110.3 b

[ceb58]

Looking for opinions. As we know 110.3 B states that the mfg. instructions are to be followed for elect. installations. But what if it is something specified by a 3ed party.
Here is an example. Electricians wired a communication building. They are using the conduit as an EGC for gen. purpose recpt. which by NEC is acceptable. However,Motorola has a standard, R-56, for communication buildings that we adhere to. There standard for this is an EGC must be ran with the phase conductors. So would this be a violation of 310.3 B even if it doesn't directly involve there equipment?

 

[480sparky]

Not an NEC violation. It may, however, show up on a punch list, and you may delay any payments tied to that work.

 

[Buck Parrish]

It's common for specs to call for a egc to be ran with the phase conductors.
Some engineers may use a generic list of requirements. Others enforce it.

 

[resistance]

I agree with the above. To add: Personally, I'm against using conduit as an EGC, so I'm with Motorola.

 

[LEO2854]

Rember that if the custermer wants a ECG thats more wire to mark up more profit and it is OK with 110.3B

 

[jumper]

It's common for specs to call for a egc to be ran with the phase conductors.
Some engineers may use a generic list of requirements. Others enforce it.

In my experience, inspectors will generally enforce the specs as written by the engineer.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

I agree with the above. To add: Personally, I'm against using conduit as an EGC, so I'm with Motorola.

I'm wondering what reasoning you use to justify using a less effective (wire) EGC in the place of a more effective pipe EGC

 

[masterinbama]

In my experience, inspectors will generally enforce the specs as written by the engineer.

Ours used to try and do that. They were reminded in court that they are code enforcement officials who are employed by the city, not the engineer.
Unless the requirements are on the approved drawings, not just in the specification book

 

[Split Bolt]

I agree with the above. To add: Personally, I'm against using conduit as an EGC, so I'm with Motorola.

I'm not AGAINST using conduit as an EGC, but I like to pull one through as well. That way, I'm sure. You never know what's going to happen to your conduit in the future.

 

[jumper]

Ours used to try and do that. They were reminded in court that they are code enforcement officials who are employed by the city, not the engineer.
Unless the requirements are on the approved drawings, not just in the specification book

You are probably right, IDK.

I have not really had too many problems with inspectors or engineers; however, Fire Marshalls can be a PITA.

 

[steve66]

Ours used to try and do that. They were reminded in court that they are code enforcement officials who are employed by the city, not the engineer.
Unless the requirements are on the approved drawings, not just in the specification book

What difference would that make (having something on the specs. and not the drawings)?? The drawings and specs. are both equally part of the design. And code enforcement officials should be reviewing both of them before construction ever starts.


That said, I do agree its not the inspectors job to enforce everything that was in the drawings or specs. But I certainly think they have the right to enforce anything that can be considered safety related - grounding conductors included.

 

[jumper]

That said, I do agree its not the inspectors job to enforce everything that was in the drawings or specs. But I certainly think they have the right to enforce anything that can be considered safety related - grounding conductors included.

Okay, I have a building spec that says a #10 grounding conductor for all 20 amp 4 wire (3 hots and 1 neutral) MWBC's.

Is this enforcable?

 

[charlie b]

We have strayed from the original question. The requirement in 110.3(B) is that we must follow instructions that are associated with the listing or labeling (or similar words - I don't have a code book handy). So if a third party has its own requirements, they will not have been part of the listing process, and therefore 110.3(B) is not a player.

That said, and now speaking as a design engineer who does publish specs and who has put some unique requirements into specs from time to time, I do not want an electrical inspector to enforce my specs. I want the EI to enforce code, and nothing else. The job of making sure the contractor follows my specs belongs to whoever the owner hired to administer the contract.

 

[markstg]

[/COLOR][/B]

Okay, I have a building spec that says a #10 grounding conductor for all 20 amp 4 wire (3 hots and 1 neutral) MWBC's.

Is this enforcable?

It's not enforceable by the Inspector. It is enforceable by the Owener/Arch/Engineer/GC if you have a contract to install per the specifications.

 

[jumper]

It's not enforceable by the Inspector. It is enforceable by the Owener/Arch/Engineer/GC if you have a contract to install per the specifications.

Hmmm,

Inspector says he/she will only approve the install if I follow the engineers specs/drawings, which went through plans review.:-?

90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory
Material.
(A) Mandatory Rules. Mandatory rules of this Code are
those that identify actions that are specifically required or
prohibited and are characterized by the use of the terms
shall or shall not.

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required
or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if
approved

Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

 

[resistance]

I'm wondering what reasoning you use to justify using a less effective (wire) EGC in the place of a more effective pipe EGC

It?s the person installing the equipment that makes it effective!!! Yet, when we depend on humans, we also need to look at, ?Probability?. Example: Terminating an EGC (wire) at two points, or tightening 20 EMT set screw couplings. You tell me which is most likely to be more reliable.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

It?s the person installing the equipment that makes it effective!!! Yet, when we depend on humans, we also need to look at, ?Probability?. Example: Terminating an EGC (wire) at two points, or tightening 20 EMT set screw couplings. You tell me which is most likely to be more reliable.

Point taken

 

[eprice]

Ours used to try and do that. They were reminded in court that they are code enforcement officials who are employed by the city, not the engineer.
Unless the requirements are on the approved drawings, not just in the specification book

This is something that will vary from state to state. State law in Utah makes it unprofessional conduct for an inspector to knowingly approve work that does not conform to the plans and the specifications that have been designed by a licensed design professional.

 

[skeshesh]

Hmmm,

Inspector says he/she will only approve the install if I follow the engineers specs/drawings, which went through plans review.:-?

As others stated the inspector should not be the party enforcing anything but the code. The intent of the definition of approval is not to allow the AHJ to make up any random requirement they desire.

Having said that I absolutely agree with Charlie & markstg. I personally don't know of any commercial or industrial projects where the contractor was not under contract to provide a complete installation per drawings AND specifications. Almost all engineering drawings I've seen contain a general note on the title sheet clarifying that in event of conflict between drawings, specifications and applicable codes, the more stringent requirement shall be used for bidding purposes. I find it absurd for a contractor to argue that he/she should be allowed to install the very minimum allowed per code. I do understand that we all have to make a buck but it is the designer's responsibility to produce work that is both proper engineering in his/her opinion and meets the needs & wants of the client.

 

[markstg]

Hmmm,

Inspector says he/she will only approve the install if I follow the engineers specs/drawings, which went through plans review.:-?

90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory
Material.
(A) Mandatory Rules. Mandatory rules of this Code are
those that identify actions that are specifically required or
prohibited and are characterized by the use of the terms
shall or shall not.

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required
or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if
approved

Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

Below is an excerpt from the jurisdiction I live in, on what a contractor working under a permit must do regarding changing the design that was approved for the permit.

"Sec. 8-2-103.3.2 Revision of Approved Plans.
If during the progress of the execution of the permitted work, it is desired to deviate (in any manner affecting the construction or essentials of the building) from the terms of the application, plans or specifications or statement of costs, notice of such intention to alter or deviate
shall be given in writing to the Code Official.
The Code Official’s written assent shall be obtained before such alterations or
deviations may be made."

Note: Code Official is the Permit and Inspection Department and those in that department tasked to carry out the areas laws regarding same, i.e. the inspector.

As I read this I believe it allows the inspector to enforce the design unless the permitted contractor request and receives approval for the deviation from the design by the Inspector.

Additionally, if you have a contract for the installation to install per the design documents, you must get approval for deviation from the design by the party you are contracted to, if that is what your contract calls for.