Is NEC a legally enforceable document?

[Dale001289]

I don't see any details about the issue.

What is the PM? Project Manager?

Larry, you’re coming in kinda late to this string - I didn’t provide any specific details because in this case, it really doesn’t matter.
We are examining the Engineer of record/PE stamps vs the electrical inspector/Authority having Jurisdiction; who ‘ overrules’ whom and legality of Code enforcement
Yes, PM means Project Manager
So far got some great feedback from the experts!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LarryFine]

Okay, then I agree that the designer should be designing to suit the NEC.

The code itself is not a legal document, but lends itself to being used by localities who can enforce compliance with it by local laws.

 

[tom baker]

In WA, the NEC is adopted into our state law (first referenced in 1919), and obviously legally enforceable. In section 90.4, special permission, that has to be requested in writing, on a form with a fee (you are paying for a no)
Here at the forum we see many posts from EEs that are not in compliance with the NEC.
Also in WA, health care and school plans are sent in for plan review for compliance with the NEC.

 

[ggunn]

I have not, and I will never kowtow to an inspector who is flat-out wrong. I have formally, but politely challenged an improper fail four times, and "won" every time.

It has never needed to go farther than asking the inspector to ask his supervisor. To the inspector, even if he still thinks he was right, being over-ridden lets him off the hook.

I know of at least two inspectors who have no technical oversight and therefore no supervisor to whom to appeal their decisions. Their judgement is considered to be the last word by the AHJ, and they have been demonstrably incorrect in some of their interpretations of the NEC. It sucks when it happens, but there is no recourse; it's their way or the highway.

I was in a meeting with one of them and his supervisor once where I had him dead to rights on a point of code; he just fell back on "as the AHJ I reserve the right to amend or interpret the NEC as I see fit." I looked at his supervisor (a nice guy but not at all a technical person), and he just shrugged. End of meeting. Infuriating? You betcha.

 

[brantmacga]

We are examining the Engineer of record/PE stamps vs the electrical inspector/Authority having Jurisdiction; who ‘ overrules’ whom and legality of Code enforcement

I am very curious though what it is that has been stamped but is a code violation.

 

[qcroanoke]

I am very curious though what it is that has been stamped but is a code violation.

probably something that the PM knew about, ignored it and now it may cost him his job.
And with that attitude it should.

 

[Dale001289]

I am very curious though what it is that has been stamped but is a code violation.

Sorry Brantmacga; but that will be a different string altogether


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dale001289]

probably something that the PM knew about, ignored it and now it may cost him his job.
And with that attitude it should.

Are you kidding? This guy can’t even spell electrical. He wouldn’t know a code violation if it bit him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[qcroanoke]

Are you kidding? This guy can’t even spell electrical. He wouldn’t know a code violation if it bit him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. I'm not.

 

[brantmacga]

Sorry Brantmacga; but that will be a different string altogether


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you actually have a stamped drawing with instructions that contradict the NEC, your company built to those standards and is now being held liable for correction, then you have a malfeasance case against the PE. The statement “shall be built to the standards of the current NEC” doesn’t override the liability of PE. If this is what’s actually going on, then someone should have called a construction attorney. There would be a claim against the PE’s E&O insurance. Your insurance company would also defend itself against this.

 

[jaggedben]

The code itself is not a legal document, ....

In California it is.

 

[mtnelect]

I have done inspections on projects where they have a committee that meets monthly to resolve conflicts among the trades.

 

[rbalex]

In California it is.

What is legal in California is Title 24, Chapter 3. (The California Electrical Code) It is currently based on the 2020 NEC with addenda/edits from various State agencies. A few local jurisdictions also have State of California-sanctioned revisions as required by law.

That said, a PE cannot "overrule" it and, depending on the actual design, assign the "blame" on a contractor. A PE can, however, suggest alternatives. I've done it several times with hazardous location designs consistent with The California Electrical Code Section 500.8(A)(3).

 

[Dale001289]

What is legal in California is Title 24, Chapter 3. (The California Electrical Code) It is currently based on the 2020 NEC with addenda/edits from various State agencies. A few local jurisdictions also have State of California-sanctioned revisions as required by law.

That said, a PE cannot "overrule" it and, depending on the actual design, assign the "blame" on a contractor. A PE can, however, suggest alternatives. I've done it several times with hazardous location designs consistent with The California Electrical Code Section 500.8(A)(3).

Bob, the specification states “the latest version of the NEC shall be followed, (2023 code).
It also references CA Title 24, Chapter 3, (2020 code) as a document that must be utilized. This has become problematic for both engineering and construction. Which takes precedence?

 

[kwired]

Bob, the specification states “the latest version of the NEC shall be followed, (2023 code).
It also references CA Title 24, Chapter 3, (2020 code) as a document that must be utilized. This has become problematic for both engineering and construction. Which takes precedence?

Can't speak for California but I would think they are obligated to enforce their current CA code regardless of what the design says on it.

That would be the way it works here, and that 2023 designed project would have to meet 2017 NEC as that is what is still in effect here. Anything that goes beyond requirements in 2017 wouldn't be rejected, but they can't enforce things in 2023 that are not in 2017 either. If you came across something that is less stringent in 2023 than 2017 you supposedly must follow 2017, though I could see there being some variances allowed, and likely won't be just an individual inspector making that decision on his own, likely is at least talking to his supervisor before making a final decision in such cases, or if it something that has come up before they may have put out a memo to all inspectors on how this is to be handled.

 

[jaggedben]

Bob, the specification states “the latest version of the NEC shall be followed, (2023 code).
It also references CA Title 24, Chapter 3, (2020 code) as a document that must be utilized. This has become problematic for both engineering and construction. Which takes precedence?

CA T24 Chapter 3 and any local ammendments would technically take precedence. If the issue hinged on the difference in code cycle, a reasonable AHJ would probably let you appeal to the newer code. (90.4) But I have seen an AHJ not even recognize a TIA that was already adopted into the newer code, just because they liked to flex.

 

[Jraef]

In California it is.

Correct. It is part of the California Building Standards Law under Title 24.

You are allowed to appeal decisions though. Just send “lawyers, guns and money”…

Building Standards Appeals

www.dgs.ca.gov

What usually happens though is that the process takes so long that the GC runs up against LDs that outweigh the cost of the fix, so forces the EC to comply or hires another EC and back charges them. It’s never pretty.

 

[gadfly56]

Can't speak for California but I would think they are obligated to enforce their current CA code regardless of what the design says on it.

That would be the way it works here, and that 2023 designed project would have to meet 2017 NEC as that is what is still in effect here. Anything that goes beyond requirements in 2017 wouldn't be rejected, but they can't enforce things in 2023 that are not in 2017 either. If you came across something that is less stringent in 2023 than 2017 you supposedly must follow 2017, though I could see there being some variances allowed, and likely won't be just an individual inspector making that decision on his own, likely is at least talking to his supervisor before making a final decision in such cases, or if it something that has come up before they may have put out a memo to all inspectors on how this is to be handled.

I think the short takeaway is, when comparing the codes, the stricter requirement, on a line-by-line comparison, is what should be followed. So, sometimes 2020, sometimes 2023. That way, at least the AHJ will be happy.

 

[al ruckman]

As has been previously detailed in the other threads. Most states adopt by reference the NEC and then make addendums to that document. It is enforceable as law. Any person who thinks it is not clearly has never had the pleasure of litigating this in court, which I have had to participate more then once in my 40+ years in the industry.

 

[Dale001289]

Lots of great feedback here! I really appreciate it.
thanks to all.