1. Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

code vs. maufacturers instructions

Discussion in 'Residential Foundation Codes' started by codeworks, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. codeworks

    codeworks Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    3
    got a discussion going where my understanding is that code superceeds manufacturers instructions provided the code doesnt "alter" or otherwise void the instructions. others differ. manufacturers instructions are good enough. opinions? sorry, this is in the wrong place
     
    #1 codeworks, Sep 14, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2011
  2. Codegeek

    Codegeek Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    1
    Since you posted this under residential, I'm looking at the IRC. The IRC says that the code applies unless enforcing the code would violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance.
     
  3. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    139
    The formally adopted code has to trump any manufacturer's instructions other wise you would empower the manufacturer to redefine the code requirements. If the issue was litigated the lawyers and judges would have problems with the idea that the manufacturer of a product could preempt government regulations.

    This suggests that just because something found its way into the building code it could still be illegal.
     
  4. gbhammer

    gbhammer Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    5
    Could you reference that section. Please
     
  5. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    936
    Well put Mark!
     
  6. codeworks

    codeworks Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    3
    2006 IPC 301.7 and exception, 2006 IMC304.1 and exception, . i noted in our talk today that the code also states installation instructions are to be on site at the time of inspection.
     
    #6 codeworks, Sep 14, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2011
  7. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    936
    Try getting the instructions for the "Home Depot" Green Guard housewrap...or getting a contractor to get you any instructions for any housewrap for that matter....like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall around here!

    DISCLAIMER: No jellyfish were harmed in the writing of this post!
     
  8. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    139
    If we require compliance with the manufacturing instructions, assuming there are no conflicts with the code, we are still requiring the building department to enforce requirements that were unilaterally developed by the manufacturer and were not subject to government overview.

    This would also mean that failure to comply with the manufacturer's recommendations becomes a code compliance issue as opposed to a possible contractural breach. This might have legal implicaions down the road.
     
  9. Codegeek

    Codegeek Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm looking at the 2012 IRC - Section R102.4 Exception
     
  10. Papio Bldg Dept

    Papio Bldg Dept Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    1
    an example that comes to mind, that you could discuss, would be the requirement for jacuzzi tub pump motors to have a ground wire attached. The new plastic models do not have a grounding lug, and the manufacturer does not require them to be ground because they are not metal.

    Is this the type of thing you are speaking of?
     
  11. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,479
    Likes Received:
    888
    The code can not provide a prescriptive method of installation for every product on the market therefore the manufactures installation instructions need to be followed to assure compliance with the code. Are Hilty and 3M fire caulk installed the same? Can they both be in contact with Blazemaster CPVC fire sprinkler systems? No but the code does not tell you that. Do you have to read the installation instructions for every product installed in a building? No but you should be looking at the ones that will effect life safety.
     
  12. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    139
    mtlogcabin

    My arguments are based on basic principals of our legal system and do not even address the issues you raise. What these legal principals do is place constraints on how the issues that you are concerned about can be addressed. Maybe the code needs to be modified but it needs to respect these basic legal constraints.

    In the case of fire caulking the products need to be qualified based on testing and the product needs to be installed in accordance with what was tested. Your concerns could possibly be addressed by having the test assembly documentation updated to address the installation conditions related to fire safety. If the need to do something a certain way does not relate to life safety it should not be a code requirement no matter whether the manufacturer is concerned about it. Another benifit of relying on the qualification tests is that they are known at the time of permit issuance and the manufacturer cannot unilaterally make changes between the time the project is approved and the product is installed.
     
  13. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,479
    Likes Received:
    888
  14. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    936
    Thanks MT....maybe I got that name wrong...It is not the Pactiv stuff,,, it is made by a tarp company in China somewhere....

    http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2252.pdf

    That stuff....easy guard....it has an ES but nohting on sealing or flashing or anything but some fastening.....and then tell them they need to find 1" crown staples and they can't use their old Bostich hammer tacker....
     
  15. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,479
    Likes Received:
    888
    Mark K

    I am not a lawyer and I don't understand the "basic principals of our legal system" you are referring to I just know that as the code moves from a prescriptive code enforcement to performance based code enforcement the proven performance will be with a product being installed in accordance with how the manufacture intended that product to be used regardless whether it was subject to some goverment overview or not.

    Just a thought are the ICC, NFPA, ASME, GA, SMACNA, ASTM, UL or any other codes and standards subject to a goverment overview. What is the difference between them or a manufacture requirement as long as the most stringent requirement is followed.
     
  16. Codegeek

    Codegeek Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    1
    It is not the firecaulk that provides the rating. Yes, firecaulks are tested per UL, but in two different methods - one is for the material itself, the other testing is for the caulk when it is installed a firestop assembly, be it a through penetration or a joint system. The firecaulk itself is not rated; only the assembly in which it is installed AND when installed specifically per the assembly as listed by UL.
     
  17. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    139
    mtlogcabin

    Some of the legal principles include:

    • You have a right to know the laws and regulations that you must comply with.

    • The laws and regulations are supposed to be clear and unambiguous.

    • The requirements need to have been adopted by a formal well defined process.

    • The government entity adopting the laws or regulations needs to have the legal authority to adopt the laws or regulations.

    • Governmental entities cannot delegate their governmental rules to another entity.

    From a building code point of view the codes and standards you mention have no legal standing until they are formally adopted as part of the adoption of the building code. When they are adopted a specific version of the document is adopted. A new version of the code may be published but it has no standing until the revised code is formally adopted by the adopting entity. It is assumed that in the process of adopting the regulations that they have been reviewed by the government body and that interested parties have had an opportunity to object.

    The government adoption of the regulations is the end result of the governmental oversight.

    According to our system of laws you are not legally required to comply with the manufacturer’s recommendations or a more recent standard, even if it a good idea, you are only required to comply with the laws and regulations of an entity that is legally empowered to adopt them.

    The building official is acting in a ministerial capacity and as such interprets and enforces the regulations. The building official has no authority to adopt regulations.

    When we move to performance based codes the change is that instead of prescriptive regulations the regulations establish the criteria for compliance and define how we determine compliance. The legal principles I refer to apply equally well to performance based codes.
     
  18. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,479
    Likes Received:
    888
    Mark K

    Thanks for shedding some light on this for me

    Agree 100% I have this ongoing problem with sprinkler contractors wanting to use the 2010 NFPA 13 when the 2009 IBC only references the 2007 NFPA 13

    An I-Quest search found 399 hits for "manufacturer's installation instructions" it includes fire dampers, windows, fiber cement siding, hangers and bracket, commercial cooking equipment, Sprayed fire-resistant materials and on and on. The code lanquage varied with "shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions" or "unless the manufacturer's installation instructions allow otherwise" or "details listed in the fire-resistance-rated assembly and the manufacturer's installation instructions and the listing"

    When an AHJ adopts a code that references the manufactures installation instructions as part of the code the manufactures installation instructions become part of the code.

    Manufactures installation instructions are not nilly willy ideas on paper. They have been tried and tested to perform to a certain degree. Companies have thousands of dollars invested in the performance of their products. The vast majority meet an industry standard so I do believe the items where manufacturers installation instructions are referenced would pass the legal priciples you described JMHO
     
  19. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    139
    The point of disagreement is not with whether they make technical sense but with the fact that the specific recommendations have not gone through the code adoption process yet are to be enforced by the building department.

    While the manufacturers instruction's may not have been developed willy nilly they can be changed at any time by the manufacturer. This could mean that the manufacturers recommendations at time of installation could be different from those that were availible during permitting. Is it not well established that you must comply with the code in effect when the project was submitted for plan check not the code in effect when the project is actually constructed?

    The fact that there are a number of references to manufacturers recommendations does not guarantee that the provisions are valid.
     
  20. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,479
    Likes Received:
    888
    I see your point but we will probably have to agree to disagree. I see referenced standards that are industry standards that do not go through a code adoption process.

    The CSST industry had change in ther installation instructions that was driven by a court order. If a manufacturer has a flaw in the installation of their product they cannot wait 3 to 6 years to get a change in the code cycle. They address it with their installation instructions
     

Share This Page