IRC Pool Cover vs IBC & ISPSC

[Francis Vineyard]

Referencing the 2012 free e-codes the IRC does no allow the listed pool cover to exempt a perimeter barrier as the IBC always has and I believe this was true with the legacy codes; why the contradiction?

I could not find an errata or code change proposal.

IRC

AG105.5 Barrier exceptions.

Spas or hot tubs with a safety cover which comply with ASTM F 1346 shall be exempt from the provisions of this appendix.

IBC

3109.4 Residential swimming pools.

Residential swimming pools shall comply with :Next('./icod_ibc_2012_31_par049.htm')'>Sections 3109.4.1 through :Next('./icod_ibc_2012_31_par060.htm')'>3109.4.3.

Exception: A swimming pool with a power safety cover or a spa with a safety cover complying with ASTM F 1346 need not comply with Section 3109.4.

ISPSC

305.1 General.

The provisions of this section shall apply to the design of barriers for aquatic vessels. These design controls are intended to provide protection against the potential drowning and near drowning by restricting access to such vessels. These requirements provide an integrated level of protection against potential drowning through the use of physical barriers and warning devices.

Exceptions:

1. Spas and hot tubs with a lockable safety cover that complies with ASTM F 1346.

2. Swimming pools with a powered safety cover that complies with ASTM F 1346.

Francis

 

[TJacobs]

The exemption for pools used to be in there. It was in the 1998 IOTFDC. B105.5

 

[gfretwell]

The code is migrating toward a concept that the barrier protection is always there, not that it can be put there by closing a cover. That is why we have self closing/latching gate requirements and the door alarms.

I understand gates can be propped open and door alarms get wires cut regularly but lots of things happen after the inspection. I believe it is more to somewhat shield contractors from torts than anything else. It is simply a symptom of a world where lawyers are on TV all day saying you have money coming, just call them and they will figure out who they can sue for you.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Francis,

"Referencing the 2012 free e-codes the IRC does no allow the listed pool cover to exempt a perimeter barrier as the IBC always has and I believe this was true with the legacy codes; why the contradiction?"

It's not a contradiction. The IRC has many different code requirements from the IBC. This is just one of them. It is the same in the 2000 IRC; so no change. Why are the requirements different; I don't know.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

UB, thanks for the feedback.

gfretwell touched on it is of interest how the IRC where adopted will be ignored should modifications be permitted based on the IBC and the ISPSC. I suspect insurance companies, and lawyers will have a ball where no uniformity exits with pool barriers though this may be of no concern to code officials.

A another good question on a different forum was in the IRC a pool requires a perimeter barrier even though an equivalent sized spa or hot tub would not with a cover.

Francis

 

[Uncle Bob]

Our municipality and most in Oklahoma do not enforce pool barrier requirements. I checked and over the past several years the State has averaged about 6 to 7 child drownings in private pools each year. Most drownings occur in lakes and ponds here; but, we are behind the times in most areas of codes enforcement.