Engineers in Virginia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barclay,

_ "695.6(B)" is right to the point.

The PE may have an ego problem, that is not the issue.

NEC "695.6(B)" is still there,
and the INTENT is clear.
See the NEC Handbook for elaboration on this matter of "intent".
 
barclayd said:
The company requiring the fire pump probably has property insurance through a firm such as Factory Mutual. They would probably be interested in this matter. They may already be involved. Most insurance carriers have relatively strict requirements pertaining to fire safety.
db
Click to expand...

BarClayd,

Very good point!
When it comes to a commercial client with insurance requirements,
always keep your ducks in a row!

My last employer walked into a series of OSHA violations,
which may get him run off that job if/when exposed.
The violations just caught him on the blind-side.
We all must be on the look-out for Our Liabilities
and the Clients Liabilities,
so that none of them comes back to bite us.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
Everyone who was involved in the project would be dragged into the lawsuit. So, whether you were at fault or not, you will have costs in defending your position.
Click to expand...

especially since it is a direct violation of the NEC. whatever instructions you get from the PE should be in writing, and you should keep a file with all the correspondence, including your written refusal to perform the work unless the engineer and owner agree to hold you harmless and indemnify you in the case of anyone getting hurt, ever, or any civil or criminal penalties, ever, for any reason, ever, relating to this non-conforming installation.
 
nakulak said:
especially since it is a direct violation of the NEC. whatever instructions you get from the PE should be in writing, and you should keep a file with all the correspondence, including your written refusal to perform the work unless the engineer and owner agree to hold you harmless and indemnify you in the case of anyone getting hurt, ever, or any civil or criminal penalties, ever, for any reason, ever, relating to this non-conforming installation.
Click to expand...

you really cannot be indeminifed from such a thing as a practical matter.

just write them a letter saying you think it is a violation of the code and request clarification. If they insist on you installing it this way, write them another letter explaining you are doing it and give them an estimate to fix it after the fact.
 
while you can't truly be indemnified, the correspondence agreeing to such would at least provide you with the possibility to have the means to recover court costs and penalties through civil litigation at a later date, if and when you were brought in as party to a lawsuit on the prime case.
 
nakulak said:
while you can't truly be indemnified, the correspondence agreeing to such would at least provide you with the possibility to have the means to recover court costs and penalties through civil litigation at a later date, if and when you were brought in as party to a lawsuit on the prime case.
Click to expand...
so you are saying that writing a letter agreeing to violate the code is somehow going to help you in court?
 
If, Heaven forbid, someone gets hurt because an electrical installation was in violation of the code, then both the engineer and the electrical contractor are going to be held liable, regardless of who signed what agreement. If you know something is a code violation, and if you build it anyway, you can be, and will be, held accountable for your actions. You won't go down alone, for the PE will go down with you, but down you will go.


I think the appropriate actions are, in order,
  1. Inform the engineer of the code issue, and if that fails,
  2. Write a letter to the engineer, stating that you cannot install something that is a code violation, and requesting a redesign that meets code, and if that fails,
  3. Contact your state's department of professional licensing, informing them of the situation, giving them the engineers name and license number (that will be part of the PE seal) and including a copy of item #2.
 
charlie b said:
If, Heaven forbid, someone gets hurt because an electrical installation was in violation of the code, then both the engineer and the electrical contractor are going to be held liable, regardless of who signed what agreement. If you know something is a code violation, and if you build it anyway, you can be, and will be, held accountable for your actions. You won't go down alone, for the PE will go down with you, but down you will go.


I think the appropriate actions are, in order,
  1. Inform the engineer of the code issue, and if that fails,
  2. Write a letter to the engineer, stating that you cannot install something that is a code violation, and requesting a redesign that meets code, and if that fails,
  3. Contact your state's department of professional licensing, informing them of the situation, giving them the engineers name and license number (that will be part of the PE seal) and including a copy of item #2.
Click to expand...


Coming from a Fire Protection Engineering firm, I guarantee if a Fire Protection Engineer designed this fire pump, they would require 2-hour rated power feed or otherwise protected from fire. On the subject of engineering methods inconstant with a particular Code or Standard, the Building Code allows alternate design methods provided they are presented to the AHJ in the form of a Life Safety Report (for example), as a result of a number of considerations. The AHJ is required to review and approve if all criteria are met. It should be a joint effort between the AHJ and Eng. of Record.

I?ll go out on a limb and say the fire department plan check did not review this design, I would like to think if so, they would have picked up on the non-rated power and required it.

The Engineer takes responsibility for failure. I do not believe any AHJ in any jurisdiction takes responsibility for tragic events that cause property loss or loss of life; this has been proven many times. It will always go back the Engineer of Record and the contractor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top