Design Engineers - Who represents you on the CMPs?

[rbalex]

When it rains it pours. When I first started attending this forum I had way too much time on my hands. This last two weeks has been a perpetual crisis. I'm surprised I even had a chance to take an occasional peek. I barely had time to post my last topic.

Before you respond to this topic, please check this one , if you haven?t already. Everyone is certainly welcome to reply, of course; but I definitely want to encourage ?design professionals?, especially PEs, who are legally liable for being in ?responsible charge? of design work to respond.

Section 505.7(A) already requires a ?Registered Professional Engineer? to supervise the work described. Beginning with the 2005 NEC, two additional sections will too. [506.6(A) and 240.86(A)]. Section 240.86(A) refers to a ?licensed professional engineer? instead, but the idea is the same.

Throughout the Code there are several other references to work done ?under engineering supervision.? A few jurisdictions have ruled that implies ?professional engineers;? but most simply take it to mean ?somebody with a slide-rule.?

While Article 80 was only to be enforced by being ?specifically adopted,? and has now been moved to an Appendix, it generally reflects the concepts in the ?Enforcement and Administrative? parts of most other building codes. When Article 80 was first Proposed in the 2002 Code, I submitted two Comments to it; one [1-8] was ?accepted in principal,? the other [1-11] was ?accepted.? I though both were rather important, but it is the second ?part? of Comment 1-11 I?d like to discuss.

From NFPA 70 ? May 2001 ROC ? Copyright 2001, NFPA:

1- 11 - (80-29): Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert B. Alexander, Fluor Daniel
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-3
RECOMMENDATION: Revise section to read:
80.29 Liability for Damages. Article 80 shall not be construed to affect the responsibility or liability of any party owning, operating, designing , controlling, or installing any electric equipment for damages to persons or property caused by a defect therein, nor shall the ____ nor any of its employees be held as assuming any such liability by reason of the inspection, reinspection, or other examination authorized.
SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, the current wording actually lets everyone "off the hook." That is, compliance with Article 80 must affect "the responsibility or liability" of those delimited. Since Section 80-1(4) includes "design" in the scope of the article, omitting it from "list" in 80-29 could be interpreted as absolving the designer from responsibility.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
Editorially revise the comment to read as follows:
80.29 Liability for Damages. Article 80 shall not be construed to affect the responsibility or liability of any party owning, designing, operating, controlling, or installing any electric equipment for damages to persons or property caused by any defect therein, nor shall the _____ nor any of its employees be held as assuming any such liability by reason of the inspection, reinspection, or other examination authorized.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13

Note: In the original text the word ?not? as bolded above in the recommendation was missing.

I suggested adding ?designing? to the list of responsible parties. The original text of Section 80.29 is taken generally from the second paragraph of Section 202.9 of the 1997 ICBO UAC.

My point? I believe a clear ?Interest? is established in any code or statute where liability is created. Professional Engineers hold personal liability for designs for which they are in responsible charge. Who do you believe represents your interest as a ?Design Professional? on the Panels?

 

[charlie]

Re: Design Engineers - Who represents you on the CMPs?

Sorry, I am not a PE nor am I a design engineer. However, I do know the answer to your question and I hope it is OK for me to answer. Actually, when you post, anyone is permitted and encouraged to answer if they know or even think they know the answer to a question.

Dennis Darling represents the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. on CMP-10 and Charlie Hughes is his alternate. You will find that the IEEE is the organization that you are looking for on each CMP.

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Design Engineers - Who represents you on the CMPs?

I think I see your point.
I thought as Charlie did, that the IEEE rep's on the panels covered it. BUT
An engineering degree does not make a design professional, though a big part of it. I'm sure there a plenty of good engineers who couldn't design 20 unit apt bldg to save there life. Not an insult, it's just not what they do. Engineers who work at manufacturers and utilities are some examples.
Here in CA, architects can stamp electrical drawings also electrical contractors can do design when there company is performing the work.

Bob, is that what you're getting at????

 

[rbalex]

Re: Design Engineers - Who represents you on the CMPs?

Originally posted by charlie:
...You will find that the IEEE is the organization that you are looking for on each CMP.

Hi Charlie,

It?s a reasonable assumption and certainly what I thought until 10 years ago. Then I came to realize the difference between a technical society and a professional one.

However, if an IEEE representative on a CMP is a PE, it is purely coincidental. A few are indeed PEs, but the majority represent ?owner/operators;? i.e., the clients who come to me to assume design responsibilities for a project. Like the EEI and ELPG, IEEE has a special relationship with NFPA for NEC representation. The agreement is that they have a guaranteed seat on every CMP

I discovered this when I forced the reconstitution of CMP14 between the 1999 and 2002 Codes. I showed the Standards Counsel (SC) that ?Users? had exceeded one-third of the representation on CMP14 for the previous three Code cycles. Originally, it was the IEEE that was slated for removal, until they produced a 25-year-old letter of agreement between the two organizations. Ultimately the SC removed the American Gas Association and reidentified the ISA as ?manufactures.?

They also did a review of the ?Special Experts? Interest. I?m far less sure, but because the SC started looking at the ?interests? more carefully, I think this is at least part of what precipitated the general reconstitution between the 2002 and 2005 cycles.

It was not my goal, stated or intentional, that anyone would loose representation. At the time my goal was to create an avenue of representation for Engineering & Construction (E&C) companies. Especially the ?E? part. Seven of the 10 largest E&Cs and 80% of the largest 100 are ABC members.

Where am I today? I would like the ?User? category eliminated as a general category. As I said in the other topic, that category is so broad and general that it actually includes all the others with the possible exception of ?Consumer.? I would like to see the User Interests defined in terms of ?use.? Specifically, I?d like ?Owner/Operator? and ?Design Professional? interests. I?d also like to see the IEEE given the special status the UT interest has as a ?Standards Development? interest. In a since they would be a specific class of Special Experts. Many folks don?t know it but many products are ?listed? to IEEE rather than UL standards.

I would envision organizations like the ACC, AGA and API to represent ?Owner / Operators? and organizations like NSPE and AIA to represent ?Design Professionals.?

[Edit Add]: I would also like to see ISA recognized as a "Standards Development" interest.

[ September 07, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]

 

[rbalex]

Re: Design Engineers - Who represents you on the CMPs?

Originally posted by sandsnow:
... BUT
An engineering degree does not make a design professional, though a big part of it. ...

Bob, is that what you're getting at????

Larry,

I know approximately 30-40% of the IEEE reps and alternates personally. They attend the same IEEE/PCIC conferences I do. Every one of them is technically outstanding, yet at least one that I know of is neither a PE nor degreed.

A few that would appear to be "Design Professionals" by title are nevertheless retired "owner/operators" or "manufacturers" by viewpoint. They act as consultants but still do not assume "responsible charge" of work. Charlie's colleague on CMP10 appears to be one of the exceptions. I don't know him, but I am familiar with his company. His predecessor was not one of the exceptions.

[ September 07, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Design Engineers - Who represents you on the CMPs?

Seems strange after all this time that people who use the code as a minimum basis for their designs would not be represented on the CMP's

I wish some designers would take the time to learn the code.

 

[rbalex]

Re: Design Engineers - Who represents you on the CMPs?

Originally posted by sandsnow:
...
I wish some designers would take the time to learn the code.

Right now I feel the same about the CBO I'm working with

Truthfully though, I know what you're talking about; but, I see many engineers on this site doing a good job both with learning and applying the Code. I feel the same about the inspectors who routinely contribute here.

The passing rate for the Principles and Practices part of the PE exams is typically 35% or less. So it seems that some of us who pass it thinks it grants a divine knowledge similar to what some AHJs appear to believe 90.4 does for them. In over 35 years I know I still haven't learned it all. I already acknowledged in another post, that I couldn't design residential work without a significant amount of "rehab." I tell young engineers experience is where you begin the design process - not end it. We call all still learn both more and better.

Many engineers graduate thinking they will effectively become research scientists - it took me a few years before I fully understood my public safety obligations as an engineer as well as my technical responsibilities to my clients.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Design Engineers - Who represents you on the CMPs?

Originally posted by rbalex:. . . . it took me a few years before I fully understood my public safety obligations as an engineer as well as my technical responsibilities to my clients.

Ditto. I think that this is the reason that most states (if not all) require a person to have four or five years of working experience, before being allowed to take the PE exam.