Finding an unrelated fire hazard or other issue during an inspection

[Glennman CBO]

This has happened twice now. I'm inspecting a ceiling grid in a minor TI (2000 sq ft, changing the ceiling, furnishings, etc and no change of occupancy). Above the grid at the under side of the roof sheathing is exposed kraft paper insulation vapor barrier that is not to be left exposed, and has been there since 1979.

The last one of these I found was in a return air ceiling plenum.

In both cases the contractor had nothing to do with that portion of the project.

In both cases I wrote them up for it. They both complained about it, and the 1st ended up fixing it, and the 2nd one is working on it right now.

The problem I have though is who is actually responsible for it. Certainly the contractor isn't. I told him to let the building owner know about it and see what his response is. I don't believe I can hold up a final for it since the contractor didn't have anything to do with it. All I can think of at this point is to hold up a business license until it's fixed (treating it like a fire inspection failure).

At the same time, if someone is going to fix it, the time to do it is before the installation of the ceiling tiles. I suppose the contractor can seek payment from the owner for the extra work and/or hold up of the project, but that's up to them.

Any thoughts on the legality of such a thing (holding up a project in this manner)?

 

[Mule]

What was the code in 1979 or better yet what code was the building constructed under?

Is this a violation to the code the building was constructed under?

What are the hazards to leaving the installation as is?

 

[TJacobs]

I doubt kraft paper facing was ever "code" allowed to be left exposed, even in 1979. 1987 BOCA 928 reads pretty much like 2006 IBC 719.

I would say well done!

 

[mtlogcabin]

The problem I have though is who is actually responsible for it

The building owner not the contractor or tenant. You can not hold up the existing permmited work for a violation the is unrelated to the work being preformed. It was not the contractors responsibility to notify the owner it is yours. I agree now is the time to fix it and handeling it like a fire inspection is probably the best way.

 

[Glennman CBO]

Thanks mtlogcabin and TJacobs. You are correct that I should have notified the owner. Technically, I just left the correction notice on the reception counter, and the contractor was the first one to find it. He contacted the owner and now they are resolving the issue. However, had the contractor not immediately received the notice, he could have installed the tiles, and that would have greatly complicated the issue (anger flaring).

As far as the insulation goes with regards to 1979, it was never approved to be left exposed, and it states it right on the insulation.

Thanks...

 

[Mule]

I stand corrected. I was just a young framer in 1979.

 

[vegas paul]

I have had similar situations, where holes in rated assemblies were discovered above ceilings (unrelated to the permitted work being inspected). When they are discovered, they need to be addressed, and the building owner ultimately is responsible.

I typically can trace these issues back to low-voltage installers (cable, data, security, etc.) which don't require permits, so their work is not inspected. They poke holes whereever they need to, without any regard for the nature of the building construction.

 

[TJacobs]

I stand corrected. I was just a young framer in 1979.

No problem, I was a 4th year apprentice myself, and we didn't do the insulation.