Definitions - Securely Fastened, Accessible

[Wingrider]

I have a couple of terms from the NEC that seem to cause questions in the field.

What is meant by 'securely fastened' as used in the NEC? I have seen several different attachments, including; tie-wire, ty-wraps, bent nails, using refrigerant line supports, etc. Is there any way to make installing contractors use proper conduit straps for their installations? I can't seem to point at the NEC and declare their technique a violation if it meets the distance and secure portions of conduit installations.

What is the interpretation of 'Accessible'? When applied to wiring methods the NEC says, "Capable of being removed or exposed...." Does the exposed part mean that if I can get a beam of light on the LB, box, etc. it is exposed? Or, should it be required to actually touch the fitting?

 

[petersonra]

I have a couple of terms from the NEC that seem to cause questions in the field.

What is meant by 'securely fastened' as used in the NEC? I have seen several different attachments, including; tie-wire, ty-wraps, bent nails, using refrigerant line supports, etc. Is there any way to make installing contractors use proper conduit straps for their installations? I can't seem to point at the NEC and declare their technique a violation if it meets the distance and secure portions of conduit installations.

What is the interpretation of 'Accessible'? When applied to wiring methods the NEC says, "Capable of being removed or exposed...." Does the exposed part mean that if I can get a beam of light on the LB, box, etc. it is exposed? Or, should it be required to actually touch the fitting?

JMNSHO.

Securely fastened means it ain't gonna move by itself, or because of of normal conditions such as vibration or wind. I see nothing inherently wrong with any of the methods you mentioned. If you do not like one or more of these methods and you are in a position to enforce it, you can ban the methods you do not like.

Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of
being removed or exposed without damaging the building
structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure
or finish of the building.

I think that is pretty clear. If you have to damage part of the building to get it out or to work on it, is is not accessible.

 

[Strathead]

JMNSHO.

Securely fastened means it ain't gonna move by itself, or because of of normal conditions such as vibration or wind. I see nothing inherently wrong with any of the methods you mentioned. If you do not like one or more of these methods and you are in a position to enforce it, you can ban the methods you do not like.

I have run in to several people in the area I am now located who try to tell me that tie wire is not legal and that an inspector would shoot it down. I defy them to prove it. None has yet. This is one that I would actually fight for. I see guys buy TSGB brackets at over $2 each and straps and screws to secure conduit rising betwee stud to above ceiling, when a piece of 1/2" EMT and 3 feet of tie wire will secure the conduit as tightly or probably more tightly. Not on my job!

On a side note. One thing that has always bugged me in this same vein is the use of J hangers. I have seen these used and accepted, but what is "fastened securely" about these?

 

[Strife]

In our area the AHJ requires us to use UL listed materials. If a nail is not listed to secure a conduit that we can't use it. If your AHJ doesn't, then use your judgement:"Is it secured, will it damage the conduit, NM cable, etc?"
As far as accessible, there seems to always be a confusion between "accessible" and "READILY accessible"
Accessible, for the most part means, to be accessible without having to remove structural parts of the building, or items fastened in place. (IE Drywall). And that's where the confusion comes, it doesn't mean it has to be accessible without effort. Just because you need to bring an extension ladder to get to it doesn't mean is not accessible, or just because you'll need a stubby screwdriver to open the cover doesn't mean is not accessible.
That's what "READILY accessible" means. Pretty much accessible without effort or additional equipment.
HOWEVER, do not confuse accessible with "not having to meet the clearance required".
A panelboard breaker handles need to be "readily accessible" (meaning you can't have them at 10' high). A disconnect used as equipment means of disconnect within sight does NOT have to be readily accessible, but it still requires the clearance. And last a 1900 box with a switch serving as means of disconnect for a small motor will require to be accessible, but it won't require to be readily accessible, nor comply with the clearance.

I have a couple of terms from the NEC that seem to cause questions in the field.

What is meant by 'securely fastened' as used in the NEC? I have seen several different attachments, including; tie-wire, ty-wraps, bent nails, using refrigerant line supports, etc. Is there any way to make installing contractors use proper conduit straps for their installations? I can't seem to point at the NEC and declare their technique a violation if it meets the distance and secure portions of conduit installations.

What is the interpretation of 'Accessible'? When applied to wiring methods the NEC says, "Capable of being removed or exposed...." Does the exposed part mean that if I can get a beam of light on the LB, box, etc. it is exposed? Or, should it be required to actually touch the fitting?

 

[iwire]

I have run in to several people in the area I am now located who try to tell me that tie wire is not legal and that an inspector would shoot it down. I defy them to prove it. None has yet.

And they can't.

In some areas tie wire is often used as a secure means of support and in many cases much stronger than say a caddy bang on or an Arlington 'quicklatch' (A plastic clip listed for RMC support :huh


http://www.av-outlet.com/images/arlington/quicklatch.pdf

 

[petersonra]

In our area the AHJ requires us to use UL listed materials.

So you can't use any fasteners at all? how do you attach conduit clips to the wall?

 

[Strathead]

In our area the AHJ requires us to use UL listed materials. If a nail is not listed to secure a conduit that we can't use it. If your AHJ doesn't, then use your judgement:"Is it secured, will it damage the conduit, NM cable, etc?"

What area is that? Does the AHJ have the authority to make that costly declaration? This is one of those areas that I would be respectful of the AHJ, but I would fight to either get him overruled or change his mind.

 

[petersonra]

What area is that? Does the AHJ have the authority to make that costly declaration? This is one of those areas that I would be respectful of the AHJ, but I would fight to either get him overruled or change his mind.

you keep saying "him" when referring to the AHJ.

the AHJ is almost never a person. it is the entity charged with this power by law for most of us. an inspector is never the AHJ and has no authority whatsoever to make this kind of determination.

 

[Strathead]

you keep saying "him" when referring to the AHJ.

the AHJ is almost never a person. it is the entity charged with this power by law for most of us. an inspector is never the AHJ and has no authority whatsoever to make this kind of determination.

I agree with you in theory. However, in my limited experience with local municipalities, I am used to dealing with one or two inspectors from each district or area I work. The represent the Authority Having Jurisdiction and I have yet to have an institution shoot me down for a code violation. I am thinking right now of an incident where I was told I must do something and my co-workers stated that it was always required by that inspector. I corrected the "error" and then the next time I was talking to his boss I brought up the question in casual conversation. It stopped being an issue and I didn't royally irritate the inspector. I can't remember what the code issue was now. It was a few years ago.

Back to it. The AHJ is almost always represented by a person and that person is usually an inspector in my experience. I hope others chime in here, because the more I think about it the more I know that when things are subject to interpretation it is always a person who anwsers me not an entity. Hence He since I am a Male Chauvanist Pig.

 

[cowboyjwc]

It's in the NEC what the AHJ is "An organization, office, or individual responsible for enforcing the requirement of a code...." Then read the FPN "....building official; electrical inspector; or others having statutory authority."

In this jurisdiction I am not the AHJ, the building official is and since I work for the building official I am in turn a deputy for the building official and in the field I am the AHJ. Now, yes, the building official can over ride me at any time, but very few building officials came up through the electrical trade and very seldom will you find one that will over ride the electricial inspector.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In my opinion where a unit of government has legally adopted a code, the AHJ is never a person. It is the unit of government that has the legal authority to adopt the code. The "people" enforce the code, exactly like police officers enforcing the law. Neither the inspector nor the police officer have the authority to make new "laws". They both have limited authority to interpret the law.

 

[Strathead]

In my opinion where a unit of government has legally adopted a code, the AHJ is never a person. It is the unit of government that has the legal authority to adopt the code. The "people" enforce the code, exactly like police officers enforcing the law. Neither the inspector nor the police officer have the authority to make new "laws". They both have limited authority to interpret the law.

The code says, the AHJ shall... throughout. So the code is not the AHJ. Look at what Don posted. It is quotes from the code that desgnate people who could be the AHJ. There can actually be several AHJ's on the same project. The comparison to Police officers is marginal at best, because they still have the District Attorney and the courts/juries to convince, but they interpret laws and use their judgement all the time. For example the law says you shall not drive recklessly. It is up to the police officer to determine whether your driving is reckless.

 

[iwire]

It seems to me that whatever body that adopts the code could designate anyone they want to be the 'AHJ" even if that means they give that power to each inspector.

 

[Strathead]

It seems to me that whatever body that adopts the code could designate anyone they want to be the 'AHJ" even if that means they give that power to each inspector.

That is sort of true. If you are doing work in a school, for example and the Head of the maintenance department says that your installation does not meet the code say, he feels that a PVC conduit is subject to damage and you don't. You can appeal to his superiors to get that changed, but you can not just ignore him, because he has authority to make that interpretation. Hence he is an Authority having Jurisdiction. It is quite common for the Engineer of Record to tbe the AHJ for many aspects of a project. The code has to be interpreted. It does not cover every situation and it clearly makes allowance for persons to be designated as interpreters

 

[iwire]

That is sort of true. If you are doing work in a school, for example and the Head of the maintenance department says that your installation does not meet the code say, he feels that a PVC conduit is subject to damage and you don't. You can appeal to his superiors to get that changed, but you can not just ignore him, because he has authority to make that interpretation. Hence he is an Authority having Jurisdiction. It is quite common for the Engineer of Record to tbe the AHJ for many aspects of a project. The code has to be interpreted. It does not cover every situation and it clearly makes allowance for persons to be designated as interpreters

That is not what I mean at all.

I am talking about the AHJ legally powered by the state, city town etc. That is not going to be the head of the maintenance department.

 

[petersonra]

That is not what I mean at all.

I am talking about the AHJ legally powered by the state, city town etc. That is not going to be the head of the maintenance department.

and it is not an individual either. it is a government entity created by law. not a person.

 

[iwire]

and it is not an individual either. it is a government entity created by law. not a person.

Again In my opinion and the words of the NEC it can in fact be an individual.

 

[petersonra]

The code says, the AHJ shall... throughout. So the code is not the AHJ. Look at what Don posted. It is quotes from the code that desgnate people who could be the AHJ. There can actually be several AHJ's on the same project. The comparison to Police officers is marginal at best, because they still have the District Attorney and the courts/juries to convince, but they interpret laws and use their judgement all the time. For example the law says you shall not drive recklessly. It is up to the police officer to determine whether your driving is reckless.

Cops have zero authority to interpret the law. Only judges can do that.

Cops do use discretion in enforcing what they believe the law to be, but they have no say in determining what it is. Inspectors are in the same position. In practice, this distinction is often lost to the casual observer.

In the case you cited it is not up to the cop to decide you are driving recklessly. That is a matter of fact that is up to a jury or judge. The cop can only charge you with it. Most states there are certain things like a certain amount of speed over the limit that automatically qualify for reckless, but the cop has no say in that either. Again, in practice it is a distinction that is not always clear.

My understanding is that no one who has not been granted the power explicitly either by statute or regulation has any actual authority to interpret the code in any way. That does not mean that an inspector might not make a mistake in what he/she believes the code to be. Or tend to overlook certain things. Much like cops tend to overlook minor speeding violations.

 

[petersonra]

Again In my opinion and the words of the NEC it can in fact be an individual.

It can under certain cases, but not in the cases we were discussing regarding governmentally required compliance with the code. Due process would not be followed if that were the case. I realize there is a bit of a distinction here that may not be real obvious, or matter much in real life.

 

[iwire]

It can under certain cases, but not in the cases we were discussing regarding governmentally required compliance with the code. Due process would not be followed if that were the case. I realize there is a bit of a distinction here that may not be real obvious, or matter much in real life.

I will still disagree.

Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). An organization,
office, or individual responsible for enforcing the requirements
of a code or standard, or for approving equipment,
materials, an installation, or a procedure.