• 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

Special Inspections

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,667
Location
So. CA
Firestopping -ASTM E 2174 & ASTM E 2393 "Inspection Standards"
- REQUIRES Special Inspections

How many are requiring "Special Inspections" For firestopping?​
 
Chapter 17 provides a specific list of special inspections. These inspections are what I understand to be special inspections. A number of standards have called for special inspections not listed in Chapter 17 thus creating problems and confusion. The special inspection provisions in Chapter 17 were not intended to be a generic provisions that any standard could invoke.

Having said that there is a special inspection for "Fire-resistant penetrations and joints" which governs as opposed to the reference standard.

I believe that the building official does not have the authority to not require special inspections required by the building code. The building official has wide discretion in where he focuses his attention this does not extend to saying that a building code provision does not apply.
 
Mark K said:
Chapter 17 provides a specific list of special inspections. These inspections are what I understand to be special inspections. A number of standards have called for special inspections not listed in Chapter 17 thus creating problems and confusion. The special inspection provisions in Chapter 17 were not intended to be a generic provisions that any standard could invoke.

Having said that there is a special inspection for "Fire-resistant penetrations and joints" which governs as opposed to the reference standard.

I believe that the building official does not have the authority to not require special inspections required by the building code. The building official has wide discretion in where he focuses his attention this does not extend to saying that a building code provision does not apply.
Click to expand...

Mark:

I agree, but ASTM can state anything it wants, but the only Special Inspections that the CBO can require are those listed in Chapter 17.
 
We kind of do...our code stays away from specifying the inspection scheme. This is left to the provincial or local jurisdictions. We have one of the registered professionals of record assigned to look at fire stopping and they sign off on it. Then we will quickly double check a couple penetrations of each type. If it looks squirrely, them have to dis-assemble one. More than once we have found some "creative" assemblies that do not exactly match the listing.
 
conarb said:
Mark:

I agree, but ASTM can state anything it wants, but the only Special Inspections that the CBO can require are those listed in Chapter 17.
Click to expand...
A BO has tremendous opportunities to adjust as necessary given the constraints of a specific project.

Method #1 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
1705.1.1 Special Cases
Special inspections and tests shall be required for proposed work that is, in the opinion of the building official, unusual in its nature, such as, but not limited to, the following examples: 1. Construction materials and systems that are alternatives to materials and systems prescribed by this code. 2. Unusual design applications of materials described in this code. 3. Materials and systems required to be installed in accordance with additional manufacturer's instructions that prescribe requirements not contained in this code or in standards referenced by this code.
​
Method #2 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
1707.1 General
In the absence of approved rules or other approved standards, the building official shall make, or cause to be made, the necessary tests and investigations; or the building official shall accept duly authenticated reports from approved agencies in respect to the quality and manner of use of new materials or assemblies as provided for in Section 104.11. The cost of all tests and other investigations required under the provisions of this code shall be borne by the owner or the owner's authorized agent.
​
Method #3 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
110.3.8 Other Inspections
In addition to the inspections specified in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.7, the building official is authorized to make or require other inspections of any construction work to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this code and other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety.​
 
MarkK
1704.2 Special inspections and tests.
Exceptions:
1. Special inspections and tests are not required for construction of a minor nature or as warranted by conditions in the jurisdiction as approved by the building official.

For example I take this exception to mean I can waive a special inspection requirement for a minimal amount of epoxy bolts or rebar. Say 3 rebars that need to be epoxied into an existing foundation wall.
 
Doesn't it say that the ICC is a "model" code, subject to acceptance by local jurisdictions in whole or in part with or without local amendments?
 
Ty J. said:
A BO has tremendous opportunities to adjust as necessary given the constraints of a specific project.

Method #1 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
1705.1.1 Special Cases
Special inspections and tests shall be required for proposed work that is, in the opinion of the building official, unusual in its nature, such as, but not limited to, the following examples: 1. Construction materials and systems that are alternatives to materials and systems prescribed by this code. 2. Unusual design applications of materials described in this code. 3. Materials and systems required to be installed in accordance with additional manufacturer's instructions that prescribe requirements not contained in this code or in standards referenced by this code.
​
Method #2 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
1707.1 General
In the absence of approved rules or other approved standards, the building official shall make, or cause to be made, the necessary tests and investigations; or the building official shall accept duly authenticated reports from approved agencies in respect to the quality and manner of use of new materials or assemblies as provided for in Section 104.11. The cost of all tests and other investigations required under the provisions of this code shall be borne by the owner or the owner's authorized agent.
​
Method #3 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
110.3.8 Other Inspections
In addition to the inspections specified in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.7, the building official is authorized to make or require other inspections of any construction work to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this code and other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety.​
Click to expand...

Ty:

I think you are right, I am getting old and out of touch, there are no-longer any constraints on a CBO, back in the UBC in §1701.5 Types of Work there are 15 types of work specified, with the IBC 1701.5 and it's 15 types disappeared allowing a lot of discretion on the part of the CBO, so what is to stop a rogue CBO from requiring Special Inspections on everything? If we are giving them that much power maybe they ought to have to stand for election, the general public hates special inspections because they have to pay for them outside of their contracts.

That's quoting from the 1997 UBC, if memory serves me the first Special Inspections appeared in the code about 1975, in there there were 4 required Special Inspections, piers, epoxy bolting, welding, and something else.
 
Last edited:
Since the courts have found that there are limits on the President it stands to reason that there are limits on the building official.

The provisions referenced are attempting to give the building official free rein to ask for whatever he wants thus giving him the authority of a monarch. In other words the ability to unilaterally modify the building code. This is something that our constitution has a problem with. First when the building official has the authority to unilaterally invoke new rules we have a violation of due process guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Second state constitutions put limits on the delegation of legislative authority which would preclude giving the building official authority to modify the building code. The state agency or local entity adopting the building code cannot delegate powers to the building official that the agency or entity does not have.

Much of the rationalizations are based on building code provisions that were based on the model code which building officials have control over. Talk about conflicts of interest. We must also recognize that just because something is in the building code does not mean that it is legal.

It might help if we were to contemplate how a building official would react if a police officer were to prevent him from driving his car in the city in spite of the fact that there was no law to back up the officer..

We need to recognize that in many respects the building code is flawed and cannot address all problems but that does not justify building officials' usurping the power of the legislature.
 
There are more constraints than this thread is flushing out so far.

I believe that the vast majority of BO's will stick close to the code and do not get as extreme as this thread is indicating the possibility of. Sure, a BO will put an additional requirement in place here and there that is above what the code requires. But the code is not a one-size-fits-all set of specifications. Requiring additional inspection on a non-typical installation is justifiable.

As for checks-and-balances, we (code officials) almost all work in some form or another, work for elected officials. Developers always seem to have a direct pipeline to those elected, and if you cross them, the word somehow will make it back from the top and work its way to the BO. Cause enough issues, you may just be encouraged out the door.
 
Mark K said:
Much of the rationalizations are based on building code provisions that were based on the model code which building officials have control over. Talk about conflicts of interest. We must also recognize that just because something is in the building code does not mean that it is legal.

It might help if we were to contemplate how a building official would react if a police officer were to prevent him from driving his car in the city in spite of the fact that there was no law to back up the officer..

We need to recognize that in many respects the building code is flawed and cannot address all problems but that does not justify building officials' usurping the power of the legislature.
Click to expand...

The whole process is horribly flawed, building officials are the last people in the world who should be voting on codes, we all saw that in Minneapolis, Richard (RJJ) was there reporting in on the hookers and booze in the hospitality suites when the coalition of fire sprinkler manufacturers "bought" the residential sprinkler requirement, what a corrupt process, I listened in on the podcast and couldn't believe what I was hearing. The people voted for Trump to reduce regulations (among other things), one of his first moves was to issue an Executive order requiring two regulations to be repealed for every new one passed.

Executive Order January 30-2017 said:
REDUCING REGULATION AND CONTROLLING REGULATORY COSTS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. In addition to the management of the direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars through the budgeting process, it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.¹
Click to expand...

Executive Orders apply to government agencies, the ICC is a NGO unaffected by EOs, from what Jim Brown has told us the ICC does whatever the government wants, so it is nothing but a workaround allowing the government to impose regulations on us without any control, I think it's time to scrap the ICC and let the government take over code writing, in the past model code requirements were imposed by Ordinance and then Statute in California (1998) and apparently some other states, this gave the citizens some modicum of local control, as I said above now a rogue BO can do pretty much anything he wants.



¹ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...cing-regulation-controlling-regulatory-costs/
 
conarb said:
The whole process is horribly flawed, building officials are the last people in the world who should be voting on codes, we all saw that in Minneapolis, Richard (RJJ) was there reporting in on the hookers and booze in the hospitality suites when the coalition of fire sprinkler manufacturers "bought" the residential sprinkler requirement, what a corrupt process, I listened in on the podcast and couldn't believe what I was hearing. The people voted for Trump to reduce regulations (among other things), one of his first moves was to issue an Executive order requiring two regulations to be repealed for every new one passed.



Executive Orders apply to government agencies, the ICC is a NGO unaffected by EOs, from what Jim Brown has told us the ICC does whatever the government wants, so it is nothing but a workaround allowing the government to impose regulations on us without any control, I think it's time to scrap the ICC and let the government take over code writing, in the past model code requirements were imposed by Ordinance and then Statute in California (1998) and apparently some other states, this gave the citizens some modicum of local control, as I said above now a rogue BO can do pretty much anything he wants.



¹ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...cing-regulation-controlling-regulatory-costs/
Click to expand...
Careful now...that's starting to sound a lot more like socialism and less like a free market...

Speaking as someone with a code sponsored by the federal government, the only way this works is that you establish a corporation with bi-partisan funding, with a mandate to manage the building codes. This will eliminate the influence of special interest on elected officials. Otherwise you end up with another ADA and while it's better than nothing, I don't think many would state that it is a perfect law.
 
tmurray said:
Careful now...that's starting to sound a lot more like socialism and less like a free market...

Speaking as someone with a code sponsored by the federal government, the only way this works is that you establish a corporation with bi-partisan funding, with a mandate to manage the building codes. This will eliminate the influence of special interest on elected officials. Otherwise you end up with another ADA and while it's better than nothing, I don't think many would state that it is a perfect law.
Click to expand...

The UBC and the SBC were free market code services, the ICC is worse than a government agency since it isn't even subject to governmental controls like Trump's Executive Order, wouldn't it be great if for every new code section we got rid of two bad code sections?
 
From New York:

Firestopping is a critical area of fire protection in commercial buildings to limit the spread of building fires. This is the reason NYC Department of Buildings changed their new 2014 code to require firestop special inspections utilizing the ASTM firestop inspection standards for all buildings. According to these standards, the inspector shall provide visual and/or destructive testing for a percentage of the firestop systems. The New ASTM firestop inspection standards have proven to be an excellent standard to protect the liability of the special inspection agency and general contractors. To reduce your liability these standards need to be adhered to, so NYSSPE has supported firestop special inspection training for its membership.
 
Building codes cannot be a federal function unless we modify the US Constitution. Congresses authority to legislate is limited to those powers given it in the Constitution and regulation of building constructions was not one of them.

I do not see how this leads to socialism. We need to support our democracy and not create a group that acts as autocrats. We should promote the rule of law. In many contexts the term socialism is used as a code word. If you believe that any aspect of socialism is bad then maybe you should promote the elimination of all building regulations.

Some appear to have this mistaken belief that if there are perceived problems with building regulations that the building official can require changes. This is not how our system of laws work. The Building Official fulfills a ministerial function. This means that he enforces the written laws. If this results in problems the building official as well as any citizen can lobby for changes but until those changes are legally adopted the building official needs to suck it up.

When there are problems with the building code the tort system is the fall back. This is not perfect but it is our system. Building codes were adopted in response to perceived problems with tort law and our courts.

In 1970 California changed the legal status of the building code and the State preempted the field of building regulation. This limited the ability of local jurisdictions to modify the building code. Since that date many jurisdictions have operated in violation of the statutes in adopting modifications that are not allowed.
 
Although this topic is getting a bit off course, I will interject my thoughts by showing the one-single area where a BO has some leeway.

APPROVED. Acceptable to the building official.

That definition right there. I am not sure of any other area that give that much discretion.
 
If code requires compliance with a standard, why would you need to take requirements in the standard and re-write them in the code?

Once we adopt a standard into the code in Canada, that standard is enforceable as though it was written into the code. Most of the time, standards reference other standards. Guess what? same deal there. Enforceable as though it was written into the code. What about the standards those standards reference? Still enforceable. But, that is where it stops. We can enforce up to three jumps away from the code through our reference standards as thought they are in the code. If there are conflicts between a standard and the code the code governs. If a standard calls for testing and/or submittals (like NFPA 13), they must be submitted.

So ultimately, the question is if you require a Contractors Certificate for Aboveground Piping from NFPA 13, how can you not require a special inspection from another standard?
 
If a special inspection is required by a standard then the building official can and should require it to be done.

1705.1.1 Special cases.
Special inspections shall be required for proposed work that is, in the opinion of the building official, unusual in its nature, such as, but not limited to, the following examples:
1. Construction materials and systems that are alternatives to materials and systems prescribed by this code.
2. Unusual design applications of materials described in this code.
3. Materials and systems required to be installed in accordance with additional manufacturer’s instructions that prescribe requirements not contained in this code or in standards referenced by this code.

I have seen where the DP calls out for special inspections over and above the minimum code requirements on the plans or in the specs and we will require them to be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top