# Demolition project scrutinized after wall collapses into street



## mark handler (May 28, 2015)

Demolition project scrutinized after wall collapses into street

Portsmouth officials oversee work site after 2 accidents

http://www.wmur.com/news/demolition-project-scrutinized-after-wall-collapses-into-street/33249750

May 27, 2015

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. —A second accident at a demolition site has Portsmouth officials rethinking the way they issue permits.

Work continued at the site of Olde Port Traders on Wednesday, a day after part of a wall fell into a street.

Last week, the driver of an excavator was seriously hurt when his machine fell 10 feet through the pavement into a basement hole. City officials said it was a matter of luck that no one was injured Tuesday morning when part of a wall fell onto Islington Street.

A photographer had just driven past the demolition site when he heard a rumbling noise. He looked back to see bricks and cinder blocks raining down on the road he had just driven across. He went back to take pictures of the debris as police were called.

"I saw a section of brick wall that had fallen down past the barrier they had built and had fallen down into the roadway," Sgt. Aaron Goodwin said. "It could definitely have been dangerous."

The city said demolition crews had been working near the front of the building. Work has been underway for at least two weeks to bring down the building and make way for a condominium project.

The city building inspector was at the site for the rest of the day Tuesday and on Wednesday.

"We are very thankful that it was not serious," City Manager John Bohenko said. "We're very, very disappointed in what happened."

Flaggers were in place, and perimeter fencing and black cloth were put up. City officials planned to stay at the site to oversee the rest of the demolition.

"We thought it was in the best interest to keep the project going rather than leave it half-finished because of safety issues," Bohenko said.

He said the problems at the project may indicate that new policies are needed.

"I think internally we're going to talk more about how we issue demolition permits and what restrictions we may want to look at," he said.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was notified of both incidents, officials said.

News 9 reached out to the demolition company and condominium developer for comment but has not heard back.


----------



## Mark K (May 29, 2015)

The question is what authority the building official has to oversee or regulate the demolition process.

If it has to do with worker safety OSHA has jurisdiction and the City has none.  Thus the jurisdiction's authority is limited to issues related to providing protection for those outside of the area where the demolition is occurring.


----------



## ICE (May 29, 2015)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The question is what authority the building official has to oversee or regulate the demolition process.If it has to do with worker safety OSHA has jurisdiction and the City has none.  Thus the jurisdiction's authority is limited to issues related to providing protection for those outside of the area where the demolition is occurring.


The AHJ has as much authority as they are willing to usurp from OSHA.  An AHJ can pile on as many requirements as they wish. If the contractor balks the AHJ can offer to bring in OSHA.  That's pretty much how that works.  I can't recall a case where anyone said "Okay let's call OSHA".


----------



## Mark K (May 29, 2015)

So much for the rule of law and the respect for the US Constitution.  When is your jurisdiction going to succeed from the United States?


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 29, 2015)

Pretty open ended governing what an AHJ may require. The taller the structure the more the demolition needs to be addressed and thought out

SECTION 3303

DEMOLITION

3303.1 Construction documents.

Construction documents and a schedule for demolition shall be submitted where required by the building official. Where such information is required, no work shall be done until such construction documents or schedule, or both, are approved.

3303.2 Pedestrian protection.

The work of demolishing any building shall not be commenced until pedestrian protection is in place as required by this chapter.

3303.3 Means of egress.

A horizontal exit shall not be destroyed unless and until a substitute means of egress has been provided and approved.

3303.4 Vacant lot.

Where a structure has been demolished or removed, the vacant lot shall be filled and maintained to the existing grade or in accordance with the ordinances of the jurisdiction having authority.

3303.5 Water accumulation.

Provision shall be made to prevent the accumulation of water or damage to any foundations on the premises or the adjoining property.

3303.6 Utility connections.

Service utility connections shall be discontinued and capped in accordance with the approved rules and the requirements of the applicable governing authority.

3303.7 Fire safety during demolition.

Fire safety during demolition shall comply with the applicable requirements of this code and the applicable provisions of Chapter 56 of the International Fire Code.

[A] CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. Written, graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the elements of a project necessary for obtaining a building permit.


----------



## conarb (May 29, 2015)

A couple of years ago I posted about a death on a job in Fremont, that case has now been prosecuted in the criminal justice system:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> MILPITAS  -- The owner and project manager of a Fremont-based construction  company were each convicted of involuntary manslaughter Tuesday in  connection with the cave-in death of a worker at a Milpitas home-build  site in 2012, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office said.
> 
> Authorities contended U.S. Sino Investment Inc. owner Richard Liu,  53, formerly of Fremont; and project manager Dan Luo, 36, of Fremont,  were criminally negligent when they went forward with the construction  of a home on Calaveras Ridge Drive in defiance of a stop-work order  spurred by an unfortified 12-foot-tall dirt wall piled from excavating a  hillside.
> 
> ...


I also checked the license board and Liu's license has been revoked for failure to maintain Workers' Comp insurance, but the question is what right the city inspector had to red tag the site?  Obviously the inspector was trying to do the right thing, but I don't see his authority.  Another comment, looking at the picture I can say that $700,000 might be a reasoanble number for the excavation and the concrete foundation work, but only a fraction of the cost of the entire home, so if Liu contracted with the owner to build the entire home for $700,000 I would think that some civil liability can attach to the owner, in fact if Liu's assets are insufficient to pay civil claims related to the death of the worker the property can be attached and sold to satisfy those claims.

Another comment that doesn't make any sense: "Luo was not licensed and not qualified to be in charge," Deputy District Attorney Bud Porter said.", in California there is no requirement for licensure for someone in charge, job superintendents are not licensed, many are licensed as contractors, but it is not a requirement.  I would suppose that a licensed contractor could subcontract the supervision but would be required to also subcontract two or more additional trades.

¹ http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28148783/milpitas-owner-project-manager-convicted-manslaughter-deadly-2012


----------



## Mark K (May 29, 2015)

Mtlogcabin

If a state or local regulation is in conflict with federal laws or regulations it is void.  Thus Section 3303 needs to be interpreted so as not to conflict with federal regulations such as OSHA.

Local jurisdictions do not have regulatory or enforcement authority with regards workers safety.  In some instances OSHA has delegated enforcement to state agencies but the local jurisdictions still are preempted from regulating and enforcement in these areas.

Section 3303.1 is vague and subject to multiple interpretations.  The "void for vagueness" principal that says that if a law or regulation is vague then it is void.  To save many laws this principal has been interpreted to mean that if there are multiple interpretations of the regulation the entity being regulated gets to select the interpretation that he wishes as long as it is consistent with the adopted regulation.

Remember also that the building official cannot impose a requirement that is not required by the adopted regulations.


----------



## Mark K (May 29, 2015)

Conarb

If the work that will be incorporated in the final construction does not comply with the regulation and the permit the City has an obligation to take action which can include a stop work notice.  On the other hand if we are dealing with temporary works then I would suggest that the local jurisdiction did not have jurisdiction and should have referred the concern to Cal OSHA.

If the contractor in California was found not to have workers comp insurance the City could stop work since having such insurance is a condition of having the permit.  Refer to Morris v. County of Marin.

Separate from the building regulation the laws related to negligence and torts can impose significant civil and criminal penalties if the contractor acts irresponsibly.  In such cases the building official may want to refer the concern to the District Attorney.  The point is that the building official does not have authority in these areas.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 29, 2015)

Demolishing a 500' X 500' 10 story building in the middle of 120 acres would require a lot less planning and documentation then the same building located within a city block surrounded by streets and other buildings. I am not referring to protecting the workers I am referring to protecting the surrounding properties, and passerby's on foot or traveling in vehicles.

Chapter 33 gives a local AHJ the authority to require a plan/documentation. What they may want included on the plan/documentation is up in the air unless the local AHJ already has an ordinance or policy in place requiring certain items.

Simple things like removing exterior walls between 9 PM and 6 AM and shutting down all roads and pedestrian traffic during that time frame


----------



## Mark K (May 29, 2015)

While Section 3303.1 calls for construction documents what is vague is what should be in those documents.  What do the other parts of the code specifically require?  Note we are not talking about construction we are talking about demolition procedures.  The IBC does not address this and in the State of California building regulations cannot address this issue.  The building official is limited by the regulations that have been adopted and the authority that he has been delegated with.

Thus a requirement for construction documents is meaningless unless you can point to regulations which define what should be addressed by these construction documents.  Remember if there is doubt the applicant gets to decide.

The local jurisdiction can limit hours of operation, noise levels at adjacent properties, and traffic on the roads as long as they already had an ordinance in place.  The point is that the building official cannot make up these requirements on his own.  Separate from the regulatory process a neighbor could possibly obtain an injunction if noise or dust were a problem.

The building code cannot solve all our problems.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 29, 2015)

In most points I agree and the building code does not solve all problems nor regulate all areas. However Section 104 gives the building official the authority to establish the policy or guidelines that would be required on the documents required by Chapter 33.

Example sign offs from various utility providers that utilities have been disconnected, asbestos removal has been complete and various other verification before demolition begins.

The purpose is to have a documented plan to follow. the same as when you construct a project.

Does the city even have to go out and inspect the operation? No they can have a "responsible person in charge" similar to a special inspector or ""registered design professional in charge" as required for a construction project. Whatever name you want to call it that person is like the captain of the ship. He can delegate authority but he can not delegate responsibility.


----------



## Mark K (May 29, 2015)

Per Section 104 the building official can render interpretations but he does not have authority to establish policy and guidelines other than with respect to the specific provisions of the building code.  No where is it specific as to what issues should be addressed in the documents required by Chapter 34 except possibly for structures to protect pedestrians.

Signoff by utility providers are probably reasonable because the code does address similar issues.  I believe that asbestos removal is regulated by OSHA and other agencies and thus not something the City can regulate.

There is a need for a demolition plan but I do not see how the City has the authority to require one let alone define what is on one.  The City can require a plan showing the extent of the demolition, walls or structures to protect the public, and the final grading.

Similarly the City does not have the authority to require a "responsible person in charge" of something they do not have the authority to regulate.  Even on new construction the building code is not about making sure somebody is responsible.  Rather the building code focuses on the characteristics of the completed building.

On construction projects the registered design professional retained by the owner is not responsible for the contractors means and methods of construction and by extension the implementation of the contractors safety procedures.  Because design professionals are regulated by a state agency the local jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate what they do.  The code focuses on the content of the submitted documents. The fact that drawings and calculations must be stamped is a result of the state licensing statutes and regulations not the building code.  At best the references in the building code to a design professional must be considered as a restatement of state law. At least in California I know of no state law or regulation that would in general require a design professional sign off on a demolition plan.


----------



## conarb (May 29, 2015)

My experience has been that if I'm building a new building the demolition of old structures is incorporated within my construction permit, If I'm just demolishing old structures (for say a new parking lot) I have to get a demolition permit. A few years ago I did get a demolition permit when building a new house, a few years into the permit approval process my owner was getting nervous about the old house sitting there, so I did go in and obtain a demolition permit to demolish the old house, and there were no inspections, the AHJ just took my money.


----------



## ICE (May 29, 2015)

All the talk about what authority an AHJ does or does not have is meaningless when some construction worker gets hurt or killed.  Then it's all about "Somebody should have known better".  Often enough I am that somebody.  So I should walk away knowing that I don't have the authority to do anything about it?  I don't give a shlt about the limits of my authority.  I have unlimited authority.  All ya gotta do is ask me.

Not long ago I rolled up on a job and there was a young guy sitting in the front yard getting hosed down.  He was still in a tyvek jump suit.  He had been in a space between the rafters and ceiling joists that was 16'' in the clear.  He was there to install conduit for a solar array. (We have a rule about conduit not being allowed on the roof in the FD setback).

Well while he was in there he became way too hot and panic set in.  His coworkers had to rip drywall off the ceiling to rescue the kid.  They told me that the company makes them do such crawls on a regular basis and it scares them every time....but hey now we need to be working.  This is Solar City.  I wrote a correction notice that said that any attic with less that 30" in the clear is a no go.  I told them to take that back to the office and deliver it to the top.  I also told them that If I catch wind of this again, Cal-OSHA knows my name.

I didn't have authority to pull a 30" rule out of my :butt ...... those workmen were damned happy that I thought I did.  It's a bluff and I've got Aces.


----------



## Mark K (May 30, 2015)

Please pass your postings along to the City Attorney for your jurisdiction.


----------



## ICE (May 30, 2015)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Please pass your postings along to the City Attorney for your jurisdiction.


Cities that I have been assigned to appreciated the huge balls that I haul around.  The administrators detest bad press like "Construction worker killed in tragic accident".

If you take a moment to reflect on the topic you should recognize the untenable position that you have taken.  How do you argue for allowing an obviously dangerous practice to continue?  Don't you think that if I were wrong, I would have been spanked by now?  Solar City for example.  They are a huge company, with clout.  If I give them a correction on their installation that they have not seen before they are all over it.  I threatened them over safety and never heard a word about it.

Some years ago I was working in a city and that city had an attorney.

There were two plumbing contractors that got a lot of work from Sears.  When the store had a sale on water heaters there would be a rash of permits.  The problem with these companies is that they would never request an inspection.  They sent a letter to the owner thanking them for the business and telling the owner to request an inspection.  The owners mostly ignored the letter.

I would end up with a bunch of old permits and have to hound the owners to get an inspection.  If I did get to inspect the work, it was not uncommon to find mistakes.  I tried cajoling the companies into requesting inspections.

I explained and pleaded to no avail.  So I invented a fine for not getting a water heater inspected.  It was near $100.  That went nowhere.  They didn't react.  They would wait until they had installed half a dozen before a permit runner was sent to pull permits.

The next batch was rejected and I levied another ICE fine for working without a permit.  It was near $100.  A week went by and nothing.  So I called Sears corporation in Chicago and informed them that Sears was contracting without a license and in big trouble.  A VP of something called me and he said that the install is done by a licensed contractor.  I told him that the customers walk into a Sears store and walk out with a water heater installed by Sears.  I asked him to call that licensed contractor and hear him answer the phone "Sears, how can we help you?"  Then I explained my predicament.

The next day one of the contractors came in and paid the made up fines.  It was well over $1000.  The other contractor requested a meeting with the City Attorney.  OOOH I'm in trouble now.

The meeting started with the contractor being an A-hole.  His opening statement was a threat to tell Sears that he refuses to do work in our city.  Within ten minutes I had him pretty well softened up.  He agreed to get his work inspected.  Then he asked me if I had "real power" and could waive the fine.  Well I too have seen Schindler's List so I told him that yes I could do that.  I told him that I would do exactly that if he would stand by his word and tell Sears that he will not do work in our city.

I met with the attorney right before the meeting and told him that I made up the fines and there is nothing to back them.  He said, "They won't know that".

Sure enough, he didn't .... he paid the fines which came to $2200.

That's how some things have to go down.  Have you never heard someone say, "There aught to be a law"? Now and then I think that since there is no law on the books, the law of common sense applies..... you don't need special authority to apply the law of common sense.

Okay, Okay, I know I am a bad boy.  Please, all of you inspectors out there, don't even think of doing what I do.  There is a risk involved.  For me, well I don't worry about that.  I have been doing such things for so long that it comes naturally now.  I could tell you some stories but there is that risk to consider.  Damn am I worried after all?  No I don't think so....just lazy.


----------



## ICE (May 31, 2015)

Here's an example of why safety needs to be addressed.  How was it that pedestrians were at risk?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/crane-collapses-midtown-manhattan/story?id=31427022


----------



## my250r11 (Jul 6, 2015)

The state of NM as well as the City give us the authority by stating any UNSAFE condition and poses an actual threat to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property. So I will issue a correction or stop work for any unsafe condition.... stockpile to close to ex., to much trash on site, etc.


----------

