HVAC replacement on Roof, inspector asking for guard rails

[e hilton]

From a practical perspective, that’s not going to work. It’s designed for commercial usevwhere they have a place to store it, and the installer has a place to tie off during install and take down. Where at your house will you have a place to store it? Maybe leave it laying flat on the roof? Commercial units get serviced frequently, especially when there is mor3 than one on the roof. You have one unit … unlikely that you would need the guard rail more than once a year.

I think you would be better to convince the inspector you don’t need a rail, or install a proper tie-off point.

 

[Genduct]

Hi!

Recently got a heat pump to replace older system and replaced compressor on roof. The compressor on the roof is about 5-6 feet from the edge of a flat roof. When the inspector came to verify work he said a guard rail would need to be installed.

1) What code is this for residential? I am in Glendale, CA ( by LA)
2) I looked on google maps and with the amount of rooftop hvac machines in my area I see no guardrails. A lot of older homes.

Ask you Code Official if sinage and a tie off for someone to use Fall Protection would meet the Intent of the Code

 

[Ed Cooke]

So, as I read these comments, many have some code references correct, others need to read or reread their current codes.
As a short answer, a new installation is subject to the current code, period! No where does it state you have to like it, but you should be following it. I mean this, do you intend to mean the worker safety is not important because the previous RTU was installed without that code provision? Sure hope not.

Next, some of you need to quit referencing the IRC. California does not recognize that, or the IPC or IMC for these installations, as the state adopted code. If you are in Ca., you should already know to use the Ca. adopted versions.

Next, the CMC notes 6' from the roofs edge for clearance, accessibility, otherwise guards must be installed @ 42" in height. Please note, nobody mentioned CMC 304.2, which is probably most prevalent in Residential locations, roofs 4/12 or more must have a level platform at least 30" by 30" on the service side, but if it is more than 6' from the roofs edge, that's all. (NOTE: The CBC calls out 10' from the roof's edge)

(NOTE: Guards for protection and code compliance are found where? Yes, quite possibly the Building Code, specifically CBC 1015.2 which also calls for structural elements in 1607.8. Then look at 1015.6, Mechanical equip shows you must have guards, but then it adds an exception for "Personal fall anchorage connectors") That seems like the most efficient and economical solution. It helps the fall protection while keeping the aesthetics of the roof or neighborhood in mind.
I could see where most jurisdictions would accept the anchorage exception, since it is in the Building Code. Hope this assists your current and future work!!

 

[e hilton]

Thank you for your valuable comments.

 

[mark handler]

California Mechanical Code

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 (1067 mm) in height shall be provided on the exposed side. [NFPA 54:9.4.2.2]

As noted in ICE's post it is not a CA thing, it is a NFPA 54:9.4.2.2, thing. Add Guards or relocate the unit.

 

[ICE]

As noted in ICE's post it is not a CA thing, it is a NFPA 54:9.4.2.2, thing. Add Guards or relocate the unit.

Mark,
The unit is six inches less than six feet away from the edge of a flat roof. The unit is serviced on the side away from the edge of a flat roof. The unit was where it was previously. Moving the unit will be costly. Tell the inspector to give the customer a break.

 

[e hilton]

Tell the inspector to give the customer a break.

This from the guy who is no longer on the badge side. :}

 

[Genduct]

So, as I read these comments, many have some code references correct, others need to read or reread their current codes.
As a short answer, a new installation is subject to the current code, period! No where does it state you have to like it, but you should be following it. I mean this, do you intend to mean the worker safety is not important because the previous RTU was installed without that code provision? Sure hope not.

Next, some of you need to quit referencing the IRC. California does not recognize that, or the IPC or IMC for these installations, as the state adopted code. If you are in Ca., you should already know to use the Ca. adopted versions.

Next, the CMC notes 6' from the roofs edge for clearance, accessibility, otherwise guards must be installed @ 42" in height. Please note, nobody mentioned CMC 304.2, which is probably most prevalent in Residential locations, roofs 4/12 or more must have a level platform at least 30" by 30" on the service side, but if it is more than 6' from the roofs edge, that's all. (NOTE: The CBC calls out 10' from the roof's edge)

(NOTE: Guards for protection and code compliance are found where? Yes, quite possibly the Building Code, specifically CBC 1015.2 which also calls for structural elements in 1607.8. Then look at 1015.6, Mechanical equip shows you must have guards, but then it adds an exception for "Personal fall anchorage connectors") That seems like the most efficient and economical solution. It helps the fall protection while keeping the aesthetics of the roof or neighborhood in mind.
I could see where most jurisdictions would accept the anchorage exception, since it is in the Building Code. Hope this assists your current and future work!!

You mention NEW INSTALL, I believe this is a Replacement Roof Top Unit (or let's assume it is a replacement for this question) Does CA require a replacement to include a Guardrail?
I like the Fall Protection approach that OSHA would require for a Tech to even service let alone replace the Roof Top Unit that close to the roof edge

 

[ADAguy]

code allows for alternate methods and means,

 

[ICE]

The particulars of this case indicate that the inspector has some time to go before he will be worthy.

 

[Genduct]

So here is part of the code path...Replacement of stuff is a level 1 alteration..

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

Straight swap, no closer, no less safe...No other mechanical upgrades in a level 1 alteration, at level 2 you get ventilation...

302.3 Existing materials. Materials already in use in a building
in compliance with requirements or approvals in effect at
the time of their erection or installation shall be permitted to
remain in use unless determined by the building official to be
unsafe.

Obviously there is a god clause, but if no one has fallen off the roof in 20 years is it really unsafe?....To me unsafe has to be something you would order corrected regardless of a permit...

UNSAFE. Buildings, structures or equipment that are unsanitary,
or that are deficient due to inadequate means of egress
facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or that constitute a
fire hazard, or in which the structure or individual structural
members meet the definition of “Dangerous,” or that are otherwise
dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that
involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance
shall be deemed unsafe. A vacant structure that is not
secured against entry shall be deemed unsafe.

I can't see calling something that was CO'd "as is" unsafe....

In addition the quote is 303.8.4 Clearance. Appliances shall be installed on a well-drained surface of the roof.

This is a Remove and Replace NOT Construct / Install Sounds like a major Difference
Another aspect would have been an Engineer's Review to see if NEW Unit is OK for Install

Also OSHA is probably the real source for these requirements

 

[ICE]

Another aspect would have been an Engineer's Review to see if NEW Unit is OK for Inst

Our determination has been that under 400 pounds gets a pass on the engineering.

 

[davecarlson98]

So, as I read these comments, many have some code references correct, others need to read or reread their current codes.
As a short answer, a new installation is subject to the current code, period! No where does it state you have to like it, but you should be following it. I mean this, do you intend to mean the worker safety is not important because the previous RTU was installed without that code provision? Sure hope not.

Next, some of you need to quit referencing the IRC. California does not recognize that, or the IPC or IMC for these installations, as the state adopted code. If you are in Ca., you should already know to use the Ca. adopted versions.

Next, the CMC notes 6' from the roofs edge for clearance, accessibility, otherwise guards must be installed @ 42" in height. Please note, nobody mentioned CMC 304.2, which is probably most prevalent in Residential locations, roofs 4/12 or more must have a level platform at least 30" by 30" on the service side, but if it is more than 6' from the roofs edge, that's all. (NOTE: The CBC calls out 10' from the roof's edge)

(NOTE: Guards for protection and code compliance are found where? Yes, quite possibly the Building Code, specifically CBC 1015.2 which also calls for structural elements in 1607.8. Then look at 1015.6, Mechanical equip shows you must have guards, but then it adds an exception for "Personal fall anchorage connectors") That seems like the most efficient and economical solution. It helps the fall protection while keeping the aesthetics of the roof or neighborhood in mind.
I could see where most jurisdictions would accept the anchorage exception, since it is in the Building Code. Hope this assists your current and future work!!

I am required to add guardrails around a replacement HVAC condenser unit on my 3 story Townhouse flat roof. City of Santa Monica is requiring stamped engineered drawings for the guardrails. Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just add an anti fall device? I have found lots of guardrail vendors but no anti fall device vendors.... any tips you could give?

 

[steveray]

They will probably require engineering for the anchor too....amazing how much force a falling body creates....Ask the dinosaurs....

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I respectfully disagree with that statement. For one, I do not have intimate knowledge of past code and if I wanted to know it would start with, "What code was in force when the previous appliance was installed"? Taken a step further begs the question, "Was the previous appliance the first appliance"?

What other code falls in the same category as, "Didn't do that back when."..?

I have asked the OP for the exact dimension....I am not so strict that I can't bend the code.

Renovations are my kryptonite.
In this case, the alteration of the building - in my mind - requires the changes to be Code-compliant. I see nothing wrong with requiring guards in this case.

 

[Ed Cooke]

As a code official, our task is to see the minimum requirements are met in order to approve an installation. The current fall protection subject here, is just another in a line of some folks who do not read their code books or check with a jurisdiction. I want to implore all of us to be a professional, not some "handy andy" who gripes because their install was given a correction. Folks, we are in this together. Neither contractor nor code official knows it all. We refer to the written adopted book for answers. Remember California, our code cycle is not just changed every 3 years, but a Triennial change, that's a mid-cycle change for you who don't yet know your state and or local codes, that also adds more information. We appreciate the interaction from each person, just please be a bit more informed, for the good of the customer, the contractor, and the jurisdiction trying desperately to approve the work done.

 

[davecarlson98]

They will probably require engineering for the anchor too....amazing how much force a falling body creates....Ask the dinosaurs....

Thanks for your note..if I am thinking correctly, it would be a lot cheaper and easier to engineer an anchor and buy the associated equipment... am i missing something? (I am green in this area) I have the additional problem that my HOA doesn't want guardrails! Thanks again, Dave

 

[mark handler]

California Mechanical Code

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 (1067 mm) in height shall be provided on the exposed side. [NFPA 54:9.4.2.2]

303.8.4 Edge of Roof 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. [NFPA 54:9.4.2.2]

303.8.4.1 Guards and Rails​

Guards or rails shall be required where the following exist:

1. The clearance between the appliance and a roof edge or open end of an equipment platform is less than 6 feet
2. The open end of the equipment platform is located more than 30 inches above the roof, floor, or grade below.
   
   Where guards or rails are installed, they shall be constructed so as to prevent the passage of a 21 inch (533 mm) diameter ball, resist the imposed loading conditions, and shall extend not less than 30 inches (762 mm) beyond each side of the equipment or appliance. Exception: Guards shall not be required where a permanent fall arrest anchorage connector system in accordance with ASSE Z359.1 is installed.
   
   If the unit is 6 feet from the edge, in CA, No rail required