Definitions - Securely Fastened, Accessible

Status
Not open for further replies.
petersonra said:
and it is not an individual either. it is a government entity created by law. not a person.
Click to expand...

Read the NEC definition of Authority Having Jurisdiction. The definition clearly states that the AHJ may be an "INDIVIDUAL" Then the informational note goes on to completely and unequivocally contradicts your incorrect assumption.
 
iwire said:
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.
Click to expand...

And why are you talking about that. The AHJ as designated by the code may be, "the property owner or his or her designated agent." Read article 100 of the NEC.
 
As the AHJ

As the AHJ

I started this thread looking for a clear definition of wiring methods that include the term 'securely fastened' and 'accessible', which has turned into a chain defining who is the AHJ and what power they have to enforce the NEC.

I am the AHJ, and represent our customer. That being said, I can only enforce rules as written in the NEC or other code references defined in the original SOW & RFQ. If I arbitrarily make a decision that is not clear in the NEC the contractor responds with a change order. Therefore, it is prudent to have the supporting documentation prior to telling a contractor to tear out their work. Otherwise, my customer gets hit with a price increase, which is not in the budget.

Thanks for all the support, but I guess there are no clear answers.
 
Wingrider said:
I started this thread looking for a clear definition of wiring methods that include the term 'securely fastened' and 'accessible', which has turned into a chain defining who is the AHJ and what power they have to enforce the NEC.

I am the AHJ, and represent our customer. That being said, I can only enforce rules as written in the NEC or other code references defined in the original SOW & RFQ. If I arbitrarily make a decision that is not clear in the NEC the contractor responds with a change order. Therefore, it is prudent to have the supporting documentation prior to telling a contractor to tear out their work. Otherwise, my customer gets hit with a price increase, which is not in the budget.

Thanks for all the support, but I guess there are no clear answers.
Click to expand...

That's because you're making it harder than it has to be. "securely fastened" means that it's not going to fall over or off the wall or what ever, there are a thousand ways to accomplish this. "Accessible" simply means you nead to be able to get to it, with out removing any permently attached building parts and yes you should be able to work on it.
 
"Secure" has to be one of the most confusing of terms.

Ask the Army to 'secure' a building, and they will form into fire teams, assault it, and prepare a hasty defense.

Ask the Navy to secure a building, and they will send over a rating with a padlock and some chain.

Ask the Air Force to secure a building, and a purchasing officer will call a realtor and arrange a lease.
 
Wingrider said:
I started this thread looking for a clear definition of wiring methods that include the term 'securely fastened' and 'accessible', which has turned into a chain defining who is the AHJ and what power they have to enforce the NEC.

I am the AHJ, and represent our customer. That being said, I can only enforce rules as written in the NEC or other code references defined in the original SOW & RFQ. If I arbitrarily make a decision that is not clear in the NEC the contractor responds with a change order. Therefore, it is prudent to have the supporting documentation prior to telling a contractor to tear out their work. Otherwise, my customer gets hit with a price increase, which is not in the budget.

Thanks for all the support, but I guess there are no clear answers.
Click to expand...


First off, I felt that the original question you asked was answered in the first couple of posts. I think others did as well. The second part of what you wrote, changes the dialog some. I don't know exactly what an SOW is, but I think I understand the gist. Somewhere in your contract with the customer there should be a clause similar to "clean and workmanlike manner" if there isn't there should be. I hope and assume that your desire to dictate strapping is based on a desire for good workmanship, not a arbitrary feeling that you don't like it.

I as an electrician would back you under the above "clean and workmanlike manner" clause if you told my competitor they couldn't use bent over nails, or plumbers tape, or duct tape, or tie wire/tie wraps around a column. As the AHJ and owner's rep you would have that right in my opinion. The catch, of course, is this is an opinion and everyone has one. Please explain either exactly or with example what you are running in to that you don't like.


PS, I notice that you clear up whether a person can be an AHJ! :thumbsup:
 
Strathead said:
Read the NEC definition of Authority Having Jurisdiction. The definition clearly states that the AHJ may be an "INDIVIDUAL" Then the informational note goes on to completely and unequivocally contradicts your incorrect assumption.
Click to expand...

You forget that the NEC is only enforcable because there is a government edict that says so. The law that made the code enforcable in that jurisdiction also defines just who can interpret it and it is not the inspector. There is usually some board (typically defined by the same law that made the NEC enforcable) that issues enforcable opinions on such things in each jurisdiction and/or creates exceptions and additional requirements for that jurisdiction. the inspector does not have any direct say in any of that, although in practice no doubt his opinion is taken into account.

while the code does allow that in some cases the AHJ might be an individual, in the case of government requirements that the public at large is required to comply with, it just isn't.

If you do not believe this, a quick trip to the library to read the law that created the building department or whoever enforces these things should convince you.
 
Last edited:
I believe I answered the "accessible" question plenty.
As far as securely fasten, I guess it was me who indirectly started the AHJ thingie.
What I meant in our area the AHJ requires us to have the materials either listed, or per code. As far as their authority they have the authority to adopt a code and a listing. They don't have authority to pull rules out of the air(for instance they can say:"we'll adopt the 2011 NEC starting July 1st 2012", but they can not add new rules to the code they adopted. or as many states did, they didn't adopt the AFCI change in the 2008 code, so they don't enforce it)
The securely fasten is a very gray area, just like the "neat manner" area. To me if it won't move under the normal conditions the area is supposed to be affected of, it's securely fastened. To others...... well.... I have seen inspectors pulling with all their might on a conduit and claimed it's not secured. Never mind the fact that said conduit was inside a wall, how many kids will REALLY swing from a conduit inside a wall?
In our area the AHJ will allow us to use tie wire to secure conduit, never tried bent nails. But then again, bent nails means a wood structure, which in our area means a house (pretty much everything else is metal and block). And in a house we'd use NM cable which we secure by staples(which are similar to bent nails).

Wingrider said:
I started this thread looking for a clear definition of wiring methods that include the term 'securely fastened' and 'accessible', which has turned into a chain defining who is the AHJ and what power they have to enforce the NEC.

I am the AHJ, and represent our customer. That being said, I can only enforce rules as written in the NEC or other code references defined in the original SOW & RFQ. If I arbitrarily make a decision that is not clear in the NEC the contractor responds with a change order. Therefore, it is prudent to have the supporting documentation prior to telling a contractor to tear out their work. Otherwise, my customer gets hit with a price increase, which is not in the budget.

Thanks for all the support, but I guess there are no clear answers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tie wire doesn't look very professional.
I'm out to impress the customer as well as passing inspection. and more importantly, I look back on a job, and say, "that looks nicely done."
 
the blur said:
Tie wire doesn't look very professional.
I'm out to impress the customer as well as passing inspection. and more importantly, I look back on a job, and say, "that looks nicely done."
Click to expand...

I for one, and I think most of us are referring to using tie wire concealed in a wall behind sheetrock or under concrete, never to be seen again.
 
Project progression

Project progression

As the job progressed the use of ty-wraps on liquid-tight flex being attached to the refrigerant line, which is insulated, has proven itself to be an unacceptable method of installation, which became very apparent when the system was energized. I thought the installation looked tacky, and wanted a foothold to reject it. I found it was installed by the walk-in freezer installers, not electricians. But, the installation of ty-wraps compressed the insulation and made it ineffective, thereby, gives me reason to reject it on operational grounds. This should not generate the dreaded change order to support the conduit independent of the refrigerant lines.

But, Strathead pointed to the definition of 'Accessible' as stated in the NEC and said that was pretty clear. I have seen LBs, boxes, etc. installed where a skinny wireman with a long screwdriver and touch it, and as far as the NEC definition goes, this is accessible. I am not a skinny wireman with a long screwdriver, therefore unaccessible to me. There seems to be a wide grey area in this definition, as there is in 'securely fastened'. If it was the simple answer I was looking for I could read the code book and perform my own interpretation, which may or may not, be the industry standard.

Thanks for the opinions.
 
Strife said:
I believe I answered the "accessible" question plenty.
As far as securely fasten, I guess it was me who indirectly started the AHJ thingie.
What I meant in our area the AHJ requires us to have the materials either listed, or per code. As far as their authority they have the authority to adopt a code and a listing. They don't have authority to pull rules out of the air(for instance they can say:"we'll adopt the 2011 NEC starting July 1st 2012", but they can not add new rules to the code they adopted. or as many states did, they didn't adopt the AFCI change in the 2008 code, so they don't enforce it)
The securely fasten is a very gray area, just like the "neat manner" area. To me if it won't move under the normal conditions the area is supposed to be affected of, it's securely fastened. To others...... well.... I have seen inspectors pulling with all their might on a conduit and claimed it's not secured. Never mind the fact that said conduit was inside a wall, how many kids will REALLY swing from a conduit inside a wall?
In our area the AHJ will allow us to use tie wire to secure conduit, never tried bent nails. But then again, bent nails means a wood structure, which in our area means a house (pretty much everything else is metal and block). And in a house we'd use NM cable which we secure by staples(which are similar to bent nails).
Click to expand...

Actually that's not correct. They can add to the code, but that may depend on state law. Here we can make then code more restrictive, but not less restrictive for the parts that we adopt. The only reasons that can be used to amend the code are climatic, geographic and topigraphic. Now when I say the parts we adopt, I'm talking about things like elevators, the state has elevator inspectors so we don't adopt article 620, we also don't adopt articles 551 or 552 and many others. Because of soil conditons in our area we require that you install a #4 bare copper in the footing on all new construction and don't allow any other method.

There was a time here when you not only needed the NEC, but you needed a copy of the City of Los Angeles Electrical Code. They used to have over 400 amendments to the NEC.

Also jurisdictions are only required to adopt a model code of some sort, they are not required to adopt the newest code. I know of jurisdictions that are still on the 1999 NEC, so they wouldn't require AFCI's. There are other Jurisdictions that adopted the NFPA 5000 codes and don't even use the NEC or the uniform codes.
 
Wingrider said:
But, Strathead pointed to the definition of 'Accessible' as stated in the NEC and said that was pretty clear. I have seen LBs, boxes, etc. installed where a skinny wireman with a long screwdriver and touch it, and as far as the NEC definition goes, this is accessible. I am not a skinny wireman with a long screwdriver, therefore unaccessible to me. There seems to be a wide grey area in this definition, as there is in 'securely fastened'. If it was the simple answer I was looking for I could read the code book and perform my own interpretation, which may or may not, be the industry standard.

Thanks for the opinions.
Click to expand...

You are the inspector right? IMO, if it were on my job and you said, "That LB is inaccessible." the burden of proof would be on me to prove that it is accessible. A long screwdriver, or a stubby screwdriver is not a "special tool", but a bent welded one probably is. However, just because I can get the cover off still doesn't make it accessible. I need to be able to work inside it. So I don;t see where there would be a problem. Again, IMO you should, as the AHJ, write up what you interpret as wrong. They generally can't proceed with a change order unless it is approved, so there is sill time to get a second opinion before authorizing a change or fighting them to do it for free. I have seen enough posts here to know that shoddy work is not something most of us tolerate in ourselves or others. We may err, but we are not going to argue when we are asked to fix our mistakes (except for the one guy who hasn't made any yet.)
 
cowboyjwc said:
Actually that's not correct. They can add to the code,
Click to expand...

\
I was going to make this comment myself, then I read his post more closely, and I beleive he was stating that the AHJ in his area can not modify the code, as opposed to the generic AHJ as defined by the code book. He is probably right. Here is Florida, local jurisdictions can interpret code, but they can not change it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top