Gas logs

[brudgers]

is there any circumstance or reason where it would be okay to require something based upon your perception of someone's future actions?

The perception of someone's future actions is pretty much the basis for exit signs, smoke detectors, fire alarms, etc. etc.

 

[texasbo]

try forgetting ICE and brudgers for a moment, and playing devil's advocate, is there any circumstance or reason where it would be okay to require something based upon your perception of someone's future actions? When we red tag a house for work without a permit and there are only bundles of shingles sitting on the roof, but no work has actually been performed, are we over stepping our bounds (remember I am not comparing this to ICE's example), or should we have tagged them for illegal out-door storage, and then when work starts come back and tag for work without a permit? To stay consistently within the boundaries of the code, and adhere to the strictest interpretation or sense of the code is the other end of the spectrum, and yet it is still covered by such technicalities. Your refusal to settle can be admirable, and yet it remains a personal conviction which is not required by the code, and can be overturned by the BO, or SBO, or SOB if there personal conviction does not agree with yours.

We can play "what-if" all day long, and that is really not productive. My comments were regarding gas log installations (or lack thereof), and the irresponsible notion of hiding behind consistency with lack of regard for what is right.

To answer your specific question regarding roofing, unless you have a specific ordinance, then you need to red-tag them for whatever violation bundles on a roof constitutes, if any. If it doesn't constitute a violation, then there are a number of other members who have posted excellent solutions without exceeding the bounds of the code.

 

[texasbo]

The perception of someone's future actions is pretty much the basis for exit signs, smoke detectors, fire alarms, etc. etc.

Yes, and apparently you missed the oh-so-subtle difference between the items listed above and requiring damper hold open devices for a phantom gas appliance.

Of course, given your apparent lack of judgement, you probably require exit signs in doghouses based on the premise that sooner or later they'll be expanded into high-rise hotels. Without permits.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

To answer your specific question regarding roofing, unless you have a specific ordinance, then you need to red-tag them for whatever violation bundles on a roof constitutes, if any. If it doesn't constitute a violation, then there are a number of other members who have posted excellent solutions without exceeding the bounds of the code.

But that is my point. Those options/solutions are not specifically in the code either. They are excellent solutions, but they are not within the boundaries of the code. The bundles on a roof in our jurisdiction only constitutes a violation of our out-door storage ordinances. To tag some-one for a loaded roof with out-door storage is borderline asinine. A red tag for stop work (business cards had little to no effect), has the exact same effect for us as the business card and application (we usually include an application with a red-tag) has for others.

 

[texasbo]

But that is my point. Those options/solutions are not specifically in the code either. They are excellent solutions, but they are not within the boundaries of the code. The bundles on a roof in our jurisdiction only constitutes a violation of our out-door storage ordinances. To tag some-one for a loaded roof with out-door storage is borderline asinine. A red tag for stop work (business cards had little to no effect), has the exact same effect for us as the business card and application (we usually include an application with a red-tag) has for others.

My point was, that you don't take code prescribed punitive action, unless you have a code violation. Or you have an ordinance allowing you to do so.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Of course, given your apparent lack of judgement, you probably require exit signs in doghouses based on the premise that sooner or later they'll be expanded into high-rise hotels. Without permits.

Making a ridiculous examples for comparison does little to address the issue. Making judgement calls and interpretations is an integral part of the code, whether right or wrong:

2006 IBC

104.10 Modifications & 104.11 Alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment.

The code also gives much leeway to the BO and inspectors actions, much to yours, and others chagrin. That is what is in the boundaries of the code. A nice big loop-hole to step out of the box with impunity and require more if so deemed by the individual whether it is right or wrong.

104.8 Liability.

You don't have to like it, and you don't have use it that way if you don't want to...but unless your jurisdiction amended or removed those sections specifically, good luck with your values and dignity speeches. They don't apply to anyone other you, and those you over see.

 

[KZQuixote]

Making a ridiculous examples for comparison does little to address the issue. Making judgement calls and interpretations is an integral part of the code, whether right or wrong:2006 IBC

104.10 Modifications & 104.11 Alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment.

The code also gives much leeway to the BO and inspectors actions, much to yours, and others chagrin. That is what is in the boundaries of the code. A nice big loop-hole to step out of the box with impunity and require more if so deemed by the individual whether it is right or wrong.

104.8 Liability.

You don't have to like it, and you don't have use it that way if you don't want to...but unless your jurisdiction amended or removed those sections specifically, good luck with your values and dignity speeches. They don't apply to anyone other you, and those you over see.

Hi Papio,

Section 104.8 Protects an inspector from liability when he or she is acting in "good faith". I'm telling you that to knowingly force a contractor or homeowner to do something that that inspector knows is not supported by the code is not acting in good faith. Then to go on a public forum pronouncing that you don't care and you're going to continue that behavior, in any place other than California, would just add another nail to your coffin.

Bill

 

[texasbo]

Making a ridiculous examples for comparison does little to address the issue. Making judgement calls and interpretations is an integral part of the code, whether right or wrong:2006 IBC

104.10 Modifications & 104.11 Alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment.

The code also gives much leeway to the BO and inspectors actions, much to yours, and others chagrin. That is what is in the boundaries of the code. A nice big loop-hole to step out of the box with impunity and require more if so deemed by the individual whether it is right or wrong.

104.8 Liability.

You don't have to like it, and you don't have use it that way if you don't want to...but unless your jurisdiction amended or removed those sections specifically, good luck with your values and dignity speeches. They don't apply to anyone other you, and those you over see.

And many inspectors and code officials have lost their jobs for taking the code into their own hands as you suggest here; believing that this section gives you carte blanche to form your own vigilante force . Fortunately, for those who think like you, there is a usually a more rational (and realistic) interpretation held by their boss.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Hi Papio, I'm telling you that to knowingly force a contractor or homeowner to do something that that inspector knows is not supported by the code is not acting in good faith. Then to go on a public forum pronouncing that you don't care and you're going to continue that behavior, in any place other than California, would just add another nail to your coffin. Bill

Hi Bill. No, I totally get that, and I have no doubts that I would be without a job (politically) if I had done the same, when my supervisor had already made the position clear. I don't, however, believe that you can fully discredit the reach of 104.10 & 104.11, and in ICE's instance, would be difficult to overcome if his CBO/SOB/SBO would have sided with him, although Section 112, allows a process of appeals for the contractor.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

And many inspectors and code officials have lost their jobs for taking the code into their own hands as you suggest here; believing that this section gives you carte blanche to form your own vigilante force . Fortunately, for those who think like you, there is a usually a more rational (and realistic) interpretation held by their boss.

And now you have finally said it..."a more rational (and realistic) interpretation!" Only the word interpretation is in the code book (104.1)...you are not afforded any guarantees that the BO's interpretation shall be more rational or realistic than any other persons. You are making a false argument and are in my opinion, still no worse or better than ICE. You just are doing what you do, based upon your interpretation. Hopefully if you are, or ICE is out of line, there controls and measures by which to correct that continued behavior or go separate ways, but don't lie, and say ICE does not have that leeway by code (until his SOB boss makes their determination). His SOB will handle him as they see fit, not you.

Let me know when you want to talk about the root of the problem, rather than being self-righteous about the what.

 

[gbhammer]

Bill,

You may think that I am a conspirator and sympathizer with ICE, I assure you I am not. As I posted earlier it took years to get the powers that be to change policy and go by just what the code said. The reason they had not was because the contractors, builders and even home owners knew so little about the new ICC codes that the inspectors were incouraged to just make everyone do it "this way". There was a huge list of "this ways", and then the 13 fire districts had a huge list of their "this ways" which were almost all different from ours. 6 years in my own department two years proving myself and making buddy with the fire marshals, and then another year meticulously going over the 09 codes so that almost all the AHJs in the county were on the samr page. I worked hard to get rid of the "we always did it this way" attitude.

Saying all that, I still have no problem believing ICE when he says he has reason to believe that in his area the installation of the gas line is an unsafe waiting to kill.

As an inspector he can use some discretion with 09 IBC 116 unsafe structures and require an unsafe to be removed or made safe as he deems nesecary.

He has one super who chewed him out for it, but he has more than one guy in his chain of command and in past post he has referenced supers that approve of his actions as an inspector.

 

[texasbo]

And now you have finally said it..."a more rational (and realistic) interpretation!" Only the word interpretation is in the code book (104.1)...you are not afforded any guarantees that the BO's interpretation shall be more rational or realistic than any other persons. You are making a false argument and are in my opinion, still no worse or better than ICE. You just are doing what you do, based upon your interpretation. Hopefully if you are, or ICE is out of line, there controls and measures by which to correct that continued behavior or go separate ways, but don't lie, and say ICE does not have that leeway by code (until his SOB boss makes their determination). His SOB will handle him as they see fit, not you. Let me know when you want to talk about the root of the problem, rather than being self-righteous about the what.

Wow, what a straw man argument. Let's see, your interpretation: " The code allows me to require whatever I want to, regardless of what the code says, because the code says I can. Furthermore, I'm a government employee, I do the same bad things all the time, and I'm in a union, so, hey, I'm covered".

My interpretation: "Unless you have amended the code, you can't make up your own rules".

Ya, I feel pretty secure that mine is more rational, and realistic.

And please spare me the heart-rending plea regarding the "root of the problem". You define the root of the problem the way you want to, and I'll define it the way I want to. You don't get the luxury of dictating to others what the "root of the problem is", especially when you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

"You define the root of the problem the way you want to, and I'll define it the way I want to. You don't get the luxury of dictating to others what the "root of the problem is", especially when you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I rest my case.

 

[KZQuixote]

Hi GB,

I do not imagine you as any sort of conspirator.

As a contractor I take issue with any inspector who imposes their worries about future events on my decisions, particularly when there's no code to support the requirement. I mean we all seem to agree that the violation might possibly happen at a future date by persons who will be responsible for their actions when they take them. I'm also concerned about the air loss that will always be occurring in the meantime.

Bill

 

[gbhammer]

I rest my case.

"Irony is an insult conveyed as a compliment"

 

[gbhammer]

This has got to count as a "hot topic" if anything does.

Over a hundred post in a couple of days and 1400 + views

"Whew" may even be a record.

 

[ICE]

This has got to count as a "hot topic" if anything does.Over a hundred post in a couple of days and 1400 + views

"Whew" may even be a record.

It's hot and has a fowl odor.

 

[gbhammer]

Hi GB,I do not imagine you as any sort of conspirator.

As a contractor I take issue with any inspector who imposes their worries about future events on my decisions, particularly when there's no code to support the requirement. I mean we all seem to agree that the violation might possibly happen at a future date by persons who will be responsible for their actions when they take them. I'm also concerned about the air loss that will always be occurring in the meantime.

Bill

I think he addressed the air loss issue.

We require glass doors to take care of that. The damper is held open perhaps 3/8". The damper seldom fits airtight to begin with and the hardware really adds little on most. If there were a tight fit, which I suppose does happen, the hardware adds a lot.Be careful with the word "modified." If the damper is "modified", the listing is void.

 

[ICE]

This has got to count as a "hot topic" if anything does.Over a hundred post in a couple of days and 1400 + views

"Whew" may even be a record.

The counter that keeps track of the views is not clear to me. Does it mean that 1400 individuals viewed a thread or does it count each time anyone views?

 

[brudgers]

you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

His is an expert opinion based upon personal experience, in this regard.

 

[brudgers]

Hi GB, I do not imagine you as any sort of conspirator. As a contractor I take issue with any inspector who imposes their worries about future events on my decisions, particularly when there's no code to support the requirement. I mean we all seem to agree that the violation might possibly happen at a future date by persons who will be responsible for their actions when they take them. I'm also concerned about the air loss that will always be occurring in the meantime. Bill

I find your concern with the conservation of hot air to be a bit ironic. The lack of concern over the loss of life, a bit disappointing.

 

[texasbo]

His is an expert opinion based upon personal experience, in this regard.

Congratulations; you have graduated from "I know you are but what am I?", to "Same to you but more of it".

 

[texasbo]

I find your concern with the conservation of hot air to be a bit ironic. The lack of concern over the loss of life, a bit disappointing.

Yes, because everyone knows that a niche in the wall is certain to kill.

Just keep requiring those exit signs in doghouses, brudgers, and maybe someday Fido will find his way out and bring your dentures back to you.

 

[High Desert]

I also believe those are legitimate legal grounds for termination of employment as well...it isn't a perfect system either.

I wasn't referring to whether they can get fired, but rather to the California Tort Claim Law. You can miss a lot of stuff on an inspection, even maliciously, and be protected by the law. That's absolutely ludicrous.