Engineering supervision…

[Isaiah]

In general can “engineering supervision” overrule the NEC?
Examples: 240.86(A), 310.10(G)(1) exception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jim dungar]

In general no overrule.
Most times the NEC specifies "engineering supervision" as an option, like an exception, that can be followed.

 

[ggunn]

In general can “engineering supervision” overrule the NEC?
Examples: 240.86(A), 310.10(G)(1) exception.

No, engineering supervision is a provision of the NEC, not a way to overrule it.

 

[Isaiah]

No, engineering supervision is a provision of the NEC, not a way to overrule it.

Would it be more accurate to say engineering supervision
can “supersede the NEC”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jim dungar]

Would it be more accurate to say engineering supervision
can “supersede the NEC”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only if the NEC specifically says it can, in which case it is an allowance not a supersedence.

 

[tburdick]

I have worked many factory / Industrial calls in my career.

Many if not most think that with the job under the auspices of an engineer, they go against the NEC.

A few of those times pointing out NEC violation got me laid off!!


That didn't happen on the Minooka co-gen

 

[jim dungar]

I have worked many factory / Industrial calls in my career.

Many if not most think that with the job under the auspices of an engineer, they go against the NEC.

A few of those times pointing out NEC violation got me laid off!!


That didn't happen on the Minooka co-gen

When I entered the industry some 50 years ago many heavy industrial facilities, particularly in the 'rust belt" region, were not subject to state AHJ control and inspections after the original building construction. However, over the past few decades, insurance costs and litigation have caused many of these states to apply the NEC to all installations, however many processes and machines are still not routinely inspected.

 

[ggunn]

Would it be more accurate to say engineering supervision
can “supersede the NEC”?

It is part of the code; it doesn't supersede the code.

 

[qcroanoke]

Had an engineer tell me once " I have no problem with it so we're going to do it"
He backed off after it was pointed out:
1. You can't override the code
2. The company will not allow this since we know it's a code violation and can't be defended in court.

 

[ggunn]

Had an engineer tell me once " I have no problem with it so we're going to do it"
He backed off after it was pointed out:
1. You can't override the code
2. The company will not allow this since we know it's a code violation and can't be defended in court.

An engineer can only invoke "engineering supervision" in situations where the NEC explicitly allows it.

 

[qcroanoke]

An engineer can only invoke "engineering supervision" in situations where the NEC explicitly allows it.

He didn't care. He saw no problem with it.
Code or no code.
He came around to our way of thinking once he realized we weren't going to allow him to bluff his way through.

 

[David Castor]

No, that is not true. If it were true, my professional life would have been quite a bit simpler over the years.

 

[qcroanoke]

No, that is not true. If it were true, my professional life would have been quite a bit simpler over the years.

What post are you replying to?

 

[electrofelon]

Would it be more accurate to say engineering supervision
can “supersede the NEC”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think "supersede" is the correct word. I would say "engineering supervision" is an alternate method that is allowed sometimes.

 

[ggunn]

I don't think "supersede" is the correct word. I would say "engineering supervision" is an alternate method that is allowed sometimes.

Yes. If it is a provision of the NEC it does not supersede the NEC. 705.12(B)(6) does not supersede the other provisions of 705.12(B).

 

[jaggedben]

Yes. If it is a provision of the NEC it does not supersede the NEC.

I agree completely so far.

705.12(B)(6) does not supersede the other provisions of 705.12(B).

Well, yes it does, because it effectively says so, explicitly. But only those specific sections it mentions, and that's all internal to 705.12(B), not to mention the internal to the NEC.

 

[charlie b]

Speaking as an engineer, I would not want the power to overrule the NEC, nor would I want the risk (financial and professional) that it would entail. Furthermore, there are things the NEC allows an engineer to do that I would never choose to do. You want examples? Perhaps after I have another cup of coffee.

 

[electrofelon]

. Furthermore, there are things the NEC allows an engineer to do that I would never choose to do. You want examples? Perhaps after I have another cup of coffee.

Yes I would like some examples!

 

[jim dungar]

Yes I would like some examples!

I would never try to engineer "series ratings" for breakers.

 

[David Castor]

What post are you replying to?

The OP. Engineers are bound by the NEC and any other local legal requirements.