• 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

Well just a snippet...

Complacency brings evil. There are more violations missed than are caught. When a wave of wrong corrections washes up, there's the notion that the inspector is drowning in accomplishment...not swimming with demons.

Clarification: Here's the deal, the State requires certifications, thus the field is narrow. Certifications became the only criteria and that opened the door to evil.

One example is hiring from within. Permit technicians are encouraged to become inspectors. Now it is not fair to say that someone with no construction knowledge makes for an inept inspector ...every time ...it's closer to often. These folks have never had a job working outdoors ....never been in charge of alpha males. Experience as a prison guard as a prerequisite trumps permit clerk. The most telling aspect is that they are not trained to any degree of competency…they learn it as they go...or not. That they are already employees says plenty.

Hiring third party inspectors is another avenue filled with potholes. ICC certifications and a pulse is a winning combination. I have wondered if certifications are a condition of parole. While I have been fortunate to meet qualified, quality third-party inspectors, I've mostly wondered how it came to be that ICC creates equals.

Years ago the building department enjoyed a reputation as the premier repository of code knowledge and could be relied upon to get it right….and that was the goal. If you wonder what in Hell happened, look no further than management. The goal morphed to Stellar Customer Service.

Training in code application works to the detriment of customer service....which explains the dearth of code training. Writing corrections is pushing in the wrong direction. Hiring individuals that can, or will, write corrections is an accurate shot to the foot…why intentionally add to the work load????… Increase strife?…Upset a Board of Supervisors that is busy with rainbows?

To know what evil is, one must also know what evil is not. The lack of ability or a desire to perform is not evil. The institution can practice evil and exonerate individuals. Look at the job through the inspector’s lens, “Would they send me if the outcome mattered?” It is logical to have scant respect for the position.

Okay, so what is the evil? Straight up demons! Cagey, corrupt to the core people that find exhilaration in the suffering of others. The demons survive by getting a lot done. Excelling at customer service. And sliding in the worst evil when they detect vulnerability.

And so it happens that way. I came to understand that it could not improve. Having been told that changing gender identity is doable but writing corrections is not…..where does it go from there?

Yet is improvement even desirable? Buildings are not susceptible to spontaneous combustion...people aren't being asphyxiated in their sleep... and surprise, surprise, a tremendous amount of construction is never inspected. The status quo is seemingly successful.

Is it a concern that many inspectors can’t perform a competent inspection of a water heater when most water heaters are not inspected?…how about an electrical service panel?…Shirley that is a worry….or is it? Dozens are done every day without a permit and dozens more are inspected poorly. Where is the trouble in that?

Occasional evil is mere entertainment.
 
Last edited:
Experience as a prison guard as a prerequisite trumps permit clerk. The most telling aspect is that they are not trained to any degree of competency…they learn it as they go...or not.
Yes, this pretty much sums it up when a permit tech morphs into an inspector... most of the time they lack field study and tact. I do not have a permit tech but the ones I'm aware of typically are doing some code enforcement...weeds, junk and trash. To throw them to the wolves..devils, alpha males isn't fair to them or the trades that want a professional system..which we're far from.

So far my observation of Third Party Inspections (TPI) falls way short of my expectations. I also hear that the AHJ inspector tends to backs off and is less envolved with a project thinking the TPI's got the project under control. The AHJ finds themselves waiting for the inspection reports to eventully come in, that's got to work better.

I've found myself in a situation where the project owner does'nt want to spend the money on the TPI and the entity breaks down and obliges them and has the inspection department do the inspections, which is over their head.
 
The following corrections were written at the under-slab plumbing inspection for an ADU. Except for the inspector, all parties are Asian. That becomes relevant later.

The waste pipe serves a kitchen, two bathrooms and a laundry. The corrections cause the waste pipe to be done over. That is no simple thing. The entire system has to be removed....the trenches must be dug deeper.

The "no above grade" is another twist in the turd. The corrections often include some irrelevant bit of "code" for the sizzle 'cause there's not a lot of steak.

The cleanout correction requires a cleanout in some difficult places. The "1/2 the diameter" of the pipe and contradicted with 2 1/2" next to that is not unusual.

None of it is code. None of it should be in the code. There is many examples. It is undoubtedly happening today.

The reasons that it goes unchecked are....well for one, nobody is checking...and for two the Asian community sticks together and they are loathe to have interaction with authority. They will suffer the consequences as they are rather than risk what could be worse. Of course that's not an absolute and there is the occasional opposite end of the spectrum. But by and large, the bullflop flourishes.

IMG_1260 2 copy.JPG

img_1260-2-copy-jpg.8735


Note that on the next one it was established that grade is below the concrete. That provides plenty of opportunity to spread the dread.

People that are learning the English language while also learning Western style construction tend to be literal in their interpretation. So when they are told "with 1/4 inch slope per 1 foot" that is exactly what will happen. The literal 1/4" my have been easier at 1/2" or 3/4" or whatever but the word minimum was left out.

That sounds over the top huh! Well I have seen plenty of literal results that were "No kidding, you did that?


IMG_4183.JPG
 
Last edited:
It's to fight climate change...

There's actually a typo in the practice questions of the 2018 IBC Study Guide that asks for the section that requires CO2 alarms, lol.
 
Well since we are discussing CO alarms here is a correction that states that the CO alarm shall not be more than five feet above the floor....it further states that combination alarms are permitted. That would place the smoke alarm five feet or less above the floor.

There is also a requirement for a dielectric union between a copper hose bibb and a galvanized pipe. There might be copper hose bibbs available but I have only seen brass hose bibbs. I don't recall having encountered dielectric unions for brass to iron anything.

IMG_4246.JPG
 
The inspector’s reference to state law was that state law requires alarms….not where to place the alarms. I created a handout that explained where the alarms should be placed. That handout was provided with every permit that was issued in the district office that I was assigned to. The alarms were still a pain in the ass but it might have been worse without the handout.
 
They need to be installed to meet whichever is the strictest between code and manufacturer instructions.
I disagree, the manufacture has had the device test by a recognized laboratory under a defined testing procedure and listed for their use, the manufactures listing always wins.
 
I disagree, the manufacture has had the device test by a recognized laboratory under a defined testing procedure and listed for their use, the manufactures listing always wins.
[A] 102.1 General. Where there is a conflict between a general
requirement and a specific requirement, the specific
requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case,
different sections of this code specify different materials,
methods of construction or other requirements, the most
restrictive shall govern.
 
The building code can require compliance with standards adopted by another organization as long as the requirement is specific as to what is required and is specific as to date of adoption of the standard.

Requiring that the product complies with the manufactures recommendations effectively delegates to the manufacturer the authority to modify the code, which is a law. This is not compatible with our system of laws.

I believe that this confusion arises because it is often required in contracts that the contractor comply with the manufacture's instructions. This is done so that if there are problems the building owner can sue the manufacturer if there are problems. Just because something is acceptable in the context of contracts does not mean that it is proper for the laws to require.

Building codes are laws and are required to be adopted by a legislative body. In some cases regulations, which are a subset of laws, can be adopted by administrative agencies when the legislative body has delegated to the administrative agency the right to adopt regulations if they have also specified limits on that agency. Both legislative bodies and legislative agencies are governmental entities but a manufacture is not and thus cannot adopt or modify the laws.
 
No it does not and I challenge you to point to a code section that is specific to smoke detectors. You will find the manufactures installation requirement for other types of detectors but not smoke detectors for residential occupancies.
I never understood how you could have a viable combination device. CO is slightly more dense than air and therefore will not rise of its own accord. Lacking air currents to carry the CO to the ceiling you'd be dead before the alarm went off. That having been said, ...

[RB] MANUFACTURER’S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. Printed instructions included with equipment as
part of the conditions of their listing and labeling.

If you violate the manufacturers' installation instructions you void the listing.
 
I never understood how you could have a viable combination device. CO is slightly more dense than air and therefore will not rise of its own accord. Lacking air currents to carry the CO to the ceiling you'd be dead before the alarm went off. That having been said, ...

[RB] MANUFACTURER’S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. Printed instructions included with equipment as
part of the conditions of their listing and labeling.

If you violate the manufacturers' installation instructions you void the listing.
According to all that I can find on the internet, CO is not heavier than air and will disperse evenly in air. The alarm manufactures allow the alarms on walls as well as ceilings with restrictions from things that move air such as fans and HVAC registers,
 
Last edited:
My bad. I shouldn't have relied on my memory. Specific gravity of C O is
0.9657. Still not a good situation.
 
I have seen text with the specific gravity of CO both slightly above and below 1, it freely mixes in are so the the high verses low mount is up to the manufacture, for the listing I have seen keep them out of the corner dead spots
 
No it does not and I challenge you to point to a code section that is specific to smoke detectors. You will find the manufactures installation requirement for other types of detectors but not smoke detectors for residential occupancies.
let me work on that
 
R104.9 Approved materials and equipment. Materials,
equipment and devices approved by the building official shall
be constructed and installed in accordance with such
approval.

R106.1.2 Manufacturer’s installation instructions.
Manufacturer’s installation instructions, as required by
this code, shall be available on the job site at the time of
inspection.
 
102.8 in the IMC has stuff on listing vs. code...But I think that is the only place....

as part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed
extent of each such reference and as further regulated in Sections
102.8.1 and 102.8.2.
Exception: Where enforcement of a code provision would
violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or
appliance, the conditions of the listing and the manufacturer’s
installation instructions shall apply.

[A] 102.8.1 Conflicts. Where conflicts occur
 
Its a gas fired tank-less water heater. I have yet to see a CO2 detector.


View attachment 8760

California:
The State Fire Marshal requires the installation of approved smoke alarms in all residential properties in California. All approved smoke alarms/detectors are listed by the State Fire Marshal to comply with California Health & Safety Code 13113.7.

Not sure about the Co2?
 
Manufactures instructions when required by the code IMC, IFGC and IPC typically reference the installation of equipment, appliances and testing of systems.
Think of Type I hood clearance reductions or testing PEX with air or how to seal ductwork. Unless the code specifically references the manufactures installation instructions they are not part of the code and thus not applicable.
 
All of the codes require that the building official approve the use of any product, be it material or equipment. The codes state that a building official can rely on the listing and labeling by a recognized agency as proof that the equipment or material is safe for use. There is a caveat that the equipment or material shall be used in conformance with the listing.

Installation instructions are part of the listing. How could that not be true? I have challenged NRTL listings based on inadequate/inaccurate installation instructions and I have prevailed.
 
Top