Recently, I have heard comments such as:
- “The inspector didn’t catch it until after the piping was installed and concrete floors were poured. It cost the company $500,000 to revise it to meet code. The inspectors review projects by the book and not actual use.”
- “A field inspector can override a review approval if he finds a state-adopted code violation.”
While I understand that some in the profession believe that code administrators have superpowers, I maintain that everyone in the process has a designated area of responsibility along with limits on what they may require of other members of the profession. Don’t get me wrong: I have a great deal of respect for those on the code enforcement side—I myself hold certifications as a plumbing inspector and plans examiner—but for those on that side of the vertical build market, there are limits and restrictions on one’s authority.
How Are Codes Enforced?
Code administration is usually handled through the Building Department, under the direction of the Chief Building Official (CBO). The CBO is the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). Everyone else—plans examiner, field inspector, permit processing, etc.—works under the authority of the CBO.
In my home state of Ohio, building codes are developed and administered through the Ohio Board of Building Standards (BBS). The BBS is established through legislation by the state government to establish and administer codes, regulations, and administrative rules to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. While the mechanics differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the same basic process exists: legislation (state revised code) > agency or administration (administrative code) > departmental rules and regulations.
The enforcement codes are derived from such legislation. Today, much of the technical content of the codes comes from national model codes, and the enforcement and administration come through the original/basic legislation. All codes include a Chapter 1: Administration as part of the overall code set.
While many designers/engineers spend a lot of time learning and understanding the technical parts of the code, most probably have not even looked at Chapter 1, much less the underlying legislation that authorizes these codes.
Why Is This Important?
Without knowledge of the legislation and its administration, one is ill prepared to properly defend a valid design. It allows AHJs, through their inspectors, to request or demand changes to the construction documents that they may not have the authority to do. This is not meant to take anything away from the AHJs, as they have the same obligation as the design professionals: protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
In general terms, AHJs all have the same responsibilities, obligations, and authority granted through the legislative process. While there will be slight variations between jurisdictions based on the language of the underlying legislation, the intent remains the same: due process, protection of the public’s good, and maintaining uniformity.
Defining the Responsible Parties
The term authority having jurisdiction is a general term for those who develop and administer the building codes that we all use. The CBO is the only person who has the authority to issue permits, approve plans, issue adjudication letters, and administer the code. Everyone else—plans examiners, field inspectors, and administrative staff—work under the CBO’s supervision. Anything the staff does is under the CBO’s signature and authority.
The CBO is responsible for enforcing the rules related to the construction, arrangement, and erection of buildings or parts thereof. CBOs are expected to conduct themselves in a professional, courteous, impartial, responsive, and cooperative manner. The CBO shall render interpretations of the code and adopt policies and procedures to clarify the application of the department’s rules and provisions. All such interpretations, policies, and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of the code while providing due process. The CBO shall be responsible for ensuring that a system is in place to track and audit all projects to ensure that all building department personnel perform their duties in accordance with the established rules and policies and for the overall administration of the department.
The plans examiner is responsible for examining construction documents to make sure they are in accordance with the minimum requirements of the code along with the policies and procedures of the department as set out by the CBO. The plans examiner shall work within the limits of their qualifications and effectively communicate the results of their plan review.
Under the heading of plans examiner, you may find many general subtitles: master, building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection. The master plans examiner is responsible for all types of construction documents to ensure compliance as well as coordinate the plan review process with other examiners. To ensure compliance with the code and department policies/procedures:
- The building plans examiner is responsible for the examination of construction documents related to all general building construction and associated structural work.
- The mechanical plans examiner is responsible for examining construction documents related to the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems along with the associated refrigeration, fuel gas, and heating piping.
- The electrical plans examiner is responsible for examining construction documents related to the electrical and wiring systems.
- The plumbing plans examiner is responsible for examining construction documents related to the plumbing and associated piping systems.
- The fire protection plans examiner is responsible for examining construction documents related to fire protection systems (automatic sprinklers systems, alternative automatic fire-extinguishing systems, standpipe systems, fire alarm and detection systems, and fire pumps).
When Do the Inspectors Get Involved?
Once the various plans examiners have completed their work, two paths are available. Provided that the plans examiners have not found any conflicts with the code, the plans are approved for construction. However, if conflicts with the code are found within the documents, the plans examiner shall cite the applicable sections of the code with which perceived conflicts exist. Armed with the applicable code sections, an adjudication letter is issued by the CBO or the plans examiner under the CBO’s name requesting that corrections be made to the documents or a response be submitted explaining why the design complies with the intent of the code.
Upon approval of the documents, the owner now has authorization to construct the building in accordance with those documents without modification. At this point in the process, the contractors will begin constructing the facility. As the building project proceeds, inspections will be necessary to ensure conformance with the approved documents.
Inspections are performed by personnel working under the authority of the CBO, normally referred to as inspectors or field inspectors. These inspectors are the eyes-in-the-field for the CBO and plans examiners. The inspectors are responsible for performing inspections and determining that the work, for which they are qualified, is performed in compliance with the approved construction documents. All inspectors shall inspect the work to the extent of the approval given when the construction documents were approved by the CBO and for which the inspection was requested. Inspectors shall effectively communicate the results of their inspections and conduct themselves in a professional, courteous, impartial, responsive, and cooperative manner.
It should be noted that an inspector is not a plans examiner and has neither the responsibility nor the authority to interpret the code. The inspector’s sole responsibility is to ensure conformity with the approved documents. However, this does not relieve inspectors from doing their due diligence in ensuring that the public’s good remains protected and served. During the course of their inspection efforts, if the inspector observes what he believes to be a conflict with the code, he shall report it to the CBO. He may not make changes to the approved documents, order the contractors to make revisions, or stop the work. Once the inspector has reported his concerns to the CBO along with supporting data such as specific code sections and their appraisal of the level of risk to the public’s health, safety, and welfare, their work is done.
What Happens When Problems Are Found?
It is up to the CBO as to what actions, if any, need to be taken with these concerns. If, in the CBO’s judgment, there is minimal risk to the public and the concern does not involve the potential for death or severe injury, then the approved documents should remain unchanged. At this point the CBO will inform the plans examiner of the issue to ensure that such concerns are addressed in the future. Everyone has done their due diligence at this point.
However, if in the CBO’s judgment the risk of potential death or injury exists, an adjudication order would be issued for the design team to address. It is now up to the Engineer of Record (EOR) to review the concerns. If the EOR does not agree with the CBO’s view, he shall provide supporting documents and justifications to the CBO for consideration, but if the EOR concurs with the CBO’s assessment, modifications/corrections shall be made to the documents through the approval process. Such modifications/corrections shall then be issued to the contractor for inclusion in the construction documents.
It is important to remember that the EOR’s design was expected to meet or exceed the codes when his seal was affixed to the documents. Hence, it is expected that the EOR should be able to defend his documents before the COB. Both the EOR and CBO have an obligation to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare—the difference is that the EOR has a legal and ethical obligation to the public, while the CBO has an obligation to ensure that the minimum requirements of the code are met to either the letter or the intent.
Back to the inspectors, of which there are several—building, mechanical, plumbing, and fire protection, among potentially others—each of them should be a technical expert within their area of expertise. However, as noted above, that does not grant them any special authority to alter or modify the approved documents.
To Sum Up
Each member of the AHJ’s team has specific obligations, responsibilities, and authorities spelled out within the administrative code and underlying legislation. Regardless of the jurisdiction, the owner is entitled to due process and has a right to construct their project as approved. The design team, including the EOR, has specific ethical and legal obligations to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare above all other considerations as dictated by the administrative code authorizing their privilege of being a Professional Engineer. The contractors have a contractual obligation and responsibility to construct the project based on the approved construction documents. While the CBO, their plans examiners, and inspectors have similar obligations based on the laws of the jurisdiction, they do not have greater authority than anyone else in the process.
This is why it is important for all involved to read and understand Chapter 1 of the codes as well as have a firm knowledge of the underlying legislation that establishes the process. With such knowledge, one is much better prepared to take the appropriate actions and avoid the issues that introduced this discussion.
When everyone knows the requirements set out in law and the administrative codes, each can take an active part in protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Due diligence is there to serve the public’s good, so open and read Chapter 1 of the codes and underlying legislation to better serve your client and the public.
About the Author
David D. Dexter, FNSPE, FASPE, CPD, CPI, LEED BD+C, PE, is a Registered Professional Engineer, Certified Plumbing Inspector, and Certified Plans Examiner with more than 40 years of experience in the installation and design of plumbing systems. He specializes in plumbing, fire protection, and HVAC design as well as forensics related to mechanical system failures. Dave serves as Chair of ASPE’s Main Design Standards Committee, Chair of the Bylaws Committee, Co-Chair of the College of Fellows Selection Committee, and Co-Chair of the Professional Engineer Working Group. He also was the 2008–2009 President of the Engineering Foundation of Ohio, 2010–2011 President of the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers, and 2012–2014 Central Region Director for the National Society of Professional Engineers.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not the American Society of Plumbing Engineers.
