The NEC Vs. Engineers III: Revelations

[George Stolz]

Every couple of years, I get a wild hair to poke, prod and otherwise belabor the relationship between inspectors, engineers and ECs. For previous episodes, click here.

This go around, I was inspired by a comment here by Paul Abernathy stating that once he has reviewed a set of prints, specifics detailed on the prints or in the specifications become enforceable and he must reject an installation in the field for deviating.

So, enter a recent event in my world: A potential customer hands us a set of prints and some specifications for a project. The specifications are typical "first class boilerplate" prohibiting more than three 90?s per raceway, all wiring to be installed in raceways, high dollar dimmers, high dollar fixtures, etc.

Two ECs bid the job at an appropriate $80k - $90k for the specified work. One EC purportedly came in at closer to $40k to do the job. I was confused for a moment, and then realized that the lowballer was either a kamikaze working on his last big job, or had discarded the specifications and decided to bid the job in NM cable.

This was a Type V building, and so NM cable is apparently a legal option, but wouldn't be my first choice even if there were no specifications.

Once I shared this with the customer, that IMO the lowballer had to have bid it in romex, the customer stated that romex was all his budget would allow. He then asked us to rebid it in NM, and cut every corner possible to bring the project in for half price. We received a partially revised set of prints (which were supposedly fully revised, but did not bear many of the changes the owner and I discussed).

In addition to the new prints, we received an unsigned, typed list of changes to base our bid on, which also did not include all changes agreed upon verbally by the customer.

So, with such a mess of a history on the front end, what is an inspector to enforce? The original prints that have been reviewed? The revised prints not reviewed, but stamped by an engineer? The unsigned typewritten list? The NEC, which despite all the shenanigans and goings on in this little project has remained unchanged throughout?

How does an EC limit his potential liability to being held to two standards by even just the customer?

And how fast would you walk to get away from this job?

 

[radiopet]

Firstly, the assumption you are making is that the Engineer did not have a reason or an intent to put what he did on the prints and the local review process is not made up for the most part of Engineers. If they call for something on the drawings then everyone bidding the job should be doing so with the same drawings. Secondly, if this is a value engineered job and other methods are allowed then the engineer should and will be directed to place the acceptable methods on the drawings to avoid this problem.

The majority of engineers (this is my experience and in no ways covers the entire world of engineers..so relax MODS ) do not understand the NEC very well beyond the fact they have learned it over the years of doing drawings, getting reviews and talking with plan reviewers who may know the code rather well since they do it on a daily basis. If the owner and contractor have a different opinion of what they want then the owner failed in giving the information to the engineer to whom they are paying to design the job and is not the responsibility of the AHJ to determine this for them, we can look at OUR check versus THEIR check at the end of the week and understand clearly who has the greater responsibility to the owner.

If the owner is meeting with the EC and has agreed to change a method given on the drawings then they need to submit them for review under this new agreement because the Engineer may not be aware of this information. What is the point of having an engineering degree and liability for their "stamp" if their intent is not to be followed?. As a reviewer we look at what the intent of the submission is and we have to assume that is what the wishes of the property owner are. If it is otherwise then they need to re-submit and have a few conversations with their engineer regarding the issue.

I do not get PAID to make those design choices for the Engineer or the property owner. The plan reviewer's job is to take what is presented to them and ensure it is safe and compliant to the USBC, IBC and NEC as well as many other compulsary documents that may be enforced by the local jurisdiction. One great example is that many engineers call for a 3/0 CU to a typical ground rod, the inspector gets onsite and they have run 6 CU which is compliant by the NEC but not by the engineers intent and we dont know WHY they did it nor do we care as while 3/0 CU is excessive in this example and makes more work for the EC. We are not at liberty due to our liability as an inspector or reviewer to waiver on their intent. If the owner and EC wish to contact the Engineer and have some conversations to WHY they did what they did then so be it, we may even accept a "stamped" letter from the Engineer changing portions of their intent of the drawing to meet the new design. However, a standard policy in many municipal offices is to require a re-submit and that is the choice of the local AHJ ( Building Commissioner ).

In the end, each EC bidding on the job must have the same specs and drawings to bid. If the owner is talking with one EC to whom he is obviously choosing to use over the other then he obviously has made his choice. Now they can look at the job, determine any changes they wish to make and then consult with the engineer to make the changes...as a municipal we do not care of the added cost to the project as this is not of my concern. A compliant installation and one meeting the intent of the reviewed and "stamped" drawings is of my only concern at that point.

 

[radiopet]

lol....on second look I dont see any assumptions...lol....you are simply giving a senerio. My Bad.... I also wanted to add that this owner who seems to be on an "extreme" budget is probably going to cut as many corners as possible anyway so walking away might be the smartest move of all.

 

[iwire]

Wow, what a lot of words just to say 'Not in my town':grin:

Here the inspectors would keep their nose out of the design issues and concentrate on the NEC requirements.

Well more then half our jobs indicate all EMT and most times we use MC due to negotiations with the customer. I would be dumbfounded if the inspector failed us for meeting the NEC and the customers wishes.:roll:

 

[radiopet]

Well...not in my town. These requirements were set in stone WELL before I came here. We have instructed the Engineers to put on the plans what they want and mean what they say. If they allow EMT and MC then state it on the drawings.

So Bob....why pay an Engineer to do the drawings. Heck, just forget the permit also . In an industrial situation you can do what you say because chances are much of the work may be without the local municipals inspection process. The local municipal does not want to raise the level of liability more than they have to. These are not my words...these are the local AHJ's words translated down into..."This is my town"

 

[SmithBuilt]

How does an EC limit his potential liability to being held to two standards by even just the customer?

Detail everything in the proposal/contract. I note "bid per plans dated XXXX". Then list any exceptions to the plans. Today there's always someone who will value engineer a job. I have gotten jobs by suggesting change to the owner, with approval from the engineer. My AHJ has gotten downright adamant about following the plans perfectly. It's a problem sometimes. In the past the AHJ has been way too lenient on changes, now the exact opposite. Almost overnight.

And how fast would you walk to get away from this job? [/QUOTE]

In the past I would have run, but now not so much.

 

[iwire]

Well...not in my town. These requirements were set in stone WELL before I came here. We have instructed the Engineers to put on the plans what they want and mean what they say. If they allow EMT and MC then state it on the drawings.

Glad I don't have to deal with that.

Seems a bit excessive to require the customer to pay for a new set of drawings just so the inspector does not have to think to hard.:grin:

So Bob....why pay an Engineer to do the drawings.

Now your just being silly, :grin: we where talking about a change from one code compliant wiring method to another, not reducing a set of 600s to 350s.

Heck, just forget the permit also .

I never suggested such a thing, the permit and inspection process checks for NEC compliance. Specification compliance is between the EC, the customer and / or the engineers they have hired.

In an industrial situation you can do what you say because chances are much of the work may be without the local municipals inspection process.

Here inspections for code compliance are as required for industrial as residential or commercial.

The local municipal does not want to raise the level of liability more than they have to. These are not my words...these are the local AHJ's words translated down into..."This is my town"

OK but keep in mind that your AHJ does not speak for the entire country.

 

[radiopet]

In the past the AHJ has been way too lenient on changes, now the exact opposite. Almost overnight.

Liability my friend....Liability....Allowing changes in the field to a "Stamped" and "Approved" set of drawings where the AHJ says they are compliant, the Engineers says they are compliant and someone else lower down on the authority food chain wants to make changes even if NEC Compliant....could end up in a lawsuit if something goes wrong regardless of it being compliant. Attorneys will argue ( and I have talked with our Municipal Council on these issues ) that it was designed by the Engineer whom holds a state license and many years of college and reviewed by the local governing body. Now, an electrician wishes to change it because a owner wants to save some money.....let something happen that is a FLUKE and see who ends up in court......the NEC is a minimal standard.

 

[radiopet]

OK but keep in mind that your AHJ does not speak for the entire country.

Nope...and the NEC does not speak for all the REQUIREMENTS of local jurisdictions.

 

[radiopet]

Now who is being silly Iwire......Clearly I stated that in many cases the Engineer simply needs to send in a letter of intent of the change and stamp it and the reviewer will look it over and stamp it as well meaning no new plans would be needed. Chaning wire sizes ofcourse needs to be reviewed...my inspectors don't want potential liability. Are you familiar with the laws governing the inspectors liability? they are not simply IMMUNE to liability nor are they always given the "FREE WILL" to make engineering choices on behalf of the owner to cut costs or redesign the intent....again the NEC is the minimum standard.

I am also glad you do not have to deal with that but since I have worked in a capacity of sorts with THREE different municipals who have the same view as our AHJ....My view is obviously skewed on the side of municipal liability protection.

 

[radiopet]

If you train the Engineers for what is expected of them then the problems are limited. We provide them with an 10 page handout of all the City of Richmond requirements for plan review submittal. It tells them everything we need to see on the drawings and the local Engineers have come to accept it.

What this does is create a better inspection process because hopefully it reduced the improper installation of larger components. Sure, some of the smaller things that are field related still get screwed up and thats the job of the inspector to find them but having a good set of drawings, reviewed by the local reviewer and the engineer helps to find those potential "BOMBSHELLS" found later at the end of the project.

Now, the inspectors can make judgement calls on specific items and obviosly for residential inspections they are the governing word since many municipals dont do review on residential issues they would indeed have to. Let me give you another senerio where the local inspector should not make the call.....

What if the plans called for 350 Kcmil CU and the electrician decided to install the equivalent in AL wiring....say 500 kcmil AL instead because AL is cheaper....should the inspector say..no problem its ampacity is the same......?..well we do not allow this because their is a reason the Engineer spec's CU and unless they submit a letter giving the change or in this case new drawings we would direct the inspector to fail them...is this wrong?, I don't think so.....Since the conduit may need changing due to new fill issues and considering the inspectors are only given a limited amount of time to do the inspection...why place the burden on them......thats MY job along with the Engineer to review compliance.

 

[George Stolz]

Paul, I should start out by saying that I wasn't trying to single you out, or pick on you - it's just that your comment, molded by how your jurisdiction operates, does reflect how much of the country operates.

My personal opinion is that my vision of a perfect world appears much as Bob describes it, where the inspector does not need to memorize prints and specifications, but merely has to inspect according to one (or three) universal standards, such as the NEC. I just see it as a slippery slope, when one enforces the prints. Such a jurisdiction appears to assume as much responsibility for an engineering error as the engineer, from the looks of it.

Some of the changes that I recommended to the customer were eliminating floor outlets, and allowing wiremold boxes attached to the existing brick wall instead. Now, the prints still showed floor outlets, yet the customer and I agreed to the alternative - should the installation fail for not matching the prints? At what point does a change become insignificant?

Let's raise the ante a bit: I could not figure out a professional way to install the service as per the prints.

View attachment 3603

Back in the Cadillac phase of design, the engineer had a two-meter socket and two 200A feeders for the second floor of the building, which was also to be completed as a core and shell. When the crunch came, that entire system was deleted. All that remained was a tap box below the 400A service for the first floor.

Looking at the one line with the two-gang metermains removed, I could not help but think of the profound inconvenience for both the electrician and the first floor tenant when the time came to finish out the second floor and install the two-gang metermain in the future. So, I removed the tap box, and simply ran the service conductors for the 400A main independently of the spare service conduit for the future two-gang metermain. With this subtle change, the electrician can build the entire second floor's service without risk of bodily harm to himself or disrupting power to the first floor.

This is a significant change - but it is to code (230.40 ex 1), and it is safer and better than the engineer's solution. I'm sure the engineer would agree to the change, yet someone must pay for a new set of prints, a new review, etc to execute the change? That just seems like a bunch of unnecessary red tape to me.

 

[radiopet]

I understand George and I did not take it as singling me out fella....as for the image you posted....I would have failed it before doing the review simply because it does not meet all the requirements we have set in place for plan review.

Their has to be a proper one-line diagram and riser diagrams will not be accepted. All the components of the one-line must be on the drawings showing conduit sizes, conductor types, all OCPD's, the grounding scheme along with nearly 9 other pages of required information.

We will only accept a submission of a set of plans that equal or exceed the quality of a licensed professional engineer. A master electrician is allowed to submit a drawing for a select use group of work to which is allowed and the drawings must have all the elements the City of Richmond require on the drawings and in the same quality as an engineered drawing.

So FYI......that drawing would not have made it accross our front counter to even be reviewed.

 

[George Stolz]

I would have failed it before doing the review simply because it does not meet all the requirements we have set in place for plan review.

I didn't see the purpose in posting the entire image for the purposes of this discussion, I just posted what I thought would most efficiently communicate the original design. All of the information you mentioned is on the prints.

 

[radiopet]

I didn't see the purpose in posting the entire image for the purposes of this discussion, I just posted what I thought would most efficiently communicate the original design. All of the information you mentioned is on the prints.

It may be....but not in the format we accept it based on the image shown. However, to each his own and I can only speak for the City of Richmond, VA. We do have a process that makes you actually WORK to get a permit for commerical work so I can't comment on other jurisdictions.

I understand your point as well as I do understand Bob's....However, communication is going to be the key with working with the Engineer as while you may be of a higher level of knowledge the vast many are not.....

 

[USMC1302]

In my experience, inspectors are generally just looking for code compliance, although I have had some contact the owner when they note deviations from plans/specs. It's the engineer's responsibility to ensure plans/specs are followed. So many specs are cookie cutter that I wonder if anybody ever really pays attention to them. As far as I'm concerned the drawings/specs are the rules, and they better be followed unless a change has been approved by the engineer and owner.

 

[ohmhead]

Well just a input to see how other states or countys do it .

The engineer designs plans we bid per plans commercial only if we VE the job or request a change in writing to engineer thur the contractor or contruction manager for approval or rejection per engineer .

If approved per engineer it must be in writing and plans must be changed or inspector will not approve .

The plans must show the change or its a no go per inspector .

The county building dept must review these new plans and they also read the spec book and hold us to the specs which if they exceed the nec it must be done per specs .

During the inspection the plans must be open to the inspector to sign off each area inspected by electrical inspector .

Its lots of fun down here but this has started about 3 years ago it was due to the hurricanes we had inspectors were being charged with not inspecting now they inspect there very picky in florida . Hope this shows what other states do George .

Its more of a protection when a job has a fire or a problem years from now your covered by a document .

 

[radiopet]

In my experience, inspectors are generally just looking for code compliance, although I have had some contact the owner when they note deviations from plans/specs. It's the engineer's responsibility to ensure plans/specs are followed. So many specs are cookie cutter that I wonder if anybody ever really pays attention to them. As far as I'm concerned the drawings/specs are the rules, and they better be followed unless a change has been approved by the engineer and owner.

I have YET to review a cookie cutter type plan in the City of Richmond. They all are unique and different and have many different components we have to look at. I sat at one set and did a 25 story high rise and then the next minute reviewed a waste water plant with dozens of motors and so on......

Again, if the plans are from an Engineer and he stamps them, we review them and give comments on what needs to be changed or explained better and they re-do them unless we can understand what they want and make changes for them if possible. Once the plans are released....any changes or modifications must be re-submitted or if the issue is minor then a letter from the Engineer for review may be all that is needed but at the end of the day the engineers stamps them with his/her liability, we review them for compliance and the Electrician is expected to follow the approved drawings....end of story.

 

[LarryFine]

We will only accept a submission of a set of plans that equal or exceed the quality of a licensed professional engineer. A master electrician is allowed to submit a drawing for a select use group of work to which is allowed and the drawings must have all the elements the City of Richmond require on the drawings and in the same quality as an engineered drawing.

I've done it; it ain't easy! But Ed T. was extremely helpful.

 

[Power Tech]

I have YET to review a cookie cutter type plan in the City of Richmond. They all are unique and different and have many different components we have to look at. I sat at one set and did a 25 story high rise and then the next minute reviewed a waste water plant with dozens of motors and so on......

Again, if the plans are from an Engineer and he stamps them, we review them and give comments on what needs to be changed or explained better and they re-do them unless we can understand what they want and make changes for them if possible. Once the plans are released....any changes or modifications must be re-submitted or if the issue is minor then a letter from the Engineer for review may be all that is needed but at the end of the day the engineers stamps them with his/her liability, we review them for compliance and the Electrician is expected to follow the approved drawings....end of story.

I told myself I would not post on here anymore but, I can't help it. If I am on a commercial job and notice the engineer circuited the plan so circuits 1,3, and 4 go to a group of lights that are 3 circuits. Am I expected to pull 2 neutrals, or can I group 1,3, and 5. Is that okay to you, or do I need to resubmit for plan check. If so sir, you are an over-inspector.