The NEC Vs. Engineers III: Revelations

[radiopet]

Paul, I have no idea what you mean.

Are you suggesting the EC might be able to influence the EE who works for the customer?

We are watched over closely by someone that works for the customer to ensure the customer gets what was bid on.

Who would know about the electrical job more than the EE that designed it?

Sure you do Bob....it's the part where the Municipal is left out of the loop where projects are changed based on agreements the municipal is not aware of. In the end something happens, lawsuits fly and fingers get pointed and guess who looses...the Municipal who is charged with governing the work but never approved the changes....

Again a difference in your area versus my area...the Electrical Engineers do not follow the projects to the end. Many times the engineer who did the plans have never even been to the job site so yes I can imagine you do have a good set of Engineers....but they are also not created equal so we have developed this system to cover that fact...nothing more...nothing less.

 

[iwire]

It seems more like a power trip to me. :grin:

So what type of change would require updated drawings?

Can the project owner walk into the job and ask me to add a receptacle in his future office without me making them resubmit drawings to the EI?

If the plans call for a 3/4" raceway and I run 1" will I fail for non-compliance with the plans?

If I do not follow the indicated route for conduits will I fail?

Exactly what code section is cited for failure to match the specifications?

 

[radiopet]

It seems more like a power trip to me. :grin:

So what type of change would require updated drawings?

Can the project owner walk into the job and ask me to add a receptacle in his future office without me making them resubmit drawings to the EI?

If the plans call for a 3/4" raceway and I run 1" will I fail for non-compliance with the plans?

If I do not follow the indicated route for conduits will I fail?

Exactly what code section is cited for failure to match the specifications?

You see....the problem is everyone wishes to throw everything into a bag and mix it up when taken to extreme. I clearly said that many changes would require nothing more than a call to the Engineer and a faxed letter to e-mail to the review department. Not everything requires new plans.......where did I ever say that??? please show me..please.

We do not care about the routing except when it pertains to fire walls or fire rated assemblies and UL Firestopping details, that is observed by the EI on site. We do not care about removing receptacles but if you add more than 5 we want to know where, what circuit and so on....If you wish to run 1" instead of 3/4" then we do not care but what you run into them we might if the reason you increased it was for some other reason...all things the EI will see (hopefully) and will expect a good explanation for. In regards to the section we would cite.....that is a local ordinance based on the stamp we also place on the drawings and having the approved set on site per the USBC.

Now...a power trip....oh give me a break.........we would prefer an easy day at work. Good plans showing all the required information and happy contractors/customers. We work with contractors and engineers and the intent of the NEC is clear in it's scope but I would be tell a false truth if I said it was perfect....because it ain't. We give the Engineers everything they need to design compliant drawings to standards set ( not by me ) the municipal and it works and probably your Engineers drawings would more than meet those requirements but without asking for them we would not get them.

 

[radiopet]

But I do see where it can appear as a power trip......but I can assure you it is not intended that way. It was designed to remove liablility and ensure compliance through a fullfilled review process....and yep we miss things too.....

 

[iwire]

You see....the problem is everyone wishes to throw everything into a bag and mix it up when taken to extreme. I clearly said that many changes would require nothing more than a call to the Engineer and a faxed letter to e-mail to the review department. Not everything requires new plans.......where did I ever say that??? please show me..please.

OK whatever you want to call it, you expect a fax or phone call for every deviation?

Thats nuts.

We do not care about the routing except when it pertains to fire walls or fire rated assemblies and UL Firestopping details, that is observed by the EI on site. We do not care about removing receptacles but if you add more than 5 we want to know where, what circuit and so on....If you wish to run 1" instead of 3/4" then we do not care but what you run into them we might if the reason you increased it was for some other reason...all things the EI will see (hopefully) and will expect a good explanation for. In regards to the section we would cite.

So in very plain English it is selective enforcement, the EC must follow the specs or prints only when you decide they have to. Got it now, very good system. :grin:

Now...a power trip....oh give me a break.........

It's a joke, lighten up.

we would prefer an easy day at work.

Your day would be much easier if you left contract enforcement to the customer or their representative leaving you with only code enforcement issues to deal with.

 

[radiopet]

OK whatever you want to call it, you expect a fax or phone call for every deviation?

Thats nuts.




So in very plain English it is selective enforcement, the EC must follow the specs or prints only when you decide they have to. Got it now, very good system. :grin:




It's a joke, lighten up.



Your day would be much easier if you left contract enforcement to the customer or their representative leaving you with only code enforcement issues to deal with.

lol...I hardly call it selective enforcement Bob and I was lightening it up....I disagree with your system and thats fine...I enjoyed the laugh regarding it. And your idea would remove the plan review process which I have many many reasons to disagree with since I see engineering mistakes on a daily basis.

It is a better system in my opinion than closed door agreements and expecting the EI to know what is going on when they are not on the job at a daily basis. Do you do all the jobs in MA.....? ..lol..yeah we will keep our selective enforcement system bob.....I kinda like it and it works....but as long as you dont work down here and I dont review up their we are all set....

 

[radiopet]

honestly I dont get mad on here.....maybe it types that way but I respect your position bob...I dont agree with it but I respect it....why do you always think I dont get the jokes....I find you very funny at time....honestly...

Oh...my day would be MUCH easier if I could make it to retirement without the office drama....actually dealing with the plans with my door shut is a get-away to the office politics.

 

[George Stolz]

We have plan review here, and I don't believe it is half as "intense" as the process you describe. I think your job would be safe in either case.

 

[USMC1302]

Radiopet:
As an owner, I think your procedure would be great. I am curious however on how much your review/inspection/permit fees are? I am also curious as to whether your municipality has ever been sued for items not caught on review/inspection. It just seems to me your system is taking on liability/responsibility of contract administration that the city is not party to. I have a contract with the the design professionals and with the EC. I'll take the help to make sure I get what I pay for, but I'm already paying for that(the engineer).

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

But I do see where it can appear as a power trip......but I can assure you it is not intended that way. It was designed to remove liablility and ensure compliance through a fullfilled review process....and yep we miss things too.....

Paul
I have been reading this thread for a couple of days. I was not going to respond, but you keep repeating a theme that needs addressing in my opinion.
1. Liability for the inspector.
Liability is almost nonexistant if the inspector shows up on the jobsite, that is what errors and omissions insurance covers. Unless the inspector is obviously doing something wrong or taking money, there is little to be blamed for.
Maybe you should have a little more confidence in the inspectors.
You also keep calling them 'your' inspectors. I highly doubt you have trained them yourself, or they would not need such a tongue lashing as they have received from you in this thread. I am sure if they have read this, you would not be too well received at work.

2. You make it sound as though the engineers in Virginia are incapable of actually properly designing a job properly.
How long have you been in your position as a plans reviewer? 2 years.
What happened for all those years before you were there???

What I gather from your posts, is a guy new at his job who sees a few mistakes and then develops an opinion that all work is inferior.

Sorry, I cannot believe that Virginia is so different than the rest of the country.

 

[Riograndeelectric]

We have plan review here, and I don't believe it is half as "intense" as the process you describe. I think your job would be safe in either case.

Most of the time this is true However a few years ago the city of Thornton fire prevention plan review engineer wrote up a 3 page correction letter and then to re submit the plans. the Fire review engineer was new to the field and to his job with Thornton. He nit picked the whole set of drawing that were drawn my A FPE .The same Fire Inspector did the same thing to the sprinkler fitters had the fitter moving sprinkler heads because he was worried that there was some small lack of coverage of the sprinkler to reach in every corner.
the same fie inspector also failed the co for the job because there was a wooden spool of wire stored in the electrical room.
agreed most of the tome -95% the plan review is simple.

 

[Cavie]

I find the whole issue to be more government red tape. I just did a 800 amp service change in a casting plant my company ownes. County regulations say anything over 600 amps needs engineers sealed plans. I designed the system. Listed all wire, pipe, breaker sizes. He gets $1000.00 and I get a red seal on my plans. I'm in the wrong business.

 

[ivsenroute]

I don't want to sound like a broken record but my previous comments about other codes applying don't seem to be having any impact on this discussion.

Example:

The drawings show 50% of the lighting being on one circuit for a conference room and the other 50% on another circuit.

The EC does a calculation and determines that 100% of the lighting load can easily be placed on 1 circuit so he makes the change and documents this simple item on the prints.

The EI fails the job because the EC just violated the energy code. There was a reason why that was designed that way that is not part of the NEC.

This happens all the time as more states are adopting the International Energy Conservation Code and you must now know both the NEC and the IECC.

Again, every state is a little different but the procedures are there for a reason.

Scenario #2
The EC sees that #4 wire was specified to be run in conduit in the ceiling of a warehouse for a 30A circuit. He determines that even with voltage drop, he could easily use #6 without a problem. To save even more money, with the reduction in wire size, he determines that he could now drop down one size in conduit. Yeah, great idea right?

Wrong.

The warehouse had maintenance problems due to heat buildup and after some investigating by their maintenance staff in other buildings, they discovered that they need to derate and oversize all wire run for this circuit due to the excessive heat that was not expected. As a result they contacted their architect firm and had them make changes in the plans.

This is an NEC issue, not just an approved prints, contract issue. We now have a known factor that requires derating.

Just realize that the more you learn, the more you realize just how much you don't know. I have been realizing this for a long time

 

[e57]

It is a better system in my opinion than closed door agreements and expecting the EI to know what is going on ~~~

Not trying to get in the middle of the Bob vs. Paul tiff going on here the last few.... But Paul - I don't see where you seem to get the idea that a field change - either with or without the consent of the EE by the EC and the customer, without the over-sight & approval from the "government" is some sort of corrupt back room deal? :roll:

Sure - most plan review people, in most locales are a lot more relaxed. They review code compliance in the design, not the design itself, and do so only as a preliminary for all jobs, and a final from 'as builds' for jobs requiring the plans be filed - which is not all of them. Otherwise they are not concerned with the specification or design flaws that may be present, unless Title 24. (Which some of them for the most part are laughable - since most EE's here live in some sort of cloud - and yes - have not updated their boiler-plates in eons...) They let the EC and EI hash out the compliance of applicable code, and let the EC and EE accept liability for design flaws and the GC/Client & EE hold the EC responsible for spec compliance. AND THAT WORKS!!!! Often the most serious flaws will be pointed out in the bid process, if not the RFI blizzard once the bid is landed.

You seem to be taking that all on by yourselfs, and by doing so leveling the playing field of the economic part of contracting. (Contracts) Since your acting as a member of a government agency, you're reducing competion by slicing the "apples" up front, and on the payroll of the tax payer.... Sure Joe Public doesn't get a worm, but those worms are what we as EC's often find to be competive in pricing.

That said - The way you describe Richmond VA - How does anything ever get done? :roll: For that matter, will the Gestapo show up with bulldozers to level the place if the papers are not in order at the end?

 

[iwire]

I don't want to sound like a broken record but....

I guess it's my turn to sound like a broken record. :grin:

Example:

The drawings show 50% of the lighting being on one circuit for a conference room and the other 50% on another circuit.

The EC does a calculation and determines that 100% of the lighting load can easily be placed on 1 circuit so he makes the change and documents this simple item on the prints.

The electrical engineer will catch this and force us to fix it, they watch what we do and check what we do, if not the EE themselves, someone from their office.

There Scenario #2

The EC sees that #4 wire was specified to be run in conduit in the ceiling of a warehouse for a 30A circuit. He determines that even with voltage drop, he could easily use #6 without a problem. To save even more money, with the reduction in wire size, he determines that he could now drop down one size in conduit. Yeah, great idea right?

The electrical engineer will catch this and force us to fix it, they watch what we do and check what we do, if not the EE themselves, someone from their office.

Again I ask, who will know the electrical design and the reasons for it more than the one the designed it, certainly not the inspector.

Just realize that the more you learn, the more you realize just how much you don't know.

I agree, now realize you do not know how it works here so instead of saying it can not work this way take a step back and realize it must work because it is working.

The Govt. is not always the best at doing things, sometimes the private sector is very good at watching how their money is spent.

 

[hillbilly]

I would not want to work at a municipal where they dont keep a watchful eye over the work being done.

Nineteen Eighty Four ...plus 25 years.

Just a opinion
steve

 

[weressl]

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.

It really is simple.

If we all show respect for others work it will produce the best result.

If I, as an engineer, made a mistake I definetly want to know about it. Otherwise I expect the installation to be done the way I designed and engineered it. If you wish to suggest a change, by all means. But if it is a change to my specification, material or installation detail please let me know and I will change my documents as required. The documents are not only for construction, but also for records and maintenance.

I usually only have to get the Contractor remove and re-install items at his cost. If it is no big deal, I will give him a one-time pass, but never a second one.

Let me add that one of the reasons why I don't like changes, especially if it produces financial benefits for the Contractor, because the other bidders did not have the same oppurtunity and I don't like lowballers. I tell everyone at the bidders meeting: list EVERYTHING that you intend to do diferently than it is shown in the documentation.

 

[weressl]

If the stamped, approved plans have what you believe is a mistake that got by the engineer and the plan reviewer then bring it to their attention and again, get the appropriate paperwork.

Engineers make mistakes
Plan reviewers make mistakes
Electrical inspectors make mistakes
Electricians make mistakes

Lets just all work together, real simple.

Can somebody say: AMEN?! Lemme hear the Congregation say Aaaaahhhhhmeeen!

 

[George Stolz]

It really is simple.

I agree - and I'm surprised it took so long for someone to seize on the service change I was considering. That would be passed along to the engineer for sure, if I got the job. The upfront cost of my change would have increased the bid somewhat, so I was covered either way.

Can somebody say: AMEN?!

Amen.

 

[Power Tech]

Well as a electrician working for a electrical contractor running jobs i spend lots of time before my job starts up reviewing plans and specs we do this to find NEC code issues feeders the wrong size breakers not to code on distribution and clearance problems kinda re estimate the job for the estimator to find out if he missed something .

This is done before contract is signed we may have a letter of intent but the job is still open to change.

You do your homework ahead then write RFIs to engineer if the engineer approves the change you get paid .
NEC always is to your advantage you will get paid.

On a average large job we write over 180 RFIs for issues to the contractor then he rewrites to engineer.

But there is one thing i have learned from working with estimators and project managers do not give anything back ever the cost of a credit is more then your estimate .

We spend months before a job planning our work underground and overhead on most projects so we can save time and material but no owner or contractor needs to know what we do we dont tell them our feeders are 100 feet shorter or we saved money relocating panels inside a electrical room and save 5 foot of 6 runs of 600 mcm copper .

Theres ways to save and nothing changes the plans !

Sometimes it is more of a benefit to give a little back to the owner but not everyday you see you give them a little rope back then that next 20 million dollar project might be in your pocket in the future .

But iam just a electrician not a estimator and ive seen this happening thur the years of doing electrical work . NEVER GIVE CREDIT WHEN CREDIT IS DO !

Paul,
You talked about liability to the EI and his employer. In my opinion, unless your adopted electrical code states that you are enforcing both the NEC and the design plans and specs you have drastically increased the liability when you take on the job of enforcing the contract conditions. If you have only adopted the NEC and you are red tagging things that are code compliant but not compliant with the specs you are guilty of malicious prosecution. The enforcement of the design should never be a function of government. That is between the engineer, owner and contractor. The government fucntion is to enforce the minimal codes as they are adopted.

Very well said. Thank you.