The NEC Vs. Engineers III: Revelations

[USMC1302]

Radiopet:
I was not inferring the review process was taken lightly. However, many specification manuals for a variety of projects are cookie cutter, and unfortunately not enforced by the A/E, who in my opinion is getting paid to ensure the owner is getting what they paid for. The fact that it appears that you have that responsibilty should be a bonus for owners in your jurisdiction. That's not where the responsibility lies in my opinion.

 

[Power Tech]

Fortunitly

Fortunitly

Radiopet:
I was not inferring the review process was taken lightly. However, many specification manuals for a variety of projects are cookie cutter, and unfortunately not enforced by the A/E, who in my opinion is getting paid to ensure the owner is getting what they paid for. The fact that it appears that you have that responsibilty should be a bonus for owners in your jurisdiction. That's not where the responsibility lies in my opinion.

It is not the inspectors business. Point: Flexible metallic conduit shall be used. MC / 1/2" flex / ?? I used MC and had an inspector tell me "I need a letter from the owner saying he intended you to use MC". I told him that is none of his business. Is the job per code and cite in writing what code I am violating. There was no code violation cited, just a written request for a letter. I did go over his head, and the senior inspector agreed with me. I violated no local or NEC codes. Job safe and done!

 

[ivsenroute]

Submitted prints that are stamped by an engineer then approved by the AHJ becomes enforceable as the installation must be exactly per the stamped, approved drawings. No exceptions without a paperwork trail. A letter from the engineer will suffice with most changes.

If the EC wants to substitute one product for another, this is a change and a paperwork trail must be started. Just because the EC thinks that his/her change is code compliant does not make it code compliant. The EC has to realize that the NEC is not the only "bible" that the AHJ must go by. The State law, IBC, IRC, etc. all come into play and are equally just as enforceable.

Do not assume that you can just change the size or type of a wire because YOU think the that it was oversized by an engineer. You may not know the reasoning behind it as there are a multitude of other factors and issues that you are not privy to.

Bid the stamped, approved drawings and install accordingly.

 

[LarryFine]

Bid the stamped, approved drawings and install accordingly.

Okay, to throw a wrench in the works, what if a stamped, approved drawing includes something that's non-compliant?

Let's say an HVAC circuit calls for #6 conductors, but when the A/C unit arrives, it has an MCA of 70a? Install anyway?

 

[George Stolz]

We do have a process that makes you actually WORK to get a permit for commerical work so I can't comment on other jurisdictions.

I can't help but think of Lincoln's words in the Gettysburg address, where he mentioned a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" that he hoped would not perish from this earth. I can't see how creating a rigorously coarse ten page process, essentially making extra work (which entails extra money) for obtaining a permit and a policy of rejecting prints for being submitted in an unfamiliar (yet complete) format is appropriate for a government agency. This odd sense of entitlement seems to turn a blind eye that the permit fee and the taxes from these individuals pay the money to keep the lights burning at the building department.

I have YET to review a cookie cutter type plan in the City of Richmond. They all are unique and different...

I'm pretty green at bidding and looking at specs, but I have to say that every last one, from the eye doctor's office to the irrigation pump station I've looked at could have easily been interchanged. It looks as though many engineers have ready made assemblies for specifications, and then just copy and paste.

I suppose the answer to my original question is to tell the customer I can't help them without a full set of new prints, and new specifications, and let the next guy jump in ahead of me and take the gamble. My attitude is that the economy is slow, I can't make a bad mistake, whereas the next guy's attitude is, "Here is work, and I will do whatever is legal and in line with the customer's wishes to get that work. I'll figure out the paperwork later."

I guess in connecting the dots, strict AHJs seem to stifle people who want to comply with their wishes. Kind of a paradox.

 

[JWCELECTRIC]

Okay, to throw a wrench in the works, what if a stamped, approved drawing includes something that's non-compliant?

Let's say an HVAC circuit calls for #6 conductors, but when the A/C unit arrives, it has an MCA of 70a? Install anyway?

Happens! The HVAC unit may be bigger than what's designed due to changes the HVAC Eng needed. The EC needs to start paper trail to get an approved change order process going. Then at completion of project the drawings will change to As-builts that usually get stamped.

Engineer's will sometimes go larger on equipment and use NEC as a minimum. The example on an eariler post where a #3/0g was on dwg but #6 meets code. The EC may save some money but the intent would be to have a lower resistance to ground with larger cable. And if the the EC is making changes is the Owner going to see the real credit on the change? Save that for the good at heart!

As for George S. I would be cautious of this Owner, He probably has the cash to go with the preimum equipment but he may be trying to force you lower knowing you are a reputable EC. He wants to hire you, and depending on the work you need, and the way the ecconomy is he knows he can get a low price. If that is the case he will get what he is paying for.

 

[ohmhead]

Well as a electrician working for a electrical contractor running jobs i spend lots of time before my job starts up reviewing plans and specs we do this to find NEC code issues feeders the wrong size breakers not to code on distribution and clearance problems kinda re estimate the job for the estimator to find out if he missed something .

This is done before contract is signed we may have a letter of intent but the job is still open to change.

You do your homework ahead then write RFIs to engineer if the engineer approves the change you get paid .
NEC always is to your advantage you will get paid.

On a average large job we write over 180 RFIs for issues to the contractor then he rewrites to engineer.

But there is one thing i have learned from working with estimators and project managers do not give anything back ever the cost of a credit is more then your estimate .

We spend months before a job planning our work underground and overhead on most projects so we can save time and material but no owner or contractor needs to know what we do we dont tell them our feeders are 100 feet shorter or we saved money relocating panels inside a electrical room and save 5 foot of 6 runs of 600 mcm copper .

Theres ways to save and nothing changes the plans !

Sometimes it is more of a benefit to give a little back to the owner but not everyday you see you give them a little rope back then that next 20 million dollar project might be in your pocket in the future .

But iam just a electrician not a estimator and ive seen this happening thur the years of doing electrical work . NEVER GIVE CREDIT WHEN CREDIT IS DO !

 

[nhfire77]

Sounds like job protection to me. Sure safety and code compliance is important, but I can't submit a one line drawing for a small, straightforward install?

Then I read radiopet is hiding behind "municipal liability protection":

Sounds paranoid. You are not being sued all the time, and what a reasonable person would realize is a minor plans change does not consistute a paperwork trail, the EC's are licensed as well, if they see it fit to change something, within NEC, IBC etc. that's their fight if something goes awry. You approve CU, they use a bigger AL, its still compliant. You cannot be held to a higher standard then the one you enforce. Oh and, the one you enforce is draconian.


and "These requirements were set in stone WELL before I came here."

OK, I get this, its your job, those are the rules. I would continue to enforce it as written as well, but what about discussing change? How about allowing for a process streamlined that does not put an undue burden on all the parties? That includes you. You are obviously a busy man in a city of your size, and I bet you have people in your office that has to chase a lot of paper for changes and new plans, it sounds inefficient. BTW this is not a slam to a government system, I personally work for the government and realize the challenges of liability on a daily basis.

 

[ivsenroute]

If the stamped, approved plans have what you believe is a mistake that got by the engineer and the plan reviewer then bring it to their attention and again, get the appropriate paperwork.

Engineers make mistakes
Plan reviewers make mistakes
Electrical inspectors make mistakes
Electricians make mistakes

Lets just all work together, real simple.

 

[USMC1302]

George:
You are exactly right. Very often the spec books are cut/paste from CSI documents. I do agree though that if the plans/specs call for conduit(for example), then MC is not acceptable unless the engineer sends an addendum to ALL bidders allowing same change. There are usually going to be some mods after the bid is awarded, but it is the A/E responsibility to ensure specs are followed and for code compliance. Code review for me is state and local, and they do a pretty good job. However comma, the responsibility belongs to the design professionals with the stamp. As far as the A/C example, I would expect the EC to bring it to the engineer's attention, and a change/extra would be in order. I have worked with some pompous knuckleheads(especially construction managers) who will tell contractors to just "Install it as drawn", even after the contractor has brought up a situation that is non-compliant or not in the best interest of the owner. They get paid to solve those problems.

one of these days I'll figure out this quote thing...

 

[nakulak]

There are a lot of jobs where we install as drawn, but these are mostly gov jobs with very specific requirements, and assumes life in a perfect world. Most of the jobs we do (general retail) the plans are often far off, and the inspector only inspects code compliance for what is installed. We are doing a cookie cutter hotel that has plans which are used for 1/2 of the country, and what is being installed isn't even close to what was drawn. It would be nice if the plans reflected the actual job, but that's just not reality these days. I do know one thing, though - I respect the ahj's that do stick to their guns and make the owners get the plans redrawn for major changes, and I think its a good idea (for everyone). I sure as heck don't want to be responsible for code design work that isn't my responsibility, but get jammed into installing because the price has to be negotiated down. Having a set of plans that reflects (more or less) the actual install places the design responsibility exactly where it should be, and lessens (somewhat) the liability on the EC and the ahj, which is a good thing.

 

[radiopet]

If the stamped, approved plans have what you believe is a mistake that got by the engineer and the plan reviewer then bring it to their attention and again, get the appropriate paperwork.

Engineers make mistakes
Plan reviewers make mistakes
Electrical inspectors make mistakes
Electricians make mistakes

Lets just all work together, real simple.

Exactly...we are human and mistakes do happen and a 3rd eye is a blessing in an industry that could take someones life. However, the proper method of making these changes is to go through the process and review and make the engineer and reviewer aware of it as they wish to learn also from any mistakes. Also since the Engineer and the Plan Examiner are looking at a single layer world versus the 3D real world in terms of looking at plans versus being in the field....I think the Engineers and Plan Reviewers do a very good job and serve a purpose....to make the Electricans job as easy as possible and let them worry about the nuts and bolts of the compliance versus the large components.....for example we dont deal in the point to points connections on the plans but we do deal with sizing the 3000A or 4000A service right on the drawings. We make sure the XFMR is right and the GEC is proper and leave it to the electrician in the field to make it work right......we are a team !

 

[George Stolz]

With this particular job, I think the customer did himself a disservice. He had meetings with other ECs just as he did with me, and probably told each to pursue the various VE tangents that they each suggested.

So many people worry about getting an "apples to apples" estimate, which is virtually impossible once you bring in the X factor that no two businesses do the same quality of work; rarely use the same brand of parts; offer the same service in terms of manpower and promptness to return a phone call and/or appear on site with little notice.

It sometimes seems virtually impossible to quantify what you bring to the table in those regards anyway, for comparison.

So, for the customer to bring additional hardship on himself from the beginning, asking for apples from one EC, oranges from another, and vacuum cleaner bags from a third - I really have no idea what his basis is for selecting a winner.

I imagine the engineer would have his hands full if he was actually making decisions and changing plans based on conversations with the various ECs, his horse would look like a camel when it was done!

 

[radiopet]

George,

I am not saying all "Plan Examiners and Reviews" are equal and I am not saying all "Plans" are equal. Also I am not saying Richmond, VA is equal to anywhere else in terms of review. We do have a reputation that was started a few years ago about being very strict on plans simply to overcome some weak areas of the inspection process....kinda simplify the process for the inspector. However, over the past 18 months we have tightened that area and with constant education on a bi-weekly basis my inspectors are now sharper than I believe they have ever been....We do have some people who will fight change in our department basically due to age and near retirement status or government influence that ends of going over the Inspectors head but for the most part my goal was to raise the bar and it has been raised. However, that is only my experience and your analogy is nationwide so I wanted to keep it as such.

I do know of some areas in the country that simply do NO REVIEW of the plans that come into the city. They simply look for the Engineers stamp and approve it. They do this because the trend was to remove liability is to embrace ignorance and if something happens simply pass the buck to the engineer and say they stamped it and at least in our state when an engineer stamps it he is saying it is compliant and correct. Sad to say this is not nearly the case of my job would be pointless.....found 146 errors on the last plan I did at the end of last week....and I know for a fact my paycheck is less than HIS paycheck but I gave him a punch list of compliance issues that he will fix and no doubt get paid again for....but thats my job.

I am sure many areas of the country have municipals that stay far out of the review process and I am sure many more are even stricter than where I work as we are getting even stricter since our last standard package to be released in a few weeks....all due to liability. We have made all the inspectors ( believe this or not ) sign waivers saying if they approve anything not shown on the plans they assume liability. Do not laugh as I did not make this requirement, the City did this on their own based on the legal department so you see what we have to work with....so it is all about liablity and I can't say if it is right or wrong as they pay my salary.

The fact is, with good communication ( all the Engineers and Electricians know they can call me at a moments notice ) any issues on the job can be solved in short order without it getting to a point of non-compliance. Here let me give you an example of something that happened.....Last week I get a call from one of my guys saying this " Paul, I wanted to check on the proper distances of the secondary conductors of a XFMR to the switchboard" and I said it depends...10', 25' or Unlimited depending on the condition. We had allowed a 3rd party review firm do a set of plans for a LARGE project with backing by some of the high influence people of our area due to time constraints...well guess what....on the drawings that were approved ( 3rd party ) a 750KVA XFMR was left off the plans and a 3000A Switchboard was also left off...yet the electrician wired them in and guess what.....the inspector found it and called me. I made a trip down and the problems started....the secondary conductors ran 75' from the secondary to the switchboard...and no 240.92[C] could not apply here......it did not meet the descriptions of 240.90. Anyway, without getting into the other aspects...someone who has worked for a company 20 years with a family lost their job at the site because the owners thought they should be fully aware of the requirements of 240.21...accidents happen and I was SOOO sad that this person lost their job and felt responsible because I did not get a chance to do the review due to higher powers wanting a faster review and we have a policy in our office of doing the review in the order they come in.....minus the politics.....I hate to see someone loose a job...period....

The only reason I give this example is the guy was a local member of the union and well respected by his guys and really loved his job and because of a mistake done by someone else higher up on the food chain...missed by the Engineer, missed by the 3rd party review and missed by the electricians in the field......a family man and team player of 20 years lost his job.......I know this sounds funny but the inspector who found it was torn up about it.

In the end, I agree that Inspectors will need to make important calls in the field related to the nuts and bolts of the application and intent of the NEC. However, they larger more detailed items are set in stone by the design of the Engineer and the review process is just another set of eyes trying to limit the delays and problems down the road. I know that our guys ( from the powers that be ) are told that 20 minutes is too long for an inspection which I simply don't agree....all depends on the job but we can't change the politics that are above our paygrade unless we rise to that paygrade.....sad to say since I dont have an Engineering degree nor the desire to get one.....I wont make that paygrade.

 

[iwire]

Paul why do you seem so agitated about this subject? Different areas have different ways of doing things and none of them can be labeled 'the correct way'

Here the EEs that customer has paid for watch over the job (or often their interns) to ensure the customer gets what they paid for on the plans and that no changes are made that impact the safety of the job. The EI ensures that after all that the job still meets code.

It works well here, your areas way probably works well there but I am happy it is not how it's done here. Sounds like jobs move very slowly in your area with all this extra paper work.

 

[radiopet]

I told myself I would not post on here anymore but, I can't help it. If I am on a commercial job and notice the engineer circuited the plan so circuits 1,3, and 4 go to a group of lights that are 3 circuits. Am I expected to pull 2 neutrals, or can I group 1,3, and 5. Is that okay to you, or do I need to resubmit for plan check. If so sir, you are an over-inspector.

If the Electrician is too frightened to present their position and what they want to do to the Electrical Inspector then that is a condition of "fear" of the inspector and has nothing to do with being an "Over-Inspector". As I have stated before the Nuts and Bolts of the inspection is guided by the inspector but the larger components of the project are guided by the engineer and the review process. Their seems to be a fear that asking the electrical inspector about something that deviates from the given plan will be grounds for "inspector jail" or something. Have we stopped to think that quite possibly the Engineer did this for a reason?, would it not be a common courtesy to ask before doing or is time such a factor that it does not warrant a simply phone call prior to making choices that wander from the plan of attack? I guess my experience as an EC was different than others since I walked both lines without conflict but always had good communication with AHJ's and other authorities.

I simply dont want it to come accross as the "Inspector" is simply a robot to the drawings and can make no important choices in the field. This is not the debate, we are talking about radical choices that I see done that simply must be re-submitted because of a standard policy within the jurisdiction and in no way may this be nationwide...only my experience and since my name was the focus of this original conversation I can only give MY side or take on the reasons why our jurisdiction does what it does. As Larry said, we work VERY hard with our contractors and have open communication with them we are driving to allow more allowable Inspector -to- Electrician type changes as long as they are not major changes....

It is not a perfect science...and we dont make them change plans for moving a few receptacles around or removing a few receptacles let say....but if they add them or change the layout...most certainly we want to see what they are doing....If they change wire sizes or equipment or wiring methods not shown on the drawings even if compliant we want to know about it. I don't want any of my inspectors ( I say my because I care about them all, they are great guys with great families ) to increase their liability in the event some attorney comes back and says...." Judge, the wiring method was MC Cable on the plans but since it was a type III construction the inspector allowed NM Cable and.....then this happened. Sure it may be allowed but was it the wire type called for...NO......now who is liable since the inspector made the call......in todays world ( sad to admit ) we are end up in court for anything and so we may approve something via a simple letter from the engineer with a stamp on it prompted by the Electrician wanting to change something then we might be fine with it but atleast it leaves a paper trail to protect all whom are involved in the event of a tragic accident.

 

[radiopet]

Paul why do you seem so agitated about this subject? Different areas have different ways of doing things and none of them can be labeled 'the correct way'

Here the EEs that customer has paid for watch over the job (or often their interns) to ensure the customer gets what they paid for on the plans and that no changes are made that impact the safety of the job. The EI ensures that after all that the job still meets code.

It works well here, your areas way probably works well there but I am happy it is not how it's done here. Sounds like jobs move very slowly in your area with all this extra paper work.

lol..I am not agitated about it.......I very rarely get a topic I want to embelish and this I happen to have passion for...is that wrong? I do agree however, the paperwork is problematic but again as of right now we are on a 1-2 day plan review turn-around so the Engineers in our area know what needs to be on the plans as it has taken time to get to that point and it works for us.

 

[George Stolz]

...on the drawings that were approved ( 3rd party ) a 750KVA XFMR was left off the plans and a 3000A Switchboard was also left off...yet the electrician wired them in and guess what...


...someone who has worked for a company 20 years with a family lost their job...

...I was SOOO sad that this person lost their job and felt responsible because I did not get a chance to do the review...

Paul, let me set your conscience at ease with a pearl of wisdom my father shared with me long ago - it sounds insulting, and probably is, but it has shaped my sense of responsibility and pride growing up: You're not that important.

Granted, I wasn't there, but I seriously doubt that some unwitting electrician wandered out to his van and grabbed a spare 750 kVA transformer out of the back, along with a 3000A switchboard, and wired it in without the knowledge of someone higher up than him, in his own company. Your lack of a plan review had nothing to do with that guy getting canned, I guarantee: You're not that important.

If you or I got fired tomorrow, the world would keep on spinning, and life would continue to flourish all across this beautiful planet. We are simply not that important.

I do know one thing, though - I respect the ahj's that do stick to their guns and make the owners get the plans redrawn for major changes, and I think its a good idea (for everyone).

Agreed, that makes sense. The plans should bear a striking resemblance to the work at hand.

We have made all the inspectors ( believe this or not ) sign waivers saying if they approve anything not shown on the plans they assume liability.

That really sounds like the AHJ is opening pandora's box to me. If the AHJ simply dismisses culpability in the event of an error, it seems like a safer stance than to say "my employees bear the responsibility for some mistakes." The inspectors are the AHJ's employees, and to force the employee to admit culpability seems to piggyback that culpability onto the AHJ that they could simply deny in whole, if they kept their mouth shut.

Interesting.

 

[MJW]

Here is a problem I ran into last week. I submitted stamped drawings for a new service and new kitchen wiring in an apartment complex. There was a note on the drawings to replace devices with new devices in the entire unit. When the plan came back the reviewer had marked "in kitchen only" in red ink next to the note. The intent of the owner and engineer was for all the devices to be replaced. Now I'm not sure if I should re-submit or talk to the inspector when he comes out for rough or what. It seems to me that the reviewer overstepped thier authority. All I know is it is going to cost me time and money.


On a side note I have a friend who is a construction project manager for a national restaurant chain. He said there is a huge difference in what is required between locations. Some places require the panel to be made up exactly as it is shown on the print and some will accept a drawing on a bar napkin. He also said that electrical is where he sees this discrepancy the most.

 

[Cow]

Here the EEs that customer has paid for watch over the job (or often their interns) to ensure the customer gets what they paid for on the plans and that no changes are made that impact the safety of the job. The EI ensures that after all that the job still meets code.

It works well here, your areas way probably works well there but I am happy it is not how it's done here. Sounds like jobs move very slowly in your area with all this extra paper work.

This is the most logical and common sense way to handle specs that go above and beyond code. There is no reason for an EI to be discussing issues that aren't code related IMO.

Second, why waste an inspectors time looking for spec compliance when he could be moving onto the next inspection? Looking for spec's above and beyond code should not be his job, why should he care that all HR's are 3/4, no more than 3-90's in a run, straps no farther than 8' and so on?

The EE should do a walk through before inspection and make sure it's plan compliant followed by the inspector checking for code compliance.

I can't help but think the inspector is the EE's errand boy when he's spending his time checking spec's. That shouldn't be his job.