The NEC Vs. Engineers II: The Reckoning

[George Stolz]

About the title? Don't ask. I once started a thread about the topic, from a different angle, and didn't see much there to clinch it one way or another.

The first thread was along the lines of "If the engineer drafts plans above code, does it fall on the AHJ to enforce the above-code standard?"

This time, I want to hear what happens if the engineer accidentally writes in a code violation.

• Scenario 1: Violation drafted, EC catches in field, after violation is implemented, but prior to inspection. The engineer agrees it is a violation. Does the PE accept a change order?
  
• Scenario 2: Violation drafted, EC catches in field prior to inspection. Engineer does not agree it is a violation. AHJ defers to engineer's judgment. 11 months later, equipment catches fire or shocks people. Who takes the blame?
  
• Scenario 3: Violation drafted, EC does not notice, and performs violation. Inspector does not notice either. Equipment catches fire or shocks someone in 11 months. Who takes the blame?

The reason I have started this thread is that there is a broad difference of opinion about what an EC (or a JW, or an apprentice) is liable for, if they follow prints. For example, one guy I know believes that the person who literally lays hands on it bears little liability, and that the engineer and inspector bear a large responsibility. I feel differently.

Edit to add: This does have some relevance, because on occasion I get teased for trying to "re-engineer" the prints. I will notice a violation (without standing around looking for it, these things find me), and suddenly, we have a headache. If no one had noticed, who is to blame? End of edit.

There have been very good comments in the past on this, but I think they're scattered around quite a bit, I was hoping to have a end-all discussion here that addresses these issues head-on. Thanks for all replies.

 

[infinity]

Scenario 1: Violation drafted, EC catches in field, after violation is implemented, but prior to inspection. The engineer agrees it is a violation. Does the PE accept a change order?

He should since he made the mistake.

Scenario 2: Violation drafted, EC catches in field prior to inspection. Engineer does not agree it is a violation. AHJ defers to engineer's judgment. 11 months later, equipment catches fire or shocks people. Who takes the blame?

No one, according to the AHJ the installation is code compliant.

Scenario 3: Violation drafted, EC does not notice, and performs violation. Inspector does not notice either. Equipment catches fire or shocks someone in 11 months. Who takes the blame?

The EC is responsible.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Not sure who will be to blame but all 3 will be in court.And your license is at risk.A claim even if you win will reflect your insurance premium.I suggest you do it to code and not take a chance.

 

[iwire]

George IMO you can not possibly expect a firm answer to any of this.

There are going to be regional differences in the laws.

Each and every instance has its own details.

And finally IMO all that means little if it is a lot of money.

If it is a lot of money at stake it will be determined by who has the better lawyers.

 

[iwire]

Scenario 2: Violation drafted, EC catches in field prior to inspection. Engineer does not agree it is a violation. AHJ defers to engineer's judgment. 11 months later, equipment catches fire or shocks people. Who takes the blame?

No one, according to the AHJ the installation is code compliant.

I could not disagree more with that.

A violation is a violation regardless of passing inspection.

An inspection does not absolve an EC from liability of work they have done.

 

[infinity]

I could not disagree more with that.

A violation is a violation regardless of passing inspection.

An inspection does not absolve an EC from liability of work they have done.

According to who is it a violation? In this state, the law allows the AHJ to interpret and adopt the code. If the AHJ defers to the engineers recommendation then where is the violation?

George's question said the AHJ. If it had said the electrical inspector than I would agree with you. Here in NJ the two are very different entities.

As you said Bob the questions are very subjective and subject to local and state laws which can vary greatly from one border to the next.

 

[mpd]

the electrical contractor is always responsible, an electrical inspector is inspecting for code compliant, if an engineer is designing a job above the NEC that is the responsibility of the GC or EC to deal with.

 

[iwire]

According to who is it a violation? In this state, the law allows the AHJ to interpret and adopt the code. If the AHJ defers to the engineers recommendation then where is the violation?

Well there is large a difference between making an interpretation and simply being wrong. I am assuming George's example is about a real violation, not simply an interpretation issue.

That would be determined in court; I doubt highly that NJs AHJ can change the rules at will.

If the stuff hits the fan the AHJs interpretation will be scrutinized.

In Scenario 2 IMO the EC shot himself in the foot by catching what they felt was a violation but did so anyway after caving into the Engineer.

 

[petersonra]

the vast majority of code violations are not going to result in any damage or injury at all. minor things get missed all the time. worry about not missing a real problem rather than some minor code violation that does not matter much anyway.

 

[growler]

If it is a lot of money at stake it will be determined by who has the better lawyers.

Electricans, inspectors and engineers may be called to present evidence or give testimony but in the end it's judge and jury that decides one's fate.

I have read about some really ridiculous cases going to court. One was where an electrical contractor was charged because a conveyer was to fast and ripped a man's arm off. According to the article the job was code complaint and engineered by others. The last I herd the contractor was expected to be cleared but who would even think you would need a lawyer.

 

[mpd]

bob

a minor violation is still a violation

 

[growler]

the vast majority of code violations are not going to result in any damage or injury at all. minor things get missed all the time. worry about not missing a real problem rather than some minor code violation that does not matter much anyway.

Bob I would not wish to work around you. Attention to detail is what makes a job safe. Sure a few missing straps may not hurt anyone but I have seen conduit pulled down on the heads of the same crew that ran it.

Just which minor code violations are you willing to accept ? Missing grounds, boxes uncovered. burial depth not correct.

The problem with minor violations is that everyone has a different opinion of what is minor.

 

[George Stolz]

A couple things came to mind as I was writing the original post.

The instance that first brought this up for me at work was the requirement to upsize the EGC in the event the ungrounded conductors are upsized. In that case, one of the proofs that my interpretation was in error were the prints. The engineer did have some mistakes in his specs for some of the HVAC equipment, in regards to 250.122(B).

It was further prodded by my pole light event, regarding whether or not a coil of wire was required in the bottom of a caisson for a pole light. Standard procedure had gone unquestioned for years by many - in that case, there were no ill effects because it was in excess of the code requirements. However, there was a sentiment (as in theory, not practice) that the pole itself should not be connected to the EGC, for fear of bringing lightning into the building from the poles. My position was that an unbonded pole would be a likely shock hazard, and that the EC would get sued if the pole were left unbonded. Then, the other guy said, "No, the engineer and the inspector bear responsibility for a safe installation."

That event coincided with MeMyself&I's Pole Thread, which was definutely an extreme example of the engineer/AHJ/EC/NEC conflict.

These were some of the events that have led up to this thread.

In the overall scheme of things, the AHJ, EC, and Engineer will all make mistakes. We are a product of our training; we all probably strive to do the best we can. But the NEC is not something that announces itself when we blow it. Some practices can continue for years if unchecked - who's to know better?

My point: I am trying to better understand the interconnected roles we all have in the end product, and responsibility for it. Someday (in the distant future) I will be in charge of a project. The person in charge in the field begins the process, IMO.

• If we elect to ignore a small mistake on the plans and do it to code, that is one route.
• If we elect to RFI the issue, that's another.
• If we elect to go for the engineer's approach, that's another.
• If we do that, and wait to see if the AHJ objects, that's another.

There are many different courses of action for someone to take, and it seems to me that a foreman has an enormous decision to make. A wrong course of action, and one of the parties is upset, or worse, someone gets hurt. I'm trying to get a perspective for what "normal" is.

Thanks for all the comments, and keep 'em rolling.

 

[acrwc10]

I was hoping to have a end-all discussion here that addresses these issues head-on. QUOTE]

Are you kidding.....You have got to be.....End-all???? Not here...

I don't feel it falls on the inspector to catch every error on a job or print, that would be impossible.They are there to double check what they can see. Not what is hidden or a misstake that may not be visable.
If everyone that did the job, were perfect at thier job,and honest.You would not even need an inspection. since that is not the case we have the inspection process.
If it is on the electrician to double check all the engineers calculations and then be responceable for them.Why have an engineer?
If we do find an error it is on us to first quesion it, It may not be wrong, then get it corrected if it is wrong. You can't argue "I knew it was a violation ,but HE said it was okay." that would not remove ones moral or financial responceablity to correct it. Dead is Dead no matter how much paper work you have to point the finger at someone else.
If it isn't safe don't turn it on. I would rather lose sleep over that, then a fire or death.

 

[growler]

There are many different courses of action for someone to take, and it seems to me that a foreman has an enormous decision to make. A wrong course of action, and one of the parties is upset, or worse, someone gets hurt. I'm trying to get a perspective for what "normal" is.

George you mentioned in a post some time ago that you liked the military way of doing things , at least the pay scale.

The military is a very good training ground for learning to follow orders and at the same time trying to stay out of prison. It's very important to learn how the system works. A soldier may be ordered to do things that he knows to be wrong or just too dangerous. If it's something that's just dangerous he can ask for written orders and have it noted that he is doing whatever under protest ( people have short memories, looks good at trial ).

If it's something that's really bad ( clubing baby seals or shooting children ), then he must just refuse and let the system put him on trial. A classic example is the Neuremberg trials. You get shoot if you don't and hanged if you do. But no one has been shoot in a long time.

I would say that the best way to handle things is never do anything that you know to be wrong or too dangerous. You can always get another job. If you can live with the decisions you make they are normally the right ones.

 

[Bob NH]

This Engineer's Point of View

This Engineer's Point of View

The engineer is responsible to the owner, and to the public for health and safety. His responsibility to the owner doesn't supersede or trump his responsibility to the public. In fact, it is a disservice to the owner if he doesn't protect the public.

The electrical contractor and licensed electricians have a responsibility to the GC or the owner (depending on the contract), and a responsibility to the public through codes and licensing authority. As with the engineering relationship, the contract can't supersede responsibility to the public.

The inspector/AHJ has a responsibility to the public. He is not the owner's agent to make sure the facility is built to print. His sole responsibility is to the public.

 

[Rockyd]

You just can't legislate common sense (rare at the best of times with some contractors), some have lots of horse sense, others are only rocket scientists, who can't see the forest for the trees. To intentionally stick a POS together, one wants to build a documentation trail a mile long and just as tall, and have the AHJ, GC, PE, EE, and anyone else associated to a potential lawsuit, aware of what it is designed, what will be created, and what it will do upon completion. Other than that, If it's drawn on a big enough check, it will probably see completion.

See the rule about where there is confusion, there is money.

That being said, see my signature.

 

[danam96]

Scenario 1 - eng./arch. should accept change order.

Scenarios 2 & 3 - Speaking as the e.c. We usually have three people in management/supervision roles that should be able to catch design flaws that present a code violation.

With that being said, why does the engineer get to put that little disclaimer on his drawings saying that it is ultimately the responsibility of the e.c. to not install something wrong even if it is drawn wrong (e.g. conduit sized wrong, conducters sized wrong).

 

[Bob NH]

Scenario 1 - eng./arch. should accept change order.

why does the engineer get to put that little disclaimer on his drawings saying that it is ultimately the responsibility of the e.c. to not install something wrong even if it is drawn wrong (e.g. conduit sized wrong, conducters sized wrong).

Because the engineer makes the drawings.

That doesn't mean the statement will stand if it goes to court.