Originally Posted By: jedwards This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
In general, should subpanels have the same guidelines for access (front-side clearance, height above floor, etc.) as main panels? Not really asking as a code issue, since as a HI I don’t quote code, but code answers are welcome. Really just looking for educated/experienced opinions. My gut feeling is yes, they should, but don’t hesitate (and I know you won’t!) to tell me I’m wrong.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
To expand on Mike P. reply: It’s more than just “in general”, it’s required.
Some leeway may have been allowed by the AHJ, and yes some use common sense, others (or the same ones) just let things slide, for several reasons: they just were not checking that at the time; they figured 'what can that hurt, it's already been installed, next time I'll make them put it someplace else; and many other reasons. Sometimes, they applied common sense judgment, and in those cases the safety of the installation should still be apparent.
Did I do that good so far Mike?
However, on the 'maybe they just weren't looking at that then' issue, if it looks unsafe now, and looks original, it was unsafe then, they just (being kind as there could be other reasons) were not checking for that then.
Like at yesterday's inspection. Main electrical panel in side wall of laundry room. The only problem is that the clothes dryer is right there under it. You have to knee or squat on the clothes dryer to remove the electrical panel cover and work on it. Original installation.
There is no way the AHJ used 'common sense' for that, the only feasible reason is that they 'just were not looking at that back then' (1979 in this case).
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
Like at yesterday's inspection. Main electrical panel in side wall of laundry room. The only problem is that the clothes dryer is right there under it. You have to knee or squat on the clothes dryer to remove the electrical panel cover and work on it. Original installation.
There is no way the AHJ used 'common sense' for that, the only feasible reason is that they 'just were not looking at that back then' (1979 in this case).
The inspector might have looked at this all day and could not have said anything.
As recently as the 1990 NEC this installation would be code compliant.
The requirement that the work space starts at the floor is not in the 1990 NEC, I am missing the 1993 but once we get to 1996 NEC this would be a violation.
Originally Posted By: jedwards This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks for the replies. Obviously a sticky area. Just seems like there should be some way, in the report, to note “limited freedom of movement around panel” and “advise caution when working at or around panel”, without crossing the code-quoting line. The prohibition against quoting code is clear; but on the flip side if, you were well aware of a safety issue that the client just may not have thought much about (after all, isn’t that our job?), and you didn’t note it at all for fear of the code police, and someone was injured because of that problem, wouldn’t place you in a potentially nasty E&O liability situation? (Of course, my first concern is safety, but I want to CMA as well…)
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I would just list it as a “Safety Concern” or something similar, and note that it may have been acceptable at the time it was installed, but may not meet the letter of “current safety standards”. Not a big deal, but just something to note. Good pick up.
– Robert O’Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob Badger wrote:
The inspector might have looked at this all day and could not have said anything.
As recently as the 1990 NEC this installation would be code compliant.
The requirement that the work space starts at the floor is not in the 1990 NEC, I am missing the 1993 but once we get to 1996 NEC this would be a violation.
Bob,
This is from my 1975 NEC.
110-16. Working Spaces About Electrical Equipment (600 Volts or less Nominal) Sufficient access and working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment.
While the stated requirement of extend to the floor is not there, the most important part is: "to permit ready and safe". There is not "ready" about that and you certainly cannot consider it "safe".
Yes, it was used by some to stretch the intent and say 'hey, that is code compliant', but that is one of the reason for the code changes, to clarify and eliminate those who try to stretch things to meet what they want to install.
Electricians used to do it all the time, so did electrical inspectors, and partially because of that, the code has become more precise on many items. Note that I did not say all, just many.
jedwards "The prohibition against quoting code is clear;" What prohibition? Where?
It is a big deal when the electrician working on it in limited space is electrocuted. Why would anyone call it 'no big deal'? On my inspection I pointed it out to my buyer, who immediately recognized the danger of it. He will be relocating the panel to the garage (many times it can be flipped around to face the other room, however, in this case, that was the kitchen and the refrigerator was right there, not possible to flip it around).
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry … it’s not a big deal and not something I would list as a “Major Defect” since it appears to meet the code at the time of install, and any electrican working on that older system should recognize the hazard inherent in the previously acceptable practice, or maybe they really shouldn’t have an electricians license.
Electricians work on older systems all the time, that do not comply with the letter of current model codes or safety standards. Does that mean it is a major item and a "major defect" ... I dont think so ... 
Let me put it this way ... given the option of writing that up as a "Safety Concern" or "Major Defect" how would you write it up? If you said "Major defect" that requires immediate correction by a licensed professional I would say you are all wet ...
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jedwards This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry,
Please know that I share your concern for safety as job one. That was why I posed the question in the first place. But I'll be the first to acknowledge that I have no business quoting code, whether I'm explicitly prohibited by the AHJ or not. In my opinion, if I quote chapter and verse from the NEC in writing, then I'd better be prepared to do the same for every other system in the home, and I'm not qualified to do that, and likely won't be before I'm ready to retire. That's not to say that I won't pull out the code check book to show the client when appropriate. But if I write up your panel above the dryer in general terms as a safety concern, and then a licensed sparky gets lit up working on it, I'll feel terrible, but not because I didn't do everything I'm qualified to do to prevent it.
The best I can do is to combine what little common sense I've got with the training and experience I'm able to acquire, and give my client the best evaluation I'm qualified to deliver. Some of the biggest mistakes I've ever made (and I've made plenty!) happened when I pinned on the invisible badge of authority and spouted off about something that I knew just enough about to be dangerous.
I envy your knowledge and experience, and admire the courage of your convictions and your commitment to safety. Thanks for sharing the benefit of your wisdom so freely.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Well said John …
[I mean about your previous comments in general ... and I think you realy meant to agree with Jerry, but with a qualification ... and that's okay ... it's your call]
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
While the stated requirement of extend to the floor is not there, the most important part is: "to permit ready and safe". There is not "ready" about that and you certainly cannot consider it "safe".
Jerry what is unsafe about it?
If I was the electrician working on the panel you describe I could either move the dryer or jump up on top of it.
Get real, this is not uncommon to find panels in older buildings that do not meet the work space requirements of today that does not make them unsafe.
Put in the report as lacking the space required today, but please tell me this would not go in your report as an unsafe condition. 
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry sees only black and white. That’s fine, and it’s certainly his perrogative.
If I wrote up every panel that doesnt have clear space in front of and to the floor, or on the sides, I'd be writing up more than half of the inspections I perform. Bob's right. Move the obstruction out of the way, refuse to work on the panel, or deal with the obstruction. Jerry would never survive in NY City. There, the panels, electricians, storage, machinery, and rats all share the common space.
Again don't get flustered at Jerry's staunch position. There is a commonality on all of his responses.
-- Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob Badger wrote:
Jerry what is unsafe about it?
If I was the electrician working on the panel you describe I could either move the dryer or jump up on top of it.
Bob,
You just stated what was wrong with it.
It must have "ready access". You should not have to move the clothes dryer.
It must have "safe access". Squatting or kneeling on the clothes dryer is not hardly "safe".
Quote:
Get real, this is not uncommon to find panels in older buildings that do not meet the work space requirements of today that does not make them unsafe.
Tell that to the electrician who gets shocked or electrocuted when he loses his balance and falls into it.
Quote:
Put in the report as lacking the space required today, but please tell me this would not go in your report as an unsafe condition. 
I put it in my report as needing to be either flipped to the other side of the wall (when practical, in this case it was not) or relocated.
I do it all the time, as do other inspectors down here.
Quote:
Use some common sense as Mike P suggested.
I do, you can look at it and see it is unsafe. My client can look at it and see it is unsafe (he did). If that is not common sense, what is? Ignoring a safety problem until someone is injured?
That's like the code panels saying they are not yet ready to require GFCI protection at laundry room sink - because "not enough people have died YET".
Originally Posted By: rpalac This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If I may chime in…
The electrical code NEC is a code that is drawn up for protection. It state that existing instalations do not have to be updated unless it is deamed by the local governing body (if they use the NEC as a guide) or if it is unsafe.
The code at one time alowed you to put panels mounted on the ceiling as long as it wasn't above 8 feet. Only a couple of years ago you put a panel in a closet. Today you can't. The clearances are for the safty and convienience of the servicing individual. If you wrote up the fact that clearances of and agragate side to side should be 30 inches and front of 36 inches. You wouldn't be wrong, but you would be a stickler. On commercial buildings I do write this up as a violation and in residential I say it as oh byu the way it's proper to but....Just so they understand.
As an electrician, yeah have cussed at some access areas to panels but if you want to get paid you better do the work. As a seller or buyer.....you gotta be nut's if you think I'm going to move a panel for your convienience. I buy, strip, re-build and flip homes.....if you complained about a panel because of a dryer in front of it. I'm sure I'd find it as a typical design build and say it was common practice by teh builder and the code of that time and there fore it is granfathered in. No one would argue the fact. If they did they probably didn't want the house to start with or they have a laundry list of items I wouldn't deal with.
Once again, I'm not saying your wrong, but there is a point where you become a little over the edge with how it is presented or if it is a HAZARD or NOT.
\
Bob P.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jfarsetta wrote:
Well, at least he's consistent...
Joe,
My clients want to know, so I tell them. Many inspectors down here do the same, to lesser or greater extent. Other HIs down here just gloss right over everything.
My point was, and is, it was not acceptable then and it is still not acceptable. 'Not acceptable then" based on the "ready and safe" access requirement of the time.
Predictable? I have no problem with that. An HI needs to be consistent in the way they address things. They should not address them one way for one client, then another way for another client.
