No building codes?

[permitguy]

2009 IPC table 604.3 requires that a lavatory fixture supply be a minimum of 2 gpm@ 8 psi while the adjacent table 604.4 gives a maximum flow of 0.5 gpm @ 60 psi for a public lavatory.

Is this thought to be excessive, or are you looking at it as a conflict between two sections? One table is used for sizing piping in the water distribution system, the other is used for the fixtures themselves. I don't see the concern . . .

For a sidewalk accross the front of a strip shopping center or other accessible route adjacent to and parallel to a buildingA117.1-2003 403.3 allows a maximum cross slope of 1:48, 2009 IBC 1804.3 requires a minimum slope of 2% away from the building. This is an 0.01 inch per ft difference between the required minimum and maximum slopes--about the thickness of 2 sheets of 20 pound copy paper or 4 pages of the codebook.

So the difference is negligible to the point that it is a non-factor. Put in your maximum 1:48 cross slope and you're good to go. To the extent that a problem could be perceived, I'd say it has more to do with the fact that the sections are in the hands of different committees and probably have different voting blocks paying attention to them. I acknowledge the problem with that, but it can usually be addressed through additional clarification if it is pointed out.

Per 2009 IFC 3404.3.4.1 I can display 30 000 gallons of 1B flammable liquids in a 100 000 sq ft big box retail store with an occupant load of 3333 people and 2B construction but by 307 of the 2009 IBC, I can only store 480 gallons in a 100 000 sq ft S-1 warehouse with a maximum occupent load of 333 before it becomes an H-3 use with greatly increased construction fire resistance requirements (1B Construction required). If you take a Home Depot close the doors to the public and call it a warehouse with the same goods in the building it suddenly does not meet code. The extra 3000 people must make the paint thinner safer?

Don't forget that's per control area, but it's still a valid point. What's interesting to me is that this is a result of the unlimited area building provisions, which are perhaps the least "nanny-ish" provisions in the entire code. The tabular value for a IIB M is less than the tabular value for a IIB H-3. It's hard to say that this scenario is a result of over-reaching.

2009 IPC 705.14.2 requires purple primer before solvent cementing PVC but there are many solvent cements for PVC on the market that do not require the use of primer.

Do the one-step PVC solvents meet the performance criteria of the listed standards for the two-step process? I know this was an issue at one time, which is why it is in the code. If there is a product that is easier to use and meets the necessary performance criteria, then that is an example of the code not keeping up with technology. This would be another case for making the code longer to allow for more flexibility in the allowable products, even though the end result would be less restrictive.

 

[permitguy]

The IECC should be a recommendation, not a requirement, in my humble opinion.

Is this because you think the code should have NO energy provisions, or is it because you think the IECC takes things too far? Just trying to understand the rationale . . .

 

[georgia plans exam]

Permitguy,

I think that energy conservation is a good idea and I think that education on such matters should be encouraged. I just don't think it should be mandatory. So yes, I don't think it should be in the codes at all.

GPE

 

[Frank]

Is this thought to be excessive, or are you looking at it as a conflict between two sections? One table is used for sizing piping in the water distribution system, the other is used for the fixtures themselves. I don't see the concern . . .

It is making you size the pipes for 4 times the water you need.

So the difference is negligible to the point that it is a non-factor. Put in your maximum 1:48 cross slope and you're good to go. To the extent that a problem could be perceived, I'd say it has more to do with the fact that the sections are in the hands of different committees and probably have different voting blocks paying attention to them. I acknowledge the problem with that, but it can usually be addressed through additional clarification if it is pointed out.

The problem is nobody's concrete guy is good enough to place the slab within that range--every sidewalk adjacent to the front of the building is going to violate one or the other or both. And no inspector is good enough to measure the difference between too flat and too steep with commonly available tools.

Do the one-step PVC solvents meet the performance criteria of the listed standards for the two-step process? I know this was an issue at one time, which is why it is in the code. If there is a product that is easier to use and meets the necessary performance criteria, then that is an example of the code not keeping up with technology. This would be another case for making the code longer to allow for more flexibility in the allowable products, even though the end result would be less

Yes they meet the same ASTM standards--the primer requirement is archaic

 

[gbhammer]

2009 IRC N1103.1.1 .... the thermostat shall initially be programed.....

give me a break

 

[gbhammer]

:beatdhrsYes they meet the same ASTM standards--the primer requirement is archaic

amen

 

[mtlogcabin]

Why is this in the code? I agree with GPE energy conservation should be stricken from the intent section of the codes.

P2903.2 Maximum flow and water consumption.

The maximum water consumption flow rates and quantities for all plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings shall be in accordance with Table P2903.2.

 

[gbhammer]

Why is this in the code? I agree with GPE energy conservation should be stricken from the intent section of the codes. P2903.2 Maximum flow and water consumption.

The maximum water consumption flow rates and quantities for all plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings shall be in accordance with Table P2903.2.

good question.

Does it link to the clean water act?

 

[permitguy]

It is making you size the pipes for 4 times the water you need.

If you size the pipe for 2 gpm at 8 psi, then you're probably getting much more than 4 times the water you need if you increase to 60 psi. In any case, is this having a real impact on design? I haven't seen a big increase in the size of the supply piping to lavatories in the last 30 years. Is there a push to reduce domestic water supply piping to 1/8" diameter?

The problem is nobody's concrete guy is good enough to place the slab within that range--every sidewalk adjacent to the front of the building is going to violate one or the other or both. And no inspector is good enough to measure the difference between too flat and too steep with commonly available tools.

They're good enough to place it within a range that meets the intent as verified by an inspector with a level and a tape (or eyeballs and experience). If there was truly an expectation that we're supposed to be precise to within .01", I'd have a problem with that. I still don't see that it was the intent to be "nanny-like" in the adoption of these sections in two different codes.

Yes they meet the same ASTM standards--the primer requirement is archaic

Cool. I wonder how many times this change has failed at the code hearings, and why?

I'm seeing a trend in the energy conservation arena. I agree that these are not life safety issues and have become "nanny-ish". When I was still in a building department, we amended the IECC out in favor of some very simple to meet insulation requirements for different elements of the thermal envelope.

 

[Codegeek]

I argued against that one on the floor and got eyed as if I wanted to kill kids--I pointed out that they already were using tools and could just puncture the lines or condensor to get at the freon.In a side conversation, one of the mother's that testified that she had lost her daughter to huffing said that the daughter had been introduced to huffing by her HVAC tech boyfriend.

I'm with Frank on this one and many others. I was at the hearings when this item was brought up at both the committee and the final action. The problem was there were not enough voting members in the room to overcome the emotional strings that were played upon by the proponents. There are too many significant changes happening that are getting voted on by fewer and fewer people. On the other hand, the residential sprinklers had the largest voting turn out of any item.

Another example, the restriction on the window openings now that came out of the final action hearings in 2004. I'm sorry that children are dying from huffing and falling out of windows. It's not the job of a code enforcement agency to play parent. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? We should not be writing code language that allows for others to place blame on someone other than themselves. If I have a business that utilizes refrigerant and I've put up a fence to restrict access to the "attractive nuisance", now why is it my problem if someone climbs over the fence and vandalizes my property to "huff"?

Yes, I'm a parent, single parent at that. My only child is an Eagle Scout and graduated in the top 5 percent of his high school graduating class. Now he's at college working on a triple major. I never had problems with him around windows or huffing. Maybe it was because I was there with him as he was growing up, being a parent, not relying on my building codes department to make sure he wouldn't do those things.

 

[permitguy]

Out of thousands of code sections, we've had a few really good and specific examples of "nannyism". We've also had a few examples of things that seem to defy common sense, but aren't necessarily "nannyism".

There has to be a lot more than this if anyone expects to make a convincing argument that we've gone completely off the deep end, which seems to be the suggestion of the OP (who is conspicuously silent now).

Keep 'em coming!

 

[gbhammer]

You’ve been a bit silent on one of the most blatant nanny state codes. The requirement to make people program their thermostat -

Heat set point no higher than 70*F

Cooling set point no lower than 78*F

 

[permitguy]

I acknowledged energy codes collectively as an example of "nannyism" above.

The general public has an expectation that their house is insulated to a minimum level without having it considered to be an upgrade. I believe the code should address this issue, but the requirement for pre-programming a thermostat to code dictated levels is too much.

So who can answer the question about the one-step PVC solvent? How many times has the proposal been voted down, and why?

 

[GCtony]

"Yes, I'm a parent, single parent at that. My only child is an Eagle Scout and graduated in the top 5 percent of his high school graduating class. Now he's at college working on a triple major. I never had problems with him around windows or huffing. Maybe it was because I was there with him as he was growing up, being a parent, not relying on my building codes department to make sure he wouldn't do those things."

Unfortunatly we don't live in a society that all people think like codegeek. Trustworth, loyal, helpful........is only for Boy Scouts.

 

[mtlogcabin]

209 IRC

R312.2 Height.

Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) high measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

Because a child "may" climb up and fall over. It is a parental responsibility. What's next safety glazing for fixed seating next to a window?

 

[GCtony]

NANNYISM from my perspective:

Some review comments I've recenty received for rejected permit applications:

" Plans must have an original signature of the DP. No copies or electronic signatures accepted" ummmm......it's like 2011, everything is electronic these days.

"Hand changes not allowed on print" I as the GC added a clarification note to the drawing showing new EBU's and not existing (no code referance given) I thought I was being helpful. Shot myself in the foot.

"plans submitted must have a title sheet" Again a very small project, removing some walls. I guess the plan reviwer didn't like a one page plan.

"Identify toilet rooms as men and women" (IBC section 2902) It was a small tenent space with two identically accessible restrooms.

In a 2000 sq ft tenant space where all existing lighting was to remain in place "Provide lighting allowances and controls per section 505 of the IECC"

Jump through the hoop, pay the resubmission fees and move one.

Reason for failed inspections:

Large retail big box renovation. Grand opening the next morning. Weeds/grass growing partially on a sidewalk. (at path of egress out the back of the building) Failed Final.

When HC toilets had to be 18" off the side wall. Inspector measured it at 18 1/4" I kicked the toilet and asked him to measure it again. He said looks good now but still rejected....you need to recaulk. (When I see him, he still gives me a hard time about it)

Sorry, that countertop is 34 1/4" aff. Needs to be 34" max, Final failed.

Inspector finds some missing screws on interior metal framing, stops the inspection doesn't continue inspecting and marks the ticket as not ready. "Pay the reinspection fee and call it back in" Next inspection finds something else, stops the inspection. "Pay the reinspection fee and call it back in" I contact the national retailer who contacts the economic development dept. that worked their tails off the get them in their town. Problem solved. My new building inspector in now the chief building official!

Fun Times!

 

[BSSTG]

They can pry my cold dead fingers from my thermostat. 69*F at night year round.

BS

 

[gbhammer]

They can pry my cold dead fingers from my thermostat. 69*F at night year round.BS

With ya there except 68*F:banghd

 

[fatboy]

Maybe it should be a combination, I keep mine at 68 for the heating, 75 for cooling.

 

[gbhammer]

Maybe it should be a combination, I keep mine at 68 for the heating, 75 for cooling.

There we go lets enforce our standard on the rest of the nation. Our sience has to be as close as the global warming guys stuff.

The only problem is we won't make any money doing it.

 

[fatboy]

WAIT, BACK THE TRUCK UP..... I did not say I agree with the energy code, I actually despise it, it was forced on us by our green governor and legislature in CO. My point was, if they start mandating temperartures, consider the fact, I don't mind throwing on a blanket in the winter, but like to be able to cool off. Other folks might be the opposite. My personal opinion is that if you can afford it, heat and cool to your hearts content.

 

[permitguy]

Can we all back up for a second? Some of you are acting like it is a violation of the code for a homeowner to heat and cool as they see fit. Nothing in the section on programming the thermostat makes it a violation for the homeowner to do whatever the hell they want. It says "initially programmed". As a matter of fact, the installer can "initially program" it to the code prescribed limits, then ask the homeowner what they want and re-program it accordingly. If you can't see that the goal is to avoid a situation where the initial installation of the thermostat allows continuous running of the HVAC system by accident, then you're blinded by emotion. The times of installing a new thermostat, setting the rotary dial to 70 degrees, and walking away are over - the tech has to spend a few minutes programming now. Cry me a river . . .

It's one thing to argue that energy conservation should not be in the code. Even if it is in the code, you can probably make a very effective argument that requiring programmable thermostats takes it too far. But if programmable thermostats ARE a requirement, it only makes sense to require them to be programmed to some level. It is a precriptive code, after all.

 

[conarb]

Programmable thermostats aren't that bad, although I've had customers who hate them, just leave them set wherever they set them and then manually set them to whatever you want. When we leave the house I just push the temperature down several degrees (or up in the summer), when you come back just click it up to wherever you like. Through each cycle they return, if you go away just turn it off. I find the water saving toilets much worse and counterproductive, I did an ADA retrofit in a Catholic church and they put a sign on the wall "Flush three times" in the ladies room, in other cases I've had lots of problems with people getting clogged lines in cast iron pipe with toilet paper hanging up on the rough surfaces of the cast iron, this isn't nearly as much of a problem in cheap homes with ABS plastic pipe.

Maybe some of these regulations will be rolled back if the Republicans take over in 2012? The question then as I see it is what's going to happen to these code requirements if the Federal Government rolls back it's regulations but they remain in the codes?


[video=youtube;ePZGWvwvH_0]

 

[permitguy]

I doubt it, conarb. While Rand's grand-standing is impressive, it isn't based in fact. His party is no less responsible for everything he decried than the opposition party is. For instance, the vote to eliminate incandescent light bulbs passed overwhelmingly in congress with support of both parties, and was singed into law by . . . wait for it . . . George W. Bush. Also, it's no secret which party is most vocally in favor of the elimination of trade barriers that send jobs overseas with no consequence to the companies that do so, yet Rand seems all upset about it in that clip. Interesting.

Bottom line - they're all at fault, and nothing will change. If the codes are overbearing and need to be reeled in, it will have to be done through the internal code amendment process and not through the feds.