light over tub

[iwire]

Re: light over tub

First I say that because the first thing we have to determine is who is the AHJ.

In my area the local inspector is not the AHJ and can not make interpretations of the NEC.

Second any latitude the NEC provides is in sections that say "by special permission" which is the written permission of the AHJ.

In my area this ain't going to happen.

If an AHJ was to call a obviously dry location a wet location it could go to court and IMO the AHJ would lose.

An AHJ has some latitude within reasonable boundaries.

If an AHJ really wants a change to the NEC they need to amend it when adopted.

 

[iwire]

Re: light over tub

Originally posted by haskindm:
You may not like it, but the NEC practically gives the AHJ a "blank check".

No way, not where I work anyway.

That is like saying the Police can enforce the law in their own interpretation

 

[physis]

Re: light over tub

If you are not confident that the inspectors in your jurisdiction are capable of handling the tremendous responsibility, power, and authority that the NEC gives them you need to work on having someone else appointed as the AHJ.

The NEC is not where a municipality gets it's "power".

An inspector does not wield whatever that power is.

 

[haskindm]

Re: light over tub

I think you are missing the point. The "power' is given to the AHJ by the NEC. If your jurisdiction accepts the NEC and does not modify these section then the power is given to the AHJ. Is the inspector the AHJ? In most jurisdictions they are. In some they are not. (Where I live, they are not. I know this because the "Board of Electrical Examiners" is the AHJ and I am a member of that board) The AHJ is the person that approves equipment and materials - see 90.4. The AHJ does not HAVE to approve a piece of equipment because it is UL listed (unless you are in MA and they have made that mandatory). It is not like a policeman interpreting the law. The NEC makes the AHJ the policeman, the lawyer, the judge, and the jury. If you carefully read article 90 you can reach no other conclusion. The question is not IF the AHJ has the power but WHO is the AHJ in your jurisdiction? As an electrician it is crucial that you know who the AHJ is and it would be in your best interest for that person to be highly qualified.

[ August 12, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: haskindm ]

 

[infinity]

Re: light over tub

With all of this talk of policemen and judges et.al., is it possible that this entire thread began simply because the inspector made a mistake? He is trying to make a wet location out of something that isn't. That should be the argument, not whether or not he has the power to be wrong and enforce his mistake.

 

[physis]

Re: light over tub

I think you are missing the point. The "power' is given to the AHJ by the NEC

I don't believe I'm missing the point. I'm no civics expert but the NEC is not where any kind of power comes from. Actually I believe their power is usurped but I'll spare everybody.

One of the powers is to chose to adopt the NEC.

And an agent of the municipality that possesses these powers is not himself that power.

 

[mvannevel]

Re: light over tub

That is like saying the Police can enforce the law in their own interpretation

Ever seen that happen? Ever been pulled over for going 10 MPH over the speed limit and only been given a warning? Look, I'm not comparing inspectors to policemen per se, but it's an officers job to determine if an activity he witnesses is against the law or not. In lots of instances, a judge or jury decides that it wasn't. It's an inspectors job to look at an installation and decide if it meets the requirements of the code. If that inspector isn't the AHJ, then he hasn't the right to make a number of the decisions he makes each day. He would have to take each of these instances back to whatever his municipality deemed the AHJ and let them make the decision. Any idea how cumbersome that would be? You want to use an installation that you believe is equivalent to what the code requires but you'll need "special permission" from the AHJ. The inspector (who for this example is NOT the AHJ) comes out, looks the installation over, and then says that the Board (who IS the AHJ) meets a week from next Tuesday and you'll have their written decision in about a week after that. Now that would be handy.

That AHJ business doesn't give an inspector the right to ride rough shod over all of the installations in his area. It gives him the right to ENFORCE the code as it is adopted by his municipality. And to do that, he must make interpretations of what that code says. Look at all of the different interpretations given on different posts on here regarding what the code says. It's not an easy code to interpret. It's always the same thing, if an inspector agrees with your interpretation of the code he's a nice guy, and if he doesn't he's an a--hole. It's been that way ever since I've been in the trade, and I'm sure it will always be that way.

[ August 15, 2005, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: mvannevel ]

 

[physis]

Re: light over tub

I haven't read your entire post. It is of course true that someone can be wrongly "charged".

Without taking a position that would defend any officer who would abuse his authority, (building dept. as well) no one has done anything wrong until a judge has desided that to be the case.

In the real world, with electrical installations, we rarely need a judge to decide.

We have disagreements, and most of the time for understandable reasons.

 

[mvannevel]

Re: light over tub

Originally posted by physis:
Without taking a position that would defend any officer who would abuse his authority, (building dept. as well) no one has done anything wrong until a judge has desided that to be the case.

In the real world, with electrical installations, we rarely need a judge to decide.

And that's why I didn't want to exactly compare law enforcement officers to code enforcement officers. Though the differences are huge, there are some similarities, especially in the interpretations and discretion they use. And nobody likes it when either of them overstep their authority or abuse it.

Here's the point I was trying to make. If the code were not written in permissive language, and if there were no exceptions in it, and if everything was black-and-white in the articles there would be no interpretations to make. And as such, it wouldn't matter whether or not the inspector was the AHJ or if it was the Building Commissioner or some appointed board. But, the Code is full of instances where the AHJ has to make an interpretation. 110.2 says that conductors and equipment required or permitted by the code shall be approved. The definition of approved is acceptable to the AHJ. And that's just a broad, general statement. There are numerous other instances in various articles where you are required to use an "approved" raceway etc. If the inspector is not the AHJ, he can't rightfully make these calls. And, if he does, he's hanging his fanny on the line when it should be someone elses out there in the breeze. As I said earlier, if the guy who comes out to do the inspection has to check back with the actual AHJ every time there's a judgement call to be made it becomes an incredibly difficult and complex system to get a job approved. Here in my area, Electrical Boards and Appeals boards can decide if the codes were administered correctly, but can make no interpretation of the code. Each state (and sometimes each municipality) does it their own way, this is just my take on the issue based on how we do it here.

 

[haskindm]

Re: light over tub

Here is an example of how it works when the electric board is the AHJ and not the inspector. 99% of the time the inspector makes his interpretations and approvals and all is fine. Occasionally there will be a case where the inspector (in this case a person contracted by the county to perform inspections) makes a decision with which the electrician does not agree. The electrician may then appeal the decision to the electric board (AHJ). In one case the electrician installed some fixtures under a canvas canopy above the windows of a local restaurant. The inspector turned it down because he considered this a wet location. The electrician pointed to the definition of Damp Location in article 100 that specifically says the area under a "canopy" is a damp location. There was much discussion over what the code meant by the word "canopy". Could a cloth structure be a canopy? What would happen when/if the canape was damaged and no longer protected the fixture? How waterproof does cloth need to be in order to qualify as a "canopy". The issue was resolved when it was pointed out that the canopy was mounted 2" off the wall and the light fixture mounted securely to the wall. Any water running down the wall would run directly into the light fixture. That made this (in the opinion of the AHJ) a definite wet location. Someone has to be able to make these judgement calls. The code just cannot foresee and cover every possibility and every installation. There is an AHJ on every job. It is the electrician's responsibility to find out who that is. And it is the AHJ's responsibility to interpret the NEC and approve equipment.

 

[iwire]

Re: light over tub

Originally posted by haskindm:
There is an AHJ on every job. It is the electrician's responsibility to find out who that is. And it is the AHJ's responsibility to interpret the NEC and approve equipment.

No, do not speak for this area, the AHJ is NOT on the job.

The inspector is on the job, thats; it.

Keep in mind the NEC has nothing to do with enforcement, each area can decide how they want to enforce the NEC that they adopt and amend.

 

[haskindm]

Re: light over tub

I should have said that there is an AHJ FOR every job. If the NEC is adopted SOMEONE must perform the duties of the AHJ. Someone must approve the materials, someone must interpret the rules. Different people will fill the role of AHJ on different jobs and in different jurisdictions, but the whle NEC is predicated on someone having the authority to act as the AHJ.

 

[physis]

Re: light over tub

haskindm, I think you might be confusing the fact that while an inspector does have some authority, he or she is not the authority having jurisdiction. The AHJ is the municipality as a whole.

 

[haskindm]

Re: light over tub

It depends on to whom the jurisdiction grants the power of the AHJ. For years in our jurisdiction, the AHJ was the inspector. Recently the county commissioners (who are responsible for adopting the NEC) have specifically named the electric board as the AHJ. AHJ is now defined in the 2005 code as the "organization, office, or individual responsible for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure." Then there is a long FPN about who may fulfill the role of AHJ in different situations. In most cases the municipality will transfer AHJ authority to some entity. It would be a sad state if we needed our county commssioners to perform the duties of the AHJ, they are not qualified nor could they do this in a timely manner. My point is that all of the NEC is based on someone acting as the AHJ. If there is no AHJ the NEC just does not work.

 

[physis]

Re: light over tub

My point is that all of the NEC is based on someone acting as the AHJ.

Not "someone" some "entity".

Although that isn't actually precluded, but we don't have a single sheriff running the county anymore.

Edit: Error B

[ August 16, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[mvannevel]

Re: light over tub

Originally posted by physis:
haskindm, I think you might be confusing the fact that while an inspector does have some authority, he or she is not the authority having jurisdiction. The AHJ is the municipality as a whole.

You could be right and it be the whole municipal government, or that authority could be delegated to an individual inspector or group of inspectors. It all depends on how your state, county, city, or township sets it up. So, it's important to know just who this authority is. No sense in discussing a red tag with the inspector if he's not the authority. You'd have to discuss it with the municipal government unless they delegate the authority to do so to that inspector. It could be partial authority or the full mantle of the AHJ. That's not to say that any of these ways are right or wrong. Just that it's important to understand how the governmental subdivision you are working in has it set up. As I stated in a different post, here in Michigan the state defines the individual building departments as the AHJ, and those departments delegate that authority to the individual inspectors in each discipline. So here, the inspector actually is the AHJ. There are still Electrical Boards and Boards of Appeal, but they can't make interpretations of the code. Funny thing, the NEC is the most widely adopted code standard, but application and administration of it vary from location to location all across the country.