10' from roof edge

[rgrace]

Lots of discussion here, mostly in favor of guards for the replacement of a roof top unit. I have a different position, and it may only be a jurisdictional thing, since our state adopted Existing Building Code (VEBC) has undergone many changes. Current adoption edition is 2018.

I start in our adopted VEBC based on the scope of this work and that the work is to an existing building, in this case a like-for-like replacement of a roof top unit. The VEBC will send me to the other codes if it deems necessary (IBC, IMC, etc.) The scope of work is either alteration or repair. The definitions of alteration and repair are identical between the VEBC and the IEBC, so there is not much information there that can guide me, and it's not exactly crystal clear for this application. Jumping to VEBC Chapter 5, Repairs, the opening statement in Section 505.1 states "Repairs, including the patching or restoration or replacement of damaged materials, elements, equipment or fixtures shall comply with the requirements of this chapter." Paraphrased, replacement of damaged equipment would qualify as a repair. If the roof top unit is being replaced, it is probably damaged in some fashion which requires a repair.

The second part of the VEBC that is relevant is Section 505.1 which states "Existing mechanical systems undergoing repair shall not make the building less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken." The way I read that is if a roof top unit is being replaced in the same location is it removed, the work is such that it is not creating a situation where the building is less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken. No guards before, no guards required now.

 

[redeyedfly]

Thanks bro, do you know which code calls out the 30" limit.... Thanks again, Dave

It's in the code snip you posted.

 

[Genduct]

Lots of discussion here, mostly in favor of guards for the replacement of a roof top unit. I have a different position, and it may only be a jurisdictional thing, since our state adopted Existing Building Code (VEBC) has undergone many changes. Current adoption edition is 2018.

I start in our adopted VEBC based on the scope of this work and that the work is to an existing building, in this case a like-for-like replacement of a roof top unit. The VEBC will send me to the other codes if it deems necessary (IBC, IMC, etc.) The scope of work is either alteration or repair. The definitions of alteration and repair are identical between the VEBC and the IEBC, so there is not much information there that can guide me, and it's not exactly crystal clear for this application. Jumping to VEBC Chapter 5, Repairs, the opening statement in Section 505.1 states "Repairs, including the patching or restoration or replacement of damaged materials, elements, equipment or fixtures shall comply with the requirements of this chapter." Paraphrased, replacement of damaged equipment would qualify as a repair. If the roof top unit is being replaced, it is probably damaged in some fashion which requires a repair.

The second part of the VEBC that is relevant is Section 505.1 which states "Existing mechanical systems undergoing repair shall not make the building less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken." The way I read that is if a roof top unit is being replaced in the same location is it removed, the work is such that it is not creating a situation where the building is less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken. No guards before, no guards required now.

I Agree and think you have just demonstrated a situation where you Discerned the INTENT of the Code and APPLIED IT ) You didn't INFLICT the Code)
Perhaps you could insert an Informational Sentence reminding the Permit Applicant that a tie-off for Fall Protection may be required by Other AHJ's ( like OSHA) as a "Friendly reminder" OR PUT THEM ON NOTICE.
We should not forget we are all about SAFETY

 

[klarenbeek]

In one of the earlier editions of the IEBC straight replacements were specifically listed as Level 1 alterations, and the service and access requirements (other than manufacturer's clearances) were NOT required. 2021 IEBC skips from repairs to level 2 alterations, which is actually making changes to the system. Since Mechanical is no longer addressed in Level 1, I would put a like for like more in the category of a repair, not a reconfiguration. as long as they are not making the situation worse, no rails required if they are not already there.

 

[steveray]

2021 IEBC skips from repairs to level 2 alterations,

QUE?....i don't see this in my books?

ALTERATION—LEVEL 1
602.1 Scope. Level 1 alterations include the removal and
replacement or the covering of existing materials, elements,
equipment or fixtures using new materials, elements, equipment
or fixtures that serve the same purpose.

 

[steveray]

Lots of discussion here, mostly in favor of guards for the replacement of a roof top unit. I have a different position, and it may only be a jurisdictional thing, since our state adopted Existing Building Code (VEBC) has undergone many changes. Current adoption edition is 2018.

I start in our adopted VEBC based on the scope of this work and that the work is to an existing building, in this case a like-for-like replacement of a roof top unit. The VEBC will send me to the other codes if it deems necessary (IBC, IMC, etc.) The scope of work is either alteration or repair. The definitions of alteration and repair are identical between the VEBC and the IEBC, so there is not much information there that can guide me, and it's not exactly crystal clear for this application. Jumping to VEBC Chapter 5, Repairs, the opening statement in Section 505.1 states "Repairs, including the patching or restoration or replacement of damaged materials, elements, equipment or fixtures shall comply with the requirements of this chapter." Paraphrased, replacement of damaged equipment would qualify as a repair. If the roof top unit is being replaced, it is probably damaged in some fashion which requires a repair.

The second part of the VEBC that is relevant is Section 505.1 which states "Existing mechanical systems undergoing repair shall not make the building less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken." The way I read that is if a roof top unit is being replaced in the same location is it removed, the work is such that it is not creating a situation where the building is less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken. No guards before, no guards required now.

Pretty spot on....and level 1 is the same...

701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof
shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe
than its existing condition.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The second part of the VEBC that is relevant is Section 505.1 which states "Existing mechanical systems undergoing repair shall not make the building less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken." The way I read that is if a roof top unit is being replaced in the same location is it removed, the work is such that it is not creating a situation where the building is less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken. No guards before, no guards required now.

So now they would have to prove that guards were never there ever.

 

[klarenbeek]

QUE?....i don't see this in my books?

ALTERATION—LEVEL 1
602.1 Scope. Level 1 alterations include the removal and
replacement or the covering of existing materials, elements,
equipment or fixtures using new materials, elements, equipment
or fixtures that serve the same purpose.

Sorry, I didn't mean level 1 in general, but the section that was specific to mechanical.

 

[davecarlson98]

303.8.4 CMC requires 6’
303.8.4 Clearance.
Appliances shall be installed on a well-drained surface of the roof. At least 6 feet of clearance shall be available between any part of the appliance and the edge of a roof or similar hazard, or rigidly fixed rails, guards, parapets, or other building structures at least 42 inches in height shall be provided on the exposed side.

1015.6 CBC requires 10’
1015.6 Mechanical equipment, systems and devices.
Guards shall be provided where various components that require service are located within 10 feet of a roof edge or open side of a walking surface and such edge or open side is located more than 30 inches above the floor, roof or grade below. The guard shall extend not less than 30 inches beyond each end of such components. The guard shall be constructed so as to prevent the passage of a sphere 21 inches in diameter.
Exception: Guards are not required where personal fall arrest anchorage connector devices that comply with ANSI/ASSE Z 359.1 are installed.

1015.7 Roof access.
Guards shall be provided where the roof hatch opening is located within 10 feet of a roof edge or open side of a walking surface and such edge or open side is located more than 30 inches above the floor, roof or grade below. The guard shall be constructed so as to prevent the passage of a sphere 21 inches in diameter.
Exception: Guards are not required where personal fall arrest anchorage connector devices that comply with ANSI/ASSE Z 359.1 are installed.

Apparently Santa Monica has a 304.10 that I don’t have.

Thanks Ice, as you say, CBC requires 10', CMC requires 6'....Inspector is quoting CBC when in fact this is a 3 story Townhouse. How do I politely let the Inspector know which should be using CMC instead? Thanks in advance for any tips, Dave

 

[J. Brewster]

Agreed, whole enchilada. In most cases, permanent ladder access is missing, and would be required as well.
As far as the political, my boss, etc, Guards, fire assemblies, working clearance in front of electrical equipment,
(Life safety Items) of any kind, all non negotiable, no exceptions.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

2009 IBC. the BCO (my boss) told me to pass it.

That's when I write a memo to file.