• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Glazing and Wet Surfaces

M

Mr209Smith

REGISTERED
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
21
Location
California
Good Afternoon,

We have recently had a rush of pool contractors saying they are not going to replace glazing within 5' of the waters edge. They would like to use R308.4.3, Exception 2. They will install a rail 34"-38" above the walking surface. They say this makes the glazing no longer in a hazardous location, and our part-time BO is looking like he will approve it.

I say R308.4.3 and any exceptions found within have nothing to do with R308.4.5, which deals with glazing and wet surfaces.

Have any of you out there approved a handrail or guard instead of making the contractor replace the window or add an approved product to the existing glazing? If so, would a single horizontal rail be sufficient to you?

Thank you!
 
It is legit, and yes I have had in a high end house, and I knew the guard would be taken down before my taillights were out of site.

2. Where glazing is adjacent to a walking surface
and a horizontal rail is installed 34 to
38 inches (864 to 965 mm) above the walking
surface. The rail shall be capable of
withstanding a horizontal load of 50
pounds per linear foot (730 N/m) without
contacting the glass and have a cross-sectional
height of not less than 11/2 inches (38
mm).
 
Not even close to legit.

R308.4.2 Glazing adjacent to doors. This section has exceptions but not the guard rail.

R308.4.6 Glazing adjacent to stairs and ramps. This section has an exception that allows a guard rail.

R308.4.7 Glazing adjacent to the bottom stair landing. Has an exception for a guard that complies with section 312. That guard is not a rail 34" to 38" above the floor.
(R312.1 Guards. Guards shall be provided in accordance with Sections R312.1.1 through R312.1.4.)


R308.4.5 Glazing and wet surfaces. This section has just one exception ….for glazing that is over 60" from the water's edge. There is no mention of a guard rail.

Exceptions are provided for glazing in specific locations. When a guard rail is allowed as an exception for safety glazing in a specific location, it is listed as an exception.


R308.4.3 Glazing in windows. This section is not an umbrella that brings in the guard rail exception for all windows. One reaches the conclusion that this section is related to all nonspecific locations that are not otherwise identified. Think about all the places that have windows. The order of code sections is an indication that R308.3 is yet another specific location in that it is not the first specific location. Obviously the code could do a better job.

Given that the walking surface is slippery when wet, people are in bathing suits and at play, let's add alcohol to that slippery near naked party, it is my determination that the installation of a guard rail does not satisfy the requirement of the code for glazing at a wet location.

As an aside:
When I first came to the land of swimming pools the glazing code said "within five feet of the edge of the deck". Don't you know that was a problem. I started writing corrections...a lot of corrections. Many times the deck went all the way to the house. A few months into it I got a notice from the SOB that the next code cycle was going to change that wording to "water's edge" and henceforth I was to enforce the code as if tomorrow was there. I remember that every time that I read a post about,,,,"Well if you want to change the code there is a process"....
 
Last edited:
You’re off the hook fatboy…the OP didn’t come back for the answer.

Dateline: OP was here on 4-14 but stayed silent.
 
Last edited:
No need for an apology. Let us know the outcome. I have seen strange decisions spread to other jurisdictions.
 
Last edited:
I requested specifications and installation instructions for the proposed safety rail, we finally got a response.

We have a very basic screenshot of the store webpage for the proposed safety rail as shown on the plans, an aluminum Uline product 4' and 6' in length (they will need to protect 4 windows of varying sizes).
A quote for the purchase of safety rails, which are different sizes and material than the ones specified on the plans (not the Uline products), and a testing report for yet another, entirely different brand of safety rail, 10' in length and very robust, with large expansion anchors.

We have asked for clarification as to what product they will actually be installing. This is all a proposed revision to the approved plans, as the applicant stated all the windows were 5' minimum from the waters edge when we asked during plan review. Turns out, none of them are.
 
Mr209Smith said:
Good Afternoon,

We have recently had a rush of pool contractors saying they are not going to replace glazing within 5' of the waters edge. They would like to use R308.4.3, Exception 2. They will install a rail 34"-38" above the walking surface. They say this makes the glazing no longer in a hazardous location, and our part-time BO is looking like he will approve it.

I say R308.4.3 and any exceptions found within have nothing to do with R308.4.5, which deals with glazing and wet surfaces.

Have any of you out there approved a handrail or guard instead of making the contractor replace the window or add an approved product to the existing glazing? If so, would a single horizontal rail be sufficient to you?

Thank you!
Click to expand...
The IRC Code and Commentary does not provide the exception from 308.4.3 to the Glazing and Wet Surfaces of 308.4.5. The commentary points to the exception which notes the 5' minimum distance, otherwise by omission, glazing is required and the rail is not considered. However, a Building Official has the means and methods to accept alternatives if to him or her, it meets the minimum intent of the code.
 
Mr209Smith said:
We have asked for clarification as to what product they will actually be installing. This is all a proposed revision to the approved plans, as the applicant stated all the windows were 5' minimum from the waters edge when we asked during plan review. Turns out, none of them are.
Click to expand...
By asking for clarification as to what product will actually be installed you have implied that the premise of a guard meeting the requirement for safety glazing is valid. Game over.
 
As much as I hate to admit it, because ICE loves to lord it over you, he is right.

I knee-jerk reacted and thought of a time when I did allow it correctly, but this is different.

I should not have posted my reply.

Hopefully it is not game over, as this could have nasty consequences.
 
fatboy said:
As much as I hate to admit it, because ICE loves to lord it over you....
Click to expand...

Mrs. Stotmeister drilled into us the absurdity of the word very. If you think about the word very you see that it is a waste of breath/ink. If I say it has been a long time since I gave you a hard time....adding the word very in front of the word long hardly improves the thought.

This morning I was thinking about the satisfaction I used to get from stirring your pot. I got a mental picture of Mrs. Stotmeister with a ladle in her wrinkled hand standing by a cauldron full of letters. With a bit of a scowl she shook the ladle at me....in an instant I knew that I was using words in a way that she would not approve.

Already in trouble I might as well get spanked. So here it is fatboy.

I am very apologetic for the perturbation I have caused in the past. I am very sure that I will abstain in the future. I am very curious as to why you never asked about the color orange.
 
Last edited:
Thanks

I really try to not let it get under my skin.

I believe the orange is for Cheeetos, inferring that I really am a "Fat Boy".
 
Getting back on topic:
A rash of contractors is multiple contractors. Whatever one jurisdiction allows is what these contractors will try elsewhere. They will be armed with the knowledge that it flew there so it is worth a try everywhere. I know that jurisdictions pay attention to what other jurisdictions are doing. The jurisdiction that I worked for was a member of a League of Cities and a stated goal was to be unified in code application. I found them to be uniformly incorrect on a few things.

The code in question is muddled enough that it appears to allow a guard rail over glazing in a wet location. This code requires in depth consideration to understand that there is no exception for a guard rail. This code should be changed to a completely obvious conclusion.

Inspectors are often told, "They allow this in -----". I have taken the time to contact the various jurisdictions that are so mentioned. I have found that in some cases the contractor is correct and in fact the inspectors at that jurisdiction allow what I find to be a violation. Case in point is leaving unattended, energized service panels wide open with the deafront removed. It doesn't get dumber than that and it goes on to this day. The contractors have told me that they are instructed to do exactly that. So I called a few building departments, including the one I worked for, and sure enough, some inspectors are idiots.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
fatboy,

Old habits die hard. Finding out that what I do doesn’t get to you has me wondering if I spoke too soon.

Having shelved the occupation I see a day when I will say, “fatboy, who is this fatboy you talk about?” You might be brussel sprout green by then.

Click to expand...

Of course I could have guessed that the "fatboy" was because I am a die hard Broncos fan, in Bronco territory, you were respecting me.............

meah, no, you just like ragging on me.............

Word on the street is that I am retiring, I assured Jeff that I am not disappearing.

Perhaps I will be more like cda, and haunt the forum all day.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top