# I never, ever saw anything like this before



## jar546 (Nov 2, 2019)

I was inspecting a kitchen remodel and asked the homeowner if she was going to have a stove-top cut in to the new porcelain counter.  I was concerned about receptacle spacing as the oven was below but still counterspace above.  She said it is installed and I thought she was joking.

She opened up the wall cabinet and showed me the controller for the stove.  Apparently is heats up the pots and pans through the counter.  I asked her how she knows where to place the kettle and she said it does not matter, it senses where it is and only heats that area.  She then proceeded to show me and the water started to boil.  The kettle was hot but the counter was not.  I am still amazed and had no idea this existed.


----------



## cda (Nov 2, 2019)

Very European !!!!


----------



## cda (Nov 2, 2019)

https://victoriaelizabethbarnes.com...ted-kitchen-countertop-invisible-burners-tpb/


----------



## ICE (Nov 2, 2019)

A cook like my mother could keep this looking good.....a cook like my wife, well not so much.  This is a novel idea that will not go far.  The surface will abrade from pots and pans.  Grease escapes and will cause staining.


----------



## Msradell (Nov 2, 2019)

That's a very cool concept, although I'm betting it's very expensive! As ICE I would worry about abrasion and staining of the stone in the long run.


----------



## alaskajoe (Nov 14, 2019)

_I don't get how the counter cant be hot. Anyway, show me this counter in a couple years. If it gets any normal use it will not be that pretty._


----------



## e hilton (Nov 14, 2019)

alaskajoe said:


> _I don't get how the counter cant be hot. _


Its induction cooking.  Only items with iron get hot.  Have you seen the ads for induction cooking that show a frying pan cut in half, beak an egg into the pan and let it spill over ... only the egg in the pan gets cooked.  Glass and aluminum pans don't work.  
Now ... the heat of the pan might transfer and warm the surface, but only a little.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 14, 2019)

wow!


----------



## north star (Nov 14, 2019)

*& ~ & ~ &*

What U.S. testing organization approved it for use in the U.S. ?
Also, what is the "approved test" for it ?.......Did you check for its
approval rating ?

*& ~ & ~ &*


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 14, 2019)

We've been cooking on rocks for years Jar... what's the big deal?


----------



## north star (Nov 14, 2019)

** * O * **


> *" We've been cooking on rocks for years Jar... what's the big deal? "*


Not as part of your Kitchen countertops you haven't !

** * O * **


----------



## Mark K (Nov 14, 2019)

What standard or law would be used to "approve" the cooktop?


----------



## jar546 (Nov 15, 2019)

Mark K said:


> What standard or law would be used to "approve" the cooktop?



In commercial locations, OSHA requires all appliances to be listed.
In ALL locations, the NEC requires appliances to be listed in 422.

So I come up with one code and one law that answers your question.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 17, 2019)

Because of federal preemption the building department has no authority to enforce OSHA regulations.   The OSHA regulations still apply but they are only enforceable by OSHA or by a state agency that has an agreement with OSHA which would exclude local building departments..

422.6 does require appliances to be listed.  This appears to be new in the 2017 NEC.  Section 100 defines listing but all it says is that the listing must be approved by the building official.  There is nothing that states who may do the listing or what standards should be applied when making the determination.  Thus how does the applicant know what is required?

The structural standards in the building code are not this sloppy.

A basic assumption of our legal system is that it was possible for an individual who is subject to a law to know what  was required in advance.  Why does this not apply to building regulations?

Leaving it solely to the building official presents an number of problems.  Few if any building officials have defined in advance what standards should be applied or who can do the listing.  Probably the majority of building officials would not have the technical knowledge to determine what standards should be used during the listing process.  If for example the building official were to only accept a XYZ listing he would have created a local monopoly but the US Supreme Court has determined that only the State Legislature, not a home rule city, can create a legal monopoly

Consider an analogous situation where a police officer determined the speed limit by the roll of the dice.  In such a situation I would expect those on this forum to loudly object yet for some reason we are to accept similar behavior by a building official.

It appears that buildings get built because building officials do not enforce the listing requirements and/or accept any listing.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 17, 2019)

I am not aware of any building officials that allow any electrical products that are not listed, even though they have that option.  I certainly never have and have not witnessed that happen in the two states I have been licensed in.


----------



## ICE (Nov 17, 2019)

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.
100 Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:

1. Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code
_
Informational Note: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Special conditions of use or other limitations and other pertinent information may be marked on the equipment, included in the product instructions, or included in the appropriate listing and labeling information. *Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.
*_
Few building departments have the wherewithal to evaluate equipment.  Therefor widespread reliance on NRTL listing is the order of the day.  NRTL stands for Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory.  Nationally recognized by whom?  Well that is OSHA.  OSHA determines which labs have the capacity to evaluate according to which standards.  They are not all the same.  Not all NRTLs have authority to evaluate to all standards or perform field evaluations.

None of this should be of any concern to an AHJ.  The leg work has been done for them.  The listing and labeling came first....then the products hit the marketplace.

Of course caution is always a good practice.  Now and then a mistake is made.  Products have been approved in error.  Standards have been found to be less than effective.  Procedures followed by NRTLs may be suspect.  However, the system we have works well enough to keep it.


----------



## ICE (Nov 17, 2019)

As to enforcing OSHA regulations.  I am a Californian and California has Cal/OSHA.

From Wikipedia:
_The *Division of Occupational Safety and Health* of California (DOSH, but more commonly known as Cal/OSHA) is an agency of the Government of California established by the California Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1973.[1] Administered by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Cal/OSHA's mission is to protect public health and safety through research and regulation related to hazards on the job in California workplaces as well as on elevators, amusement rides, and ski lifts, and related to the use of pressure vessels such as boilers and tanks. Cal/OSHA requires that qualifying organizations create illness and injury prevention programs meant to help identify and eliminate dangers before accidents and illnesses occur._

_As of December 22, 2015, Cal/OSHA employed *195 *field enforcement officers, 25 of whom received bilingual pay for using a second language at least 10% of the time on the job.  The organization offers training materials and paid training time to staff interested in learning other languages and encourages bilingual applicants to apply._

So Cal/OSHA has 195 field enforcement officers.   Gosh DOSH is relying on somebody else to keep us safe.  That somebody else must be you and me.  My AHJ forced me to attend OSHA training.  I have a wallet card to prove that.  Field guides are provided.  I don't think that happened for no particular reason.

So when I'm in the jungle and I see some scary, damned dangerous thing happening....well then I react as any right thinking adult would.  Besides that.....I've been trained.


----------



## conarb (Nov 17, 2019)

Tiger:

Don't the contractors down there have lawyers to sue guys like you?

If you want to enforce Federal law do something useful, bust the illegal aliens who are doing all the crummy work at slave wages.


----------



## ICE (Nov 17, 2019)

_Don't the contractors down there have lawyers to sue guys like you?
_
No conarb.  The illegals have lawyers waiting in line to sue contractors.

Only once have I been threatened with a lawsuit.  That was a major plumbing contractor and he said that I defamed him.  I told him that I would love to have a court brand him as a thief....so bring it on. I didn't hear from him again.












https://www.constructionjunkie.com/...vives-being-impaled-by-rebar-through-his-head


----------



## Mark K (Nov 17, 2019)

ICE 

I expect that your  training was to protect yourself in your job, not to expand your authority to enforce OSHA regulations.

My posting recognized that Cal/OSHA has jurisdiction.  Just because you work for a governmental agency does not give you  authority to enforce all laws.

I see little to no difference between a building inspector that enforces something that he does not have authority to enforce and a vigilante.  If you see a OSHA violation report it to OSHA.


----------



## ICE (Nov 17, 2019)

Mark K said:


> ICE
> 
> I expect that your  training was to protect yourself in your job, not to expand your authority to enforce OSHA regulations.
> 
> ...



Mark,
I'm okay with all of that except the part about reporting an OSHA violation to OSHA.  If I had a mind to do so I would be too busy to inspect the work.  I don't bother with mundane danger.....you know....missing saw guards, frayed cords, nails sticking out of boards, homemade ladders, rickety scaffold, etc.   No sir, I go after impalement and excavations.  Those will kill them....all the other injuries can be fixed.....well not always....but hey... it's not my job now is it.

And here's a bit of eye opening news: Unless an OSHA enforcement officer witnesses the violation....it doesn't exist.  Of course a dead worker or severed limbs and digits gets OSHA's attention but by and large the 195 enforcement officers are too busy for the mundane stuff.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 17, 2019)

So if building officials require listed equipment but do not say what will be accepted as proof of listing this suggests that they either accept any listing from any source or they are imposing a requirement without giving notice to the applicants what is required.

While NRTL certifications could possibly be an option I doubt that building departments make it public notice that they expect NRTL certifications.  So how is the applicant to know what is required.

Apparently NRTL certifications are associated with specific standards but it is not clear that they are the same standards as required by the NEC as adopted.

Remember the applicant has a  right to be able to know the rules prior  to submitting the application.  Do we have rule of law or  do we have tyrants who attempt to impose their will.  Remember the declaration of independence was in response to the rule of tyrants.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 17, 2019)

The 5 counties in Florida that I've worked in specify any of the NRTL listed testing agencies.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 21, 2019)

"All" points well noted.


----------



## ICE (Nov 21, 2019)

Mark K said:


> Remember the applicant has a  right to be able to know the rules prior  to submitting the application.



What you call rules, we call codes.  The codes are not hidden from them.  Applicants that don't know the code as it applies to their proposed work are engaged in a folly of their own making.  We as the AHJ are along for the ride.   

The AHJ has the right to expect applicants to know the code.  It is not my lot in life to teach the code to any and all.  As a matter of fact, it is damned aggravating when contractors haven't a clue.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 21, 2019)

I would assume Mark K is stating that the applicant has the right to be able to access the requirements and not that it is the jurisdiction's responsibility to educate the applicant on the requirements before they submit an application.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 21, 2019)

tmurray said:


> I would assume Mark K is stating that the applicant has the right to be able to access the requirements and not that it is the jurisdiction's responsibility to educate the applicant on the requirements before they submit an application.



Yes and no, "we" are servants of the public and as such will deal with "all" comers, patience is critical to our success in spite of our opinions as to "who" should know "what" about what when they submit. Ours is not to "do or die" but to assist and "direct".


----------



## ICE (Nov 21, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Yes and no, "we" are servants of the public and as such will deal with "all" comers, patience is critical to our success in spite of our opinions as to "who" should know "what" about what when they submit. Ours is not to "do or die" but to assist and "direct".



I used to be a one man show in a city.  At that gig I issued permits as well as inspected the work.  It has been so long ago that I can't tell you the exact years....but it was years. Many came through that had scant knowledge of the undertaking.  Some struck me as incapable.  When I got to the point of inspecting the work I felt like the permit technician let me down.....and the plan checker.....Shirley he knew that the other side will be falling off a cliff.

These days I am not called upon to provide applicant education.  There's all of the forms and agencies for them to get through.  That's not the code.  I do not expect applicants to know much of anything.  Unless of course the applicant is the builder.  Even with that, the stuff about agencies is not something many would know.....but the code....if they are codeless....they think that I adopted them.....and they just got their first bicycle.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 21, 2019)

Why should tax payers be responsible to subsidize builders/contractors/developers who do not want to spend the time and money on education or qualified professionals?


----------



## Mark K (Nov 21, 2019)

We are a country of laws.

The   point is that the individual must be available to know the laws before they can be applied to him or her.  The fact that an applicant is ignorant of the law is not relevant.

All I hear are rationalizations for why inspectors do not need to comply with the law.  Legally these rationalizations have no standing.

I also hear inspectors who try to make themselves feel superior because others fail at something.  This does not reflect well on those individuals who are trying to make themselves feel superior.  The reality is that engineers also find numerous examples where the inspector or the plan checker does not know what he is talking about.   The difference is that the engineer usually does not make the inspector aware of his or her shortcoming thus allowing the inspector to have an inflated sense of his or  her competence.

Why should the applicant suffer and have to pay more and delay the job because a building inspector plan checker is ignorant?

I have learned not to assume that the plan checker or building inspector is competent.  I would appreciate it if the inspector and plan checker recognized that they were constrained by the laws.  It does happen sometimes but there are too many who do not believe in the rule of law.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 22, 2019)

"Balanced" response Mark, "patience" is a gift not easily present in many but to be "shared" by those that do.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 22, 2019)

Wow, talk about thread drift.  I posted a pic showing something I never saw before and bam, here we are................whheeewwwww!


----------



## tmurray (Nov 25, 2019)

Mark K said:


> We are a country of laws.
> 
> The   point is that the individual must be available to know the laws before they can be applied to him or her.  The fact that an applicant is ignorant of the law is not relevant.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you are advocating for building officials to be responsible to teach others how to comply with the law. I have some concerns about this position as it violates third party regulatory concepts. If I am teaching someone how to comply with the code, I should not be permitted to then assess whether that construction now complies with the code. I am no longer a regulatory agent, I am a designer. 

I'm not advocating to not help anyone at all, obviously making regulations as accessible and user friendly as possible is the goal, but when you work for a jurisdiction like mine, where everyone can pull a permit, the number of people I would have to teach is never ending. We have to draw the line somewhere. Ultimately, it is our superiors who decide what the standard of care we exercise in the delivery of our duties are. Either directly through a level of service commitment, or indirectly through staffing levels and budget.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 25, 2019)

Not as many barristers in your neck of the woods as ours, eh?


----------



## Mark K (Nov 25, 2019)

I am not advocating that the building official has a responsibility  to teach  the law.  I  am saying that it must be possible for  the  applicant to  know the requirements in  advance.   If the requirements have been formally adopted it is assumed that an individual could know what the requirement is. The individual may have to exercise  some initiative but that is his problem unless the requirement is hidden.  Also  if the applicant does not  have the  training to be able to understand the regulations that is his problem if he is unwilling to  hire a consultant  with the necessary training.

On the other hand  if  the plan  checker or inspector imposes a  requirement that has not been properly adopted then we have a problem.  In such situations I would suggest that  the  plan checker or inspector is guilty of extortion.

I would suggest that  if you were to  step over the line and imposing your preferences rather than  pointing out the code violations  then  you and your jurisdiction could be  liable for any problems that occur


----------



## jar546 (Nov 25, 2019)

Mark K said:


> ........I would suggest that  if you were to  step over the line and imposing your preferences rather than  pointing out the code violations  then  you and your jurisdiction could be liable for any problems that occur



Yes, yes and another yes.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 26, 2019)

Mark K said:


> I am not advocating that the building official has a responsibility  to teach  the law.  I  am saying that it must be possible for  the  applicant to  know the requirements in  advance.   If the requirements have been formally adopted it is assumed that an individual could know what the requirement is. The individual may have to exercise  some initiative but that is his problem unless the requirement is hidden.  Also  if the applicant does not  have the  training to be able to understand the regulations that is his problem if he is unwilling to  hire a consultant  with the necessary training.
> 
> On the other hand  if  the plan  checker or inspector imposes a  requirement that has not been properly adopted then we have a problem.  In such situations I would suggest that  the  plan checker or inspector is guilty of extortion.
> 
> I would suggest that  if you were to  step over the line and imposing your preferences rather than  pointing out the code violations  then  you and your jurisdiction could be  liable for any problems that occur



I'm not sure that it meets the requirement of extortion, typically the person is getting something (usually money). It is conceivable if the official owned a testing facility and arbitrarily required something to be tested in that facility, then it would meet the test.

Regardless, I agree it is not in keeping with the integrity required of that position and would certainly be looked on unfavorably. There is no better way to undermine your professional image in the eyes of the court than to overstep your authority as a government official.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 26, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Not as many barristers in your neck of the woods as ours, eh?



We have plenty and do not enjoy your statutory immunity. Our courts have recognized that we cannot inspect work if we are directing it. 

Again, I am not advocating for hiding requirements. We have all of our by-laws freely available on our website. If you want to build a shed in your back yard, I have a permit application specifically for that. It includes all the requirements from the zoning by-law re-written in plain English so you don't even need to go look them up. When someone calls to ask what the requirements are, I tell them outright. My problem is I have recently seen a large increase in the do-it-yourself community who look to us to teach them how to build something. I'm not talking about the people who need a little help here and there. I am talking about people who have unconscious incompetence.

I have an ethical problem with charging our residents more tax dollars because their neighbor decided to save money by not hiring a general contractor, while also damaging our local contractor businesses at the same time.


----------



## steveray (Nov 26, 2019)

tmurray said:


> Why should tax payers be responsible to subsidize builders/contractors/developers who do not want to spend the time and money on education or qualified professionals?



Permit fees should cover construction/ permit related costs....We supplement the general fund pretty well here.....


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 26, 2019)

tmurray said:


> We have plenty and do not enjoy your statutory immunity. Our courts have recognized that we cannot inspect work if we are directing it.
> 
> Again, I am not advocating for hiding requirements. We have all of our by-laws freely available on our website. If you want to build a shed in your back yard, I have a permit application specifically for that. It includes all the requirements from the zoning by-law re-written in plain English so you don't even need to go look them up. When someone calls to ask what the requirements are, I tell them outright. My problem is I have recently seen a large increase in the do-it-yourself community who look to us to teach them how to build something. I'm not talking about the people who need a little help here and there. I am talking about people who have unconscious incompetence.
> 
> I have an ethical problem with charging our residents more tax dollars because their neighbor decided to save money by not hiring a general contractor, while also damaging our local contractor businesses at the same time.



Thank the DIY network for the rash of DIY'rs


----------



## tmurray (Nov 26, 2019)

steveray said:


> Permit fees should cover construction/ permit related costs....We supplement the general fund pretty well here.....


I don't know if there is any jurisdiction here that would cover their costs. It is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recoup more in fees than the costs of delivering the service.


----------



## steveray (Nov 26, 2019)

We typically double our costs with fees......I love Canada eh!


----------



## Mark K (Nov 26, 2019)

In  California building department fees cannot exceed  the cost  of providing services  but this can be based  on total department fees averaged over several  years.   This does not prevent a situation where an individual project happens to pay  more fees than the cost  of servicing that project.  Any excess fees  cannot be transferred  to  the General Fund of the jurisdiction.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 27, 2019)

Mark K said:


> In  California building department fees cannot exceed  the cost  of providing services  but this can be based  on total department fees averaged over several  years.   This does not prevent a situation where an individual project happens to pay  more fees than the cost  of servicing that project.  Any excess fees  cannot be transferred  to  the General Fund of the jurisdiction.


I believe that to be true in every state and every jurisdiction. From my understanding that may be an example of taxation without representation. Unfortunately, many municipalities love to take from the building department and put the money in the general fund but no one ever pushes back on that although I did have one situation in Pennsylvania where the hospital did push back and won in the courts and should have.


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 27, 2019)

In PA too. There doesn't seem to be anything about how much a private inspection company can charge. They exist to make money. But all of the private inspection company's kick back money back to the jurisdiction per their contract with the jurisdiction, sometimes up to 40% of the permit fee even though the jurisdiction itself doesn't do anything at all.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 27, 2019)

"Kick" you say or required by the departments in order to be placed on an "approved" vendors list?


----------

