system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
1
Originally Posted By: gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
2.7 H has been changed from:
H. A representative sampling of switches, receptacles, light fixtures, and ground circuit interrupters.
to read:
H. A representative sampling of switches, receptacles, light fixtures, and all ground circuit interrupters noticed.
http://www.nachi.org/sop.htm -- Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
2
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Makes perfect sense.
– Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
“At JPI, we’ll help you look better”
(661) 212-0738
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
3
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Sounds wimpy to me.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
4
Originally Posted By: jstewart1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
makes sense to me too
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
5
Originally Posted By: lschmid This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
For clarification: does it mean all GFCI’s or a sample of all noticed? I personally think all noticed should be checked.
– Larry Schmid
First Choice Home Inspection,Inc.
South Carolina Chapter President
www.1stchoicehomeinspection.com
A SAFE HOME IS A HAPPY HOME
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
6
Originally Posted By: jhagarty This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I thought that changes were handled by Committee.
http://www.nachi.org/sopcommittee.htm
Have they weighed in on this?
-- Joseph Hagarty
HouseMaster / Main Line, PA
joseph.hagarty@housemaster.com
www.householdinspector.com
Phone: 610-399-9864
Fax : 610-399-9865
HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
7
Originally Posted By: dedwards This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
That doesn’t read right. Ive read it three or four times now and it still doesn’t read right. A sampling of “all” noticed? Im not smart enough to know exactly what that means
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
8
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
We want all noticed GFCI’s to be checked. How would you word that?
Not all GFCI's. Not a sampling of GFCI's. but rather all GFCI's noticed.
Legal reasoning.
-- Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
9
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
All GFCI receptacles and circuit breakers found during the inspection.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
10
Originally Posted By: rwills This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
All visible and readily accessible GFCI outlets will be tested.
– Bob Wills - MAB Chairman
BW Inspection Services
Warminster, Pa.
http://www.bwinspections.com
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
11
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
That’s better.
Hold on, let me run it by counsel.
One of our guys just got in a pinch for missing a GFCI behind an appliance and in the past there has been a strong argument for testing all GFCI's so we're trying to correct both with one swipe.
-- Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
12
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bwiley wrote:
All GFCI receptacles and circuit breakers found during the inspection.
"All GFCI protection found during the inspection is to be tested for operation."
Now, what happens when you test it and cannot find the reset?
"All GFCI protection found during the inspection is to be tested for operation with the GFCI's Test button."
Now, there is no risk of tripping another GFCI somewhere else off and not being able to find it.
Today the spa tub was protected by a GFCI "device" without a receptacle.
Regardless of what the GFCI protection is contained in (breaker, receptacle, device, whatever), the intent should be to test the GFCI "protection" for operation.
-- Jerry Peck
South Florida
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
13
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nope.
Can't use "readily accessible" because it could still be "readily accessible" without us noticing it.
Prefer not to use "found" as it implies that we have a duty to "find."
Hold on...
-- Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
14
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry, give me exact proposed wording. I’m sitting next to counsel.
– Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
15
Originally Posted By: rwills This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
Can't use "readily accessible" because it could still be "readily accessible without us noticing it.
That's why I put VISIBLE and Readily Accessible. A GFCI behind an appliance is not readily accessible as we are not required to move such items.
-- Bob Wills - MAB Chairman
BW Inspection Services
Warminster, Pa.
http://www.bwinspections.com
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
16
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
gromicko wrote:
Nope.
Can't use "readily accessible" because it could still be "readily accessible without us noticing it.
Prefer not to use "found" as it implies that we have a duty to "find."
Hold on...
Where did "readily accessible" come from??
Okay, this eliminates the "found".
"All GFCI's inspected are to be tested for operation of the GFCI protection circuit with the GFCI's Test button."
-- Jerry Peck
South Florida
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
17
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
But how do we protect the inspector who does not notice a visible GFCI and so does not test it?
– Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
18
Originally Posted By: rwills This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Training!
– Bob Wills - MAB Chairman
BW Inspection Services
Warminster, Pa.
http://www.bwinspections.com
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
19
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
gromicko wrote:
But how do we protect the inspector who does not notice a visible GFCI and so does not test it?
Then he did not "inspect" it, and my wording includes all those he "inspects".
-- Jerry Peck
South Florida
system
(system)
December 7, 2004, 12:00am
20
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Modify Blaine’s: “Test all GFCI receptacles and circuit breakers found during the inspection.” by changing “found” to “noticed” and add GFCI adjective in front of “circuit breakers” to read:
"test all GFCI receptacle and GFCI circuit breakers noticed during the inspection"
I have approval on this end.
-- Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.