3 Likes
That IS within the scope of a home inspection in Ohio.
See Dennis gets it!
I’ve been following this thread for awhile, even though I’m in Virginia and it doesn’t affect me. I’m not an attorney, but my read of Ohio’s law is that if you do/hire out any electrical work on your home in Ohio that requires an electrical (building) permit, that work must be “inspected” (“approved” would be a better word) by the AHJ’s inspector. Neither a home inspector nor a licensed electrician can “approve” the work to satisfy the AHJ’s requirement for an inspection after work is complete. Rather, only “the building inspector” can approve it, and they must meet all the licensing requirements Mr. Parks has been citing.
I don’t think the law’s change has anything to do with what a home inspector is tasked with doing according to our SOP, and I would surmise that’s why they include the language for “readily accessible”, which mimics our SOP’s. To me, the law is simply saying Joe Homeowner cannot wire up his basement remodel himself, and then hire a home inspector to say it’s all good. It’s codification that home inspectors (and licensed electricians) are not code inspectors.
3 Likes
Terry I see no problems with your post.
I would like to hear your thoughts after your reading of the definition of readily accessible in both RC 4764 and the NEC. Both of which apply in Ohio
You should know that you live in an area with no AHJ anyone can wire your home and it is never inspected. The NEC must be followed but can not be enforced.
I agree with what Chuck Evans said in Post 6 about the two different definitions for readily accessible. You are applying a definition in the NEC as if it was written for the language in 4764.01 concerning home inspectors. The language specific to home inspectors would not preclude removing a panel cover. The fact that the NEC defines readily accessible differently would not be relevant to the home inspector.
In Virginia, we do have local AHJ’s which enforce the building code, including the NEC. So yes, you can wire your own home, but you are required to get a electrical (building) permit if you do, and that requires a final inspection by the AHJ. Of course, Joe Homeowner may decide not to get a permit and thus not to get it inspected. But when he goes to sell, and the buyer hires a home inspector, guess who is going to detect that he did not wire it properly?
1 Like
The NEC definition is stand alone.
Nothing prevent a home inspector from removing the cover. The issue is that removing it is outside of a home inspection. It is not readily accessible because of 4764.01.
“any other action that will involve risk to a person” - removing the dead front involves risk (if the panel is energized) - therefore it is not readily accessible.
(G) “Readily accessible” means available for visual inspection without requiring a person to ***** take any other action that will involve risk to a person or **********.
Why would lawmakers add risk to a person? They wanted it to be clear that risky actions are not part of a home inspection or part of an inspectors duties.
That is why the SOP was changed from “shall” to “readily accessible” to match the new Ohio law.
Well at least you’re referencing the correct definition. Now you just need to stop reading into it what it doesn’t say.
Please - I am having an intelligent conversation with Terry.
No, Simmie, all 120 volt garage receptacles need to be GFCI protected. One can install a GFCI receptacle on the wall and, if wired correctly, have the other receptacles, including for the O.H. door opener, GFCI protected via the one receptacle. 
The intelligent part is all one-sided.
Now that you’ve finally figured out which definition for “readily accessible” applies, try actually reading it rather than reading what you want into it.
3 Likes
Thanks Larry
If the GDO receptacles are on a separate circuit, as most are, you can retrofit by installing a GFCI breaker.
Why would you ‘add’ a GFCI to a GDO?
If, for some reason, they had to adhere to the code that states that. 
I don’t know of any code that makes you add to existing installations.
It was a how explanation, not a why.
But to answer your question: Some people may want to do it for the very same reason that it was added to the code, to begin with (people have been electrocuted by garages doors - Google it). What dumb question for someone who’s profession is supposed to be electrical safety. Why would you ever add GFCI to a kitchen countertop receptacle if it wasn’t required when the house was built?
2 Likes
Boy, you really are thick, Michael. 
See how Chuck helped you understand:
2 Likes
That requirement is in conflict with the NEC. It is a lesser requirement than the code that addressed the electrocutions involving garage doors.
On another point the NEC also has a retroactive component regarding adding gfi protection when there are changes made and the current requirements call for gfi protection.
Kind of sad when an inspector has so little knowledge of probably the most adopted electrical code even when they don’t cite it. I would think they would try to use it as a guideline or reference instead of just opinion. Not going to look very knowledgeable citing something in compliance with the code, especially when the “defect” is refuted by someone with specific knowledge of the subject.
Leaving the petty bickering out of this thread I feel like I am missing the point where a generalist is allowed to inspect a panel. Since the HI does not cite code what is the basis for the inspection. But it seems like they cannot open the panel?