90.4 Code enforcement ? Inspector Mike?s way!

[jxofaltrds]

I never say "because that's what I want" because the book is to big for me to need to make stuff up.

But I think some of the point trying to be made is when I go on a job, tell someone what the code says and then have to listen to the "I've never heard that before" or "no one else is calling that", etc. Then I tell the contractor that if he want's to argue to go get the code book out of his truck and show me where I'm wrong. No code book, we're done talking. Yes I have mine in my truck, but I'm not the one trying to prove a point. In fact I have three in my truck. I also have added the pages that talk about smoke alarms, ADA, work in suspended ceilings, etc.

Exactly.

 

[RichB]

Originally Posted by cowboyjwc I never say "because that's what I want" because the book is to big for me to need to make stuff up.

But I think some of the point trying to be made is when I go on a job, tell someone what the code says and then have to listen to the "I've never heard that before" or "no one else is calling that", etc. Then I tell the contractor that if he want's to argue to go get the code book out of his truck and show me where I'm wrong. No code book, we're done talking. Yes I have mine in my truck, but I'm not the one trying to prove a point. In fact I have three in my truck. I also have added the pages that talk about smoke alarms, ADA, work in suspended ceilings, etc.

RICK NAPIER

Two things an inspector can do to impress a contractor.

1) Know the code, inspect by the code and make few mistakes.
2) Readily accept the mistakes you do make and thank the contractor for educating you.

Exactly.

Bingo--you guys win a cookie!! And that makes it easier for when you do say "I would prefer you do this or that instead", the contractor is much more likely to say ok

​

 

[George Stolz]

I take a liberal interpretation of the code when ?applying? it.

I think we have differing views on what this statement means.

Liberally applying non-relevant sections of the code to reach a conclusion is not what I define as "liberal interpretation." I call that "misinterpreting".

A standard interpretation of the code would be to note that language exists in Article 334 to specifically restrict the installation of NM cable. That would demonstrate that the concept of running from joist to joist is not foreign to the writers of the NEC. That would be where the comparison ends, as NM cables and GECs are distinctly different in operation and hardiness.

Therefore, we look explicitly and intently at 250.64, which has not availed itself of the preceding 100 years to address the issue of running from joist to joist, and sign the card.

Rarely, (not always) am I challenge with a code section that tells me that I am wrong. I?m just told that my opinion is wrong.

If you are a contractor and want to get an inspector to change his mind use the code.

In this case, the problem is precisely that there is nothing for the accused to point to in the code book because the words aren't there. Whether you believe it or not, you are in fact doing the exact opposite of what you'd like to be doing, which is failing to follow the doctrine that "if the Code doesn't specifically prohibit an installation then the installation is compliant."

It's tricky when we start getting confident in our interpretations - that's about the time we need the chair kicked out from under us.

 

[George Stolz]

Postscript: a liberal interpretation is when there are actually words addressing a specific topic, acknowledging they can be read multiple ways and then applying the least restrictive interpretation.

That is obviously different than the method you are applying.

 

[iwire]

That is obviously different than the method you are applying.

The method appears to be that if there is any ambiguity at all just do it as Mike wants it done.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Postscript: a liberal interpretation is when there are actually words addressing a specific topic, acknowledging they can be read multiple ways and then applying the least restrictive interpretation.

That is obviously different than the method you are applying.

The method appears to be that if there is any ambiguity at all just do it as Mike wants it done.

No I just follow the law!

Residential Code of Ohio for One-, Two-, and Three-Family Dwellings?
101.4 Reasonable application. The rules of the board and proceedings shall be liberally construed in order to promote its purpose. When the residential building official finds that the proposed design is a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code, it shall be approved. Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building officials pursuant to section 114 shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval.

101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish uniform minimum
requirements for the erection, construction, repair, alteration, and maintenance
of residential buildings, including construction of industrialized units. Such
requirements shall relate to the conservation of energy, safety, and sanitation of
buildings for their intended use and occupancy with consideration for the
following:
1. Performance. Establish such requirements, in terms of performance objectives
for the use intended. Further, the rules shall consider the following:
1.1 The impact that the state residential building code may have upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the public;
1.2 The economic reasonableness of the residential building code;
1.3 The technical feasibility of the residential building code;
1.4 The financial impact that the residential building code may have on the
public's ability to purchase affordable housing.

I guess insults are getting to be the norm here. :ashamed:

EDIT: This is ICC based.

 

[infinity]

The method appears to be that if there is any ambiguity at all just do it as Mike wants it done.

It should be no surprise because it's right in the title of this thread. :roll:

 

[mwm1752]

This thread is quite a mix of various views -- There are both views to be taken in and it is really difficult to take some seriously when only one side of the tracks have been walked -- walk a mile in my shoes as the saying goes -- I live-d on both sides and yes an inspector can be as difficult as an all knowing contractor -- I learn something every day and expect there is more to learn -- I don't always agree with code but my job is to enforce it -- Respect is earned and easily given, so with a proper attitude respect what others say & they will most likely respect you -- you do not have to agree all the time but also you do not have to always fight.

 

[JDBrown]

No I just follow the law!

Residential Code of Ohio for One-, Two-, and Three-Family Dwellings?
101.4 Reasonable application. The rules of the board and proceedings shall be liberally construed in order to promote its purpose. When the residential building official finds that the proposed design is a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code, it shall be approved. Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building officials pursuant to section 114 shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval.

101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish uniform minimum
requirements for the erection, construction, repair, alteration, and maintenance
of residential buildings, including construction of industrialized units. Such
requirements shall relate to the conservation of energy, safety, and sanitation of
buildings for their intended use and occupancy with consideration for the
following:
1. Performance. Establish such requirements, in terms of performance objectives
for the use intended. Further, the rules shall consider the following:
1.1 The impact that the state residential building code may have upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the public;
1.2 The economic reasonableness of the residential building code;
1.3 The technical feasibility of the residential building code;
1.4 The financial impact that the residential building code may have on the
public's ability to purchase affordable housing.

I guess insults are getting to be the norm here. :ashamed:

EDIT: This is ICC based.

Wait, insults? Did I miss something? I've seen other members disagree with your interpretation of the Code and point out where they believe you're stretching things, but I haven't seen anybody outright insulting you (in this thread, anyway). If you're going to interpret civil disagreement as personal insults, I don't think any of us can help you.

I added some emphasis to your quote above, because it seems so inconsistent to me. Earlier you were talking about being able to fail an inspection as long as you can point to the Code and say, "Section ABC may not exactly come right out and say what I want, but Section XYZ says such-and-such, which implies that my interpretation of Section ABC is reasonable."

But now you say you're just following the law, which says, "When the residential building official finds that the proposed design is a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code, it shall be approved." This means almost the exact opposite of what you were saying earlier. This doesn't mean you're allowed to fail a job as long as you believe your interpretation of the Code is reasonable. It means that you cannot fail a job if the Contractor's interpretation of the Code is reasonable. And it's pretty tough to argue that his interpretation is unreasonable if he's just going by the strict language of the Code. The section is not worded to make it easier for the Inspector to take a broad interpretation of the Code and fail any job he wants; it's worded to make it easier for the Contractor to get his job signed off, without needing to do it "Inspector Mike's Way" just because that's how Inspector Mike wants it done.

As for the bits I highlighted at the end, I wonder how many Inspectors take into account the "economic reasonableness" and "financial impact" of their correction notices. A couple of years ago, we had an Inspector require an additional 1200A disconnect on one of our projects because the first one the Electrician installed was 5 feet away from the point the Inspector considered "nearest the point of entrance of the conductors" (see NEC 225.32). So now we have two 1200A disconnects five feet apart. It sure would've been nice if this Inspector would have taken "economic reasonableness" and "financial impact" into account when interpreting the Code.

(As a side note, my boss was at the site with the Inspector's supervisor several months after the job had finally been signed off, and the Supervisor noticed the double disconnects and asked why it was installed that way. When informed that his Inspector had required it, he shook his head and said, "These guys shouldn't be requiring garbage like this. All this does is make everybody look incompetent." But of course, by that point it was too little too late.)

As irritating as a know-it-all Contractor can be, a know-it-all Inspector is far worse. Why? Because the Inspector holds all the cards! If the Inspector has to deal with a know-it-all Contractor, he can just write the red tag and walk away, but what can the Contractor do if the Inspector is the know-it-all? True, he can file a written complaint with the Building Department, but in many cases that won't get him any further than venting about it online. The last time I looked into escalating an issue like this in the City of LA (where I do most of my work), I was told the wait time was 90 days before the Building Department would even assign somebody to look at my case. In the meantime, my client would be losing thousands of dollars of revenue every day as his new facility sat empty. What choice did we have but to cave to the Inspector's demands? It ended up costing our client money he shouldn't have had to pay, but waiting around for 90+ days would have cost him far more. The Inspectors know this, and, unfortunately, a few of them take advantage of it for the purpose of a power trip.

 

[Fulthrotl]

One of our local inspectors wanted to have me install bonding bushings on a PVC MA that was coming through concentric KO's. The whole run of pipe was PVC.

He wouldn't pass the building without that bushing. I didn't agree at all, but I put it on there .

It was faster to get one off the truck and unhook everything and install it than it would have been to make him mad at me and drag his feet coming back around. Then who knows, maybe he would have gotten out his code magnifying glass and driven me insane......

when i bring pvc into a junction box, i prefer a FA and a chase nipple. it's a cleaner install,
easier to pull wire, and i like it more. so there.

had an inspector say it wasn't acceptable, and to change it to a close nipple and a locknut.

did that, and he said..... you need a locknut on BOTH sides of the enclosure wall.

did that, and he said.... now, you need a ground bushing......

did that.....

this was on 4" pvc into a punched hole..... three redos.... with 500 mcm getting redone each time.
did i push back? nope. i needed the ticket signed, and it was obvious to me at least that getting into
a pissing match was just going to leave me with wet shoes.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Wait, insults? Did I miss something? I've seen other members disagree with your interpretation of the Code and point out where they believe you're stretching things, but I haven't seen anybody outright insulting you (in this thread, anyway). If you're going to interpret civil disagreement as personal insults, I don't think any of us can help you.

I added some emphasis to your quote above, because it seems so inconsistent to me. Earlier you were talking about being able to fail an inspection as long as you can point to the Code and say, "Section ABC may not exactly come right out and say what I want, but Section XYZ says such-and-such, which implies that my interpretation of Section ABC is reasonable."

But now you say you're just following the law, which says, "When the residential building official finds that the proposed design is a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code, it shall be approved." This means almost the exact opposite of what you were saying earlier. This doesn't mean you're allowed to fail a job as long as you believe your interpretation of the Code is reasonable. It means that you cannot fail a job if the Contractor's interpretation of the Code is reasonable. And it's pretty tough to argue that his interpretation is unreasonable if he's just going by the strict language of the Code. The section is not worded to make it easier for the Inspector to take a broad interpretation of the Code and fail any job he wants; it's worded to make it easier for the Contractor to get his job signed off, without needing to do it "Inspector Mike's Way" just because that's how Inspector Mike wants it done.

As for the bits I highlighted at the end, I wonder how many Inspectors take into account the "economic reasonableness" and "financial impact" of their correction notices. A couple of years ago, we had an Inspector require an additional 1200A disconnect on one of our projects because the first one the Electrician installed was 5 feet away from the point the Inspector considered "nearest the point of entrance of the conductors" (see NEC 225.32). So now we have two 1200A disconnects five feet apart. It sure would've been nice if this Inspector would have taken "economic reasonableness" and "financial impact" into account when interpreting the Code.

(As a side note, my boss was at the site with the Inspector's supervisor several months after the job had finally been signed off, and the Supervisor noticed the double disconnects and asked why it was installed that way. When informed that his Inspector had required it, he shook his head and said, "These guys shouldn't be requiring garbage like this. All this does is make everybody look incompetent." But of course, by that point it was too little too late.)

As irritating as a know-it-all Contractor can be, a know-it-all Inspector is far worse. Why? Because the Inspector holds all the cards! If the Inspector has to deal with a know-it-all Contractor, he can just write the red tag and walk away, but what can the Contractor do if the Inspector is the know-it-all? True, he can file a written complaint with the Building Department, but in many cases that won't get him any further than venting about it online. The last time I looked into escalating an issue like this in the City of LA (where I do most of my work), I was told the wait time was 90 days before the Building Department would even assign somebody to look at my case. In the meantime, my client would be losing thousands of dollars of revenue every day as his new facility sat empty. What choice did we have but to cave to the Inspector's demands? It ended up costing our client money he shouldn't have had to pay, but waiting around for 90+ days would have cost him far more. The Inspectors know this, and, unfortunately, a few of them take advantage of it for the purpose of a power trip.

Just touching on your last paragraph. I've heard this, and I've heard BO's ask "well what did my inspector say?" Here if I can't back up a call with a code section and/or a reasonable argument, neither my supervisor nor my BO will back me up. So far I've won all those battles, because I try not to let personal feelings come in to my inspections. Now I will admit that I have made calls and then called the contractor back and told them that I was mistaken, but I have been mistaken in the field and called them and told them they had to fix something. Fair is fair.

 

[__dan]

I usually call ahead for an appointment when going to see the inspector. That's so they may at their discretion lock the doors, close the lights, and draw the shades. (creative and productive people can get into soooo much trouble)

BTW, liberally construed is like liberally applied, the construing is done in a copious amount. Liberal, OTOH, means you are free to engage in a copious quantity of marginally self destructive behavior ... as long as that rule applies to everyone equally.

 

[George Stolz]

I guess insults are getting to be the norm here. :ashamed:

I did not insult you, I assessed your stated behavior. I have benefited many times over the years here from a well-needed reality check. I have nothing against you, but hope you take heart from the constructive criticism you have received and do a self-assessment.