110.3 b

[iwire]

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

Which is the opposite of my experience.

 

[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.

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.

I am getting a mixed message here. Do you agree that approved engineered plans are enforceable or is code enough?

Second post seems to says you agree with me.

 

[jumper]

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.

You lost me here, I am not talking about the inspectors making up a random requirement.

I am saying that if the engineering/approved drawings exceed code they must be met and inspected accordingly.

 

[markstg]

I am getting a mixed message here. Do you agree that approved engineered plans are enforceable or is code enough?

Second post seems to says you agree with me.

Yes, I did say 2 different things. My first post was that inspectors made sure the installation meets code, And Owners Inspectors made sure it meets design.

But until now, I never read the regulations regarding the scope of the Inspection department. Now that I have, it appears inspectors can enforce the design.

But I will still inspect for the design, and assume the inspector inspects for safety and code. If the inspector assures the design also, that is a good thing to me.

 

[jumper]

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.

I heard that when I started a thread here:

http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?2622-Engineers-specs-drawings

 

[jumper]

Which is the opposite of my experience.

Yeah well, with ya'll being Yanks, anything is possible.:grin:

 

[markstg]

Which is the opposite of my experience.

My experience is also that inspectors inspect for code, owners inspectors inspect for design.

In practicality, can I really expect the inspector to read pages and pages of specification, and all the drawings with many notes, etc etc. with each job being different with each engineers nuances on things. No, I do not. And I wouldn't say, for an install not per design, but per Code....Well why didn't the inspector catch that.

 

[jumper]

My experience is also that inspectors inspect for code, owners inspectors inspect for design.

In practicality, can I really expect the inspector to read pages and pages of specification, and all the drawings with many notes, etc etc. with each job being different with each engineers nuances on things. No, I do not. And I wouldn't say, for an install not per design, but per Code....Well why didn't the inspector catch that.

Do not the drawings go through plans review, which is part of the building/electrical department that the inspector is a part of?

Why would he/she not be responsible for enforcement of the approved plans, if his/her department approved them?

 

[g3guy]

Charlie tried but was ignored.
Inspector inspects that NEC minimum is installed correctly.
Customer wants additional above and beyond NEC.
Electrician installs same to NEC. Why is not his concern.
Inspector inspects to NEC in above. Why is not his concern.
If I, as a customer, want an egc run in 100 miles of RMC, you will
install it per NEC and the inspector will inspect it per NEC. Why is
neither of your concerns. If I, as a customer, found the
EC/electricians standing around debating as you on this forum do,
well then, it's time for a new EC. The inspectors will be handled by
the legal dept. You can NEC dot dot dot till the cows come home. The NEC
is not a design manual.
End of rant!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In the absence of a law or adopted rule that says the inspector will enforce the plans and specs, he/she has no legal authority to inspect to the plans and specs. He/she can only inspect to the legally adopted rules.

If the adopted rules are only the codes, that is the only thing the inspector can inspect to and the enforcement of the plans and specs is a civil contract issue between the owner and the installer.

 

[jumper]

Charlie tried but was ignored.

Yeah, well that happens sometimes.

Mea culpa.:grin:

 

[markstg]

Do not the drawings go through plans review, which is part of the building/electrical department that the inspector is a part of?

Why would he/she not be responsible for enforcement of the approved plans, if his/her department approved them?

Ok, I really shouldn't be speaking for or representing what Inspectors and the plan/spec review or the install inspection by inspector process is. I've always been on the Engineer/Architect/Owner side of things. I do know what my responsibilities are and those I will perform.

Perhaps some inspectors on this forum can enlighten us as to what their responsibilities are relative to this discussion.

PS: If I found that the EC had installed a smaller ground wire or no ground wire on the MWBC, then the specs called for, I would do one of two things, request that subject wire be installed per specs or get a credit to the contract from the EC. But that was not what the OP asked.

 

[jumper]

Ok, I really shouldn't be speaking for or representing what Inspectors and the plan/spec review or the install inspection by inspector process is.

Me neither, but heck that has not stopped me from doing it all afternoon.:grin:

I've always been on the Engineer/Architect/Owner side of things. I do know what my responsibilities are and those I will perform.

Cool. I respect your position, I just believe that if an engineer designs it, I will install that way and it should be inspected that way, assuming it meets or exceeds code. He/she carries the O and E insurance and that is the final line for me.

PS: If I found that the EC had installed a smaller ground wire or no ground wire on the MWBC, then the specs called for......

I would say " nail his #$%& to the wall"

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

Cool. I respect your position, I just believe that if an engineer designs it, I will install that way and it should be inspected that way, assuming it meets or exceeds code. He/she carries the O and E insurance and that is the final line for me.
...

Yes it should be inspected that way, but not by the inspector that represents the government. That inspection should only be my someone who is paid by the owner, not by the taxpayers.

 

[jumper]

Yes it should be inspected that way, but not by the inspector that represents the government. That inspection should only be my someone who is paid by the owner, not by the taxpayers.

Sorry Don,

I am not buying this. The fees for inspection and plan review were paid by the owner, one way or another.

The inspection I am am talking about is not the "fluff stuff" of "design": hubbell or lithonia fixtures, but rather engineered calcs/specs.