• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Residential service pit

Sifu said:
I have considered the drain issue in the pit itself. A sump would be the best path but think it less of a problem than getting in and out of the 6' deep pit, becoming overwhelmed by fumes, explosion and a fall hazard. I am still waiting on the fire department to weigh in. The remainder of the floor is sloped in this 4 bay garage.

I can't live with the idea that a completely unaware hobbyist may be putting himself or others in danger in this 6' deep pit. I don't know if they have considered the risk of fumes, explosion or falling. That's is kind of what they pay us for isn't it?
Click to expand...
Floor drain.

I think you're overthinking this. If you can't live with a design that's used in thousands of OSHA regulated businesses maybe your client needs a different designer who isn't trying to sabotage the intent. If you're a plan reviewer you are stepping outside your lane, you enforce the code as written; there's nothing in the IRC that prohibits the pit.
 
Sifu said:
I have considered the drain issue in the pit itself. A sump would be the best path but think it less of a problem than getting in and out of the 6' deep pit, becoming overwhelmed by fumes, explosion and a fall hazard. I am still waiting on the fire department to weigh in. The remainder of the floor is sloped in this 4 bay garage.

I can't live with the idea that a completely unaware hobbyist may be putting himself or others in danger in this 6' deep pit. I don't know if they have considered the risk of fumes, explosion or falling. That's is kind of what they pay us for isn't it?
Click to expand...

If you can find a code section that applies

Thought the slope requirement might be it
 
redeyedfly said:
Floor drain.

I think you're overthinking this. If you can't live with a design that's used in thousands of OSHA regulated businesses maybe your client needs a different designer who isn't trying to sabotage the intent. If you're a plan reviewer you are stepping outside your lane, you enforce the code as written; there's nothing in the IRC that prohibits the pit.
Click to expand...
I'm not prohibiting anything. The IRC doesn't have roller coasters in it either, but if someone wanted to build one in their house I wouldn't turn my head and tell them it's ok to do whatever they want and I'll put my stamp on it because they aren't in the code. If they are installing an element covered by the IBC and not the IRC, I will use the IBC to the extent it provides the intended safeguards. The pit is outside the scope of the code, that doesn't mean it gets a free pass. I guess I could tell him that the entire project needs to be designed in accordance with the IBC, but I don't think that is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to ask for this particular element to be designed in accordance with the IBC and ask for a little safety. It should be no big deal to provide a grate, a few extra dollars of electrical , a ladder and possibly a sump pit of some sort. The most intrusive issue would be ventilation, but I don't think that would be so bad either.

Not really sure what you mean by me not living with a design used in thousands of OSHA regulated businesses. Pretty sure the thousands of OSHA regulated businesses would be similar to the IBC in requiring class I, division 1 wiring, an approved means of egress, exhaust ventilation and would prohibit the public from accessing the pit area. This isn't a business, and provides none of that, which is why I am concerned.

I won't stamp a plan I think poses a risk if I have code telling me it has problems. Which I think I do in the IBC. The designer you speak of is the homeowner, so I guess I could tell him to fire himself but I'm not sure that is productive.
 
According to the IRC you have an elevation change of greater than 30", require a guardrail. The floor needs a drain and must be non-combustible.

You don't have any other code that supports what you want to require. You don't get to go to IBC and see if you can require more. The single family house is not under IBC and is not required to be unless the designer chooses to design under IBC.

You don't get to make up code, that's the whole point of having codes in the first place. You're not deciding what's safe unless it's an alternate compliance, the code decides what's safe. I see no code provisions that needs an alternate.
 
Sifu said:
I'm not prohibiting anything. The IRC doesn't have roller coasters in it either, but if someone wanted to build one in their house I wouldn't turn my head and tell them it's ok to do whatever they want and I'll put my stamp on it because they aren't in the code. If they are installing an element covered by the IBC and not the IRC, I will use the IBC to the extent it provides the intended safeguards. The pit is outside the scope of the code, that doesn't mean it gets a free pass. I guess I could tell him that the entire project needs to be designed in accordance with the IBC, but I don't think that is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to ask for this particular element to be designed in accordance with the IBC and ask for a little safety. It should be no big deal to provide a grate, a few extra dollars of electrical , a ladder and possibly a sump pit of some sort. The most intrusive issue would be ventilation, but I don't think that would be so bad either.

Not really sure what you mean by me not living with a design used in thousands of OSHA regulated businesses. Pretty sure the thousands of OSHA regulated businesses would be similar to the IBC in requiring class I, division 1 wiring, an approved means of egress, exhaust ventilation and would prohibit the public from accessing the pit area. This isn't a business, and provides none of that, which is why I am concerned.

I won't stamp a plan I think poses a risk if I have code telling me it has problems. Which I think I do in the IBC. The designer you speak of is the homeowner, so I guess I could tell him to fire himself but I'm not sure that is productive.
Click to expand...
I understand your concerns.

A single family residential homeowner should be able to manage their own affairs.

I would like to see a removable metal grate cover, steps into the pit as opposed to a ladder, and a drain w/sump.

That's about it. I would feel comfortable with those requirements and let them work on their vehicles and have fun.
 
redeyedfly said:
According to the IRC you have an elevation change of greater than 30", require a guardrail. The floor needs a drain and must be non-combustible.

You don't have any other code that supports what you want to require. You don't get to go to IBC and see if you can require more. The single family house is not under IBC and is not required to be unless the designer chooses to design under IBC.

You don't get to make up code, that's the whole point of having codes in the first place. You're not deciding what's safe unless it's an alternate compliance, the code decides what's safe. I see no code provisions that needs an alternate.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Lack of ventilation in the pit is a bigger problem than most here seem to think. Potential accumulation of fumes (highly likely in a residential garage where someone is working on vehicles to the point they are willing to put in a service pit) is a time bomb waiting to happen. Its the very reason any mechanical equipment that can spark needs to be 18" above the floor in a garage. And you do have a leg to stand on in the IRC, although a few may see it as a stretch:

M1301.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall govern the installation of mechanical systems not specifically covered in other chapters applicable to mechanical systems. Installations of mechanical appliances, equipment and systems not addressed by this code shall comply with the applicable provisions of the International Mechanical Code and the International Fuel Gas Code.

It specifically give you a fallback to address these once in a blue moon situations that you normally don't see in a residence.
 
Sifu, I agree and think you are on the right path forward.

Redeyedfly, you seem to like confrontation. Not the first time you have picked a fight on here. Declaring someone "unfit" because you disagree is a bit much.
 
classicT said:
Sifu, I agree and think you are on the right path forward.

Redeyedfly, you seem to like confrontation. Not the first time you have picked a fight on here. Declaring someone "unfit" because you disagree is a bit much.
Click to expand...
Notice they all have the same theme: BOs who think they get to make up code as they go along because they don't agree with the code. I spend far too much time explaining the basics of code to BOs like this.

It doesn't matter if Sifu thinks the pit is unsafe, the code does not prohibit it. He does not have the authority to demand beyond the code. Again, that is the whole reason we have codes. If he doesn't like the code he can get involved writing or adopting code. As a BO he must follow the code.
 
redeyedfly said:
Notice they all have the same theme: BOs who think they get to make up code as they go along because they don't agree with the code. I spend far too much time explaining the basics of code to BOs like this.

It doesn't matter if Sifu thinks the pit is unsafe, the code does not prohibit it. He does not have the authority to demand beyond the code. Again, that is the whole reason we have codes. If he doesn't like the code he can get involved writing or adopting code. As a BO he must follow the code.
Click to expand...
He has explained how he is following the code. I for one, agree with his interpretation of the code. Where the IRC does not address a specific situation, particularly when something is not typical to residential, it is the directive of the codes to follow the IBC/IMC/etc.

For someone who says that they "...spend far too much time explaining the basics of code to BOs..." you seem to struggle with this common application of the code provisions.
 
redeyedfly said:
I spend far too much time explaining the basics of code to BOs like this.
Click to expand...
Sorry ... I don’t remember ... what is your job?

He does not have the authority to demand beyond the code

Code is minimum. It’s unreasonable to expect the code to cover every possible situation. If the code officer recognizes a risk not covered by the code, he/she has the obligation to raise it for discussion and resolution.
 
What am I struggling with?

I missed the part in the IRC where it says BOs can pick and choose IBC provisions whenever they feel like it. Where exactly is that?
 
e hilton said:
Sorry ... I don’t remember ... what is your job?

He does not have the authority to demand beyond the code

Code is minimum. It’s unreasonable to expect the code to cover every possible situation. If the code officer recognizes a risk not covered by the code, he/she has the obligation to raise it for discussion and resolution.
Click to expand...
Yup, code is minimum and it is the minimum standard BOs are authorized to enforce. You don't get to enforce your feelings.
 
redeyedfly said:
What am I struggling with?

I missed the part in the IRC where it says BOs can pick and choose IBC provisions whenever they feel like it. Where exactly is that?
Click to expand...
How about each of the following IRC sections.

For structural....
R301.1.3 Engineered Design​
Where a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.​

For mechanical....
M1301.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall govern the installation of mechanical systems not specifically covered in other chapters applicable to mechanical systems. Installations of mechanical appliances, equipment and systems not addressed by this code shall comply with the applicable provisions of the International Mechanical Code and the International Fuel Gas Code.​

For electrical....
E3401.2 Scope​
Chapters 34 through 43 shall cover the installation of electrical systems, equipment and components indoors and outdoors that are within the scope of this code, including services, power distribution systems, fixtures, appliances, devices and appurtenances. Services within the scope of this code shall be limited to 120/240-volt, 0- to 400-ampere, single-phase systems. These chapters specifically cover the equipment, fixtures, appliances, wiring methods and materials that are most commonly used in the construction or alteration of one- and two-family dwellings and accessory structures regulated by this code. The omission from these chapters of any material or method of construction provided for in the referenced standard NFPA 70 shall not be construed as prohibiting the use of such material or method of construction. Electrical systems, equipment or components not specifically covered in these chapters shall comply with the applicable provisions of NFPA 70.​

Now, given that we are presenting actual code sections, and you (Redeyedfly) are not, would you care to admit that perhaps we are grounded in the code and you are the one who is picking and choosing? Damn sure seems to be the case, doesn't it?!
 
You're quoting sections where designs don't follow code prescriptive design and require engineering.

I'm not quoting sections of code because there are no sections of code that allow you to make up requirements. This is basic rule of law. Code is law adopted by the AHJ in their legislature, council or other governmental body. You're suggesting the police get to arrest you for laws they make up on the spot.
We have codes so everyone plays by the same rules. Architects and engineers can rely on the code adopted as LAW for design and expect to get approval when they meet the requirements of the LAW.
 
redeyedfly said:
You're quoting sections where designs don't follow code prescriptive design and require engineering.

I'm not quoting sections of code because there are no sections of code that allow you to make up requirements. This is basic rule of law. Code is law adopted by the AHJ in their legislature, council or other governmental body. You're suggesting the police get to arrest you for laws they make up on the spot.
We have codes so everyone plays by the same rules. Architects and engineers can rely on the code adopted as LAW for design and expect to get approval when they meet the requirements of the LAW.
Click to expand...
I am quoting sections that tell BOs to follow the proper code when the IRC doesn't fit.

You don't want to cite code, because to don't understand it and are inept.

I have said nothing about police, so again, you are inciting the discussion by making up flagrant examples that have no merit. Remember the other thread where we broke down your logical fallacies?

Take your loss, and if you cant, get off the forum.
 
classicT said:
I am quoting sections that tell BOs to follow the proper code when the IRC doesn't fit.

You don't want to cite code, because to don't understand it and are inept.

I have said nothing about police, so again, you are inciting the discussion by making up flagrant examples that have no merit. Remember the other thread where we broke down your logical fallacies?

Take your loss, and if you cant, get off the forum.
Click to expand...
The police are in the same situation, they enforce the law, they don't make it up as they go along. I'm not inciting anything.
Code is law, you have to follow the law. Your opinion of the law is not relevant. I'm not why that is so difficult for some of you to grasp.
 
redeyedfly said:
The police are in the same situation, they enforce the law, they don't make it up as they go along. I'm not inciting anything.
Code is law, you have to follow the law. Your opinion of the law is not relevant. I'm not why that is so difficult for some of you to grasp.
Click to expand...
My opinion of the law does matter in this case. See R104.1. The code specifically leaves it up to the BO to render interpretation.

R104.1 General​
The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.​
 
redeyedfly said:
Yup, code is minimum and it is the minimum standard BOs are authorized to enforce. You don't get to enforce your feelings.
Click to expand...
I still don’t know what you do for a living. Or if you are a retired code official. Hiding something?
 
classicT said:
My opinion of the law does matter in this case. See R104.1. The code specifically leaves it up to the BO to render interpretation.

R104.1 General​
The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.​
Click to expand...
Still nothing about making up your own code.
 
I don't know about state amendments in the states that Sifu or classicT are in, but Virginia defines Residential Group R-5 as:
"Residential occupancies in detached single- and two-family dwellings, townhouses and accessory structures within the scope of the IRC."
then adds
"310.8.1 Additional Requirements.
Methods of construction, materials, systems, equipment or components for Group R-5 structures not addressed by prescriptive or performance provisions of the IRC shall comply with applicable IBC requirements."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top