An average day

[ICE]

I spotted an extension ladder sticking out of the ground. I could only see a few inches of the ladder because it was behind a lumber stack. Right away I thought: Well I better have a look and I might get a picture out of this because there's bound to be some scary thing happening. They are looking for the sewer lateral. The hole is 5'x7' at the top and 9' deep. There is a tunnel that extends 5'. They were digging another hole 15' from this hole and if they didn't find it there, the plan was to connect the holes with the tunnel. They are convinced that the lateral is around eight feet deep so the tunnel at 7' to 9' deep should intersect the lateral. The soil is sandy silt and they dug it all with shovels. An angel must have said: Would somebody go get a Tiger.

 

[Keystone]

Now I understand all the great pics, your gonna make a bad contractors picture book,

"Bad Contracting For Dummies, Picture Version".

 

[brudgers]

What have you got against people striving for the Darwin award?

 

[Mac]

Keep at it Icy, there's no way to tell how many stu... I mean innocent lives you are saving.

 

[TJacobs]

They dug 2 holes connected by a tunnel so that if one hole collapsed they could escape to the other hole...

:roll:

 

[JMORRISON]

Practice for Cartel employment?

 

[Coug Dad]

Any pics from inside the tunnel??????? Right this way meeeester inspector!

 

[Alias]

Looks like someone's been swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool!

CalOSHA would've had a field day with this one........................:devil

Sue

 

[ICE]

Looks like someone's been swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool! CalOSHA would've had a field day with this one........................:devil

Sue

As soon as I left the site yesterday, the workman stopped filling the hole and continued digging the next hole. I went there this morning and there were the holes. The workman called the contractor. I told the contractor that I would call OSHA. The contractor called my office. My supervisor called me and said that I should drop it because I put it in writing yesterday and I was not to call OSHA. Apparently, a written notice from me renders the site safe.

OSHA doesn't answer the phone on Fridays.

Tiger

 

[fatboy]

Me thinks an anonymous tip to OSHA on Monday would be in order...........

 

[Daddy-0-]

I agree with Brudgers as scary as that is!

 

[ICE]

Me thinks an anonymous tip to OSHA on Monday would be in order...........

By Friday afternoon the holes were filled. The contractor took pictures to the office. I guess the thought of an OSHA fine scared him into action.



In the first six months of my career I walked into a 600 sq. ft. room addition and nearly passed out. The contractor had painted every wood surface with Cuprinol wood preservative. The studs and plates, ceiling joists, rafters, even the inside of the wall and underside of the roof sheathings. There were puddles on the slab. I got all the way to the part of passing out where I lost contact with my body. I wanted to shout for help and nothing came out. I didn't go all the way out but for a moment, I was laying on the lawn unable to move. My exposer lasted less than 10 seconds.

I didn't have to think about what to do and told the contractor that he would have to tear it down and start over.

Naturally the contractor went to the top of my department and he enlisted the homeowner to present an argument to keep it. The Superintendent of Building decided that once the drywall is installed, the framing could be considered to be outdoors and therefor the skull and crossbones warning is moot. More Cuprinol was applied to the outside of the wall and roof sheathing.

I was new and this ruling came from the top. I performed the rest of the inspections looking through the windows.

Four years later, on a cold winter day, I went there to inspect a water heater replacement. The lady of the house answered the door wearing an overcoat with a hood. She looked at me with tears in her eyes and said: "You let them ruin my home."

All of the windows in the entire house were open and had been open since the day the Cuprinol was applied. I could still smell the chemical. She explained that if the windows are closed, the smell overwhelms them in a few hours.

When it happened, I consulted the manufacturer, EPA and few others that I can't remember. All said that the wood must be removed and maybe the concrete slab. I presented my findings to the SOB.

It is eleven years later and a chilly morning; I bet the windows are open at that house.

So back to the holes. As soon as I got off the phone with my supervisor, I called CalOSHA and left a detailed message. By the time I returned to the office, the manager had gotten wind of the situation and asked me what I was doing about it. I told him and he said to stay on top of this contractor and do whatever I think is necessary. As I was leaving his office, he said that he appreciates my willingness to buck the system.

I might add that the manager and his brother were building a house many years ago and have first hand experience. The trench sloped to a depth of 13'. As the brother was walking out of the trench, it collapsed at the 8' depth and trapped him up to his armpits. He was dug out to his nuts by the time the FD arrived but it was a close call.

And the lady? She was correct in her accusation. I did indeed let them ruin her home and most likely, her health.

Tiger

 

[GCtony]

I have a unrelated question but didn't want to start another thread.

We have an out of town project, a large retail store. The building inspector has been a "little over the top" with some of his interpertations of the code. We've played nice and done what he's asked. But today one of the things he failed us for on a final was "install 6" cove base in the restrooms" We'll go ahead and change out the 4" to 6" like he asked but I spent an hour looking in the IBC and can't find any requirement for 6" base. Does this exist or is this something he just likes to see?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Codegeek]

The 2006 IBC requires a 6 inch base. It changes to 4 inches in the 2009 and stays 4 inches in the 2012 in Section 1210.2.1.

 

[Coug Dad]

1210.1 (2009) is 4 inches

Codegeek is too quick on the draw

 

[righter101]

I have a unrelated question but didn't want to start another thread. We have an out of town project, a large retail store. The building inspector has been a "little over the top" with some of his interpertations of the code. We've played nice and done what he's asked. But today one of the things he failed us for on a final was "install 6" cove base in the restrooms" We'll go ahead and change out the 4" to 6" like he asked but I spent an hour looking in the IBC and can't find any requirement for 6" base. Does this exist or is this something he just likes to see?

Thanks in advance.

IBC Chapter 12 (2009 edition) would support your position

SECTION 1210

SURROUNDING MATERIALS

1210.1 Floors and wall base finish materials. In other than

dwelling units, toilet, bathing and shower room floor finish

materials shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface. The

intersections of such floors with walls shall have a smooth,

hard, nonabsorbent vertical base that extends upward onto the

walls at least 4 inches (102 mm).

This is a change from 2006 codes which had it at 6".

If you are under the 2006 codes, technically he is correct.

In our jurisidction, we do look to codes that are coming up for adoption and will consider those code changes when considering a request for modification.

If this was my jurisdiction, and you were permitted under the 2006 codes, on a minor (IMHO) issue such as this, we would allow compliance with the newer code.

What code were you permitted under?

One option you always have is to request, in writing, a modification from the building official. You are supposed to provide the compelling evidence that your alternative is equal in safety and such.

Using a code change to a slightly lesser requirement, IMHO, would qualify.

Worth a shot.

Also, I always feel there is nothing wrong with asking inspectors and plans examiners what section of the code is being violated when they issue a notice of correction. Coming from the side of the enforcers of the code, I feel this is an entirely reasonable request. I have instructed my inspetors to, if unable to quote chapter and verse on the spot, inform the contractor that we will provide them a code citation later that day or the following day at the least..

Part of our job as code officers involves education to the public and I fully support that.

Have a nice day. Good luck.

 

[righter101]

Yeah he is quick.

I could have beat him but I was sipping coffee and typing.

 

[mjesse]

I have a unrelated question but didn't want to start another thread. We have an out of town project, a large retail store. The building inspector has been a "little over the top" with some of his interpertations of the code. We've played nice and done what he's asked. But today one of the things he failed us for on a final was "install 6" cove base in the restrooms" We'll go ahead and change out the 4" to 6" like he asked but I spent an hour looking in the IBC and can't find any requirement for 6" base. Does this exist or is this something he just likes to see?

Thanks in advance.

Feel free to start a new thread anytime.

Although this isn't a great place, see 2006 IBC 1210.1 Floors.

In other than dwelling units, toilet and bathing room floors shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface that extends upward onto the walls at least 6 inches (152 mm).

mj

 

[GCtony]

Well son of a gun! What the heck is it doing in the accessability chapter? I guess Chaper 8, finishes would make too much sense. You know how many restrooms I've built that don't meet 1210? Learn something new every day. Thanks!

I'm wondering if other juristictions inturpert "smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surfaces" as painted drywall?

 

[mtlogcabin]

One option you always have is to request, in writing, a modification from the building official. You are supposed to provide the compelling evidence that your alternative is equal in safety and such.Using a code change to a slightly lesser requirement, IMHO, would qualify

Agree 100%.

In defense of the inspetor most can barely keep up with the current adopted codes and will not even look at the newer editions till they are being adopted.