Trust, but verify

[Yankee Chronicler]

A couple of months ago I reviewed plans for the local store of a national "big box" retailer to modernize one department within their store. I gave them a list of 10 things that needed to be corrected. We recently received revised plans, and I went through them today. They fixed nine of the ten items. Good job -- that's far better than the average.

BUT ...

Item 10: The new plan calls for hanging some plastic fins or vanes from the ceiling. These things are (IIRC) a quarter of an inch thick, 18" high, and several feet long. I asked about combustibility. Their response was "Complies with code, spec sheet attached." And they attached a spec sheet from the manufacturer of the plastic that's proposed for making these fins. We view them as trim, so we're looking for Class C. The flame spread is 115, which is less than the 200 allowed for a Class C product. So far, so good.

Smoke developed index: 550. Oops! The allowable range is 0 - 450.

The boss is on vacation this week, but I called him anyway, to ask if it was okay to drop the hammer on them. He said, "Of course," so I notified the architect that their fins don't comply. The ball is now in their court.

What scares me is that I know from looking at the company's web site that they have already rolled out this department make-over in other stores all across the country. What would you bet that they all have non-conforming acrylic fins in them?

 

[jar546]

A couple of months ago I reviewed plans for the local store of a national "big box" retailer

Never trust their plans. These types of national chains get approved all over the country by BDs that don't do their job and just trust them because they are big. The plans may look impressive, but the devil is in the details. Nice catch. I only have one question.

Why would you have to call your boss to write up an actual code violation? Not sure I understand when I fire safety issue is found by you and a phone call to the boss to ask if it is OK to write up the deficiency is needed. What kind of culture did your boss create?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Why would you have to call your boss to write up an actual code violation? Not sure I understand when I fire safety issue is found by you and a phone call to the boss to ask if it is OK to write up the deficiency is needed. What kind of culture did your boss create?

Probably to insulate the poor wretch from the political blow-back.

I'm *stunned* at the stuff that comes through our office with a "nobody else has had a problem with this" complaint.

Heck, we had a *prominent* spray foam company come down our way, and they used an open-cell foam that's not permitted under Code. Apparently, they've been using this stuff in homes and businesses for *years* and nobody caught them.

There were, at the time, two brands of open-cell foams allowed under an equivalence statement obtained from the national research council testing centre. This particular brand was not one of them.

So our office essentially was the first across the entire freaking *nation* to catch a product that had been used, apparently, for ten years - and didn't meet Code, prescriptively.

Sometimes I wonder. And I've only been doing this for eight years.

 

[Sifu]

The boss is on vacation this week, but I called him anyway, to ask if it was okay to drop the hammer on them. He said, "Of course," so I notified the architect that their fins don't comply. The ball is now in their court.

This happens to me often. Working for a lot of smaller AHJ's, when the big boys move in and have been doing something everywhere else without a problem, it gives me pause. It forces me to ask the question: "what do they know that I don't". Often, they do know more. Sometimes they don't. I take extra time and attention to make sure my comment is bullet proof, because these situations are usually politically charged. The city council wants it, the mayor loves it, the chamber of commerce "brought them in". Press releases have been issued. So my approach is to "inform" the AHJ's CBO. I don't really ask for the OK to present my observations. I give enough time between my informing and the point where I issue the comment to let the information percolate. Usually this is done with email, sometimes through a meeting or phone call, but always with documentation after the fact. My hope is that as the info percolates, someone will show me how I am wrong. Usually it gets ignored...until the brown stuff hits the fan. At least then I can show them how they were "informed".

 

[revuqili]

When dealing with national chains, it is wise to double-check everything. The plans might look good on the surface, but the devil's in the details, as they say. As for consulting the boss about the code violation, it could be a move to navigate potential political backlash. In these situations, it is crucial to ensure your comments are well-documented and bulletproof, especially when there's pressure from higher-ups or influential organizations.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Why would you have to call your boss to write up an actual code violation? Not sure I understand when I fire safety issue is found by you and a phone call to the boss to ask if it is OK to write up the deficiency is needed. What kind of culture did your boss create?

Politics. Any time I reject a set of plans there's a high degree of probability that the mayor's office will be on the horn to the boss within 24 hours, demanding that we "do something" to expedite approval. Yes, we are supposed to be immune from such meddling, but the politicians haven't read the memo. So I want to make sure I clear it with the guy who will have to field the call before I send out a letter that may create ripples.

The problem isn't my boss -- he's very good about backing me. The problem is the people in Town Hall. Because I have a good boss, I feel I owe it to him to not let him get blind-sided.

 

[Sifu]

A good "boss" takes the heat. A good inspector/plans examiner does their best to minimize the heat that might burn them.

 

[jar546]

So what's next, inspectors calling their bosses every time they are going to fail an inspection for legitimate code violations? "Mother, may I?"

This is a legitimate question.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I don't believe them when they say no one made me do this before. But when they do I say, "thanks for the complement, I must be the best inspector/plan reviewer you ever had".

 

[klarenbeek]

I'll give my CBO a heads up he might be getting a call if I think someone might be calling him on a failure, but I have no problem failing it. That way its documented that I noted a code violation to be corrected. If someone higher up the food chain overrides me (doesn't typically happen and shouldn't if you are enforcing actual code) then its on them.

I was once told we were the only place in the entire western hemisphere enforcing something. Even though I knew another jurisdiction about 3 hours away had the same issue.

 

[Sifu]

I was once told we were the only place in the entire western hemisphere enforcing something. Even though I knew another jurisdiction about 3 hours away had the same issue.

That gives them lots of options for other places to work.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The plot thickens. As I look into it more, these hanging fins don't meet the code definition of trim. They then fall under the definition of hanging decorative materials. That means they aren't tested under ASTM E 84 (which is the test for combustible trim), but under a pair of NFA tests. The manufacturer's letter provided by the architect doesn't cite ASTM E 84 but also doesn't cite the applicable NFPA tests. They cite two other ASTM test, and I have no idea why they think those two tests even apply.

This is going to be interesting. Since NFPA tests are involved, I think I'll bring the Fire Marshal in on this. He enforces the same criteria, under section 807 of the IFC, so we should be looking at this together to formulate a position that both departments can live with.

 

[Yikes]

So our office essentially was the first across the entire freaking *nation* to catch a product that had been used, apparently, for ten years - and didn't meet Code, prescriptively.

About 15 years ago I had an apartment project that utilized a pre-engineered aluminum trellis on a patio. (I won't "out" the manufacturer, but they made their aluminum components to look like wood texture.)
I submitted it for approval along with their standard stamped calcs, and the plan checker told me that the calcs incorrectly stated the applicable code was the IRC, when it should be IBC for apartments. No big deal, let's just get the manufacturer to update the code reference, right? Turns out the engineer had been dead for several years. Their original target market was single family residences, so he hadn't initially bothered with the IBC. They had no way to update their calcs for commercial use.

I shopped around for other manufacturers and found they too were using the IRC. I couldn't find one pre-engineered trellis company using the IBC, even though I had seen these things installed in many commercial applications: apartments, outdoor dining restaurants, etc.

Hey, somebody has to be the first kid to say out loud that the emperor has no clothes...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

A couple of decades ago the Deputy Building Official in a nearby city endeared himself to the architecture profession throughout the state when he pointed out that aluminum skylights can't be used in non-combustible construction types. Why not? Because the test for non-combustibility involves a test at a certain temperature for a specified length of time -- and the specified temperature is higher than the melting temperature of aluminum.

Much hilarity ensued.

 

[ICE]

A good inspector/plans examiner does their best to minimize the heat that might burn them.

A plans examiner has the luxury of time. The examiner finds a problem and the designer can deal with it. When inspectors find a problem there is a project under construction. That stops the flow, throws off schedules and if it is a design flaw... well then all Hell can break loose. I wrote corrections on the spot. I see no advantage for anyone in delaying the pain.

Management recommended that I alert the next level of supervision. In many cases, that person was there by accident. I knew that the correction would end up on the desk of a person capable of adjudicating the worth of the correction. Besides that I couldn't predict which correction would be a huge brouhaha and which would blow over. A $50.00 fix might set them off and I wrote a $50,000 correction that the owner was pleased to eat.

 

[Sifu]

A plans examiner has the luxury of time. The examiner finds a problem and the designer can deal with it. When inspectors find a problem there is a project under construction. That stops the flow, throws off schedules and if it is a design flaw... well then all Hell can break loose. I wrote corrections on the spot. I see no advantage for anyone in delaying the pain.

Couldn't agree more. I do have the luxury of time, certainly more time than an inspector, and though some say it isn't my job, I do my best to make sure everyone, not the least of which is the inspection staff, has what they need to succeed to the best of my ability. If I think there is some issue that might fail an inspection, even if I could leave it up to field verification I make a comment for it. One of the worst calls I can get is from an inspector or CBO that says I missed something that cost time and or money that I could have prevented with the swipe of a pen (actually a mark-up, but you know what I mean). Obviously, I don't cover everything, but I try to hit the big ticket items.

Sometimes (too often) I am sure the issues I note would likely have never been caught by the inspector, contractor or DP. But if they were caught on inspection and not plan review they could be costly. Sometimes, even more costly if nobody caught them and disaster strikes. I like to avoid that, I think of this as simple self-preservation.

I would guess my average commercial review has 20 comments, some much higher. The inspectors never know the work that went into the plans they see, and that is the way it should be...IMHO.

 

[ICE]

The inspectors never know the work that went into the plans they see

Oh we know. Many of us were, or are, doing plan checking.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The inspectors never know the work that went into the plans they see, and that is the way it should be...IMHO.

I do plans reviews, too. And I'm currently the only one of our four (body count, less by FTE) inspectors doing commercial work. I spend a *heck* of a lot of time dealing with issues at the PR stage, and I'd generally state that except for major projects, the time spent on plans reviews often exceeds the time spent on inspections... usually because by the time it gets to the inspection stage, the tone has been set for "This is what y'all gotta be doing," and the things that have to be done usually are.