• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

An average day

I thought the cloth straps were OK for flex ducts.
Cloth straps are listed for use a duct support. That is a mistake. The webbing folds and becomes a code violation. Used with metal duct or small diameter flex duct does not present a problem however, as you can see in the pictures, there is a limit to it's use. Under ideal conditions where the duct is supported every 4.5 feet and not sagging I suppose that the straps can do a good job with flex duct. That seldom happens.

The third picture shows what appears to be a successful outcome. Even there, the middle strap might be folded and narrow. It is a challenge to inspect duct in an existing attic because unless you are willing to crawl on ceiling joist, it is likely that you won't see it all. So what to do? When this UL listed webbing first hit the market I turned it down. Yes I know that I was exceeding my authority.....but wait a minute....when I said no it stuck so I must have been within my authority... But then a person with more authority overrode my no with a yes.

I tried to convince the AHJ that this stuff is no good. I hit a wall and mostly gave up. I could only say no to strap that I saw was folded and ask for ideal conditions. There was still plenty of occasions to turn it down.


IMG_4176.JPG


IMG_6914.JPG

IMG_9601.JPG
 
Last edited:
The contractor called me with a few questions. The corrections were written by a coworker. The inspector asked for a window that was over a kitchen sink to be tempered glazing. The second question was why the laundry room could not have a sink or receptacle. She said that the reason that the inspector gave for the window was that a kitchen sink is a hazardous location and the reason for removing the laundry sink was that it encourages people to create a second kitchen.

I made it clear that the corrections were bogus. She made it clear that she was afraid of the inspector. She talked it over with her architect and they came to the conclusion that it would be better to acquiesce than to risk being tortured. Having been ordered by management to not interact with that inspector under any circumstances, I could only suggest that she consult the office manager.

By the time that this occurred I had already given up on asking management to reign in the inspector. I was treated with indifference. I was told that unless the contractors or owners were complaining there is no reason to act on it.

The truth of the matter is that management fears that inspector. That inspector has been mistreating people for years and is at it today.


IMG_6528 copy.JPG
 
Last edited:
There was a day when everybody was in the inspector's area of the office. By everybody I mean five inspectors, the assistant office manager and the office manager. We all heard an inspector explaining a correction over the phone for a solar contractor. The correction stated that the asphalt shingle roof covering shall be replaced. This correction was delivered at a final inspection for the solar.

We heard the inspector say, "If the inspector doubts that the shingles will last an additional fifteen years, the shingles shall be replaced. I'm shocked that you didn't know that. I am an installer and I have know that for a long time."

When he got off the phone I asked him where that came from. He hemmed and hawed a finally said that it is published by the Roofer's Institute. ...to which I replied, "We do not enforce anything like that." That upset him and he told me to stay in my own lane.

Mind you, I was not confrontational in tone and I used words that did not invite trouble. Later that day I received an email from the office manager instructing me to never challenge that inspector again because I created a "hostile work environment". After that day I heard the inspector repeat the bullshlt with solar contractors several times.

I am fairly certain that the solar contractors would complain and the correction would be voided. I am also convinced that some just gave up and did it. Knowing that the inspector continued to cause such grief with seemingly no repercussion is disheartening but no surprise
 
Last edited:
"If the inspector doubts that the shingles will last an additional fifteen years, the shingles shall be replaced.
Most asphalt shingles won't last 15 years in some climates

Note: When exposed to strong, direct sunlight and rapid temperature changes i.e., thermal shocks that are commonly associated with southern states and desert climate zones — think places like Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada, and parts of California that are mostly deserts — asphalt shingles can develop cracks, resulting in a greatly diminished lifespan and premature failure.

 
Most asphalt shingles won't last 15 years in some climates

Note: When exposed to strong, direct sunlight and rapid temperature changes i.e., thermal shocks that are commonly associated with southern states and desert climate zones — think places like Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada, and parts of California that are mostly deserts — asphalt shingles can develop cracks, resulting in a greatly diminished lifespan and premature failure.

Southern New Mexico also. Even the TPO Manu. warranties here are less than other climates.
 
I told a story about an egregious evil that was perpetrated by an inspector. Four people have commented about the longevity of asphalt roof covering and not a word about the evil.

When Mary Hartman was told about a man in South America that went on a rampage where he slaughtered 19 people, 54 chickens, 11 roosters. 4 cows a horse and a llama....well she sobbed and blubbered, "How could anyone do that to a llama."

The inspector likes to cause the work to be done over....at least once. The water pipe is copper, the sewer is ABS, the gas pipe is polyethylene


IMG_0001 copy.jpeg
 
Last edited:
From the many post you have shared and the problems you have getting things corrected it seems to me the "EVIL" during your employment there was and still is the office manager who has a wishbone instead of a backbone.
 
From the many post you have shared and the problems you have getting things corrected it seems to me the "EVIL" during your employment there was and still is the office manager who has a wishbone instead of a backbone.
Well you're right about "evil to the bone".....There is twenty-one offices with well over a hundred inspectors. Imagine the havoc that would ensue if they did a competent job. The regnant ethos has nothing to do with writing corrections.
 
Last edited:
The inspector likes to cause the work to be done over....at least once. The water pipe is copper, the sewer is ABS, the gas pipe is polyethylene


View attachment 8722
I'm not making reference to CA code

#2, IPC 603.2 12-inches, can be in same trench if benched where water is up 12-inches and away 12-inches or sleeved when crossing sewer.
#3, Did not see that requirement, could be an AHJ or GAS supplier requirement?
#4, Amended by AHJ to the depth that they want.
#5, IFGC, 404.17.3 18 AWG YELLOW tracer wire required on NONmetallic pipe, (Plastic)
 
Polyethylene gas pipe, ABS sewer pipe and copper or CPVC or PVC or PEX water pipe can be in contact with each other. You can add electrical conduit to the list but if it is metallic conduit it shall be separated from copper pipe. The tracer wire for polyethylene gas pipe need not be yellow but shall be a minimum #14 awg.
 
Last edited:
CPC 1210.1.7.2 Tracer Wire An electrically continuous corrosion-resistant tracer wire (not less than AWG 14) or tape shall be buried with the plastic pipe to facilitate locating. One end of the tracer wire or tape shall be brought aboveground at a building wall or riser. [NFPA 54:7.1.7.3]

See why you have to put up a disclamer when talking about Califorina Codes.
 
The caller wants an explanation of the "1 hour fire rated assembly" ... please hold for that inspector... Then I get to hear the inspector explain why an updated smoke alarm is required.


IMG_4251.JPG


The next caller wants to know what "by code" means....what the minimum protection is and how to dedicate circuits. That'll take him a while to explain all of that.

IMG_4281.JPG
 
Last edited:
ICE, what happens when the contractor requests code sections from this inspector for his corrections?
I can't say for sure. I know that if a person asks the office manager about a correction, that manager researches .... that starts with a code commentary and progresses to asking other inspectors and commences to involve MEP engineers. After an exhaustive search for the truth, which often includes the intent of the code, a decision is rendered.....usually within a few days.

Now if I fielded the call....well then I search my brain and render a decision. Not days,,,not even minutes later. But lo and behold, I would hear the topic being discussed in the office for days because the inspector refused to let it go. The damnable feature of the bogus corrections is that the same correction is written over and over again. The comical feature is that the process of dealing with it is repeated...step by step.
 
Last edited:
So, does the statutory immunity you all benefit from down there extend to the situation being discussed here where an official is exceeding their authority?
 
In order to get past the shield one must not only prove the official wrong and establish a loss but it must be proved that the inspector acted with malice aforethought. That is next to impossable.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Here it is simple liability. The courts are relatively forgiving and look to the official's actions once the mistake was made. If they tried to work with the damaged party to help return them to where they would be if the official had not made the mistake, they are usually not held liable for further damages. Officials refusing to help or who appear to be expressly damaging someone are not so lucky.
 
Top