Replacing Mechanical Equipt.

[north star]

@ + @ + @

I am reviewing plans for an existing facility that will
be replacing approx. 20 Rooftop HVAC units........The
existing HVAC curbs will remain "as is", and altered \
adjusted \ re-configured to accept the new units.

At one of the locations on the roof, the existing HVAC
unit & curbing is within 10 ft. of the edge........There
are no guards or railing installed [ RE: Section 304.11,
`15 IMC ].

QUESTION # 1: Because the HVAC equipment ONLY will
be replaced with a new unit, is the guard \ railing now
"required" ?

QUESTION # 2: There is no information on the
submitted plans regarding the installation of an electrical
receptacle "at or near the equipment location" [ RE: Section
306.5.2, `15 IMC ]......Can I "require" new electrical
receptacles "at or near the equipment locations" with the
replacement of the HVAC units ?

Please cite the applicable Code sections if your answer is
"No" to both questions.

Thanks for your input !


@ + @ + @

 

[Mr. Inspector]

My answer is yes to both:
IMC 102.4 Minor additions, alterations, renovations and repairs to existing mechanical systems shall meet the provisions for new construction, unless such work is done in the same manner and arrangement as was the existing system, is not hazardous and is approved.

 

[mtlogcabin]

We require guards when re-roofing is done on existing buildings. (We feel this is the best opertunity to have guards installed without having to disturb an existing roof system)
We require guards when replacing existing serviceable equipment with new. They can be the fold up type https://www.dakotasafety.com/collapsible-guard-rails http://bluewater-mfg.com/product/stealthrail/

In lieu of the guard requirement for existing units we require the service side of the unit to be located parallel and 180 degrees from the drop off this would put the equipment between the drop off and the service technician thereby reducing the chances of him backing off the roof when working

 

[north star]

# ~ #

Thank you for your replies Rick & MT !

# ~ #

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Guards (& access) not required. In reference to 102.3 it is mechanical systems, not building construction as for new installation.

IMC
[A] 102.2.1 Existing buildings.
Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs related to building or structural issues shall be regulated by the International Existing Building Code.

[A] 102.3 Maintenance.
Mechanical systems, both existing and new, and parts thereof shall be maintained in proper operating condition in accordance with the original design and in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards that are required by this code shall be maintained in compliance with the edition of the code under which they were installed. The owner or the owner's authorized agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of mechanical systems. To determine compliance with the provision, the code official shall have the authority to require a mechanical system to be reinspected.

IEBC (edit)
[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance.

401.2 Conformance. The work shall not make the building less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken.

407.1 General. Existing mechanical systems undergoing repair shall not make the building less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

The 2015 & 2018 (revision) IMC [BE] 304.11 provides an alternative to guardrails.

Exception: Guards are not required where fall arrest/restraint anchorage connector devices that comply with ANSI/ASSE Z 359.1 are installed.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The 2015 & 2018 (revision) IMC [BE] 304.11 provides an alternative to guardrails.

Exception: Guards are not required where fall arrest/restraint anchorage connector devices that comply with ANSI/ASSE Z 359.1 are installed.

Thanks Francis for the update we are still under the 2012 and this will make things even easier

 

[ICE]

The 2015 & 2018 (revision) IMC [BE] 304.11 provides an alternative to guardrails.

Exception: Guards are not required where fall arrest/restraint anchorage connector devices that comply with ANSI/ASSE Z 359.1 are installed.

The odds of a mechanical contractor or maintenance personnel having a harness is somewhere south of zero. They will trip over the attachment ring and wonder what it’s for. If it gets installed it will happen after the roofer is done and gone. In a few years it will be a festering pile of rust that’s screwed to sheathing.

Years ago I met a man that fell from a scaffold. He landed on a coworker. The coworker was killed due to a snapped neck. A couple of dead people later the code will revert to a guard without the attachment exception.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Thanks Francis for the update we are still under the 2012 and this will make things even easier

We too are still under the (Virginia amended) 2012 IBC. However we have a provision similar to [A] 104.11 to use future codes and standards not included in the current edition.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The 2015 & 2018 (revision) IMC [BE] 304.11 provides an alternative to guardrails.

Exception: Guards are not required where fall arrest/restraint anchorage connector devices that comply with ANSI/ASSE Z 359.1 are installed.

Good to know Francis, we are going from the 2009 to the 2015 on 10/1/18.
Does anyone have a photo of one?

 

[mtlogcabin]

http://www.industrialsafetyproducts...MIv5uwnZO43AIV15V-Ch1BEQudEAYYCSABEgLKAvD_BwE

https://maltadynamics.com/product/t...MI7pa63JO43AIVA73sCh0VtwYZEAkYECABEgIRZfD_BwE

 

[Mark K]

this is a picture of a tie-off, not a guardrail. Having designed the support structure for some of these in new buildings I will suggest that they cannot easily be installed in an existing roof. You need an engineer.

Guardrails should be more easily installed in an existing building.

I would read the IMC provisions to mean that guardrails are not required in this existing situation.

I believe OSHA rules govern what the workers have to do in these situations. Thus baring a specific building code provisions this is not a problem for the building department. If you believe they are not complying with OSHA then report them to OSHA.

At a certain point if the workers refuse to comply with OSHA regulations you have to wonder if they are trying to apply for the Darwin Award