The NEC Vs. Engineers III: Revelations

[radiopet]

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.


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


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.

Wow...how did this turn into where I think I am so important?...I was simply saying that the one-line shows the 750 KVA and the switchboard but on the drawings it did not appear anywhere and it was missed by the Engineer and the 3rd party review. I was simply saying that maybe I could have found it, remarked on it during the review phase and possibly corrected it before it gets to that stage. No I am not important, but I maybe could have saved the mans job by finding it if given a chance. To his 3 children he is important and his job is important, It was simply an example......where do I embelish my importance in that statement of simply wishing I had a chance to review the plans?

BTW....it is not a matter of importance...our new building commissoner has already told me I am a "Dime a Dozen" so trust me it is not about me.

 

[ivsenroute]

I would like to remind everyone that there is always more to a situation than we actually know when we see specifications from prints.

As a EC, you may not understand why they are specifying a wire that appears to you to be oversized. Many times jobs are done in phases which may be years and they are done for that reason alone. There may be more added to that circuit in the future.

Another item is heat. You may be increasing the size of wire because the engineer knows that a room that you will be running conduit through is always very hot and derating is taken into consideration.

There may be a reason why they did not spec out a multi-wire circuit and it is not up to you as the EC to make changes without asking why. When you bid a job is a good time to make a phone call to the A/E and ask why, not after you get onsite and start working.

Sometimes chain stores want oversized conduit because they have already learned lessons about future expansion.

Again, you as the EC should be wiring exactly as the plans specify, not just to minimum code standards. Your bid and contract are there to build as specified, not build how you want to.

There needs to be a paperwork trail for every change, whether it makes sense or was a mistake by the A/E.

Again, the NEC is not the only "bible" for installations depending on where you are.

 

[nhfire77]

Wow...how did this turn into where I think I am so important?...

Your responses are show you are proud of what you do, maybe a bit too proud, based on what others see. As Iwire said, if it works for VA OK then, it wouldn't work in new england.

 

[LarryFine]

Again, you as the EC should be wiring exactly as the plans specify, not just to minimum code standards. Your bid and contract are there to build as specified, not build how you want to.

Yes, but can we hide behind the same "But, that's what the plans called for!" if something is too far the other way?

It seems we're to "mind our own business" for something over-designed, but we're supposed to wear engineers' hats and catch errors if something is under-designed.

 

[iwire]

Again, you as the EC should be wiring exactly as the plans specify, not just to minimum code standards. Your bid and contract are there to build as specified, not build how you want to.

I have never indicated otherwise, what happens here is the EEs watch for that type of issue not the code inspectors.

The EI watches us for code compliance

The EE, customers representative or the customer themselves watch us for plan and specification compliance.

No one is getting ripped off.

For example, I was running a 1600 amp feeder that was shown with 5 runs of 4" RMC and EMT I talked to the EE and asked if I could change that to 3" EMT all the way, he said OK. A credit was issued to the customer and we moved on, the change was not submitted to the building department and as far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with the electrical inspector as long as if asked I could show compliance with conductor fill.

 

[radiopet]

I have never indicated otherwise, what happens here is the EEs watch for that type of issue not the code inspectors.

The EI watches us for code compliance

The EE, customers representative or the customer themselves watch us for plan and specification compliance.

No one is getting ripped off.

For example, I was running a 1600 amp feeder that was shown with 5 runs of 4" RMC and EMT I talked to the EE and asked if I could change that to 3" EMT all the way, he said OK. A credit was issued to the customer and we moved on, the change was not submitted to the building department and as far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with the electrical inspector as long as if asked I could show compliance with conductor fill.

The difference here is the EE's do not. Once they do the drawing they begin the next one for the next project. Good luck in your neck of the woods....I would not want to work at a municipal where they dont keep a watchful eye over the work being done.

 

[radiopet]

For example, I was running a 1600 amp feeder that was shown with 5 runs of 4" RMC and EMT I talked to the EE and asked if I could change that to 3" EMT all the way, he said OK. A credit was issued to the customer and we moved on, the change was not submitted to the building department and as far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with the electrical inspector as long as if asked I could show compliance with conductor fill.

Ok....I understand this but should this choice be made without making the local municipal aware of your "group" choice. Would it have taken anything for the engineer to submit a fax with seal on it to the AHJ for the request, and in most cases the same day allowance? The inspector goes to the job and now has plans that say one thing and a very educated electrician who says another. His time is limited for the inspection and in the case with most inspectors overloaded in their daily inspection task. But lets take a less skilled electrician who does this and does NOT call the engineer....why leave this to the Electrical Inspector when it clearly was not done to plans?

If the Electrician wants to change what an Engineer has drawn and the Engineer is willing to accept it then he/she should be willing to put their stamp behind it. Municipal guys are in the business of protecting the community but also the municipal and the fellow inspectors from those changes by maybe a less skilled electrician than yourself.

I agree you state is different....and thats fine as many local areas in my state are different as well and many require nothing. I was generally adding my experience to the question george posted and it has been a good conversation as such. We can agree to disagree on many things and I know we have in the past which is all dandy...just figured I would give you a plans examiners view on the subject. If the AHJ changed their mind in the future I would simply do what I am asked to do...nothing more.....nothing less.

 

[iwire]

Would it have taken anything for the engineer to submit a fax with seal on it to the AHJ for the request, and in most cases the same day allowance?

Why, why do they need to know?

The inspector goes to the job and now has plans that say one thing and a very educated electrician who says another.

They rarely look at the plan when they are on the job, they may not have seen the plan at the office. When they come to the job they look for NEC issues, no need for the plan.

But lets take a less skilled electrician who does this and does NOT call the engineer....why leave this to the Electrical Inspector when it clearly was not done to plans?

Forget the plans, the inspector is there for NEC compliance.

Here is the standard MA permit application, many times this is all the info the electrical inspector is provided with.

http://www.springfieldcityhall.com/building/fileadmin/forms/Electrical_permit.pdf

Municipal guys are in the business of protecting the community but also the municipal and the fellow inspectors from those changes by maybe a less skilled electrician than yourself.

Again, here the inspectors are enforcing the NEC, they are not there to enforce the contracts between ECs and customers.

Just a different way of doing things, don't get all hung up on it. It works fine.

 

[ivsenroute]

Luckily I am the plans examiner on 100% of the jobs that I inspect and I inspect 90% of the jobs that I do plan review so I am in the loop and know that when something does not match I am just a fax away from getting an answer or approval from the EE.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Paul,
You talked about liability to the EI and his employer. In my opinion, unless your adopted electrical code states that you are enforcing both the NEC and the design plans and specs you have drastically increased the liability when you take on the job of enforcing the contract conditions. If you have only adopted the NEC and you are red tagging things that are code compliant but not compliant with the specs you are guilty of malicious prosecution. The enforcement of the design should never be a function of government. That is between the engineer, owner and contractor. The government fucntion is to enforce the minimal codes as they are adopted.

 

[iwire]

The difference here is the EE's do not. Once they do the drawing they begin the next one for the next project. Good luck in your neck of the woods....I would not want to work at a municipal where they don't keep a watchful eye over the work being done.

I will bet you that our projects are watched over more carefully then the ones under you. We have people stopping by at any time unannounced taking pictures, asking questions, taking notes and bring these issues up immediately. On the other hand the electrical inspectors usually only show up when we call for them.

We will not get our final payment until both the electrical inspector and the electrical engineers are satisfied we have met all out contractual obligations.

 

[ivsenroute]

In PA, any changes from the approved prints must be submitted for a change order with the building department, electrical department, etc. The stamped, approved plans are the code just like manufacturer's intallation requirements are. A set of approved prints must be kept on site at all times so that the inspectors know what they are inspecting.

Under the MA system, if the EE specs something out that is oversized for a reason and the EC reduces it because he/she thinks that reducing it will not violate code then the inspector comes out and finds that the installation is code compliant but not compliant with the stamped, approved drawings, who is responsible for that mistake?

 

[ivsenroute]

Paul,
You talked about liability to the EI and his employer. In my opinion, unless your adopted electrical code states that you are enforcing both the NEC and the design plans and specs you have drastically increased the liability when you take on the job of enforcing the contract conditions. If you have only adopted the NEC and you are red tagging things that are code compliant but not compliant with the specs you are guilty of malicious prosecution. The enforcement of the design should never be a function of government. That is between the engineer, owner and contractor. The government fucntion is to enforce the minimal codes as they are adopted.

There is a difference between contract compliance and ensuring that the approved drawings are being adhered to as required. They are approved by the AHJ plan reviewer and the EI is responsible for ensuring that.

You could change every part of a job if you just wanted to meet minimums and ignore the specs but again, not everyone knows the reasoning behind the specs that are above code.

 

[iwire]

A set of approved prints must be kept on site at all times so that the inspectors know what they are inspecting.

Here the inspector would use the current NEC to inspect the job.

Under the MA system, if the EE specs something out that is oversized for a reason and the EC reduces it because he/she thinks that reducing it will not violate code then the inspector comes out and finds that the installation is code compliant but not compliant with the stamped, approved drawings, who is responsible for that mistake?

Most likely the EI would not notice that because they would not be looking at the prints, they would be looking at the NEC.

The EE or their designates, or the customers construction supervisor, or the customer themselves if the job is small, would be the ones to make sure they got what they paid for.

If I try to reduce conductor sizes it will be brought up to the GC by the EE, probably with pictures and cut and pastes from the specifications.

 

[ivsenroute]

This is part of the PA UCC for all permit holders"

(l) Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents. The permit holder shall submit a revised set of construction documents for approval for changes made during construction that are not in accordance with the approved construction documents.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

There is a difference between contract compliance and ensuring that the approved drawings are being adhered to as required. They are approved by the AHJ plan reviewer and the EI is responsible for ensuring that.

Only if the adopted code in your city so states. If it is not in the adopted code you have no legal authority to enforce it. Even if you have such an adopted code, I would question the constitutionality of that law.

You could change every part of a job if you just wanted to meet minimums and ignore the specs but again, not everyone knows the reasoning behind the specs that are above code.

Yes you could change everything, but as long as the end result meets the legally adopted code, the government has no business sticking its nose into what is a private contract issue. The only branch of government that has any right to be involved with the enforcement of a private contract is the judicial branch when one of the parties to the contract sues the other.
As far as the reasoning behind the specs, again that is nothing more than a private contract issue, as long as the installation meets the minimum of the code that has been locally adopted, the governments involvement ends.

 

[radiopet]

Why, why do they need to know?




They rarely look at the plan when they are on the job, they may not have seen the plan at the office. When they come to the job they look for NEC issues, no need for the plan.




Forget the plans, the inspector is there for NEC compliance.

Here is the standard MA permit application, many times this is all the info the electrical inspector is provided with.

http://www.springfieldcityhall.com/building/fileadmin/forms/Electrical_permit.pdf




Again, here the inspectors are enforcing the NEC, they are not there to enforce the contracts between ECs and customers.

Just a different way of doing things, don't get all hung up on it. It works fine.

None of those things ring true in all cases. We require the guys to actually mark the plans during their inspection. They not only look for NEC Compliance since NEC Compliance is not the only thing they need to be aware of...other requirements are present. I just happen to not agree with your areas position and indeed you are right...glad I am not the Plans Examiner in your state...I would not have a job.

 

[radiopet]

Here the inspector would use the current NEC to inspect the job.



Most likely the EI would not notice that because they would not be looking at the prints, they would be looking at the NEC.

The EE or their designates, or the customers construction supervisor, or the customer themselves if the job is small, would be the ones to make sure they got what they paid for.

If I try to reduce conductor sizes it will be brought up to the GC by the EE, probably with pictures and cut and pastes from the specifications.

Well...you must have some pretty trustworthy souls up their in MA fella. I am i AW of their honesty in your state. Sad to say this is not the case in mine so you keep your states rules and we will keep ours.....we good?..I wont even comment on Illinois...sorry .

 

[iwire]

Well...you must have some pretty trustworthy souls up their in MA fella. I am i AW of their honesty in your state.

Paul, I have no idea what you mean.

Are you suggesting the EC might be able to influence the EE who works for the customer?

We are watched over closely by someone that works for the customer to ensure the customer gets what was bid on.

Who would know about the electrical job more than the EE that designed it?

 

[radiopet]

I will bet you that our projects are watched over more carefully then the ones under you. We have people stopping by at any time unannounced taking pictures, asking questions, taking notes and bring these issues up immediately. On the other hand the electrical inspectors usually only show up when we call for them.

We will not get our final payment until both the electrical inspector and the electrical engineers are satisfied we have met all out contractual obligations.

I don't doubt that at all Bob....I am sure a very watchful eye is overseeing the projects from start to finish. However, this is not a State versus State type debate. Trust me, Virginia has it's own problems....and our department is no different since we got some real problems but I digress.

The point was this.....and only this....every municipals working model is different. Just so happens that in the area I work ( and in many others it appear also ) once the Engineer stamps the drawings and the municipal reviews them for compliance to not only the NEC but the USBC, IBC and maybe other NFPA Documents it is then approved. Any straying from the approved drawings must be reviewed by the municipal review department ( call it anal if you will...but I like it ) and once it makes it to the electrical contractor it is expected to be followed. If they wish to plan Engineer then consult with the Engineer of record and submit the letter or if a major change a revised drawing and be done with it. I guess I really don't see the problem and it provides a well needed level of review on many parts.

To each his own......some areas are more anal than others...we can live with that..