning of the thread and see who injected all of these fabricated possibilities and argued them as if, and insistent to be fact.

The inspector did not have a wrench. How did this turned into pages and pages of cut and pasted codes and SOPs and all this other conjecture.

The original post said nothing about a counter top being in the way, said nothing about painted shut, said nothing about not being owned by the unit owner or paint to paint. It just said: "Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it".

Yes, it did say: "But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before".

HG, Have you ever seen anything other than the original screws on a panel? And if you ever did, did that in itself stop you from opening a panel?

"Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!" Since there are no security screws, I don't agree with this thought.

It did mention the unit was a condo, but having inspected, built, rebuilt, bought and sold a number of condos, I can tell you that the fact that the unit is a condo says NOTHING regarding any inspection restrictions.

As far as the bolts are concerned, they are not at all "security" and offer no explanation or clue that they should not be removed to inspect. In my opinion, it look like someone lost the originals and replaced them with what we see.

How this thread grew into this complicated, ranting and raving I do not understand.

If using ALL UPPER CASE is an indication of yelling, what does ALL UPPER CASE, OVER SIZED, BOLD, RED indicate?

I do feel bad how this thread keeps going on and on, as Welmeod may feel that this is all about her: it really is not. She simply didn't have a tool. I'm sure this has already been corrected. We have all gone through this and from time to time will go through it again.


Also, please explain your "ask a stupid question" remark.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

She's told you there was a countertop in front.
She's told you (and its obvious by the photo as well) that the panel was did not meet the crieteron for opening, I've quoted twice that definition as per Maryland SOPs.
She's told you now twice as to who supplies power, at whos expense, and who owns, controls, inspects, and maintains the entirety of the electrical supply and distribution system to branch circuit for the condo unit.
The panel cover is not one for the homeowner inspection and maintenance. Nothing beyond the face of the switches or breakers themselves.
She's even told you that building maintenance has been contacted to replace the faulty receptacles and to incorporate GFCI protection in bathroom and kitchen receptacles.

If you don't know the difference between "can" and "may" I suggest you look it up.

The picture was posted on the first post. She's posted what, now four times, three of which confirming the obvious, and having to justify her concluding sentance in the original post, for those "without a clue". Get one.

[Billy Stephens]

She's told you there was a countertop in front.
She's told you (and its obvious by the photo as well) that the panel was did not meet the crieteron for opening, I've quoted twice that definition as per Maryland SOPs.She's told you now twice as to who supplies power, atwhos expense, and who owns, controls, inspects, and maintains the entirety of the electrical supply and distribution system to branch circuit for the condo unit.
The panel cover is not one for the homeowner inspection and maintenance. Nothing beyond the face of the switches or breakers themselves.
She's even told you that building maintenance has been contacted to replace the faulty receptacles and to incorporate GFCI protection in bathroom and kitchen receptacles.

If you don't know the difference between "can" and "may" I suggest you look it up.

The picture was posted on the first post. She's posted what, now four times, three of which confirming the obvious, and having to justify her concluding sentance in the original post, for those "without a clue". Get one.
.
..........;)
I Love Lucy: Ricky Spelling Lesson - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPy9-zVEhVY)
.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

HG, YOU are the one that is ignoring. As Jack stated repatedly and as I stated repeatedly; this thread was about not opening the panel because lack of tool.

Steve(n),

I don't care how many times you might post such an assertion, simply doesn't "make it so", and no matter what you might think your assignations as to Mrs. Sisson's professionalism, or proper execution of this or any home inspection is completely OFF the MARK, UNJUSTIFIED, and OFF-BASE.


No, that's not what this topic discussion was "about". That's what you, Jack, and Garry tried to turn and twist it into in your idiotic "slam" fest.

YOU - STEVEN TURETSKY, and JACK FELDMANN and GARRY SORRELLS owe Licensed Home Inspector Mrs. Sisson, your SINCERE apologies.

The topic discussion was "about": Exactly and precisely what Mrs. Sisson Posted & included a photograph of.

She's contributed several posts on this discussion thread. YOU just can't seem to grasp what she has many times now provided. She's told you things that others have pointed out, and yet you still dispute what she has told you herself, many times.

When will you get your head out of your @$$ !!!!????!!!!

When circumstances and conditions are "telling you" to KEEP OUT, or DON'T DO IT, or $hut the 4uck Up! There is generally a good reason to PAY ATTENTION.

You owe the Lady yet ANOTHER (this time be genuine and stop justifying yourself) APOLOGY, for your latest response to her (directed to YOU) post, and your disgusting, unprofessional, continuing attack upon Mrs. Sisson in subsequent posts.





Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!

Note: She named the photo "LagBoltPanel.jpg"
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachments/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/26597d1345506768-frankensteins-electrical-panel-lagboltpanel.jpg


I couldn't determine the manufacturer as both the outside AND the inside of the door was painted. The unit used to be an apartment, so there was no separate meter (condo fee included all utilities... no furnace or water heater either). If I can't open something with a screwdriver or nut driver, I don't open it. Like a previous poster said, "readily accessible."


Yes, there was a counter under the panel, which would have made it more difficult to access it.

It's been quite interesting following this whole thread. I'm learning a lot... especially that one needs to have a thick skin to post! :rolleyes:

There were other electrical issues in the condo (loose outlets, complete lack of GFCIs) that I had already recommended evaluation by an electrician.

Since this particular condo ownership was "paint inwards", the wiring/plugs/etc was the responsibility of the condo association, so the seller was going to arrange for repairs to be made prior to closing.


Steve, I stated in my previous reply that this condo unit ownership was "paint inwards." The electrical panel is "behind the paint" and therefore owned by the condo association.

H.G., yes, I did mean electrical receptacles. My bad

You've gone on yet again without having read her second-to-the-last post in your directed and inppropriate response to her last post.

Your attempts to re-write and misdirect this discussion thread so as to "bash" and "slam" Mrs. Sisson (along with others) is UNPROFESSIONAL, Uncalled for, INAPPROPRIATE, violates the ethical behavior of professional HIs, the rules of this board, and dammit, is completely UNJUSTIABLE and INEXCUSABLE. The "problem" is not Mrs. Sisson's, it is YOURS and YOUR 'board wars' commrades-in-arms' compulsive myopic (and otherwise challenged and/or impaired) continued participation.

[John Kogel]

Welmoed, this is not about you or your modus operendi anymore, so please ignore. HG has taken a stand and will now defend that position by resorting to name calling until we all stop posting.

Suppose the deadfront is not sealed with paint and is readily accessible. Should we open an electrical panel in a condo unit if we are told that panel is property of the condo association?
Of course we will open it. It is what we do to protect our clients from evil.

[Jim Port]

The existence of the countertop was not confirmed by the OP until post #57.

From the original post #1,


Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!

One would certainly expect comments to be made about not having a tool to remove a common fastener type.

[Jack Feldmann]

HG, perhaps you should spend some time re-reading THE ORIGINAL POST!
"She's told you there was a countertop in front.
She's told you (and its obvious by the photo as well) that the panel was did not meet the crieteron for opening, I've quoted twice that definition as per Maryland SOPs.
She's told you now twice as to who supplies power, at whos expense, and who owns, controls, inspects, and maintains the entirety of the electrical supply and distribution system to branch circuit for the condo unit.
The panel cover is not one for the homeowner inspection and maintenance. Nothing beyond the face of the switches or breakers themselves.
She's even told you that building maintenance has been contacted to replace the faulty receptacles and to incorporate GFCI protection in bathroom and kitchen receptacles."

HOW MUCH OF THIS STUFF WAS IN THE ORIGINAL POST??????? I'll go ahead and answer...none of it.

You have highjacked this thread and taken it as a cause of your own, repeatedly ignoring several comments about what the original post was about.

Oh wait, you won't bother to re-read anything. You have your emotional and intellectual blinders on so tight that you can't see beyond your own bloated sense of superiority. Misguided I might add.

I'm done with this thread. I won't bother to check back and see another of your large print colored rants.
Peace!

[Welmoed Sisson]

I figured I would get my own "Expert opinion" on this whole situation. At a local ASHI event today, Bob spoke with a local Master Inspector (county code inspector, ICC multi-discipline inspector, ASHI ACI, Master Electrician, etc., etc.) for his opinion. His first words were that the panel had been modified and was not as it was submitted for certification. If the original screws no longer fit, the panel box should be replaced. As for irregular screws, he said, if it was on a code inspection, they just failed; call me back (and pay the re-inspection fee) when I can use the tools I am supposed to use to inspect it. He said he wasn't going to argue with something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. He was quite adamant about not wasting time with something that was clearly wrong.

I am very comfortable with my decision not to open the panel. I have no idea how long those bolts were; whether they were lag bolts or machine bolts; if I removed them, I faced the possibility of not being able to reinstall the panel. The counter wasn't a huge obstacle (although it did make the panel less accessible). And the panel wasn't the owner's property or responsibility.

No, I don't carry a huge assortment of tools. I have a nut driver and a flat and phillips screwdriver. I do carry a razor blade to cut around painted-over panels. I would never dream of cutting through a padlock!! I am a guest in someone else's home; I'm not going to do anything that could damage their property. That's not my job!

You all can continue to argue, but I'm done with this thread.

[Steven Turetsky]

That is very nice that you have another good excuse, albeit different than the original post.

If I owe you an apology (I don't think I do) for treating you any way other than as an equal, you have it, and I will be sure to treat you otherwise in the future... if that is what you want.

Don't be upset with HG either. He is a vulgar and pompous old fool that has no life, and likes to come off like a know it all. If he didn't have this forum to (try to) come off like an authority... he would have no place. I usually don't read most of his posts, because he is so long winded and boring.

Everyone tries to speak to him like a gentleman and intelligently, but he makes it difficult. I understand why some folks say such nasty things to him.

He thinks he is an authority. He behaves as if to disagree with him is like disagreeing with Jesus Christ... how dare we even think of having a different opinion than him. He should get his head out of his @$$ !!!!????!!!! and $hut the 4uck Up!. He is disgusting and unprofessional. Perhaps he is off his meds.

He has hijacked this thread and denies it, but yet accuses others of the same. Now he is twisting this whole thread as an attack on you. Whereas I see many responses in this thread, he is the only one that has been on the attack.

[Billy Stephens]

.
Secure the Women and Children, Release The Hounds :D
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQCqqnZma_Y&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLvGnro4Cgw)
.

[Jerry Peck]

Welmoed,

I'm not picking on you, just trying to clarify something:

Since this particular condo ownership was "paint inwards", the wiring/plugs/etc was the responsibility of the condo association, so the seller was going to arrange for repairs to be made prior to closing.


And the panel wasn't the owner's property or responsibility.

Every condo I've ever inspected is considered to be that the owner owns "paint-to-paint", this is because so much of the drywall may be part of a common wall or a fire-resistance rated wall and should not be altered in any way without the specific permission of the condo association.

That said, the "paint-to-paint" ownership thing, the electrical in each condo, starting with the panel and including all branch circuit wiring, receptacles, switches, lighting outlets, etc., is considered to be owned by the owner ... even though those items are 'outside' the "paint-to-paint" wording.

In many condos, the owners are also responsible for the exterior windows and doors, but seldom is the door to the common hallway considered the owners as it is part of the fire-resistance rating of the common corridor.

Typically, the exterior doors and windows start out as being owned by the condo association as they are a component of the exterior structure, however, as soon as there is a leak, the condo association seems to go 'Oh, the exterior windows and doors? Those belong to you. If they are leaking you are responsible.' Of course, the next thing that when an owner wants to change the exterior windows and doors, the condo association says 'Wait, those belong to us, you can't change them.' - until the condo association is told 'Okay, the windows and door are leaking, when can you replace them - next week?' - to which the condo association responds 'Oh, wait, I forgot, the exterior windows and doors belong to you, just submit to the architectural committee the windows and doors you want to use so we can approve the style, color of the frame, and color of the glass.'

[Greg Filian]

Bingo. http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-popcorn.gif
Hello I'm a new member to this site. I've been a (manufactured) home inspector for over 25 years. Maybe my experience doesn't count in this forum, however, I just have to say I've never seen such a childish display of a group of supposed professionals in my life. To be fair there were several people and comments that appeared to be helpful. When it got to name calling and other such nonsense I just started laughing.

I don't know if I can learn anything from this group or not. This is why I tend to stay in my own world of manufactured homes.

I'll just go back in to the dark and see if I've started anymore fireworks.

By the way I do carry all the tools necessary to access a painted, caulked, wallpapered, or however covered panel as well as various special tools for my particular industry. I also ask permission if to open it if the panel is plastered in or whatever in case I damage something. I don't want the liability either.

Peace out!

[Stuart Brooks]

I carry a Milwaukee 12V driver in the bag. In my pocket I have 3 driver bits: #2 phillips, #2 square drive, and a straight slot. Those bits are rubber banded with 1/4" and 5/16" hex diver bits. Those 5 small bits let me open 99% of enclosures and hatch covers. I also carry a 3/8, 7/16, and 1/2" hex driver bits in the bag for sump covers and odd things that pop up. A 6-in-1 driver tool goes in my pocket. A leatherman tool, utility knife, and a medium pair of channel locks go in the bag. :cool:

[Jim Hintz]

Yes, I use a razor to cut through paint, wallpaper, and (you forgot) caulk.
I have not seen one "plastered" over.
I have seen some located:
in a kitchen cabinet filled with cans and other stuff,
inside a closet covered by clothes,
and behind a refrigerator.
Those, I did not inspect.Caulk, Texture, Wallpaper, Paint, Lag Bolts, FPE, Whatever - it gets removed and looked at by me everytime if I can get to it. Tool Town, Harbor Freight, Wally's - all good sources of inexpensive tool sets.

[Steven Turetsky]

I've never seen such a childish display of a group of supposed professionals in my life. To be fair there were several people and comments that appeared to be helpful. When it got to name calling and other such nonsense I just started laughing.
Peace out!

Hi Greg,

You are right.

I hope you realize that I cut and pasted some of my words from HG prior post. If I could rephrase one sentence it would be;

When HG uses expressions like
get your head out of your @$$ !!!!????!!!! and
$hut the 4uck UpHe is behaving
disgusting and unprofessional

HG, I really don't think you are a fool, but when you behave this way you are behaving foolishly. I do not like when people speak that way, I do not speak to people that way, and will certainly not accept being spoken to that way.

Greg,

Keep laughing

Peace out!

[Garry Sorrells]

This response is not a an attempt to have H.G. dwell on his parsing of words or to elicited further thread drift and I apologize for what may come from this post.:(

The purpose is to clarify for forum members in other states, so as not to leave them with misinformation. I tried and failed, at lease for one reader, the idea (thoughts) behind the MD Lic SOP where it relates to the number of units that the license is intended to cover. The MD HI license was an attempt to regulate the Residential HI industry. The law needed to define the scope of the license. Thus they made a differentiation in buildings to be inspected. Residential buildings having more than four dwelling units are beyond the scope of the MD HI Lic. The license is directed at residential buildings, where there may be 4 apartments or dwelling units that comprise the structure. In MD we have homes that were built as single family homes and have remained that way. We also have homes that were converted from a single family to multi family dwelling units. We also have homes that were built as multi family (dwelling Unit) structures. Often the owner would live in one unit and rent the others out. Other times the property would be used solely as a multiple apartment (dwelling unit) investment property. So as to differentiate between small and large apartment (dwelling unit) buildings, there was created the one to four unit dwelling tipping point. Over time buildings in MD have been converted from a solely owned structure to that of a divided structure with condominium distinctions as to how the portions of the property are held individually and jointly. In MD Condo is more a type of property ownership and not a design type.

MD HI Lic law does not speak to the classification of a building as commercial or its zoning designation. I failed to define the reference to the underlying concepts and purpose of the law. And the law itself. Residential can have two connotations in MD. Residential can refer to places where people live and also be a Zoning status for types of permitted use. I was using commercial in the context of the owners purpose in owning a multi unit property. Owning a property with multiple dwelling units that are leased is for the potential return on the investment and may be considered a commercial enterprise. The main point is that there was a distinction made between the number of dwelling units covered in the HI Lic. To differentiate the scope of the HI as a residential inspector and not an comercial inspector for 5 or more dwelling units in apartment buildings which are regulated much differently. As side note. The MD HI Lic Law was later used by individual counties in regulating apartments (dwelling units) in their jurisdiction.

I realize that I may have been taken over by the Dark Side is this long dissertation. I will strive to resist the gravitational pull from the black whole in the future. Again I apologize for what may follow by others that seem only look for or create points to argue and rant over.:(

[Fred Schell]

I carry some basic tools for instances like this. I owe it to my clients to give a thorough inspection whenever possible. I even carry a bolt cutter (non basic) for those exterior main electrical panels that have locks on them here in Arizona.

[Mike Schulz]

Lack of tools is one thing but lag screws would throw up a red flag to ponder if the panel can be opened safely. They have pointed ends and sharp threads. Everytime I see screws that don't appear to be the correct one brings back the memory when my associate started backing out a screw and it cut through the SE cable cover and exploded like a stick of dynamite. If I saw lags I would think hard before I pulled those screws for safety reasons. :confused:

[Nick Ostrowski]

At what point are we to say it may be a personal safety hazard to remove the screws/bolts/nails/whatever that secures a deadfront to a service panel? I know that is not the original reason posted for not accessing the panel interior but it may have been in Welmoed's best interests that she did not have the correct tool to open the panel. Lag bolts to secure a deadfront cover? I probably would have attempted to remove them but I would probably have been sweating the entire time.

Now I'm not a by-the-book SOP guy and more often than not I go beyond the SOPs. But any SOP will state in some way or another that the inspector does not have to do something if he/she feels it will put them at risk. We are to incorporate our own personal experience and convictions into our inspections. And if somebody feels removing lag bolts to open a service panel is unsafe, then so be it. I won't argue that point. And again, Welmoed not having the necessary tool on hand to remove those lags may not have been a bad thing.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Lack of tools is one thing but lag screws would throw up a red flag to ponder if the panel can be opened safely. They have pointed ends and sharp threads. Everytime I see screws that don't appear to be the correct one brings back the memory when my associate started backing out a screw and it cut through the SE cable cover and exploded like a stick of dynamite. If I saw lags I would think hard before I pulled those screws for safety reasons.

And rightly you should!



At what point are we to say it may be a personal safety hazard to remove the screws/bolts/nails/whatever that secures a deadfront to a service panel? I know that is not the original reason posted for not accessing the panel interior but it may have been in Welmoed's best interests that she did not have the correct tool to open the panel. Lag bolts to secure a deadfront cover? I probably would have attempted to remove them but I would probably have been sweating the entire time.

Now I'm not a by-the-book SOP guy and more often than not I go beyond the SOPs. But any SOP will state in some way or another that the inspector does not have to do something if he/she feels it will put them at risk. We are to incorporate our own personal experience and convictions into our inspections. And if somebody feels removing lag bolts to open a service panel is unsafe, then so be it. I won't argue that point. And again, Welmoed not having the necessary tool on hand to remove those lags may not have been a bad thing.

Agree with you except for two things, what was covered in the first post, and that the cabinet front does NOT enclose a service.

There was NO good reason for anthe inspector to open this LIVE panel. Especially not without conferring and debriefing from Building Management, and consent. Was entirely appropriate to disclaim, defer and document.

Again, this is not a service panel, there is NO emergency, and no good reason to not have consulted building management (even under separate appointment) for safety provisions or to have safely de-energized this panel before such a risky maneuver, and/or to have a NFPA 70E defined "qualified person" address the problem, correct the conditions. Which is of course the basic principles of 70E in the first place.

There is no reason to invade a LIVE and unknown rated series panel, which is not a simple service (single phase AC less than 300V) by an HI, especially with obviously incorrect fasteners, adulterated cabinet with labeling & diagrams painted over, containing unknown Live conductors, taps & risers of with known & unknown complications in a cavelier manner, questionable bonding, uninsulated (egad power!) tools, and without proper PPE and without qualified knowledge, specific to the installation, and qualifed training for the conditions, which includes gathering and assessing the information to determine the degree of hazard and protection required.

The conditions cited previously in addition to the "unknowns" clearly elevate the potential hazard well beyond a 2, which is a level of hazard beyond a regular SFH "service panel" stupendous for an HI to engage in ALONE, and completely unreasonable to engage in the first place when the hazard level can be reduced to zero by simply engaging Building Management in a planned appointment for a non-emergent but necessary correction and de-energization of the panel supply prior to opening.

There is no "proper tool" for removing "improper" equipment. Metal fragments from threadings, cutting insulation, cutting or displacing grounding, multitude of unknowns, including the obvious age/vintage indicators of the installation which includes lesser clearances, spacings, fill spaces and bending radius, and calculated (now known to be flawed) not tested ratings for that time period.

Title of post was clearly both humorous and retorical: "Frankenstein's electricl panel?" Title of photo was indeed "LagBoltPanel" Picture depicts conditions including fastener heads not correct size or type fastener. Condo was the fifth word of the original post. Simple paragraph with aprapos conclusionary sentance.

Clearly the information was provided in the first post.

For those who are unfamiliar, NFPA 70E is a relatively short document, just a few short chapters, and may be viewed on-line for free (must have to register at the site and sign in) in read only mode. I suggest those who don't "get it" should do so.

Dead inspectors write no reports.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

BTW, what I'd expect and suspect based on circumstances described by the OP in first & 10th post is a high-leg system (240/120 3-phase, 4-wire).

Especially as location, and as "the condo association" and formerly the "apartments" were/is supplying unmetered electric, has responsibility for all beyond the paint & covers regarding the electrical distribution system, and supplies power as well as the heating and hot water, etc.

Despite the ESP crud from others (i.e. Jerry Peck, Garry Sorrells, etc.), I wouldn't expect 208/120Y distribution system for multi-occupancy residential of that vintage and circumstances described - too dificult to balance phase loads between multi-occupants purely Lighting & appliance loads/use & building systems wouldn't expect to find same EVER in the instant situation. AFAIK Peck doesn't know beans about Delta. He obviously doesn't understand much about wye systems, as he writes it backwards, and presumed to declare I was in anyway infering such regarding the instant topical discussion of Mrs. Sisson's subject topic.

Finally, the watson is "high", other "medication" crud, the "incompetant inspector" "lacking proper tool", "failure", etc. crud directed t Mrs. Sisson, I find just as, if not more, offensive, crass, etc. than @$$ Steve(n), etc. And as far as the hijacking allegtions, three or four of you started the pile-up AND the crud long before and many more posts before I entered the discussion, and "first blood" was drawn by others LONG before I "went downtown".

[Rollie Meyers]

A couple of things, 1) What make of panel? My vote is I-T-E Pushmatic.:p

2) A 120/240V 3Ø system is a waste in multi-family unless there are 3Ø loads, a 208Y/120V 3Ø system will be a better choice, as each unit can be tapped of 2 of the three legs, A-B, B-C, C-A & so on.. Which cannot be done w/ 120/240V 3Ø.


PS, since this is the internet, please read the link & read the last line at least 10 times.....:D

http://www.xecutionrs.com/files/-xecutionrs-butthurt-complaint-form.pdf

[Glenn Duxbury]

Hi, ALL &

Up here - B.C., Canada - we're no longer permitted to open a cover, opn an energized panel unless the home is vacant & can be safely de-energized, or the homeowner has permitted us to shut-down. Only exception would be when wearing a blast-sheild & full-length flameproof clothing.

NO exceptions.

This was a specific Directive form the B.C Safety Authority...

All HI's should be aware of this.

Cheers !

[Jerry Peck]

Hi, ALL &

Up here - B.C., Canada - we're no longer permitted to open a cover, opn an energized panel unless the home is vacant & can be safely de-energized, or the homeowner has permitted us to shut-down. Only exception would be when wearing a blast-sheild & full-length flameproof clothing.

NO exceptions.

This was a specific Directive form the B.C Safety Authority...

All HI's should be aware of this.

Cheers !

You got that in writing?

Would you post it here?

[John Kogel]

This was kicked around a while ago. WorkSafe BC does not want us endangering ourselves because they provide insurance for job loss and they, like any typical insurance company, do not wish to pay out.

The BC Safety Authority recognizes that we provide an important service, namely discovering safety issues before they become tragic accidents.

The upshot was that we will continue to visually inspect the interiors of E panels, without poking around in them because that is work. If we get shocked to sh$t inspecting a live panel, there will be no compensation. Anyway, that is my interpretation.

[Rich Goeken]

Here is the tool holder I made so I have bits handy. By the way, my idea was published in this months ShopNotes magazine.
Even if it was a FPE, I would probably still attempt to open it.
Sorry about the three photos, I was getting the image is too large error message.

Jack, Looks like a great idea to keep a few sockets and bits together. I would only make one comment. From my experience, using a power tool to remount, or open or close something can get you into trouble faster than you can say "swat that fly!" You need that "feel" you get from a hand tool to determine if something is about to break, is starting to cross thread, or that you need to stop NOW.

[Rich Goeken]

I have a crescent wrench and slip joint pliers in the truck. Don't carry them around on every inspection because should not need them.


I would throw out the slip joint pliers. They tend to chew up things. Compare them to using a Stilson Wrench instead of a Monkey Wrench on a chrome plumbing fitting. With one wrench you can't tell if someone was there, but with the other---you sure can! Use the correct socket or socket driver to prevent scaring. Have you ever seen the TV ad from Sears with a super pliers that does everything? If you closely at the last frame---it's chewed up what it was taking off(quick cut to announcer)!

[john stone]

Right. They appear to be lag screws, which usually go into wood. That looks like an old fuse box, so I wonder what those screws are going into, maybe past the box into the studs. I carry a small crescent wrench which I use occasionally, and a few nutdrivers, too small for those heads. I would have gone out to my truck, where I have a larger crescent wrench, a few spanners, water pump pliers, vise grips, hammer, shovel, etc etc.

A simple multitool can come in handy as well.

Just cut them off with a gas axe,tell the customer everything inside is shagged.

- - - Updated - - -


Right. They appear to be lag screws, which usually go into wood. That looks like an old fuse box, so I wonder what those screws are going into, maybe past the box into the studs. I carry a small crescent wrench which I use occasionally, and a few nutdrivers, too small for those heads. I would have gone out to my truck, where I have a larger crescent wrench, a few spanners, water pump pliers, vise grips, hammer, shovel, etc etc.

A simple multitool can come in handy as well.

Just cut them off with a gas axe,tell the customer everything inside is shagged.

[Rich Goeken]

"....Don't be upset with HG either. He is a vulgar and pompous old fool that has no life, and likes to come off like a know it all. If he didn't have this forum to (try to) come off like an authority... he would have no place. I usually don't read most of his posts, because he is so long winded and boring....

Steve, for comedy relief I look forward to HG's posts----they certainly add a little flavor to the conversations...... :D

- - - Updated - - -



You all can continue to argue, but I'm done with this thread.


Come on, this is a discussion, not an argument.

[Garry Sorrells]

Rick,
Don't loose track of the fact that the thread "discussion" started from the statement:

"...Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it....." and as usual evolves in a different subset "discussion". Then the OP made a change up to the reasons for not opening a panel.

Some think that anything that doesn't produce a positive warm comment is argumentative. And if you actually disagree then it is truly perceived as argumentative and a personal attack. Many forget that any discussion is a give an take of arguments for and against a topic.

Arguing, with so much political correctness going on, has has sadly become deemed bad. :(

[Jerry Peck]

Rick,
Don't loose track of the fact that the thread "discussion" started from the statement:

"...Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it....." and as usual evolves in a different subset "discussion". Then the OP made a change up to the reasons for not opening a panel.

Some think that anything that doesn't produce a positive warm comment is argumentative. And if you actually disagree then it is truly perceived as argumentative and a personal attack. Many forget that any discussion is a give an take of arguments for and against a topic.

Arguing, with so much political correctness going on, has has sadly become deemed bad. :(

That is why I started using the term "debate" quite some time ago. After all, a "debate" is where two or more parties put forth their "arguments" for their case, and those "arguments" evolve into what are, presumably, 'the best argument' for their side of the "debate". :)

[John Dirks Jr]

I carry mini vice grips on my belt at all times during inspections. I would have removed the bolts to see what was inside. However, I'm not going to judge Welmoed for taking the decision she did.

Now, I avoid disclaimers as much as possible. However, disclaimers are sometimes needed and it's up to the individual inspector on site to decide when they are necessary within the practices they typically do. When the decision to make a disclaimer is taken, exactly how it's worded can make a difference in serving the best interests of the client.

I'm interested in knowing exactly how the disclaimer was worded. Getting that right can be useful to any of us at some point in time.

[Gerry Bennett]

My guess is that panel has been converted into a junction box. When that happens the guts that often support the cover are removed and "different" fasteners are often used. The real panel is likely somewhere else. Was there another panel in the space - - - near by most likely ?

If it was a j-box you would open the cover and see the splices.

- - - Updated - - -


My guess is that panel has been converted into a junction box. When that happens the guts that often support the cover are removed and "different" fasteners are often used. The real panel is likely somewhere else. Was there another panel in the space - - - near by most likely ?

If it was a j-box you would open the cover and see the splices.

[Garry Sorrells]

With a new year comes new insight. A new theory; it is a wall safe. We all know that thieves would not consider carrying a socket set or tools for such a situation. They would see it painted and having a bolt head and say to themselves "it must belong to the condo association and not the resident".

Wasn't it a US Congressman Jefferson that had hidden money in the freezer. When he should have hidden it in the service panel. William J. Jefferson corruption case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson_corruption_case)

[Robert Rolleston]

I have a few times replaced panel cover srews with 10-32 bolts when I ran out of panel screws. As long as they are not pointed like a self tapper or lag bolt they are just as safe and don't change the accessability of the panel. But everyone has their own comfort level and that should be respected.