• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

An average day

ICE, I greatly appreciated looking at your pics and reading your comments starting from when you first posted them. Having had over 25 years building, and now over 20 years as an inspector/plans examiner/code official, I enjoy and still benefit from your posts.

Providing a code section and a picture often saves me a hundred words trying to explain the problem to the foreman or job superintendent. And it's a bonus when they send me picture back of the item corrected.
 
Hard to tell from the angle of the photo, but the nails don't really have much meat to grab onto either.
 
No curbs at least, and potentially too much elevation without a landing. Landing at intersection at top of oes not look near level. Dimensions including pitch hard to tell from photo.

Curbs and intersection landing for sure.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Well, our regs might be different from yours but

- no landing at change of direction;
- no mid-spot resting area
- improper guards
- missing/improper handrail
- missing curbs
Click to expand...
If you look carefully there is a “mid-spot” resting area … sort of. You can see the railing go level. Now that’s not to say it’s at the middle of the incline, or if it is at the maximum distance from one end, or even if it is correct. But give them a C- for good intentions.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Well, our regs might be different from yours but

- no landing at change of direction;
- no mid-spot resting area
- improper guards
- missing/improper handrail
- missing curbs
Click to expand...
Definitely over 30" at least at section in upper left of photo so guard infill missing.

Isn't top rail on guard acceptable for handrail? Maybe it's only in assembly seating where that's the case. Certainly appears to meet graspability requirement.
 
e hilton said:
If you look carefully there is a “mid-spot” resting area … sort of. You can see the railing go level. Now that’s not to say it’s at the middle of the incline, or if it is at the maximum distance from one end, or even if it is correct. But give them a C- for good intentions.
Click to expand...

It's there - and it isn't actually level.

(I'm actually going to send this to the next person that teaches such things to our new inspectors.)

bill1952 said:
Definitely over 30" at least at section in upper left of photo so guard infill missing.

Isn't top rail on guard acceptable for handrail? Maybe it's only in assembly seating where that's the case. Certainly appears to meet graspability requirement.
Click to expand...

Our codes would require balusters with 4" spacing.

To be a handrail, would have to be on both sides, continuously graspable, and one would extend 30 cm beyond the end (not shown, but doesn't exist.)
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Our codes would require balusters with 4" spacing.

To be a handrail, would have to be on both sides, continuously graspable, and one would extend 30 cm beyond the end (not shown, but doesn't exist.)
Click to expand...
You wouldn't permit anything except balusters? Not solid panels or mesh nor anything else but balusters?

I thought there were graspable rails on both sides and can't see end of ramp.
 
I don't want to use a company name so I will tell you that it rhymes with sun run. The worker was not there. He left me a note explaining why he was not there. The dead fronts are sitting on the ground. I left a correction slip asking him to not do this...along with a few other items. The major correction is that there is no label on the service panel. It has a 100 amp main breaker and there is a 30 perhaps 40 amp PV breaker. The 120% rule will not allow that.


IMG_4438.JPG


IMG_4436.JPG


An hour later I met him at another job. He asked me about the corrections at the first job. When I mentioned the dead fronts he said that he has done exactly that for years and was not going to change now. So I started to write corrections and asked him to open all of the equipment. He said that I can open the equipment myself. Before I could finish the second correction he said, "You're a contractor and you are wasting my time with corrections because I will just get someone else." I asked him if he wants me to stop. He said yes and I did.

The two corrections were: Bond every end of the armor that protects the GEC. Secure the armor protected GEC to the building, above the dirt.

Doing this job a day at a time ... now and then ... is enough for me.

IMG_4442.JPG
 
Last edited:
Solar contractors always have pictures of the roof top junction boxes. I don't go on tile roofs. So I end up with a cell phone screen showing me the work. I wrote a correction for this ... then the worker said,
"Oh my bad, that picture is from another job."

IMG_4449.JPG
 
Last edited:
This water heater is ten inches away from the wall with no brace behind it. The plumber's tape at the front is flimsy, like something from an Erector Set.

IMG_4451.JPG
 
ICE said:
The major correction is that there is no label on the service panel. It has a 100 amp main breaker and there is a 30 perhaps 40 amp PV breaker. The 120% rule will not allow that.
Click to expand...
Did you get the bus rating? If it's 100A, I agree, but it's 125A, it's fine.

Cheers, Wayne
 
The condensate pump is getting power from inside the furnace. The furnace is hard wired with a switch. There is no receptacle in the closet.

IMG_4446.JPG
 
Service upgrade. Licensed electrical contractor. This Connection to the gas pipe and a ufer are the grounding electrode system. Five feet from the gas meter is the copper main water service pipe. The contractor says that the gas pipe is connected to the cold water pipe at the water heater. He claims that this is how he has done it for years without any problems. The wire and clamp are existing so I wonder if he did the original install thirty years ago.

IMG_4444.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top