Do non-required items need to be code compliant?

[123james321]

We have an existing, exterior guardrail on our project that is out of compliance (about 2' tall). It's embedded in a concrete retaining with a sidewalk (level with top of retaining wall) on one side and a 12" drop to grade below.
The 12" drop is enough that a guardrail isn't needed. Since the guardrail is not needed, can it remain in place or does it need to be removed? Cutting and patching the retaining wall isn't ideal due to its age a appearance. The area in question isn't in a main area of traffic, so the tripping hazard of the low rail is minimal.

Thanks.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What's out of compliance about it? A 12-inch difference in grade doesn't require any sort of guard, so there's no requirement in the code that it has to comply with.

IMHO it's a landscape design feature -- a decorative rail.

 

[mtlogcabin]

with a sidewalk (level with top of retaining wall) on one side and a 12" drop to grade below.

Is someone saying it doesn't meet code and needs to be brought into code compliance?
If they are then another option
Edge protection is only required for ramps. However, it might be something to look at if it is part of an accessible route and would be a "best practice" purpose for leaving the barrier there with modification if needed to be compliant with the edge protection opening limits.

 

[123james321]

What's out of compliance about it? A 12-inch difference in grade doesn't require any sort of guard, so there's no requirement in the code that it has to comply with.

IMHO it's a landscape design feature -- a decorative rail.

It's plainly a guardrail, so I don't think the inspector would buy the landscape feature.
The question is whether a guardrail (or and accessibility or safety-related items) need to comply with the codes when they're not required by code.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Same as I use to wonder about stand-alone deck stairway that does not connect to a house if it needs to meet code or not. I don't think it does unless it's a pool deck then there are requirements for pool deck stairways in the ISPSC.

 

[Yikes]

We have an existing, exterior guardrail on our project that is out of compliance (about 2' tall). It's embedded in a concrete retaining with a sidewalk (level with top of retaining wall) on one side and a 12" drop to grade below.
The 12" drop is enough that a guardrail isn't needed. Since the guardrail is not needed, can it remain in place or does it need to be removed? Cutting and patching the retaining wall isn't ideal due to its age a appearance. The area in question isn't in a main area of traffic, so the tripping hazard of the low rail is minimal.

Thanks.

You have posted this on an accessibility code forum. Guardrails are not typically accessibility items, they are fall protection items.

The code generally has (1) scoping provisions (when are you required to provide something) and (2) technical requirements (what should it be like when it is provided).

In the case of guardrail, the code only requires it for vertical drops greater than 30". If it is not required but is provided anyway, I don't think the code has minimum technical requirements for it.
In the case of something like a light fixture, if only one was required but two were provided, the electrical code would still have safety requirements for how to wire the non-code-required light fixture.

Back to the guardrail: my own subjective opinion is that you are OK with it as-is. The non-code liability problem that you get into is when you create something akin to an "attractive nuisance" - - something that looks like it can be relied upon to be code compliant, but isn't. For example, if this same guardrail was high enough to lean on but was unstable and could collapse, then you might have some civil liability even though you were never required to have a guardrail in the first place.

In your case, my guess is that no one will confuse your "fence" for a guardrail.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It's plainly a guardrail, so I don't think the inspector would buy the landscape feature.
The question is whether a guardrail (or and accessibility or safety-related items) need to comply with the codes when they're not required by code.

It's a rail. It doesn't meet any definition of or criteria for a "guard" rail, so why is it plainly a guard rail?

Suppose it's not a rail, but the retaining wall itself extends 2 feet higher than grade on the high side, perhaps as a fancy stone wall. Should that be cited as a non-compliant guard -- where no guard is required?

My view is that if the code doesn't require a guard, then no guard is required and whatever is installed is just decoration.

 

[ICE]

It's plainly a guardrai

It is plainly not a guardrail. It can be anything else... a hitching post for Dachsunds, a yoga station... use your imagination, but it's not a guardrail.

 

[steveray]

It is plainly not a guardrail. It can be anything else... a hitching post for Dachsunds, a yoga station... use your imagination, but it's not a guardrail.

2' tall is a pretty big dachshund...

 

[steveray]

We have an existing, exterior guardrail on our project that is out of compliance (about 2' tall). It's embedded in a concrete retaining with a sidewalk (level with top of retaining wall) on one side and a 12" drop to grade below.
The 12" drop is enough that a guardrail isn't needed. Since the guardrail is not needed, can it remain in place or does it need to be removed? Cutting and patching the retaining wall isn't ideal due to its age a appearance. The area in question isn't in a main area of traffic, so the tripping hazard of the low rail is minimal.

Thanks.

No....but some people are trying to change that.....

 

[mtlogcabin]

Or it is skateboard rail.

 

[123james321]

You have posted this on an accessibility code forum. Guardrails are not typically accessibility items, they are fall protection items.

The code generally has (1) scoping provisions (when are you required to provide something) and (2) technical requirements (what should it be like when it is provided).

In the case of guardrail, the code only requires it for vertical drops greater than 30". If it is not required but is provided anyway, I don't think the code has minimum technical requirements for it.
In the case of something like a light fixture, if only one was required but two were provided, the electrical code would still have safety requirements for how to wire the non-code-required light fixture.

Back to the guardrail: my own subjective opinion is that you are OK with it as-is. The non-code liability problem that you get into is when you create something akin to an "attractive nuisance" - - something that looks like it can be relied upon to be code compliant, but isn't. For example, if this same guardrail was high enough to lean on but was unstable and could collapse, then you might have some civil liability even though you were never required to have a guardrail in the first place.

In your case, my guess is that no one will confuse your "fence" for a guardrail.

Yikes, thanks for the thorough response.

I'll move forward with leaving it in place, as you suggest. Worst case scenario; we'll keep a Sawz-all on site in case the inspector starts to look at the fence funny.

 

[ICE]

Or it is skateboard rail.

That's an attractive nuisance and could get them sued if some wayward yute hurts themself.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

My general view is that I have no capacity to enforce what is not prescriptively required. For example, our codes require utility rooms in commercial buildings to have one-hour fire ratings, buuuuut..... waive that requirement for minor volumes of electrical gear, etc.

I often see designs where an electrical room is designed as a one-hour fire compartment, but the gear within that compartment doesn't trigger the requirement for that fire separation. It's optional. A lot of the lobster-holding facilities in the area do this because the older facilities have had issues with electrical fires due to salt-water contamination of electrical connections. So I grasp the reason why they want to exceed Code - but they're doing so voluntarily.

It is my view that since it's not required to be a one-hour rated wall/45-minute door, that I have no authority to enforce the continuity/construction of the fire separation. So if there's a penetration that isn't fire stopped - I can't do a thing. I may make a note, but if it isn't firestopped, I can't/won't make them fire stop the penetration.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

My general view is that I have no capacity to enforce what is not prescriptively required. For example, our codes require utility rooms in commercial buildings to have one-hour fire ratings, buuuuut..... waive that requirement for minor volumes of electrical gear, etc.

I often see designs where an electrical room is designed as a one-hour fire compartment, but the gear within that compartment doesn't trigger the requirement for that fire separation. It's optional. A lot of the lobster-holding facilities in the area do this because the older facilities have had issues with electrical fires due to salt-water contamination of electrical connections. So I grasp the reason why they want to exceed Code - but they're doing so voluntarily.

It is my view that since it's not required to be a one-hour rated wall/45-minute door, that I have no authority to enforce the continuity/construction of the fire separation. So if there's a penetration that isn't fire stopped - I can't do a thing. I may make a note, but if it isn't firestopped, I can't/won't make them fire stop the penetration.

An interesting point. One of our former state building inspectors (since passed away) said more than once in our in-service training classes that we only have authority to enforce the code, which is a minimum standard. I never agreed with that, and I have spoken with attorneys who have told me that he's flat out wrong. We review drawings for code compliance and, if they satisfy the minimum requirements of the code, we "approve" the construction documents. Then we issue a building permit -- which is a permit to construct what's shown on the construction documents.

If the designer specifies and draws a 1-hour rated enclosure where the code doesn't require one -- we approved the construction of 1-hour rated enclosure, so that's what we expect to see on the site. If a 1-hour rated enclosure requires penetrations to be listed, labeled 1-hour penetration seals then that's part of the package.

On the other hand, if the electrical closet is drawn as a 2x4 stud wall with 5/8" firecode sheetrock on each side but isn't labeled as a rated assembly or referenced to a U.L. assembly number that has a fire-resistance rating -- then I still have to ensure that the sheetrock is 5/8" firecode but now I don't care about penetration seals, because even though that wall type could be 1-hour rated, it's not called out to be 1-hour fire rated.

 

[tmurray]

This issue had been litigated a fair amount in Canada. It is true that building officials were held to enforce the plans and specifications (one jurisdiction was held partially liable for the wrong colour of floor finish being used). However, more recent cases have shown movement away from this towards the building official only being responsible for code required elements (in some cases a policy statement to this effect was required).

In Canadian code, there are elements that if provided (even voluntarily) it must meet code. Other elements can be voluntarily provided without needing to meet code. Code users need to carefully examine the code language to ensure if the code applies to voluntarily supplied elements.

 

[mtlogcabin]

You inspect for what is on the drawings and in the specs.
We have 2 hotels in the last 10 years that called for a full NPA 13 system throughout the building. That is what the owner required.

 

[MtnArch]

You inspect for what is on the drawings and in the specs.
We have 2 hotels in the last 10 years that called for a full NPA 13 system throughout the building. That is what the owner required.

Sometimes the requirement comes from the insurance company - not necessarily the owner.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Sometimes the requirement comes from the insurance company - not necessarily the owner.

The architect (and the structural engineer) has no contractual relationship with the owner's insurance company. If the insurance company wants something in a building, that requirement has to be conveyed to the design team through the owner.

 

[Penguin87]

^ This. There can be many different types of performative design requirements that are specified by the owner due to insurance that go above and beyond whats in the IBC. For instance, FM Global. However, whatever are on the stamped drawings need to be built that way. You can have them removed by submitting a later revision removing them, as long as they pass plan review.

 

[1Roger]

If the drop-off is adjacent to a walkway and over 4" CBC requires a 6" high curb or a guard rail.

11B-303.5 Warning curbs. Abrupt changes in level exceeding 4 inches (102 mm) in a vertical dimension between walks, sidewalks or other pedestrian ways and adjacent surfaces or features shall be identified by warning curbs at least 6 inches (152 mm) in height above the walk or sidewalk surface.