# Special Inspections



## mark handler (May 20, 2019)

Firestopping -ASTM E 2174 & ASTM E 2393 "Inspection Standards"
- REQUIRES Special Inspections

How many are requiring "Special Inspections" For firestopping?​


----------



## cda (May 20, 2019)

We do 

But the quality of the inspection is lacking


----------



## Rick18071 (May 20, 2019)

Don't know anyone that did. If I ever get to inspect a high rise I may but never had one in my area.


----------



## fatboy (May 20, 2019)

We require special inspections.


----------



## Mark K (May 20, 2019)

Chapter 17 provides a specific list of special inspections.  These inspections are  what I understand to be special inspections.  A number of standards have called for special inspections not listed in Chapter 17 thus creating problems and confusion.  The special inspection provisions in Chapter 17 were not intended to be a generic provisions that any standard could invoke.

Having said that there is a special inspection for "Fire-resistant penetrations and joints" which governs as opposed  to the reference standard.

I believe that the building official does not have the authority to not  require special inspections required by the building code.  The building official has wide discretion in where he  focuses his attention this does not extend to saying that a building code provision does not apply.


----------



## conarb (May 20, 2019)

Mark K said:


> Chapter 17 provides a specific list of special inspections.  These inspections are  what I understand to be special inspections.  A number of standards have called for special inspections not listed in Chapter 17 thus creating problems and confusion.  The special inspection provisions in Chapter 17 were not intended to be a generic provisions that any standard could invoke.
> 
> Having said that there is a special inspection for "Fire-resistant penetrations and joints" which governs as opposed  to the reference standard.
> 
> I believe that the building official does not have the authority to not  require special inspections required by the building code.  The building official has wide discretion in where he  focuses his attention this does not extend to saying that a building code provision does not apply.



Mark:

I agree, but ASTM can state anything it wants, but the only Special Inspections that the CBO can require are those listed in Chapter 17.


----------



## steveray (May 21, 2019)

cda said:


> We do
> 
> But the quality of the inspection is lacking



This....in all disciplines from what I have seen...


----------



## tmurray (May 21, 2019)

We kind of do...our code stays away from specifying the inspection scheme. This is left to the provincial or local jurisdictions. We have one of the registered professionals of record assigned to look at fire stopping and they sign off on it. Then we will quickly double check a couple penetrations of each type. If it looks squirrely, them have to dis-assemble one. More than once we have found some "creative" assemblies that do not exactly match the listing.


----------



## classicT (May 21, 2019)

conarb said:


> Mark:
> 
> I agree, but ASTM can state anything it wants, but the only Special Inspections that the CBO can require are those listed in Chapter 17.


A BO has tremendous opportunities to adjust as necessary given the constraints of a specific project.

Method #1 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
*1705.1.1 Special Cases*
_Special inspections _and tests shall be required for proposed work that is, in the opinion of the building official, unusual in its nature, such as, but not limited to, the following examples: 1. Construction materials and systems that are alternatives to materials and systems prescribed by this code. 2. Unusual design applications of materials described in this code. 3. Materials and systems required to be installed in accordance with additional manufacturer's instructions that prescribe requirements not contained in this code or in standards referenced by this code.​Method #2 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
*1707.1 General*
In the absence of _approved _rules or other _approved _standards, the _building official _shall make, or cause to be made, the necessary tests and investigations; or the _building official _shall accept duly authenticated reports from _approved agencies _in respect to the quality and manner of use of new materials or assemblies as provided for in Section 104.11. The cost of all tests and other investigations required under the provisions of this code shall be borne by the owner or the owner's authorized agent.​Method #3 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
*110.3.8 Other Inspections*
In addition to the inspections specified in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.7, the _building official _is authorized to make or require other inspections of any construction work to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this code and other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety.​


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 21, 2019)

MarkK
1704.2 Special inspections and tests.
Exceptions:
1.    Special inspections and tests are not required for construction of a minor nature or as warranted by conditions in the jurisdiction as approved by the building official.

For example I take this exception to mean I can waive a special inspection requirement for a minimal amount of epoxy bolts or rebar. Say 3 rebars that need to be epoxied into an existing foundation wall.


----------



## ADAguy (May 21, 2019)

Doesn't it say that the ICC is a "model" code, subject to acceptance by local jurisdictions in whole or in part with or without local amendments?


----------



## conarb (May 21, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> A BO has tremendous opportunities to adjust as necessary given the constraints of a specific project.
> 
> Method #1 to require beyond the conventional SI disciplines:
> *1705.1.1 Special Cases*
> ...



Ty:

I think you are right, I am getting old and out of touch, there are no-longer any constraints on a CBO, back in the UBC in *§1701.5 Types of Work *there are 15 types of work specified, with the IBC 1701.5 and it's 15 types disappeared allowing a lot of discretion on the part of the CBO, so what is to stop a rogue CBO from requiring Special Inspections on everything?  If we are giving them that much power maybe they ought to have to stand for election, the general public hates special inspections because they have to pay for them outside of their contracts.

That's quoting from the 1997 UBC, if memory serves me the first Special Inspections appeared in the code about 1975, in there there were 4 required Special Inspections, piers, epoxy bolting, welding, and something else.


----------



## Mark K (May 22, 2019)

Since the courts have found that there are limits on the President it stands to reason that there are limits on the building official.

The provisions referenced are attempting to give the building official free rein to ask for whatever he wants thus giving him the authority of a monarch.  In other  words the ability to unilaterally modify the building code. This is something that our constitution has a problem with.  First when the building official has the authority to unilaterally invoke new rules we  have a violation of due process guaranteed by the 14th amendment.  Second state constitutions put limits on the delegation of legislative authority which would preclude giving the building official authority to modify the building code.  The state agency or local entity adopting the building code cannot delegate powers to the building official that the agency or entity does not have.

Much of the rationalizations are based on building code provisions that were based on the model code which building officials have control over.  Talk about conflicts of interest.  We must also recognize that just because something is in the building code does not mean that it is legal.

It might help if we were to contemplate how a building official would react if a police officer were to prevent him from driving his car in the city in spite of the fact that there was no law to back up the officer.. 

We need to recognize that in many respects the building code is flawed and cannot address all problems but that  does not justify building officials' usurping the power of the legislature.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 22, 2019)

I thought this was what the appeals process is for.


----------



## classicT (May 22, 2019)

There are more constraints than this thread is flushing out so far.

I believe that the vast majority of BO's will stick close to the code and do not get as extreme as this thread is indicating the possibility of. Sure, a BO will put an additional requirement in place here and there that is above what the code requires. But the code is not a one-size-fits-all set of specifications. Requiring additional inspection on a non-typical installation is justifiable.

As for checks-and-balances, we (code officials) almost all work in some form or another, work for elected officials. Developers always seem to have a direct pipeline to those elected, and if you cross them, the word somehow will make it back from the top and work its way to the BO. Cause enough issues, you may just be encouraged out the door.


----------



## conarb (May 22, 2019)

Mark K said:


> Much of the rationalizations are based on building code provisions that were based on the model code which building officials have control over.  Talk about conflicts of interest.  We must also recognize that just because something is in the building code does not mean that it is legal.
> 
> It might help if we were to contemplate how a building official would react if a police officer were to prevent him from driving his car in the city in spite of the fact that there was no law to back up the officer..
> 
> We need to recognize that in many respects the building code is flawed and cannot address all problems but that  does not justify building officials' usurping the power of the legislature.



The whole process is horribly flawed, building officials are the last people in the world who should be voting on codes, we all saw that in Minneapolis, Richard (RJJ) was there reporting in on the hookers and booze in the hospitality suites when the coalition of fire sprinkler manufacturers "bought" the residential sprinkler requirement, what a corrupt process, I listened in on the podcast and couldn't believe what I was hearing.  The people voted for Trump to reduce regulations (among other things), one of his first moves was to issue an Executive order requiring two regulations to be repealed for every new one passed.



			
				Executive Order January 30-2017 said:
			
		

> *REDUCING REGULATION AND CONTROLLING REGULATORY COSTS*
> 
> By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
> 
> Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. In addition to the management of the direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars through the budgeting process, it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.¹



Executive Orders apply to government agencies, the ICC is a NGO unaffected by EOs, from what Jim Brown has told us the ICC does whatever the government wants, so it is nothing but a workaround allowing the government to impose regulations on us without any control, I think it's time to scrap the ICC and let the government take over code writing, in the past model code requirements were imposed by Ordinance and then Statute in California (1998) and apparently some other states, this gave the citizens some modicum of local control, as I said above now a rogue BO can do pretty much anything he wants.



¹ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...cing-regulation-controlling-regulatory-costs/


----------



## tmurray (May 22, 2019)

conarb said:


> The whole process is horribly flawed, building officials are the last people in the world who should be voting on codes, we all saw that in Minneapolis, Richard (RJJ) was there reporting in on the hookers and booze in the hospitality suites when the coalition of fire sprinkler manufacturers "bought" the residential sprinkler requirement, what a corrupt process, I listened in on the podcast and couldn't believe what I was hearing.  The people voted for Trump to reduce regulations (among other things), one of his first moves was to issue an Executive order requiring two regulations to be repealed for every new one passed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Careful now...that's starting to sound a lot more like socialism and less like a free market...

Speaking as someone with a code sponsored by the federal government, the only way this works is that you establish a corporation with bi-partisan funding, with a mandate to manage the building codes. This will eliminate the influence of special interest on elected officials. Otherwise you end up with another ADA and while it's better than nothing, I don't think many would state that it is a perfect law.


----------



## conarb (May 22, 2019)

tmurray said:


> Careful now...that's starting to sound a lot more like socialism and less like a free market...
> 
> Speaking as someone with a code sponsored by the federal government, the only way this works is that you establish a corporation with bi-partisan funding, with a mandate to manage the building codes. This will eliminate the influence of special interest on elected officials. Otherwise you end up with another ADA and while it's better than nothing, I don't think many would state that it is a perfect law.



The UBC and the SBC were free market code services, the ICC is worse than a government agency since it isn't even subject to governmental controls like Trump's Executive Order, wouldn't it be great if for every new code section we got rid of two bad code sections?


----------



## jar546 (May 22, 2019)

From New York:

_Firestopping is a critical area of fire protection in commercial buildings to limit the spread of building fires.  This is the reason NYC Department of Buildings changed their new 2014 code to require firestop special inspections utilizing the ASTM firestop inspection standards for all buildings.  According to these standards, the inspector shall provide visual and/or destructive testing for a percentage of the firestop systems.  The New ASTM firestop inspection standards have proven to be an excellent standard to protect the liability of the special inspection agency and general contractors. To reduce your liability these standards need to be adhered to, so NYSSPE has supported firestop special inspection training for its membership._


----------



## jar546 (May 22, 2019)

Some interesting information about this from an older PPT presentation.  See the PDF link here:

https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/Firestopping-Plan-Review-and-Inspection-of-Joints.pdf


----------



## Mark K (May 23, 2019)

Building codes cannot be a federal function unless we modify the US Constitution.  Congresses authority to legislate is limited to those powers given it in the Constitution and regulation of building constructions was not one of them.

I do not see how this leads to socialism.  We need to support our democracy and not create a group that acts as autocrats.  We should promote the rule of law.  In many contexts the term socialism is used as a code word.  If you believe that any aspect of socialism is bad then maybe you should promote the elimination of all building regulations.

Some appear to have this mistaken belief that if there are perceived problems with building regulations that the building official can require changes.  This is not how our system of laws work.  The Building Official fulfills a ministerial function.  This means that he enforces the written laws.  If this results in problems the building official as well as any citizen can lobby for changes but until those changes are legally adopted the building official needs to suck it up.

When there are problems with the building code the tort system is the fall back.  This is not perfect but it is our system.  Building codes were adopted in response to perceived problems with tort law and our courts.

In 1970 California changed the legal status of the building code and the State preempted the field of building regulation.  This limited the ability of local jurisdictions to modify the building code.  Since that date many jurisdictions have operated in violation of the statutes in adopting modifications that are not allowed.


----------



## jar546 (May 23, 2019)

Although this topic is getting a bit off course, I will interject my thoughts by showing the one-single area where a BO has some leeway.

APPROVED. Acceptable to the building official.

That definition right there.  I am not sure of any other area that give that much discretion.


----------



## tmurray (May 23, 2019)

If code requires compliance with a standard, why would you need to take requirements in the standard and re-write them in the code?

Once we adopt a standard into the code in Canada, that standard is enforceable as though it was written into the code. Most of the time, standards reference other standards. Guess what? same deal there. Enforceable as though it was written into the code. What about the standards those standards reference? Still enforceable. But, that is where it stops. We can enforce up to three jumps away from the code through our reference standards as thought they are in the code. If there are conflicts between a standard and the code the code governs. If a standard calls for testing and/or submittals (like NFPA 13), they must be submitted.

So ultimately, the question is if you require a Contractors Certificate for Aboveground Piping from NFPA 13, how can you not require a special inspection from another standard?


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 23, 2019)

If a special inspection is required by a standard then the building official can and should require it to be done.

1705.1.1 Special cases.
Special inspections shall be required for proposed work that is, *in the opinion of the building official,* unusual in its nature, such as, but not limited to, the following examples:
1.    Construction materials and systems that are alternatives to materials and systems prescribed by this code.
2.    Unusual design applications of materials described in this code.
3.    Materials and systems required to be installed in accordance with additional manufacturer’s instructions that prescribe requirements not contained in this code* or in standards referenced by this code.*

I have seen where the DP calls out for special inspections over and above the minimum code requirements on the plans or in the specs and we will require them to be done.


----------



## conarb (May 23, 2019)

You guys don't give a damn what anything costs, remember it's the owners paying for the Special Inspections, not us builders that you take so much delight in screwing.  I had an owner ask "Why so many layers of inspection?" as the bills came pouring in, I said some inspection has to be continuous like welding, and welding inspection requires welding certificates that city inspectors don't have, the Structural Engineer was standing there and stated: "In Europe all inspectors must have welding certificates".  I guess the bottom line is that you want to require Special Inspections becasue your inspectors aren't either smart enough or trained to inspect these items, maybe it's time to get better inspectors, or maybe it's time to deduct the Special Inspection fees from the building department fees.


----------



## classicT (May 23, 2019)

conarb said:


> You guys don't give a damn what anything costs, remember it's the owners paying for the Special Inspections, not us builders that you take so much delight in screwing.  I had an owner ask "Why so many layers of inspection?" as the bills came pouring in, I said some inspection has to be continuous like welding, and welding inspection requires welding certificates that city inspectors don't have, the Structural Engineer was standing there and stated: "In Europe all inspectors must have welding certificates".  I guess the bottom line is that you want to require Special Inspections becasue your inspectors aren't either smart enough or trained to inspect these items, maybe it's time to get better inspectors, or maybe it's time to deduct the Special Inspection fees from the building department fees.


CONARB, your eternal pessimism on how Building Dept.'s work is astonishing.

Why is it always the building departments fault? The design team should be making the owner aware of the requirements from the vary beginning. And SI is not something all that new. Who is surprised when it is required?

It is simply one of the many costs associated with building.


----------



## conarb (May 23, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> CONARB, your eternal pessimism on how Building Dept.'s work is astonishing.
> 
> Why is it always the building departments fault? The design team should be making the owner aware of the requirements from the vary beginning. And SI is not something all that new. Who is surprised when it is required?
> 
> It is simply one of the many costs associated with building.



Ty:

Because I have perspective, building with no SI for $6 a square foot, seeing SI come into the codes in the 70s, now having my last owner pay close to $100,000 in SI fees, and BTW even affordable housing here is running $1,000 a square foot.  Of course SI isn't the main reason, it's codes that have made building progressively more expensive, every little thing costs money, fire sprinklers was a huge thing but you guys could care less.  Cities are already making huge grants to get affordable housing built, better that they eliminate permit fees than outright gifts of money.  The last permit I applied for the permit tech punched my license number into his computer and exclaimed: "My God, you've been at this for over half a century, I've never seen a number this low."  I just replied: "Yes, I've seen a lot."


----------



## classicT (May 23, 2019)

conarb said:


> Ty:
> 
> Because I have perspective, building with no SI for $6 a square foot, seeing SI come into the codes in the 70s, now having my last owner pay close to $100,000 in SI fees, and BTW even affordable housing here is running $1,000 a square foot.  Of course SI isn't the main reason, it's codes that have made building progressively more expensive, every little thing costs money, fire sprinklers was a huge thing but you guys could care less.  Cities are already making huge grants to get affordable housing built, better that they eliminate permit fees than outright gifts of money.  The last permit I applied for the permit tech punched my license number into his computer and exclaimed: "My God, you've been at this for over half a century, I've never seen a number this low."  I just replied: "Yes, I've seen a lot."


But again, your numbers only pertain to one area in the world. Your view is so biased based upon your limited understanding and constrained view of your locality only. $1000/sf will buy you a full on mansion in 90%+ of the US.

And you are such a pessimistic codger that I bet no one gives you any leeway or assistance because they dread working with you.


----------



## conarb (May 23, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> But again, your numbers only pertain to one area in the world. Your view is so biased based upon your limited understanding and constrained view of your locality only. $1000/sf will buy you a full on mansion in 90%+ of the US.
> 
> And you are such a pessimistic codger that I bet no one gives you any leeway or assistance because they dread working with you.



Ty:

So it's your position that codes should keep driving the cost of building up?


----------



## tmurray (May 23, 2019)

conarb said:


> Ty:
> 
> So it's your position that codes should keep driving the cost of building up?



My experience is that codes are driven by public demand. So if your question is if the public's demand of the level of service provided by the codes should increase the cost of the buildings they are paying for, my answer would be yes. Who am I as a government agent, or you for that matter, to tell the public they are wrong. 

I recently had this conversation with an older contractor. Not that old, but he's in his sixties and has been building for the vast majority of his life. On the topic of cost of construction influenced by code changes, he said very little of his cost increases were due to code changes (he estimated %5). Material and labour costs had a greater impact, but he said the biggest impact was his clients. They just won't pick a nice middle of the road finish. It's top of the line or nothing for them. Then he told me; "I don't know why anyone complains about cost of construction increases from code changes. Everyone has to do it and the market has to adjust. If it can't, then some politician is not going to get re-elected because there was no growth and taxes will need to go up to offset that. Ultimately, the person replacing them is going to straighten it all out."


----------



## classicT (May 23, 2019)

conarb said:


> Ty:
> 
> So it's your position that codes should keep driving the cost of building up?


I'm of the opinion that the market will correct itself. At a certain cost, people will stop buying homes in your neck of the woods, and buy elsewhere.

A million dollar 1000sf dump in the bay area or a million dollar 5000sf lodge on 20acres in Montana. I know which one I'd take...

I get people have to follow the jobs, but telecommuting is on the rise. The markets that you are so passionate about are doomed to fail when a market correction occurs.


----------



## Mark K (May 23, 2019)

Several comments

I agree that you can enforce provisions in referenced standards but when provisions in reference standards are inconsistent or in conflict with adopted code they control.  The special inspection provisions were not developed with being a general system that could be referenced from any reference standard.

The term approved needs to be narrowly interpreted to mean approved based on compliance with the provisions in the building code.  Approval cannot be based on additional requirements.  The building department provides a ministerial function and in general is not  discretionary.  Sections 104.10 and 104.11 apply in limited circumstances.

There is no problem with design professional imposing additional requirements but the building official as a regulator is more limited in what can be done.


----------



## ADAguy (May 23, 2019)

Return to Hammurabbi? It fails and kills or injuries, are you willing to give your life for mistakes or cutting corners?


----------



## conarb (May 23, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Return to Hammurabbi? It fails and kills or injuries, are you willing to give your life for mistakes or cutting corners?



How did we get by without Special Inspection until the 70s, then SI-s for 4 items until the 90s, then 15 items, and now you want to add more?  Can't you guys inspect fire stopping?  Why were older inspectors willing and able to inspect it?  

When I was driving today I heard the President on the radio bragging to farm groups about all the ridiculous regulations he has removed, he has removed zero regulations from the construction industry, because of the corrupt ICC.


----------



## tmurray (May 24, 2019)

conarb said:


> How did we get by without Special Inspection until the 70s, then SI-s for 4 items until the 90s, then 15 items, and now you want to add more?  Can't you guys inspect fire stopping?  Why were older inspectors willing and able to inspect it?
> 
> When I was driving today I heard the President on the radio bragging to farm groups about all the ridiculous regulations he has removed, he has removed zero regulations from the construction industry, because of the corrupt ICC.


Is it a new requirement or is it an older one that is just now being enforced more consistently?
Did we "get by" without them? It would be interesting to see if diligent inspection of fire stopping results in fewer fires spreading from one fire compartment to another. 

Your "facts" appear to be based on opinion.


----------



## classicT (May 24, 2019)

conarb said:


> How did we get by without Special Inspection until the 70s, then SI-s for 4 items until the 90s, then 15 items, and now you want to add more?  Can't you guys inspect fire stopping?  Why were older inspectors willing and able to inspect it?
> 
> When I was driving today I heard the President on the radio bragging to farm groups about all the ridiculous regulations he has removed, he has removed zero regulations from the construction industry, because of the corrupt ICC.


I agree with tmurray, everything you share is presented as fact when it is more of an opinion.

Great tragedies have led to advances in understanding of building performance and science, perhaps most so in fire containment, suppression and prevention. Firestopping has become an extremely important factor. During the 70-80's, when firestopping was a new market, several significant fires resulted in loss of life because these systems were not properly in place.

Take a look into the MGM Grand Hotel Fire (1980) and the First Interstate Tower Fire (1988).

Meanwhile, building departments are being asked to do more and more with less staff. When there is insufficient time to cover what we have already, how do we take on SI of firestopping. Items requiring continuous inspection will most often be taken care of by SI. Building departments often lack staffing to be a sites per the contractors whim and convenience.


----------



## ICE (May 24, 2019)

Most projects that rely on firestopping don't get the attention to detail that they should.  I have to pin down the architect to specify the method....of which, there are many.  Then the contractor whips out the Hilti caulk and goes to town.  When I tell them that they did a good thing wrong they get upset.  I am all for SI on large projects.


----------



## conarb (May 24, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> I agree with tmurray, everything you share is presented as fact when it is more of an opinion.



What are you talking about, my recollections of when SI-s came into the codes and how they have expanded over the years?  I remember it, if you doubt it look it up.



> Great tragedies have led to advances in understanding of building performance and science, perhaps most so in fire containment, suppression and prevention. Firestopping has become an extremely important factor. During the 70-80's, when firestopping was a new market, several significant fires resulted in loss of life because these systems were not properly in place.
> 
> Take a look into the MGM Grand Hotel Fire (1980) and the First Interstate Tower Fire (1988).



As I recall both of those fires were due to the usage of styrofoam on the exteriors of buildings, styrofoam has no place in any construction, if the ES Reports havn't allowed it the fires wouldn't have raced through the cladding, I doubt that they had anything to do with fire stopping,  I do not have a problem with fire stopping, how did you guys inspect it before?  In fact I don't think any AHJ I know is requiring it now.



> Meanwhile, building departments are being asked to do more and more with less staff. When there is insufficient time to cover what we have already, how do we take on SI of firestopping. Items requiring continuous inspection will most often be taken care of by SI. Building departments often lack staffing to be a sites per the contractors whim and convenience.



Yeah we know, give us more money so we can hire more people and we'll do more, just drive the costs higher and higher until everyone is living on the streets.


----------



## classicT (May 24, 2019)

conarb said:


> What are you talking about, my recollections of when SI-s came into the codes and how they have expanded over the years?  I remember it, if you doubt it look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know when I am talking to a brick wall... continuing to do so will only make us both look like JA's.


----------



## Paul Sweet (May 24, 2019)

Special inspections got started after the Kansas City hotel balcony collapse in the late 1980s.  They were started for unusual structural systems that municipal inspectors didn't have the expertise to know if a detail was correct.  Since then they have expanded exponentially.  I budget 2% of construction cost for special inspections on new college buildings, more in remote areas where a special inspector has to travel 100 or more miles for a 2 hour inspection or to take cylinders back to the lab.  Continuous third party inspections are now required for what a architect or clerk of the works used to be able to observe intermittently


----------



## conarb (May 24, 2019)

Paul Sweet said:


> Special inspections got started after the Kansas City hotel balcony collapse in the late 1980s.  They were started for unusual structural systems that municipal inspectors didn't have the expertise to know if a detail was correct.  Since then they have expanded exponentially.  I budget 2% of construction cost for special inspections on new college buildings, more in remote areas where a special inspector has to travel 100 or more miles for a 2 hour inspection or to take cylinders back to the lab.  Continuous third party inspections are now required for what a architect or clerk of the works used to be able to observe intermittently


Paul:

Where do you see this going, continuous Special Inspectors for everything, no need for city inspectors any more then?


----------



## tmurray (May 24, 2019)

conarb said:


> Paul:
> 
> Where do you see this going, continuous Special Inspectors for everything, no need for city inspectors any more then?



Do you really think it would be cheaper for the municipality to do this inspection? Keep in mind they are not doing it now, so you are not paying them for it. They aren't going to do it for free. 

The way I see it, special inspections are a way to help keep costs lower. 

If municipalities have to employ more staff, permit prices go up.
If municipalities have to employ more qualified staff, permit prices go up.


----------



## conarb (May 24, 2019)

tmurray said:


> Do you really think it would be cheaper for the municipality to do this inspection? Keep in mind they are not doing it now, so you are not paying them for it. They aren't going to do it for free.
> 
> The way I see it, special inspections are a way to help keep costs lower.
> 
> ...


They are doing it now, I've never had fire stopping inspected by a SI, in the past I've had municipal inspectors inspect piers and epoxy bolting before SIs, even welding years ago.

Building Departments should stop diverting their permit fees to other departments and incorporating other departments into the profitable building departments.


----------



## my250r11 (May 24, 2019)

Fire partitions, Barrier, ETC., with proper firestopping work to contain or slow the fire just like keeping doors closed do. Seen it several times. If not done correctly people die. Also these type of separations give builders & owners opinions instead of just requiring sprinklers for everything which is also something you conard also bi!!h about. EVERYTHING cost more, that is just a fact, from fuel to toilet paper. Glad that not all people opinions are so self centered as yours.


----------



## Mark K (May 24, 2019)

For the record I have a 1967 UBC (Section 305) that has provisions for special inspections.


----------



## conarb (May 24, 2019)

Mark K said:


> For the record I have a 1967 UBC (Section 305) that has provisions for special inspections.


Mark:

What does Chapter 17 say, does it list the items requiring Special Inspection?


----------



## Mark K (May 25, 2019)

When the regional codes transitioned to the IBC the chapter numbering changed so chapter 17 in the 1967 UBC did not address special inspections.  The required special inspections were listed in Section 305.  As I recall there were about 4 or 5 special inspections at that time.


----------



## jar546 (May 25, 2019)

conarb said:


> ........
> Building Departments should stop diverting their permit fees to other departments and incorporating other departments into the profitable building departments.



Agree 100% but the problem is not the building departments, it is the governing bodies of the municipalities that look at the building department as a revenue stream for their general funds when, in fact, it is actually illegal to do so.  Building department fees are to be based on the actual expenses to run the department.  It is OK for the Building Department to have a little extra to build up for an emergency fund, but the additional revenue generated that goes to the municipality's general fund is just wrong.


----------



## conarb (May 25, 2019)

Mark K said:


> When the regional codes transitioned to the IBC the chapter numbering changed so chapter 17 in the 1967 UBC did not address special inspections.  The required special inspections were listed in Section 305.  As I recall there were about 4 or 5 special inspections at that time.



Can you look them up?  As I recall they were piers, epoxy, welding, and something else. But I also remember getting special inspections on CMU pours as far back as the early 60s, but I was always successful in getting the city inspectors to sign them off for me, even recently I've been successful getting nice inspectors to sign off on epoxy and piers.


----------



## Mark K (May 25, 2019)

The special inspections were for Concrete, masonry, structural welding, cast in place gypsum concrete, and special cases.  In all these cases continuous inspections were required.

While epoxies were not mentioned in 67 I have been baffled by the subsequent requirements for special inspections of epoxies.  Until relatively recently there were no code provisions dealing with the use of epoxies.  Thus it is not clear how you can have code requirements for the inspection of specific products when there were no provisions in the code for the use of such products.
.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 29, 2019)

The 1979 UBC required 11 different special inspections. No SI for  epoxy bolts or fire caulking probably  because it did not exist in 1979. New construction materials and methods require new inspection procedures and some are so product specific it just make sense for a third party inspection to be more knowledgeable of what is required by the manufacturer for their specific product then the government inspector.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 21, 2019)

tmurray said:


> My experience is that codes are driven by public demand.
> 
> Everyone has to do it and the market has to adjust.



Codes are driven, in largd part, by special interest lobbiests.  Look at the simple lawn mower gas can.  Used to worm just fine, thank you very much.  And now because of somd a$$ holes in calif we have cans that cost 5 times as much and are impossible to use.  God forbid you have arthritic fingers and try to use one.  

Just because everyone has to do it, doesnt make it right.   

Inspectors seemed to be able to inspect a wider range of things back in the day.  I am still in awd (just a bit) with the things Ice finds.  Seems like a lot of inspection departments (i didnt say inspectors) are looking to avoid responsibility and are pushing that off on the consumer.  Hows this: maybe teachers should require parents to hire special graders to score the tests their kids take in school.  "Sorry Mrs Jones, we just present the material to little Johnnie, you have to get a specialist to prove he knows the material before i can write his grade in my book."


----------



## mark handler (Jun 21, 2019)

Mark K said:


> For the record I have a 1967 UBC (Section 305) that has provisions for special inspections.


*1967 UBC ALSO IN THE 1961 and 1964 exactly the same*
305. Special Inspections
Sec. 305. (a) General. In addition to the inspections to be made as specified in Section 304, the owner or his agent shall employ a special inspector who shall be present at all times during construction on the following types of work:
l. CONCRETE: On concrete work when the design is based on an "fc" in excess of 2000 pounds.
2. MASONRY: Masonry work shall have special inspection when required in Chapter 24.
3. WELDING: On all structural welding.
4. REINFORCED GYPSUM CONCRETE: When castin-place reinforced gypsum concrete is being mixed or deposited.
5. SPECIAL CASES: On special construction or work involving unusual hazards or requiring constant impection.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official may waive the requirement for the employment of a special inspector if he finds that the construction or work is such that no unusual hazard exists.


For the record, a lot of items that now require special or deputy inspections we dot commonly used in the 1960's. Epoxy, fire putty and composite materials as an examples.

Some houses Built in the '60's '70's and '80's Failed during the Northridge earthquake. We did not have shear inspections.....


----------



## my250r11 (Jun 21, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Codes are driven, in largd part, by special interest lobbiests. Look at the simple lawn mower gas can. Used to worm just fine, thank you very much. And now because of somd a$$ holes in calif we have cans that cost 5 times as much and are impossible to use. God forbid you have arthritic fingers and try to use one.



I'm with you man!!


----------

