If a set of plans as been reviewed and approved by the (AHJ), and most items on the plans exceeds the mimimun requirements of the NEC. for example the plans shows a 1200 amp service..but from your load calculations an 800 amp service will work,...the plan shows a #2/0 grounding electrode conductor(exothermic welded to ground rods,...but you decide to use a #6 and use mechanical connections .The inspector turns to job down because "the work was not done according to the approved plans" Question : is it the inspector duty to only enforce the NEC minimum requirments, and not beyoung that ?

As far as I'm aware of, plans are legal documents that are filed with the county and define the construction of a building. The building needs to be built according to the plans. Amended plans would need to be filed so show differences in the construction. The AHJ should only be accepting what's on the plans.

steve

I may be wrong, but IMO plan reviews are for code compliance and should not have any bearing beyond code compliance in the finished product.

At any given time during a project the owner may decide to consider some "Value Engineering" and if this altered the drawings to an extent without compromising "code compliance" why would the AHJ have the power to force this owner to buy a Cadillac when after second thought an Impala would suffice?

If this inspector is so concerned with "Contract Document compliance" he/she should go to work for the Architect or Engineer that is doing the design and writing the specs.

Roger



[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 03-21-2005).]

Thanks for your reply Stamcom, as an Inspector, when a set of plans are approved,the work should be done according to the plans,..any changes must be in writting from the Designer/Engineer. if any problems that may occur in a wiring system if we allow changes without consent from the designer, then the AHJ will be at fault.Most good designer exceed the minimum NEC requirements, however some electrical contractors will cut corners to make a profit by trying to wire to the mimimun code.

Mj, your concerns would be covered by the owners representatives, i.e. A/E.

The punch lists and close out documentation would guarantee design compliance, the contractors final payment and retainage would be held until all close outs were satisfied.

An AHJ is treading on thin ice as far as demanding item for item installation beyond code and holding up a C.O.

If there are added items, the AHJ has every right to ask for new drawings to review, if there are deletions, the AHJ would also have the right to ask for "record drawings" but not to turn down a job.

BTW, this is only MO.

Roger

Funny when most of our EE plans go to the city planning dept., we usually have a lot of red pen additions to cover. Mo'money!

But on the job, they ask for the approved set as refferance to scope, and as-builds for FLS. Not often will they get into enginnerring except to check AIC, or load calc's or something like that.

Outside of the Inspector and the City, it is simple contract compliance to perform the bid set. (UON)

I think the argument you will get from most building departments is if that was what was submitted and plan reviewed that is what you build. Their inspectors have enough to do without trying to second guess why something is what it is on the plan.
It is certainly up to the inspector what he will ignore if it has his bosses signature and stamp on it but he may be proceeding at his own peril.

Anybody remember when the balcony fell at a hotel in I believe Kansas City quite a while back ? I do . The first thing they did was send in the forsenic engineers who raised hell because somebody did not follow the accepted plans.

My general rules are:

1) show as little on the plans as is necessary.

2) the inspector checks that details on the plans are constructed as shown

3) the inspector shecks that details NOT on the plans are to code.

When you bid on a job, I am sure that a set of plans were given to you. Any wiring methods,materials,service size,grounding details,etc.. should be done according to the plans, However for those that wish to make extra profits just do not follow the plans.For example, use NMC instead of a Metal Raceway, install (50) circuits instead of (100). so when an if the wiring system fails because the plans were not followed, who is to blame, the AHJ, The General,or the Electrical Contractor ?

This is a local concern in the area you work in. If the AHJ approves a set of plans and has the required legal authority to make sure the building was constructed to plan, then the AHJ can look for that requirement in addition to code.
If the AHJ does not have the legal authority to enforce the plans then he can only enforce the code as adopted in that area.
The AHJ here does not check building vs plans because the legal authority is not there. The plan checks here are for permitting purposes and to see if code minimums are met inthe design. Change happen all the time and the record set turned in after the job is the owners to do with what they want.

It depends on what rules and/or laws you are working under.

As an EE, I often get pissed when the electrician/technician does what he feels like, and in the process ruins careful planning around often difficult design issues- there are many times where compromises have to be made on the minor things so that the major ones work, and it's a LOT easier to do them on paper beforehand than to do them wrong on the jobsite and have to undo it and do it twice. Especially when the changes made are *wrong* and done just to cut corners. I try to always notate the intent on the plans- like a canned note saying that "only general locations are shown, minor deviations are authorized" etc. On the other hand, there are a great many things that are more apparent when you're right there, hands-on, and I'll actively defer to the electrician's judgement. That judgement is also the last chance for mistakes to be caught.

If in doubt, give the engineer a call! I'd much prefer getting constant calls than have expensive problems pop up. (Minor disclaimer: I work on aircraft carriers, not houses... boils down to the same process, though)

[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 03-25-2005).]

what if the sumited plans are not to code?

Then you're kind of screwed.

If the plans aren't to code, question it! A lot of the problems between engineers and contractors stem from miscommunications; no sense making a mistake on paper more expensive with malicious compliance. If it was a mistake, then it's a mistake and it's a good thing you caught it. If it was a deliberate nonconformance, then you'd want to know the background and/or get it in writing so you can cover your ass and put the onus on the engineer.

The appendecies of the IRC has a paragraph stating that the codes are not meant to stifle innovation and that exceptions are allowed. (I mention this because my state, like others, didn't adobt the NEC directly, but only through the IBC, in which case, as I understand it, the IBC would have override the NEC.) If the non-conformance was done for a reason and has sound engineering data and a stamp to back it up and was approved by the inspections dept, then you'd at least feel better about doing it like the plans, right?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what if the sumited plans are not to code?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you're kind of screwed.

----------------------------

----------------------------

ROTFLMAO
Ryan, Can I quote you next time a code violation slips through on some plans and the contractor points out that the plans were approved that way???? The look on his face would be priceless!!!!

You bet!

In fact, I had to tell someone that today about an hour ago!!!

Most of the plans that I review that are drawn by an EE always exceedes the mimimun NEC requirments . When I approve the plans , the job will done accordingly. The ony way to change anything in the plans,will be a letter from the EE and (those changes must meet or exceed the NEC requirments). From time to time electrical contractors ask us to help design an installation, however, I refuse to take part in a design issue. As AHJ we are not design consults.

If an inspector notes that an installation does not match the plans but _does_ meet code, then wouldn't they at least have a moral obligation to inform the customer? If I as a customer had specified copper wire of excess ampacity and aluminium wire of sufficient ampacity was installed, I'd feel cheated.

-Jon

For some additonal perspective to this question, here is an excerpt from the State of Utah administrative rules governing building inspectors.
http://www.dopl.utah.gov/licensing/statutes_and_rules/R156-56.doc

Note that as used in these rules "building inspector" is a generic term covering electrical inspectors, plumbing inspectors, etc.

Quote:
R156-56-502. Unprofessional Conduct - Building Inspectors.
"Unprofessional conduct" includes:
.
.
.
(10) approval of work which materially varies from approved documents that have been stamped by an architect, professional engineer or both unless authorized by the licensed architect, professional engineer or both;

End Quote

In the state of Utah an inspector is required to inspect to the approved plans. Other states or jurisdictions may have similar provisions.

This thread refers to one of my pet peeves.

As the Electrician, YOU are the expert...not the engineer, not the architect, not the inspector. Your job, and responsibility, goes way beyond twisting wire nuts.
The engineer likely never even heard of the NEC untill after graduation. None of his coursework made him familiar in the least with trade practices and materials.
The architect is more concerned with the starving feral cats in Moronia, and drewing pretty pictures, than in designing something that works, or makes sense.
The planning department is focused entirely on counting receptacles, collecting fees, and coffee break.
The inspector may have no training beyond a nine-month course in reading a code book.

Let's face reality. Things often look different in person than they do on paper.
If you slavishly follow the approved plans, and the inspector, on final, discovers that something doesn't meet code- guess what? You get to do it over.
If something doesn't work, guess who gets to fix it?

Entire buildings have had to be moved, or demolished, because neither the designer nor the planning dept noticed that the structure infringed upon setback requirements....but the final inspector did!

This is another reason you need to kmow more than just "your" code and trade, and you need to watch the other trades as well. The phone/data guy puts his box within your transformers' working space- get it fixed now!

At some point, you will have to draw the line, stop work, and leave the job. That's what makes you a professional- not just another drone. Or, you will have to tell the customer "I don't do that."

To be fair, neither did most electricians before starting work, either