In case you're interested, RB-465 was approved by the committee at the ICC hearings.
This deletes the the entire pool appendix and puts a reference to the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code into the body under Section 324.1. Another book, mandatory for all.
The reference is only for the "aquatic vessel" (a term abandoned in the pool code hearings), but the reason statement went beyond the pool itself and makes reference to barriers. This made the North American Deck and Railing Association I was representing nervous. An IRC reference is only to the prescribed extent of the reference, in this case the "aquatic vessel" only, so why did the reason statement go further. The proposal did not appear to match the intent.
Well, we turned out to be the only opposition to the proposal, though I expected opposition from BO's that didn't want the choice of the appendix adoption taken from them. There were none. During testimony, we made it clear why we were speaking and explained that we did not want confusion that this reference included the deck-related provisions of Section 306. They are not well written. This video describes the problems.
Turns out...the proponent did intend for all the provisions of the ISPSC to be part of the reference and the committee did not seem in opposition. They did acknowledge my comments about the reference being only to the pool, and encouraged a public comment to state all the ancillary features.
I am curious if this worries anyone else, or if indeed...the decking and railing industry is the only opposition. The pool and spa code has unique requirements for decks that are not in the IRC. If someone builds a deck adjacent to a hot-tub, there's new rules that will be required but they are in another book. Are you ready for that?
I would like to hear you opinions. Thanks.
This deletes the the entire pool appendix and puts a reference to the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code into the body under Section 324.1. Another book, mandatory for all.
The reference is only for the "aquatic vessel" (a term abandoned in the pool code hearings), but the reason statement went beyond the pool itself and makes reference to barriers. This made the North American Deck and Railing Association I was representing nervous. An IRC reference is only to the prescribed extent of the reference, in this case the "aquatic vessel" only, so why did the reason statement go further. The proposal did not appear to match the intent.
Well, we turned out to be the only opposition to the proposal, though I expected opposition from BO's that didn't want the choice of the appendix adoption taken from them. There were none. During testimony, we made it clear why we were speaking and explained that we did not want confusion that this reference included the deck-related provisions of Section 306. They are not well written. This video describes the problems.
I am curious if this worries anyone else, or if indeed...the decking and railing industry is the only opposition. The pool and spa code has unique requirements for decks that are not in the IRC. If someone builds a deck adjacent to a hot-tub, there's new rules that will be required but they are in another book. Are you ready for that?
I would like to hear you opinions. Thanks.
