Client asked, "Is that a bad place for the panel?"

[Welmoed Sisson]

I thought this house would be pretty clean; they had pulled permits for just about everything. But somehow this got overlooked. I hadn't spotted the panel when I was doing my quick once-over, so was checking everything on an outside wall near the meter corner. Client was happy I saved her from this mess; she was anticipating a "move-in ready" home.

Oh, and I didn't open the panel. But I'm curious: how many of you would​ have?

[Jim Luttrall]

I'm not sure if I would have opened it since things look different in person but obviously it might get a disclaimer since it could be hazardous to your health.

[Raymond Wand]

I probably would have attempted to take the cover off. Either way access is impeded as to be in breach of the 3 foot rule. Hence it needs to be written up and corrected.

[Lon Henderson]

Last year, I might not have opened it. But today, I probably would have, if I could reasonably reach in and access it. In the last year, I've had several instances where I deferred to what my SoP says about accessing tight and/or difficult areas; and ended up spending more time and trouble explaining the SoP and why I didn't access those places than just doing it. No matter what, it's often a judgment call as you evaluate the big picture.

Still, I certainly think you would be on firm ground in saying that clear access needs to be created and the panel should be inspected once access is created.

[Ray Thornburg]

Not if the panel was live! First you have to stick your head inside that little box so you can line your screwdriver up...HA! Not a smart move especially with that old panel. Will B Safe is better than O Howard Hurtz.

[Kevin O'Hornett]

The location (height above the floor) isn't consistent with generally established practices for a panel board enclosure installation even if the cabinetry weren't there. It makes one wonder if it had been relocated from where it was originally installed. It looks like a Cutler Hammer panelboard with no single throw main disconnection device (a sub panel?).

[david shapiro]

The location (height above the floor) isn't consistent with generally established practices for a panel board enclosure installation even if the cabinetry weren't there. It makes one wonder if it had been relocated from where it was originally installed. It looks like a Cutler Hammer panelboard with no single throw main disconnection device (a sub panel?).

I would not bring up generally accepted practice for height above floor when there are so many actual <i>NEC</i> violations. And the space in front, above, and to the side are not just a matter of comfort and convenience but safety. Think <i>NFPA 70E</i> or OSHA, if the <i>NEC</i> doesn't do the trick.

I suspect that this may be a subpanel, in which case I most certainly would pull the Service Main before getting down and dirty. If it's the service, it warrants a call to the AHJ, no monkeying around.

[Welmoed Sisson]

This wasn't a sub; it was the main panel. It didn't have a single main, but it was a split buss and I'm pretty sure the top two were mains. But I didn't get that close to it, but just a glance told me it was all sorts of wrong.

At the very least, it was missing the identifying labels for the circuits (since the door had been removed).

I appreciate that there is a desire for thoroughness, but realistically, how could this cover be safely removed by a home inspector?