Thread: Jerry! Why didn't you tell me not to wiggle these

The scorching was already present, but I moved the feeders and caused it to arc. Almost had to change my draws My question is, does this affect the disconnect.

Similar Threads:

• Beguiled By Jerry Peck
• Jerry Peck's unethical Web Site
• Jerry Breaks 6000!
• doubled service wires/ JERRY!
• wiring service panels 101..(help Jerry P)

Looks like those were never torqued from the amount of threads still showing.
Those were on the meter side right?

Meter was on the left, these were on the right side. 150amp service. They were not torqued and I moved the wire and you can image what happened.

Mat,

Some things just need to be learned the best way ... by experiencing them.

Yeah, won't do that again any time soon. So does that affect the breaker or does is simply need to be tightened.

The breaker should be okay, but those conductors need to be cut off, new conductor stripped back and exposed, then the new conductor properly torqued in the terminal.

I'm a bit concerned about the lugs and the nuts that hold them. The arcing probably damaged the lug inside.

The other thing that bothers me is that the stud on the left lug doesn't appear to extend all the way through the nut. The one on the right appears to have about half a thread beyond the nut. Typically there should be about two threads exposed on the studs. If the nuts are torqued properly I see a design problem as torque specs are predicated on threads in the nut fully contacting all the threads on the stud.

those lugs look like they feed a sub-panel so it should have no effect on the service disco above. what the hell were you doing wiggling live lugs? shut off the main and wiggle to your hearts content next time, but you already know that.....now!

And I'm sure you were wearing the correct gear while inspecting a "hot" panel box!

Smith sunglasses and rubber shoes got er done

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

I'm a bit concerned about the lugs and the nuts that hold them. The arcing probably damaged the lug inside.


... torque specs are predicated on threads in the nut fully contacting all the threads on the stud.

Good point - and predicated on a free turning set screw within the lug threads. With arcing damage to the threads, one would have no real idea of what the torque actually was.

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

those lugs look like they feed a sub-panel so it should have no effect on the service disco above. what the hell were you doing wiggling live lugs? shut off the main and wiggle to your hearts content next time, but you already know that.....now!

I know an inspector who always used to grab the conductors and wiggle them ... then one time he grabbed a conductor which he found out had nicked insulation on the back side ... ... he does not do that anymore.

"I know an inspector who always used to grab the conductors and wiggle them "

Someone we might know?

This thread reminded me of somethine from many years ago.

A young man I know, would sometimes strip telephone wires by pinching the wire between his teeth, then one day the phone rang. He don't do that no more.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

"I know an inspector who always used to grab the conductors and wiggle them "

Someone we might know?

I doubt it, 'twas not me.

I have a somewhat healthy respect for electricity as I used to work on TV sets, calibrate CRT oscilloscopes, and work around high voltage all day long (water cooled electron tubes in oil baths operating at 50 kV to 200 kV, putting out upward of 5 mega watts). I am used to stuff coming out and meeting me half-way and respect it.

Of course, around 120 volts, ... that is why I stated it as "somewhat" healthy respect ... I have been know to "cross way over the line of common sense and safety" in my younger days. But, I lived to tell about it.

I worked for an electrical contractor who was the opposite of me, instead of coming out to meet him half-way, he had to poke around for it - literally poke around for it. He would put his finger in a light socket to see if it was 'ON' and when he did not feel it, he would lick his finger and try it again, then say 'Yep, I THINK I FEEL IT now.' Yikes! With me, I put my hand over the socket and even think about sticking my finger in and it lets me know it is 'ON'.

The Scoutmaster of my son's troop often says:

Some people you can teach, some people learn by others mistakes, and some have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

The State of Kentucky, and the wording of every other licensing law I've read, is pretty clear: only competent people get to do electrical work. "Competent" as defined by being a licensed electrician. Opening a panel is considered 'electrical work.' As such, it's outside the scope of the home inspection.

OSHA rules also require competence, though their definition refers more to safety training and the appropriate PPE.

Though, looking at this forum, it appears that HI's just can't wait to open up the panel.

Where does a 'home inspector' find the 'competence' to open a panel, remove the cover, then touch a live bussbar? How many errors does one get to commit before something bad happens?

Some will object that the opinions of the licensing boards are unnecessarily narrow. Others will counter that they've seen all manner of silliness from the licensed professionals. Neither is justification for a fool to rush in where angels fear to tread.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

The State of Kentucky, and the wording of every other licensing law I've read, is pretty clear: only competent people get to do electrical work. "Competent" as defined by being a licensed electrician. Opening a panel is considered 'electrical work.' As such, it's outside the scope of the home inspection.

OSHA rules also require competence, though their definition refers more to safety training and the appropriate PPE.

Though, looking at this forum, it appears that HI's just can't wait to open up the panel.

Where does a 'home inspector' find the 'competence' to open a panel, remove the cover, then touch a live bussbar? How many errors does one get to commit before something bad happens?

Some will object that the opinions of the licensing boards are unnecessarily narrow. Others will counter that they've seen all manner of silliness from the licensed professionals. Neither is justification for a fool to rush in where angels fear to tread.

John,

I don't see how an electrical system can even have a rudimentary evaluation without looking at the interior of the panel. I'm not referring to pulling on wires, just looking. Improperly sized conductors, double lugs, improper multi-wire circuits, improper grounding. All of those require removing the panel cover. I am not working on a panel, just observing. I realize you have to deal with KY law, but I don't understand your comment.

Maybe the real question is: How do you evaluate an electrical system?

Hi everyone,

This is just the post I've been looking for.

I've purchased the AHIT Home Inspector course material and was somewhat surprised (and appalled) when I found out that they actually instruct the inspector's-to-be to open up the main panel when the power's on.

In Manitoba, Canada (and likely all of the other Canadian Provinces and US States) it is against our Provincial Workplace Safety and Health Regulations for anyone other than an electrician to work on or inspect electrical equipment when it is exposed and energized. There are also very specific precautionary measures that have to be in place when an electrician is performing such work (appropriate Personal Protective Equipment, second employee standing by to ensure work is conducted safely and to be available to perform first aid and call for help should things go wrong, etc).

The course material actually attempts to justify this unsafe practice by explaining that turning off the power may cause the homeowner to loose computer data if the power to their PC is interrupted. What's more important; the inspector's and customer's life safety, or some loss of data?

The course also tells the students to test for an energized panel by touching the cover with the back of their hand before they open it. A bit archaic (and once gain unsafe). There are tools that can be used to perform such tests.

This problem is easily solved. . . Tell the homeowner the reasons for inspecting the panel. Explain that it is only safe to do so when the power is first disconnected, then ask the homeowner to turn off or unplug any sensitive household electrical devices before doing so. This can prevent property damage and loss of life or injury/

Anyone (other students) who don't know any better will take the course, do as they're instructed and may unknowingly be putting their safety at risk - and performing 'illegal' work at the same time.

AHIT and any other organizations that instruct their students to open panels while live are opening themselves up to all sorts of liability. Why??? Does anyone have an answer?

I'm going to try to get my money back. I don't want to support, or be associated with a company that promotes this unsafe and illegal activity.

John Steinke; I believe that anyone can inspect a household electrical panel (providing it is de-energized). Can you confirm if your local laws allow that?

Gunnar Alquist; I agree; the interior of the panel should be looked at - but it should never be done when it is energized. It's simply too dangerous (and against OH&S regulations).

I'll take my chances

Ian,

I believe you are in the wrong profession, based on your post.

You could apply that information to almost any and every aspect of home inspections.

Jerry (and everyone else who is willing to inspect panels when they are energized),

I'm not in the wrong profession. This is a black and white issue.

Only electricians are permitted, by law, to open panels on energized equipment. No if's and or but's.

There's a good reason for this - it's too dangerous. You may personally go your entire life without injuring yourself, but there are many who end up in hospital, some ending up with life-long disabilities - and worse, some have lost their lives.

I will happily blaze a new trail, and be one of the few inspectors that turn off the main disconnect before I open a panel. It's very easy to do and it's the right thing to do. Period.

I'm not intending to be difficult, or to make 'enemies.' I enjoy being in good health and intend to protect myself and my customers from harm.

I have to ask the following two questions (they're not rhetorical, I'm looking for a response):

1. Why do you open the panels when the equipment is energized?

2. What other area of inspecting a home can my previous 'principles' apply to?

Ian,
Do you get on the roof or drive to the inspection. You are far more likely to get injured or killed engaging in the aforementioned activies then opening a service disconnect.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Ian,
Do you get on the roof or drive to the inspection. You are far more likely to get injured or killed engaging in the aforementioned activies then opening a service disconnect.

Yes I do; but neither of the two actions you described are prohibited by law.

Your response does not answer my questions nor does it justify opening panels without first disconnecting the power.

I'd like to expand upon your example of driving to the client's location. Yes, driving can be dangerous (in fact, more people are killed in vehicles than in any single other type of workplace accident); however these accidents occur when something goes wrong (they are not typically 'true' accidents).

Here's my discussion on your point about driving:

1. Vehicles are equipped with turn signals, seat belts, air bags, side impact beams, etc. All sorts of safety devices intended to keep you from harm (some are automatic - i.e. the airbag whereas others you have the choice of using, i.e. turn signals and seat belts). But what's protecting you from the live equipment when you open a panel? Nothing.

2. Accidents when driving a vehicle occur, 99% of the time, when someone does something they shouldn't be. i.e. Speeding, driving impaired, driving when inexperienced, disobeying other traffic laws, driving while distracted, etc. The accident may not be your fault; true, it could be some other idiot who hit you and kills you. But removing a panel cover when the power is on is just like speeding, driving while impaired, etc. - and who's at fault if something happens? Just you, nobody else.

3. You need a license and insurance if you want to legally drive a car. If you want to remove panels while energized, you should become an electrician. If the local OH&S AHJ catches you opening live panels, you'll be fined.

I don't mean to ramble on.

My point is simple; it's not safe and there's no reason to do it. Just turn the power off first. If at least one of you reading this post decides to heed this warning, then it was worth my while.

Take care and be safe!

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Do you get on the roof

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

Yes I do; but neither of the two actions you described are prohibited by law.

Do you wear fall protection when on that roof?

Do you use proper ladder techniques?

Do you wear proper clothing?

Do you wear proper shoes?

Do you do everything you as required by laws to do everything you do?

Does that law you are referring to refer ONLY TO electrical panels or does it refer to electrical equipment? Do you understand what electrical equipment mean?

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

In Manitoba, Canada (and likely all of the other Canadian Provinces and US States) it is against our Provincial Workplace Safety and Health Regulations for anyone other than an electrician to work on or inspect electrical equipment when it is exposed and energized.

Do you inspect an air conditioner condenser unit while operating? While energized and not operating? That IS "electrical equipment", it IS "energized", and, according to that law, you ARE NOT allowed to even look at it ("inspect" it).

I do believe, if you do home inspections, that you are simply picking and choosing what you choose to look at, how, and why, and then try to pass off that which you do not want to look at off as "I am not allowed to by law.". That is what it sounds like to me.

I dunno guys. It sounds to me like Ian inspects electrical panels, just turns off the power before doing so. That seems to me to be a win-win solution. He reduces his risk of injury and still inspects the panel. Not sure if I see a problem with that. The only thing that cannot be done is testing for improper/proper multi-wire circuits. With the power off, a meter could not be used.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

I dunno guys. It sounds to me like Ian inspects electrical panels, just turns off the power before doing so.

Gunnar,

To me, it sounds like that is what Ian is saying needs to be done, not what he does.

However, the only way to inspect the service equipment de-energized is to call the power company and have them pull the meter as the service equipment is still energized with the main "off".

That seems to me to be a win-win solution.

I would agree to a win-something, because who is going to call the power company and schedule them to shut the power off while the service equipment is inspected, which many times also includes the panelboard, and then stay around to turn the power back on?

How many, if any, power companies are going to do that?

Seems more like a pipe dream or wishful thinking than win-win to me.

He reduces his risk of injury and still inspects the panel. Not sure if I see a problem with that.

There is not problem with THAT, just with the other part I mentioned above.

The only thing that cannot be done is testing for improper/proper multi-wire circuits. With the power off, a meter could not be used.

Which brings us back to my win-something but not win-win.

You would need to inspect electric water heater, electric air conditioners, electric heat pumps, electric furnaces, electric appliances, electric everything ... with no electricity. How is that any different than past discussions of inspecting homes with no utilities?

I am confused. Ian are you saying turn the disconnect off, because the panel is still live. Or are you saying the power company should shut the power off.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

I am confused. Ian are you saying turn the disconnect off, because the panel is still live. Or are you saying the power company should shut the power off.

Mat,

From my understanding of what Ian is saying, he is saying "the disconnect off", however, that leaves the service equipment energized, which means the power company needs to shut the power off to the entire structure.

I'm also trying to figure out how one can inspect "electrical equipment" such as the a/c system when the power is off?

Face it guys, what we do carries risk.
Use your head to reduce that risk.
Back to the original post about wiggling wires, not such a good idea, but you figured that out, now.

Yeah I didn't really wiggle them I pushed on them with my tic tracer. Nevertheless, still not a good idea, can't argue that

Seems I caused a bit of a stir.

In my part of the World, the main disconnect is almost always located in the main panel. Switching this disconnect will allow an inspector to safely remove the cover to look for any visual signs of potential issues. The cover then can be put back into place then the power switched back on so the remainder of the 'electrical components' can be inspected (i.e. air conditioner, dish washer, furnace, etc). Nowhere did I state that I would leave the power off to inspect the remainder of the building.

My interpretation of the regulations relating to electrical safety is not that it disallows a person from inspecting components such as air conditioners. The main panel is different; however, since one wrong move can cause an arc flash. I do not believe any other piece of equipment has the same degree of hazard potential associated with it.

Just so everyone knows; I do not yet perform home inspections, however, I'm in the process of ramping up my knowledge so I can.

I am currently employed by a large insurance brokerage firm as a risk control consultant. One of my main responsibilities is to look for property conservation risks, premises liability hazards and OH&S hazards. I believe that my current skills will be well suited for inspecting residential dwellings, but I understand that there is much for me to learn.

Although I need to learn more about household electrical systems, I do know that opening main cover panels is not permitted by law, but there are safe alternatives that will allow for a thorough inspection.

Jerry, I do know how to work safely from heights and will not place myself at any undue risk (3 point contact, extending the ladder beyond the eaves line, 4:1 rule, etc). There is always the possibility for harm; but one must reduce the risks to a reasonable level. Opening live panels is not reasonable.

This makes me think of a saying I've heard from time to time; be as safe as practical, bot as safe as possible; otherwise nothing could ever be done.

My original point seems to have been lost in this thread - which was; home inspectors should not open up panels when they are live. Disconnect the power first (not the utility company). And last, but not least; no educational organization should instruct its students to leave the power on.

Times have changed. The safety culture is improving and the AHJ's have more teeth than they did in years gone by. Home inspectors are professionals and should act accordingly. Sticking fingers in electrical sockets to check for power should be a thing of the past.

Regards.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

In my part of the World, the main disconnect is almost always located in the main panel. Switching this disconnect will allow an inspector to safely remove the cover to look for any visual signs of potential issues.

Ian,

But the service equipment part IS STILL *ENERGIZED*, which mean you are still inspecting it while energized.

My interpretation of the regulations relating to electrical safety is not that it disallows a person from inspecting components such as air conditioners. The main panel is different;

Ahhh ... now we get into the crux of it ... "your interpretation", to heck with what it actually says ... You stated that it says "electrical equipment", and you are taking it upon yourself to define what "electrical equipment" to include and what "electrical equipment" to exclude.

Which gets back to what I stated before, " ... that you are simply picking and choosing what you choose to look at, how, and why, and then try to pass off that which you do not want to look at off as "I am not allowed to by law.". That is what it sounds like to me. ", which is what you are saying now.

No problem with that, just wanted to make sure that you understood what you were doing.

And what the same thing the rest of us are doing ... which is the same thing, only to a different extent.

Jerry,

All codes and regulations have parts that are black-and-white, or prescriptive (thou shalt and thou shall not) whereas other parts are unclear and left to interpretation (many shades of grey). You can talk to several different code authorities about one topic and get different answers from each individual.

I know the odds are in my favour that 10 out of 10 AHJ's would agree that the main panel ought not be inspected while live; unless you're an electrician. Regardless; the OH&S laws are very clear about this; so it's cut and dried (about the panel).

On the other hand; I would say that it is a grey area when discussing air conditioners, electric heaters, etc. Since the hazards are much lower than those found in a panel; I bet those same 10 AHJ's would argue amongst themselves about where an electrician is required.

I am not merely picking and choosing what I do or do not do, on a whim. My reasoning is always based on a solid foundation - not simply because I do not care for it. My work ethics are strong and as I've stated before; I will not perform any task that has undue risks - for my sake and my customer's sake. Last but not least; I want to come home to my family every day, in one piece.

So, Jerry, can you tell me what the hazards are in a panel when the main disconnect is off? I admit that I have a lot to learn.

Thanks.

I do know that opening main cover panels is not permitted by law, but there are safe alternatives that will allow for a thorough inspection.

I disagree, there is no alternative to opening the panel to allow for a thorough inspection of the panel unless you have xray glasses

Also, 95% of the time the owner of the property is not present for the inspection so having them unplug any sensitive equipment is not a reality.
Real world vs text book, some realities must be adjusted.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

Regardless; the OH&S laws are very clear about this; so it's cut and dried (about the panel).

From what you have posted about what the law says, and you stated that it says "electrical equipment", which IS NOT "just referring to electrical panels", not unless your Canadian electrical code definition is completely different than ours here in the states. Please look up and post the definition of "electrical equipment" from your Canadian electrical code - that would start to help clear this up.

So, Jerry, can you tell me what the hazards are in a panel when the main disconnect is off? I admit that I have a lot to learn.

That the service equipment side is still energized, and an arc flash is an arc flash, and an arc flash on the service side of the main disconnect is going to be far greater, more injurious, than an arc flash on the load side of the branch circuit breakers.

With the panelboard side de-energized by shutting the main disconnect off you have reduced ... REDUCED ... the likelihood of touching something which is energized, but you have not made it "safe" and neither have you "de-energized it", which is, after all, what you said HAD TO BE done before the cover was allowed to be removed - yet it has not been done.

You are trying to justify doing what you do by quoting some law, which (do far) does not say what you say it says.

The rest of us are doing the same thing you are doing (justifying what we do) while not following that law, just like you are not following it. Which means you have no stance in saying that law should be followed YOUR WAY any more than it should be followed OUR WAY.

What is the Canadian electrical code definition of "electrical equipment"?

Seems to me that there was a thread here recently on this subject. After discussions and presentations regarding the "law" and what it said (in certain communities) about "working" on electrical equipment (and Jerry still wants to know here what "electrical equipment" is defind as) it was finally asked "What is working on electrical equipment defined as".

So let's see if there is any input on this thread as to what the definition of "work on" or "working" is, whithin the same statutes that are quoted.

I believe that the last thread pretty much concluded that visually inspecting (including removing the panel dead front) is not considered "working" on the panel.

Originally Posted by Mitchell Toelle

So let's see if there is any input on this thread as to what the definition of "work on" or "working" is, whithin the same statutes that are quoted.

I believe that the last thread pretty much concluded that visually inspecting (including removing the panel dead front) is not considered "working" on the panel.

Mitchell,

The phrase is not "working on" it is "working on or inspecting", the last part of which is forgotten or ignored by many, but it is an inclusive part of the requirements.

Jerry,

In Canada, combination panels must have a barrier between the service and branch circuit compartments; therefore there are two separate panel covers. This facilitates safe removal of the branch circuit cover. A partial inspection can therefore be completed in a reasonably safe manner since the service equipment is left alone.

I do not have my copy of the CEC handy so cannot quote directly from it. I will as soon as I can.

I have read many accounts of injury and death and near misses that occured when panel covers have been removed while power was supplied. (i.e. Loose, spring loaded bus-bar that shifted, causing death; curious home owner sticking finger into fuse socket during inspection; long screw used to secure panel cover, making contact with main lug when cover being replaced; insulation chewed away by mice, etc, etc). All of the accidents and near misses associated with the cases that I mention would have been completely avoided if the power was off.

If the power cannot be turned off (whatever the reason), then the inspector can choose not to inspect the component (actually; should choose not to inspect it), record it in the inspection report and state that that particular part of the inspection could not be completed because unsafe conditions were present, and recommend that an electrician be hired to complete that portion of the inspection.

No AHJ or judge, or lawyer, etc, could place blame or fault if an unsafe condition was not identified at time of inspection because another unsafe condition prevented it from becoming identified. The ball is then in the homeowner's court to hire an electrician.

Regards.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

In Canada, combination panels must have a barrier between the service and branch circuit compartments; therefore there are two separate panels.

I am aware of that as John has discussed this.

This facilitates safe removal of the branch circuit cover. A partial inspection can therefore be completed in a reasonably safe manner since the service equipment is left alone.

Which gets back to what I keep saying: What about the service equipment? It is still energized.

Are you saying that you do not inspect it?

I am saying that I would not inspect it (as I stated before, I am training to become an inspector; therefore I do not currently perform inspections).

I can imagine your thoughts as you read my statement above (this guy is too new to know anything, how can he even consider discussing this topic; the inspection would be incomplete and therefore useless, etc). If that's the case; I understand, but give me a chance here.

Home inspectors have limitations, just like other professionals have limitations. I sure hope that it isn't an ASHI or a CAHPI requirement to inspect the service equipment; because if it is, they would be creating a conflict between OH&S law and their own standards.

It's kinda' like a person going to a hospital to have some ailment checked out. A triage nurse will ask a few questions and run a few basic tests. He/she can then recommend further testing (let's say exploratory surgery); but he/she has to leave that up to the surgeon. In this case, the nurse is akin to the home inspector and the surgeon is akin to the electrician. Let the right person do the job. There is nothing wrong with stating it in your report that an electrician should be brought in for further evaluation.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

I can imagine your thoughts as you read my statement above (this guy is too new to know anything, how can he even consider discussing this topic; the inspection would be incomplete and therefore useless, etc). If that's the case; I understand, but give me a chance here.

That was not what I was thinking, I was thinking that you were planning on using that (what you stated the law said) to not inspect the electrical panels, and I was, and am, pointing out that the same would apply to all equipment and appliances connected to the electrical system.

This is because it is unrealistic to think that homeowners are going to allow you to turn their power off just so YOU can inspect what you need to inspect.

Thus, with that being the case, and if that is your intent, I stated that you are in the wrong profession.

Home inspector as GUESTS in the sellers homes, we do not move furniture to access receptacle outlets, we do not turn power off to their homes just so *we* can do our job, we need to either learn to work around all the constraints which come with this profession or select another profession which does not require us to do those things.

Home inspectors have limitations, just like other professionals have limitations. I sure hope that it isn't an ASHI or a CAHPI requirement to inspect the service equipment; because if it is, they would be creating a conflict between OH&S law and their own standards.

You, which is why, again, I state that you seem to be in the wrong profession.

From the ASHI Standards Of Practice: (bold, red text is mine for highlighting)

- 7. ELECTRICAL

- - 7.1 The inspector shall:
- - - A.

inspect:
- - - - 1. service drop.
- - - - 2. service entrance conductors, cables, and raceways.
- - - - 3. service equipment and main disconnects.
- - - - 4. service grounding.
- - - - 5. interior components of service panels and sub panels.
- - - - 6. conductors.
- - - - 7. overcurrent protection devices.
- - - - 8. a representative number of installed lighting fixtures, switches, and receptacles.
- - - - 9. ground fault circuit interrupters.

- - - B.

describe:
- - - - 1. amperage and voltage rating of the service.
- - - - 2. location of main disconnect(s) and sub panels.
- - - - 3. presence of solid conductor aluminum branch circuit wiring.
- - - - 4. presence or absence of smoke detectors.
- - - - 5. wiring methods.

- - 7.2 The inspector is NOT required to:
- - - A.

inspect:
- - - - 1. remote control devices.
- - - - 2. alarm systems and components.
- - - - 3. low voltage wiring systems and components.
- - - - 4. ancillary wiring systems and components not a part of the primary electrical power distribution system.

- - - B. measure amperage, voltage, or impedance.

And to do the above, you WILL NEED TO INSPECT that service equipment part which is energized.

It's kinda' like a person going to a hospital to have some ailment checked out. A triage nurse will ask a few questions and run a few basic tests. He/she can then recommend further testing (let's say exploratory surgery); but he/she has to leave that up to the surgeon. In this case, the nurse is akin to the home inspector and the surgeon is akin to the electrician. Let the right person do the job.

No, the home inspector is akin to the general practitioner doctor who actually does things and probes the body, the nurse would be akin to the person who answers the phone and schedules the inspection - asking all those pertinent questions.

There is nothing wrong with stating it in your report that an electrician should be brought in for further evaluation.

There is if you are expecting to get paid for not doing what you are expected to do, but instead tell your client to hire someone who knows what they are doing to do it.

You have entirely the wrong grasp of what home inspections are and what home inspectors do, and as such you would be stealing your clients money and giving them little, if any, value in return.

Ian, it really is as simple as this: If you want to be a home inspector, you need TO BE READY, WILLING, AND ABLE to do what is expected of home inspectors. IF YOU ARE NOT, you should not try to blame the schools and try to find a way out of not doing what is expected of you, and what all other home inspectors do.

Yes, it really is that simple - if you are not willing to do what is expected of a home inspector, then a home inspector is not what you should be.

Jerry,

I am not looking for a scapegoat by pointing out the OH&S legislation. Nor am I blaming the schools for anything.

The fault lies in the industry itself. The profession of home inspection is relatively new. In the not-so-distant past, if a person wanted his/her home inspected they had no choice but to hire an electrician, and perhaps a structural engineer. Now home inspectors are available and are willing to inspect more than just the structure and electrical system. It's an excellent service; but somewhere along the way it appears that ASHI and CAHPI have overlooked the legal aspect of electrical inspections.

I personally do not agree with the narrow focus that the NEC, CEC and other OH&S organizations have placed on electrical inspections. A person can be trained to inspect household systems safely without being an electrician. Unfortunately, the law is the law.

The home inspection training school's hands are tied since ASHI and CAHPI require electrical system inspections; so they provide training on how to inspect these systems. I appreciate that; however, they should really be doing a better job at providing clear safe working procedures. Touching the panel to test for electrically charged panels is not a safe procedure. The schools should also describe in great detail the appropriate PPE that needs to be worn, etc.

This is truly a 'touchy' subject. Understandably, since it appeas that is against the law throughout North America.

Perhaps ASHI and CAHPI should lobby for exceptions where home inspectors are properly trained to perform these inspections. That would be in the best interest of the home inspector and their clients.

No person, nor employee, nor professional should be required, by anyone, to perform work that contravenes any law. It's that simple.

The law may be too strict, but instead of being forced to pick and choose which laws to abide by, the industry should work aroud the laws without bending or breaking the laws.

How can any reasonable person argue this principle.

Jerry, you work on liability litigation issues as a professional. You therefore look, with a fine toothed comb, for instances where someone has broken a law, standard, regulation, best practice etc so you can help someone place blame. How can you do that, and argue against this topic of electrical inspections? It appears that it is you who is picking and choosing what works best for you. Sounds like a conflict of interests to me.

Gunnar, I look forward to anyone's response to your question. It sounds to me that Jerry and others are saying that the only way to perform the task, and to provide value for the customer, is to open up all the panel covers so the entire panel interior can be inspected.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

How can you do that, and argue against this topic of electrical inspections?

Huh?

"argue against this topic of electrical inspections"??

No, *I* am the one arguing FOR the electrical inspections, *YOU* are the one arguing AGAINST them.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

Gunnar, I look forward to anyone's response to your question. It sounds to me that Jerry and others are saying that the only way to perform the task, and to provide value for the customer, is to open up all the panel covers so the entire panel interior can be inspected.

No one should remove a cover if it appears in their opinion to be usafe to do so.
I will sometimes report that in writing, "unable to safely remove the service panel cover."

I'm sure you can do a fine inspection without removing a panel cover, but it leaves questions unanswered, so you would be deferring that part to an electrician?
I suggest it would be wise get some on-the-job experience with a practicing HI or electrician or both.

I am aware of the ruling by the Workers Compensation Board. I believe it means no HI working in Canada will be compensated for an injury while opening a panel. That is how I read it, anyway. Wear safety gear and be careful.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

No one should remove a cover if it appears in their opinion to be usafe to do so.

No one should do anything *THEY* do not feel safe doing, however, that is completely different than not ever doing it "regardless".

I suggest it would be wise get some on-the-job experience with a practicing HI or electrician or both.

I do agree with that, and when Ian has done that, I suspect some of this will no longer be a hindrance to him.

Jerry (and everyone else who has posted responses),

I thank you for your time and comments. I hope I'm not sounding overly opinionated about this topic, because that's not my intent. I'm truly just trying to learn the ropes.

I can guarantee, that in Manitoba, no-one other than an electrician is permitted by OH&S Law to perform electrical work, which includes opening up panel covers when the system is energized. That may not be true in other jurisdictions, but it is the case in Manitoba.

I am comfortable inspecting the equipment, but want to abide by the local laws. It's a bit of a problem though. . . even if this law is not enforced.



Anyway,

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

I can guarantee, that in Manitoba, no-one other than an electrician is permitted by OH&S Law to perform electrical work, which includes opening up panel covers when the system is energized.

Even the homeowners?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Even the homeowners?

Jerry, homeowners do not fall within the scope of any OH&S Laws or Regulations.

As strict as the laws are; I don't think we'll ever see the government prohibiting a homeowner from tinkering around in their own residence.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

In Manitoba, Canada (and likely all of the other Canadian Provinces and US States) it is against our Provincial Workplace Safety and Health Regulations for anyone other than an electrician to work on or inspect electrical equipment when it is exposed and energized.

This is what I found: ( http://safemanitoba.com/uploads/regulations/part38.pdf )
- Electrical workers must do electrical work

- - 38.4

An employer must ensure that, in the workplace, only an electrical worker performs electrical work.

I also found this: ( http://safemanitoba.com/uploads/regulations/part38.pdf )

Definitions
- 38.17

The following definitions apply in this Part.

- - "approved"

, "electrical equipment", and "electrical work" have the same meaning as in The Electricians' Licence Act.

Then the definition of "electrical work" from "The Electrician's Licence Act": ( The Electricians' Licence Act ) (highlighting with bold red is mine)
- "electrical work" means work in connection with the placing, installing, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or removing of any electrical equipment, and includes such work done on conduits of any description designed or used for the purpose of enclosing or carrying electrical conductors independent of the characteristics of the current, and on any conductors or electrical equipment designed or used for the purpose of supplying any electrical service or for any purpose in connection with such electrical service; (« travaux électriques »)

No where in there do I find the terms "inspect" or "inspecting", thus, doing a home inspection and inspecting an energized electrical panel is not, by the legally adopted definition of "electrical work", is not "electrical work".

As Always, Jerry only responds with what he feels is correct, you know what they say about opinions folks, if he bothered to read further on the Manitoba Law, he would have found this Law and provison as well, and i quote:


Qualifications for inspectors
10(2) No person shall be appointed an inspector under this Act unless he or she holds a licence other than a limited licence under this Act and, in the opinion of the minister, has had the practical experience necessary to qualify him or her for the position. and:
"electrical equipment" means any apparatus, appliance, device, instrument, fitting, fixture, machinery, material or thing used in or for, or capable of being used in or for, the generation, transformation, transmission, distribution, supply or utilization of electric power or energy, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes any assemblage or combination of materials or things that is used, or is capable of being used or adapted, to serve or perform any particular purpose or function when connected to an electrical installation, notwithstanding that the material or things may be mechanical, metallic or non-electric in origin; (« matériel électrique »)
Seems to me that even up in Canada, YOU arent legally permitted to open service equipment, you can check for grounding with testers in receptacles, this can be done safely with a $6 tester from Home Depot, ive checked they work adequetley enough. I have found and fortunate for me i was wearing the appropriate PPE, when removing covers from panels that visually appeared ok that the sub assembly fell out and caused one hell of a ruckus. Better to be safe than sorry guys, leave it for us pros

Jerry,

Great research; you truly are dedicated to this forum, and it shows.

Nonetheless, I've spoken to three different Provincial Occupational Health and Safety Officers in the past and asked each of them if a home inspector is permitted to inspect live panels by removing the covers.

All three of them said 'Only if they are an electrician,' and quoted the 'electrical work' portion of the regulation (which appears to be an invalid interpretation of the regulation on their part, since the definition of electrical work does not include inspections).

They also; however, quoted the parts of the regulation regarding working on energized equipment (located below).

You'll see that the parts about energized equipment refer specifically to 'electrcal work'. So, again, it appears that the officers are incorrectly interpreting the regulation.

Although that may be true, I do believe that the intent of the regulation is to only allow electricians to work (or be in front of) electrical equipment that is exposed and energized. But it seems to be a nice loop-hole for HI's (which I'm OK with - since I want to do this work). Regardless, I'll still ask the homeowner's permission to shut off the main disconnect and will wear the proper PPE when I inspect the service equipment. I will also hand my client my phone before I begin, so he can dial 911 should something happen.

( http://safemanitoba.com/uploads/regulations/part38.pdf ) I've highlighted the text that appears in bold. . . .

38.14(2) If it is not reasonably practicable to de-energize electrical equipment before electrical work is done, an employer must ensure that no electrical worker begins work on energized electrical equipment until

(a) the employer, in consultation with the worker, has

(i) assessed the conditions or circumstances under which the electrical worker is required to work, and

(ii) developed safe work procedures that include the use of safety equipment appropriate for the task;

(b) the safe work procedures developed under subclause (a)(ii) have been agreed to by the employer and the worker;

(c) the worker has been trained in the safe work procedures;

(d) the employer has designated a worker who is trained in emergency response procedures as a standby worker at the location where the electrical work is to be done;

(e) the standby worker designated under clause (d) is present at the location where the work is to be done; and

(f) the worker wears all personal protective equipment appropriate for the work to be done.

38.14(3) The standby worker designated under clause (2)(d) must be present at the location of the electrical work at all times when the work is being done.

Jerry,

What about this? I've highlighted the red text:

"electrical work" means work in connection with the placing, installing, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or removing of any electrical equipment, and includes such work done on conduits of any description designed or used for the purpose of enclosing or carrying electrical conductors independent of the characteristics of the current, and on any conductors or electrical equipment designed or used for the purpose of supplying any electrical service or for any purpose in connection with such electrical service. . . . .

Do you believe that a panel cover falls within the definition of 'a conduit of any description'? I ask this since a panel cover's sole purpose is to enclose and carry electrical conductors.

This may very well be why the OH&S Officers interpret the regulation the way that they do.

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Joe,

My interpretation of the codes and regulations are similar to yours.

It truly seems that the root of the issue here is that ASHI and CAHPI (the US and Canadian bodies that certify home inspectors) both require a home inspector to open the panels as part of their inspection.

If ASHI and CAHPI were to review the laws and apply these laws to their standards then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I am not pointing fingers at the inspectors or the schools that teach inspectors - but I am questioning ASHI or a CAHPI's reasons for requiring HI's to perform inspections that are clearly only permitted to be performed by electricians.

As I posted previously; there must be a high percentage of home inspectors who truly don't know that it is illegal to open a panel cover; and this lack of knowledge is heightened since ASHI and CAHPI require these inspections.

So what's to be done about it???

I knew I'd set off a firestorm with my post, and I thank all for taking it in a positive manner!

For the first part: how do I do electrical inspections? Well, first I make sure my electrical contractors' license is current ....

Wise guy, or not .... Those familiar with my posts should have noted that I have not been over in the other forums commenting on, say, plumbing issues. A man has to (as Dirty Harry said) know his limitations.

I've known far too many HI's who think that all there is to their work is reading a few books and passing a test. I'm sorry, but what section of the test has you holding a screwdriver? I find more and more folks these days that claim to be construction 'experts' who have not built so much as a set of sawhorses in their lives.

For example, I know of a certain major city that recently tested over 300 applicants for a building inspector job. Approximately 100 of these applicants were already working for the city. I doubt more than 10 of the 300+ applicants even owned a screwdriver. Scary! To me, at least.

The 'official' word in many jurisdictions is that 'electrical' work requires an electrical license; the question is whether simply opening a panel and LOOKING is 'electrical work.' In many cases, the AHJ would say 'yes.' Where you have comparable licensing requirements for HI's, it is possible that the AHJ would consider opening a panel to be work associated with your trade, and thus allowed; you need to ask the AHJ.

Even with the blessing of the AHJ, you need to make sure you have been properly trained. "Self taught" may be a virtue in some places, but this is not one of them. Remember: you can have EVERY breaker in the box 'off,' and there will STILL be some live parts in there. Know what they are.

Sometimes it takes a couple sparks to get your attemtion. Unlike Chris mathews (when he interviewed Obama) though, you most definitely do not want to 'feel a tingle going down your leg.' You don't get too many second chances with this stuff.

I recall on HI who wanted to open up the PoCo transformer for a look. With that sort of thing, you get ZERO second chances.

Some days I don't like HI's that are fresh and running about. There is never a day when I like them fried or BBQ'd. Be safe out there!

Originally Posted by John Steinke

The State of Kentucky, and the wording of every other licensing law I've read, is pretty clear: only competent people get to do electrical work. "Competent" as defined by being a licensed electrician. Opening a panel is considered 'electrical work.' As such, it's outside the scope of the home inspection.

OSHA rules also require competence, though their definition refers more to safety training and the appropriate PPE.

Though, looking at this forum, it appears that HI's just can't wait to open up the panel.

Where does a 'home inspector' find the 'competence' to open a panel, remove the cover, then touch a live bussbar? How many errors does one get to commit before something bad happens?

Some will object that the opinions of the licensing boards are unnecessarily narrow. Others will counter that they've seen all manner of silliness from the licensed professionals. Neither is justification for a fool to rush in where angels fear to tread.

With all due respect, John, you can not perform a complete home inspection without pulling the panel cover(s). I don't make a habit of sticking my hand inside the enclosure (no real reason to do that) after I remove the cover, but I would consider an inspection that does not include a look inside the panel(s) to be sub-standard to the point of negligence. I also disagree that competence equals licensing. Not a logical breakdown, IMO, as we are not working in the panel, but only looking.

I know (well... know through inspector forums), several inspectors in KY who pull every panel cover that they encounter. They seem to be doing quite well with their businesses and with the authorities.

I obtained my competence to pull panel covers through education, research, training and experience (isn't that how we all gain our competence?).

OSHA does not have jurisdiction over sole proprietorships. OSHA applies to employers. If you work for yourself, you are not an employer.



Tim

Mark (or is it Tim?),

You may have pointed out the only fact that may allow a home inspector to legally fly under the radar of OH&S laws; sole proprietors. . . But can you verify that OH&S Laws truly do not apply to sole proprietors?

That may satisfy some of my questions; however I still believe that the organizations that certify HI's should make this point very clear (that the OH&S laws may not apply to sole proprietors), and the companies that offer training should do a much better job at teaching safe work procedures to keep their students from potentially injuring themselves.

Furthermore; there is still the issue that there are home inspection companies that are not sole proprietors; so, anyone who owns an inspection company that has paid inspectors should really be concerned since they would be held accountable for instructing their employees to perform illegal work.

More importantly, here in Canada, a business owner or manager can also be held CRIMINALLY negligent which means they could spend time behind bars and end up with a criminal record (Bill C-45). All it would take is one serious employee injury or death to put these companies on the radar. And ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law.

Good points, John, Ian, And Mark, I wasnt questioning your competence, I was merely stating facts, Here in PA you are to be a licensed electrician in order to perform inspections, or:

§ 7502. Definitions and index of definitions.
5 (a) Definitions.--The following words and phrases when used
6 in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this
7 section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
8 "Home inspection." A noninvasive, visual examination of some
9 combination of the mechanical, electrical or plumbing systems or
10 the structural and essential components of a residential
11 dwelling designed to identify material defects in those systems
12 and components, and performed for a fee in connection with or
13 preparation for a proposed or possible residential real estate
14 transfer. The term also includes any consultation regarding the
15 property that is represented to be a home inspection or that is
16 described by any confusingly similar term. The term does not
17 include an examination of a single system or component of a
18 residential dwelling such as, for example, its electrical or
19 plumbing system or its roof. The term also does not include an
20 examination that is limited to inspection for, or of, one or
21 more of the following: wood destroying insects, underground
22 tanks and wells, septic systems, swimming pools and spas, alarm
23 systems, air and water quality, tennis courts and playground
24 equipment, pollutants, toxic chemicals and environmental
25 hazards.
26 "Home inspection report." A written report on the results of
27 a home inspection.
28 "Home inspector." An individual who performs a home
29 inspection.
30 "National home inspectors association." Any national
19990S1032B2140 - 13 -
1 association of home inspectors that:
2 (1) Is OPERATED ON A NOT-FOR-PROFIT BASIS AND IS not <
3 operated as a franchise.
4 (2) Has members in more than ten states.
5 (3) Requires that a person may not become a full member
6 unless the person HAS PERFORMED OR PARTICIPATED IN MORE THAN <
7 100 HOME INSPECTIONS AND has passed a recognized or
8 accredited examination testing knowledge of the proper
9 procedures for conducting a home inspection.
10 (4) Requires that its members comply with a code of
11 conduct and attend continuing professional education classes
12 as an ongoing condition of membership.

This being said, I am aware many other states have adopted similar laws governing HI's and trust me, it is for your own safety.
John, I too withold putting my 2 cents in on anything other than my own licenses and degrees permit, hell we even have licenses for low voltage(alarm, phone, data, etc) installers.
AND PPE is 1st and foremost, sole proprietors are not exempt
Wiggling wires exceeds a visual inspection by a longshot!

Originally Posted by Joe Driscoll

As Always, Jerry only responds with what he feels is correct, you know what they say about opinions folks, if he bothered to read further on the Manitoba Law, he would have found this Law and provison as well, and i quote:


Qualifications for inspectors
10(2) No person shall be appointed an inspector under this Act

Joe,

To the contrary, I did read that section, apparently better than you did, as that section is not applicable to home inspectors - go back and read that section again.