AHJ Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rudiseldb

Member
Location
Oregon City
I lead a large inspection staff. I really work hard at consistently in interpretation. If someone complains I listen. I'm not afraid to override one of my guys. I've been here doing the job for a year or more. Am I from your prospective missing something???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sounds reasonable to me.

Our senior planner in my area has a unique approach for our inspectors. Since our State is 3-years behind the code cycle, --CA will adopt the 2014 NFPA-70 in Jan 2017--, our inspectors are notified that changes in the 2017 NEC that simplify the 2014 NEC can be accepted on plans, and during inspections. As he puts it, being 3-yrs behind the code cycle gives us the ability to see how new code solved previous issues , rather than blindly enforcing currently adopted code 3-year behind.
 
rudiseldb said:
I lead a large inspection staff. I really work hard at consistently in interpretation. If someone complains I listen. I'm not afraid to override one of my guys. I've been here doing the job for a year or more. Am I from your prospective missing something???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Would you consider doing some seminars?
 
Just make sure you back your guys, when they make the call that nobody likes, too.

Sometimes my guys will call something that I might not, but I need to make sure I back them because it's the right thing to do.
 
cowboyjwc said:
Just make sure you back your guys, when they make the call that nobody likes, too.

Sometimes my guys will call something that I might not, but I need to make sure I back them because it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

With out a doubt it's a two way street....if they are right I back them 100%. But when wrong it's wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ramsy said:
Sounds reasonable to me.

Our senior planner in my area has a unique approach for our inspectors. Since our State is 3-years behind the code cycle, --CA will adopt the 2014 NFPA-70 in Jan 2017--, our inspectors are notified that changes in the 2017 NEC that simplify the 2014 NEC can be accepted on plans, and during inspections. As he puts it, being 3-yrs behind the code cycle gives us the ability to see how new code solved previous issues , rather than blindly enforcing currently adopted code 3-year behind.
Click to expand...

Your plan checkers and inspectors will allow code application for a code that has yet to be adopted?

That is plain wrong. Possibly even unlawful. .
 
oldsparky52 said:
I'm assuming you won't back a wrong call, right?
Click to expand...
Well my answer is no, I won't, but I have had BO's try to tell me that I should just go ahead and forget about something, because they are trying to be customer friendly. Now as the building official he can sign whatever he wants, but don't ask me too. So my point is if the guy makes a call and he can back it with a code section then that should be that.

I got called in one time because I had someone move a transformer one inch. It went all the way to the council and then worked it's way back down and by the time it got to my boss he was none too happy. He asked why I had done it and I told him because there's a big sticker on the front of the transformer that said that a minimum of six inches was required. He asked me how close was too close and I told him anything less than six inches. I said before we go any farther let me ask you a question, if that had been five inches from the wall and something were to happen would we be in here having a different conversation? He said possibly and I said right, so we're not going to ever have that conversation if I can help it. I can defend having them move it, I can never defend it being wrong.
 
Last edited:
rudiseldb said:
I lead a large inspection staff. I really work hard at consistently in interpretation. If someone complains I listen. I'm not afraid to override one of my guys. I've been here doing the job for a year or more. Am I from your prospective missing something???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nope. I want fair inspections. Fail me for things that are in err, dont fail me for things that arent, or invent your own rules. Sounds like you are doing the right things.
 
Sierrasparky said:
Your plan checkers and inspectors will allow code application for a code that has yet to be adopted?

That is plain wrong. Possibly even unlawful. .
Click to expand...

I don't really agree. There are always cases between cycles where something is more concretely addressed in the subsequent cycle. A salient example right now is taps for inverter connections in article 705, particularly for a load side tap. The 2011 NEC has some rules which can be interpreted this way or that, but which were simply not written to address that type of installation. The 2014 addresses feeder taps explicitly and the rules are much clearer. Between the 2014 and 2017 code, it is things like how to treat solar optimizer circuits.

If it's a case where it's truly a clear, substantive policy change in the code, then I'm inclined to agree with you. But when it's a confusion or argument over the meaning of language and a subsequent code clarifies, or it's something that addresses a technology that barely existed when the previous code was written, I think it's quite legit to follow the subsequent code. The way ramsy described it isn't wrong and shouldn't be unlawful in my opinion.
 
cowboyjwc said:
I got called in one time because I had someone move a transformer one inch. It went all the way to the council and then worked it's way back down and by the time it got to my boss he was none too happy. He asked why I had done it and I told him because there's a big sticker on the front of the transformer that said that a minimum of six inches was required. He asked me how close was too close and I told him anything less than six inches. I said before we go any farther let me ask you a question, if that had been five inches from the wall and something were to happen would we be in here having a different conversation? He said possibly and I said right, so we're not going to ever have that conversation if I can help it. I can defend having them move it, I can never defend it being wrong.
Click to expand...

This is a great example :thumbsup: If a manufacturer, a listing, or a code section says "minimum" or "maximum" and either one are exceeded, then where do you stop? I think a good share of the minimums and maximums are a minimum level of life safety protection. What is a human life worth? I think it's priceless.
 
construct said:
This is a great example :thumbsup: If a manufacturer, a listing, or a code section says "minimum" or "maximum" and either one are exceeded, then where do you stop? I think a good share of the minimums and maximums are a minimum level of life safety protection. What is a human life worth? I think it's priceless.
Click to expand...
And there is the question of liability. If, as a PE, I stamp something I know to be a violation and something, anything, happens that results in litigation, I am liable and my license is on the block. I carry O&E insurance, but if the insurance company can prove that I did it intentionally I could be out in the cold.
 
jaggedben said:
I don't really agree. There are always cases between cycles where something is more concretely addressed in the subsequent cycle. A salient example right now is taps for inverter connections in article 705, particularly for a load side tap. The 2011 NEC has some rules which can be interpreted this way or that, but which were simply not written to address that type of installation. The 2014 addresses feeder taps explicitly and the rules are much clearer. Between the 2014 and 2017 code, it is things like how to treat solar optimizer circuits.

If it's a case where it's truly a clear, substantive policy change in the code, then I'm inclined to agree with you. But when it's a confusion or argument over the meaning of language and a subsequent code clarifies, or it's something that addresses a technology that barely existed when the previous code was written, I think it's quite legit to follow the subsequent code. The way ramsy described it isn't wrong and shouldn't be unlawful in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Here state law says that with amendments we may make the code more restrictive, but we can't make it less restrictive. We can only enforce the codes that have been adopted by the state and the parts of the code that have been adopted by the state. Example is we do not enforce Article 89 of the NEC.
 
jaggedben said:
I don't really agree. There are always cases between cycles where something is more concretely addressed in the subsequent cycle. A salient example right now is taps for inverter connections in article 705, particularly for a load side tap. The 2011 NEC has some rules which can be interpreted this way or that, but which were simply not written to address that type of installation. The 2014 addresses feeder taps explicitly and the rules are much clearer. Between the 2014 and 2017 code, it is things like how to treat solar optimizer circuits.

If it's a case where it's truly a clear, substantive policy change in the code, then I'm inclined to agree with you. But when it's a confusion or argument over the meaning of language and a subsequent code clarifies, or it's something that addresses a technology that barely existed when the previous code was written, I think it's quite legit to follow the subsequent code. The way ramsy described it isn't wrong and shouldn't be unlawful in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a point. Ca has a process to vet the new codes they adopt. They are aware of these changes and yet fail to deliver a amendment. The real crazy part is that San Diego hosted a convention of sort for the NEC 2017 code cycle. Yet no early adoption of corrections made in the latest code. It's like the CA code panel wants everyone to suffer just as the rest of the country that used the previous code.

If these AHJ are so concerned with ignoring the code and making it up , why are they not submitting changes to the code. You see very few written and filed code suggestions. This State is so apathetic in this regard but are very quick to make up code on their own.

The code needs to be applied as written ( as long as not Dangerous oversight) so that we all are on the same page.
 
In Florida the code & edition are set at the state level. No local inspector, plans examiner or building official has the authority to allow deviation from that code edition.
 
mgookin said:
In Florida the code & edition are set at the state level. No local inspector, plans examiner or building official has the authority to allow deviation from that code edition.
Click to expand...

My point. Same in California
 
cowboyjwc said:
Here state law says that with amendments we may make the code more restrictive, but we can't make it less restrictive. We can only enforce the codes that have been adopted by the state and the parts of the code that have been adopted by the state. Example is we do not enforce Article 89 of the NEC.
Click to expand...

Well that's good, since an article 89 does not exist.:D

Lemme guess...typo..article 80, which is an infomative annex now anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top