# 2006 IRC Appendix G



## ccbuilding (Jan 6, 2010)

Jurisdiction has adopted appendix G

Installation of pool on a rural 5 acre lot - back property line is in middle of river - side property lines fenced, but doesn't fit barrier requirements - pool has an automatic powered safety cover that complies with ASTM F 1346 - front of property has house and fence that doesn't fit barrier requirements. Home owners don't want a barrier fence across their lot, because it would block the view of the river. They MIGHT be agreeable to a barrier fence along side and front of lot on property lines, but don't want the fence to be any closer to house or pool than property lines. River is large enough and fast enough that a small child cannot cross safely to get to the pool, but an older one (10+) could.

Jurisdiction is requiring fencing before C of O. Home owner (who btw is a pair of lawyers) and contractor are disagreeing with fencing requirement - because.......

AG102.1 General. For the purposes of these requirements, the

terms used shall be defined as follows and as set forth in Chapter

2.

SWIMMING POOL. Any structure intended for swimming

or recreational bathing that contains water over 24 inches (610

mm) deep. This includes in-ground, above-ground and

on-ground swimming pools, hot tubs and spas.

HOT TUB. See “Swimming pool.”

SPA, NONPORTABLE. See “Swimming pool.”

AG105.5 Barrier exceptions. Spas or hot tubs with a safety

cover which complies with ASTM F 1346, as listed in Section

AG107, shall be exempt from the provisions of this appendix.

Ok - I know it's a stretch, and I KNOW if you use common sense (remember though we're dealing with a written code and lawyers, and nowhere in the code is the words common sense used) --- a pool is not a hot tub and a hot tub is not a pool - but home owner and contractor says that if the definitions tell you to look at swimming pool definitions for hot tubs, and hot tubs with safety covers are exempt from the barrier provisions, then a swimming pool with a safety cover should be exempt also.

Before we end up in court over this, I was hoping for some clarity from the wisdom of this bb? Is there any chance they have it right, has ICC screwed up in their definitions, and a cover should be allowed as a standalone safety devise, or is a barrier the only way to go?

And no I don't know why they waited until January and -10 to +20 temperatures to install a pool. Crazy!


----------



## JBI (Jan 6, 2010)

Re: 2006 IRC Appendix G

ccb - I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE dealing with attorneys who think they know stuff! This is a classic.

Remind them that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

:?:  :?:

All 'hot tubs' are (for purposes of regulation) 'swimming pools', but not all 'swimming pools' are 'hot tubs'.

As far as access... The requirements only partly relate to small child access. Those were the BIG news stories. What started the mess was actually a burglar that fell into an empty pool on the way out of a home he just robbed with an armload of the owners stuff. Due to the ill-gotten booty, he did not see the edge of the pool, fell in, cracked his skull open and died. His aggreived family sued the owners and won a civil judgement for the 'unsafe' conditions at the home which directly caused his demise. Can't make this sh.... stuff up!

By the way, installing a pool in the off-season means it should be ready for use as soon as it gets warm. Also, a slow time for the pool companies so the deals are usually really good.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 6, 2010)

Re: 2006 IRC Appendix G

Logically if a powered safety cover can be used as a barrier between the house and the pool why can't it be the complete barrier :?:

9.	Where a wall of a dwelling serves as part of the barrier, one of the following conditions shall be met:

9.1.	The pool shall be equipped with a powered safety cover in compliance with ASTM F 1346;



> Home owners don't want a barrier fence across their lot, because it would block the view of the river.


They make them out of glass.

Fencing a 5 acre track of land does not obstruct access to the pool it only obstructs access to the property. Anybody visiting that property would have access to the pool

I am with JD I would take this to an appeals board or court and let them make the determination if the powered safety cover on a swimming pool meets the intent of the code as applied to a barrier


----------



## north star (Jan 6, 2010)

Re: 2006 IRC Appendix G

Suppose there is no board of appeals.   Will the parties then automatically go to court, or is there some

type of binding arbitration process.   Also, FWIW, how are the owners going to ensure that a cover

would actually be activated each and every time.    To me, the fencing is an automatic guard / barrier

that doesn't require human interaction.


----------



## JBI (Jan 7, 2010)

Re: 2006 IRC Appendix G

"To me, the fencing is an automatic guard / barrier that doesn't require human interaction."

Give that man a Gold Star!

BTW, there is ALWAYS an administrative appeals process.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 11, 2010)

Re: 2006 IRC Appendix G

The 1998 International One- and Two-family Code used to have the exemption in Appendix B as follows:

B105.5 Barrier exceptions.

*A swimming pool with a power safety cover* or a spa and hot tub with a safety cover that complies with ASTM F 1346 as listed in Section B107, shall be exempt from the provisions of this appendix.

Not sure when it was removed.

I would vote for fencing the pool area in.


----------



## Fortner (Jan 11, 2010)

Re: 2006 IRC Appendix G

I have thought about this post for the last 30 min. I would plead my case in front of the Board letting EVERYONE know EXACTLY where I stood on this issue. Get everything in writing and have multiple copies at the office and at home. If the Board rules in favor of you, you have done your job and have been rewarded. If the Board rules in favor of the homeowners,...........I sure hope they are very good at their jobs, for their sake......

When I read this section of the code, it is clear, to me, that the intent is to prevent accidental drowning in a SPA OR HOT TUB with a safety cover IF no barrier described in section AG105 is present. I interpret the code to mandate a barrier for a swimming pool, regardless of the presence of a safety cover. I believe that if the writers had meant for pools to be covered under AG105.5, it would read, "swimming pools, spas, or hot tubs with a safety cover..............."

Just my .02.

Stuff like this really angers me.!  :x

I guess they don't want to comply with AG105.2 section 9.2 either?


----------



## ccbuilding (Jan 11, 2010)

Re: 2006 IRC Appendix G

Thanks for your replies - just what I was thinking too -

BUT, the home owners have come up with a new one - They want to know what makes a pool a pool, and a hot tub a hot tub.

Local dealer says the difference is a hot tub has jets, filter, and heater. A pool usually doesn't usually have jets, has a filter and doesn't have to have a heater. Size and gallons held doesn't seem to matter, as some of the casino's have hot tubs/spas much larger than most residential pools. This "pool" happens to be 5' deep, has 5 jets, has a filter, and has a heater.

So, is it a pool or is it a large hot tub?? I know this is ridiculous, but again homeowners are lawyer, and love this kind of sh.....stuff.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 12, 2010)

Re: 2006 IRC Appendix G



			
				ccbuilding said:
			
		

> Thanks for your replies - just what I was thinking too - BUT, the home owners have come up with a new one - They want to know what makes a pool a pool, and a hot tub a hot tub.
> 
> Local dealer says the difference is a hot tub has jets, filter, and heater. A pool usually doesn't usually have jets, has a filter and doesn't have to have a heater. Size and gallons held doesn't seem to matter, as some of the casino's have hot tubs/spas much larger than most residential pools. This "pool" happens to be 5' deep, has 5 jets, has a filter, and has a heater.
> 
> So, is it a pool or is it a large hot tub?? I know this is ridiculous, but again homeowners are lawyer, and love this kind of sh.....stuff.


Re-read the definitions of each, and then ask them if their "pool" is equipped "with a safety cover which complies with ASTM F 1346, as listed in Section AG107".


----------



## tbz (Sep 17, 2010)

CCB,

Just curious now that summer is over, what was the out come here, or is it still on going?


----------



## Fortner (Sep 21, 2010)

Yeah, how about an update. I had forgotten about this.


----------



## That Inspector Guy (Sep 23, 2010)

ccbuilding said:
			
		

> And no I don't know why they waited until January and -10 to +20 temperatures to install a pool. Crazy!


Late response, but around here (suburbs of Philadelphia) pools sell (and get installed) like mad crazy over winter months.....The pool companies (I have three big ones and a handful of smaller outfits) all have price slashing sales over the winter- keeps their guys busy I guess. I do more pool permits in between Halloween and Easter than I do any other period of time.

Now if I can just make them all understand ACI 318 and cold weather procedures! "What do you mean I can't shoot today" (as the temp is 26 degrees and they have no means of heat....)

And yes, I too would like to hear the outcome of this one. For what it's worth I would have taken it to the appeals board with a nicely written endorsement from our Solicitor.


----------



## ccbuilding (Sep 24, 2010)

Sorry for the late response. I actually had a couple of days off and didn't check the BB.

The final outcome was that under pressure from political, upper management and threat of lawsuit (which always gets this jurisdiction to roll over and play dead), the BO/AHJ decided the automatic cover was sufficient barrier.

The home owners have fenced the entire 5 acres with pasture fencing. So you have to crawl through the barbed wire to get on the property, but still is not what I classify as code compliant.

So now that a precedent has been set, we'll see what happens next. Hopefully this same scenario won't pop up again....Not holding my breath.


----------



## peach (Sep 25, 2010)

good luck cc..

You now have a standard..

Upper management always buckles to threats of lawsuits.. get used to it..

What they forget, is that the building codes, once adopted are LAW ...  and become the Building official vs. the court.. they need to learn to keep out of it.

They won't, by the way..


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 27, 2010)

Too bad.  I would rather a judge roll over than a jurisdiction.


----------



## tbz (Oct 5, 2010)

You got to be kidding?



			
				ccbuilding said:
			
		

> Sorry for the late response. I actually had a couple of days off and didn't check the BB. The final outcome was that under pressure from political, upper management and threat of lawsuit (which always gets this jurisdiction to roll over and play dead), the BO/AHJ decided the automatic cover was sufficient barrier.
> 
> The home owners have fenced the entire 5 acres with pasture fencing. So you have to crawl through the barbed wire to get on the property, but still is not what I classify as code compliant.
> 
> So now that a precedent has been set, we'll see what happens next. Hopefully this same scenario won't pop up again....Not holding my breath.


Okay, I get the whole river thing, we do enclosures on the Atlantic Ocean all the time and still can't figure out how swimming in from the ocean is less a hazard than the pool, but so be it.

However, accepting pasture fencing for the land fencing, for the pool cover? Somebody is smoking some of that south American garnish to much.

Not being from the enforcement side, but the product side, when we tell them it is just wrong and the enforcement side does not hold place It's even harder to explain why.

However, here in NJ we have a very active insurance industry and most here would not write the insurance policy without the barrier being in place.  And would do an inspection when adding the pool to the policy.

The insurance companies are so strong here with that, they require handrails were the IRC does not, and cancels polices on many here if they don't get them.

I went off post here just not pleased with the out come.


----------



## That Inspector Guy (Oct 7, 2010)

ccbuilding said:
			
		

> Sorry for the late response. I actually had a couple of days off and didn't check the BB. The final outcome was that under pressure from political, upper management and threat of lawsuit (which always gets this jurisdiction to roll over and play dead), the BO/AHJ decided the automatic cover was sufficient barrier.
> 
> The home owners have fenced the entire 5 acres with pasture fencing. So you have to crawl through the barbed wire to get on the property, but still is not what I classify as code compliant.
> 
> So now that a precedent has been set, we'll see what happens next. Hopefully this same scenario won't pop up again....Not holding my breath.


Please tell me you didn't sign the U & O approval??? I would have refused.


----------



## ccbuilding (Oct 7, 2010)

TIG,

No, I did not sign on the job. Once the owners (lawyers) started talking to BO, I was out of the picture. From that point on, the BO had the job. I assume he signed off. I haven't looked at the paperwork. Don't really want my fingerprints on it.


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 12, 2011)

Can somebody explain to me how you reconcile the exception to IBC Section 3109.4, which allows a power safety cover to replace the barrier for residential pools (Groups R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4) against the IRC barrier provisions? If the IBC allows the power safety cover to serve as the barrier why shouldn't it be allowed for IRC structures? There is an administrive process to allow this - at least in my State - by deeming compliance with the IBC provision "equivalent".


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 28, 2011)

So....... I reviewed a hot tub submittal a week or so back telling them that they need a barrier around their hot tub.  They were not at all happy and responded that they will have a safety cover with locks.  Not certain if it complies with astm F 1346 or not at this point.  At any rate I noticed this oddity in appendix G.

AG105.2 #9  Where a wall of a dwelling serves as part of the barrier, one of the following conditions shall be met.  #9.1  The pool shall be equipped with a pwered safety cover in compliance with ASTM F 1346.

So...now go to AG105.5 Barrier exceptions.  Spas or hot tubs with a safety cover which complies with ASTM F 1346, as listed in section AG107, shall be exempt from the provisions of this appendix.

Notice they ommitted the word "powered"?  So the question is, if the hot tub has a safety cover in compliance with ASTM F 1346, do they need a barrier (fence)? and if not why does it not need to be powered when if a wall from their residence was a part of the barrier, it did need to be?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 28, 2011)

Theres always a fix. You need to increase the height, but this fixes the veiw issue


----------



## mark handler (Nov 28, 2011)

north star said:
			
		

> *Suppose there is no board of appeals.   Will the parties then automatically go to court, or is there some*
> 
> *type of binding arbitration process.   Also, FWIW, how are the owners going to ensure that a cover*
> 
> ...


Calm down with the font sizing....


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 28, 2011)

Sorry.  I resurrected this thread.  I'll post this once again.

So....... I reviewed a hot tub submittal a week or so back telling them that they need a barrier around their hot tub. They were not at all happy and responded that they will have a safety cover with locks. Not certain if it complies with astm F 1346 or not at this point. At any rate I noticed this oddity in appendix G.

AG105.2 #9 Where a wall of a dwelling serves as part of the barrier, one of the following conditions shall be met. #9.1 The pool shall be equipped with a powered safety cover in compliance with ASTM F 1346.

So...now go to AG105.5 Barrier exceptions. Spas or hot tubs with a safety cover which complies with ASTM F 1346, as listed in section AG107, shall be exempt from the provisions of this appendix.

Notice they omitted the word "powered"? So the question is, if the hot tub has a safety cover in compliance with ASTM F 1346, do they need a barrier (fence)? and if not why does it not need to be powered when if a wall from their residence was a part of the barrier, it did need to be?


----------



## ICE (Nov 28, 2011)

My guess is that ASTM F 1346 covers both powered and manual spa and hot tub covers.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 28, 2011)

I would agree that both are covered.


----------



## tbz (Nov 29, 2011)

RK,

ASTM F1346 I am pretty sure covers manual covers for spas'

NJ has been using the IRC since the 2000 Publication and have always adopted appendix "G" and I see spa's and hot tubs going in all the time with just locked manual safety covers and no fencing.

I don't believe the fence, I mean barrier is required to be fencing as the locked safety cover performs this function.

Though, I have never seen anyone lock them after the inspection was completed.


----------



## tbz (Nov 29, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Theres always a fix. You need to increase the height, but this fixes the veiw issue


Mark,

I am not sure that the picture you posted meets the building code.

Here is my reason,

The top of a guard is required to meet a 200 lb point load, and both the IBC & IRC require glass within a guard to meet a 4 times safety factor.

Thus I would like to know how the top edge of that glass could take a 800 lb point load?

Just my thought on the issue.


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 29, 2011)

The powered safety cover on a pool exempts you from the alarm-on-the-doors provision in Section AG105.2(9) only.

The safety cover on spas and hot tops exempts you from Section AG105 entirely.

Do they even make a powered safety cover for spas/hot tubs?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 29, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> Mark,I am not sure that the picture you posted meets the building code.


Yes, see attached.

http://www.glassmagazine.com/article/retail/a-code-contradiction

But there is a fix for that. add a rail at 42"


----------



## tbz (Nov 29, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Yes, see attached. http://www.glassmagazine.com/article/retail/a-code-contradiction
> 
> But there is a fix for that. add a rail at 42"


Yep I am very aware of Tony's writings and as shown in your pic, the guard does not comply without a top bar of some sort or as tony calls it "the guard".

Known Tony since the 70's, great person, by the way for all you architects and designers out there.

The Wagner Companies will come and provide training classes (CEU) if you have a group and I don't believe they charge.

They have a few programs they lecture on,

Not sure if their classes are approved for CEU's by the ICC for the inspectors on the board....


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2011)

Tom,

I found this at Tony's website:  "Guardrails have a minimum height requirement of 42 inches above the walking surface in commercial applications and 36 inches in residential applications."  Be a friend and let him know about the mistake.


----------



## rogerpa (Nov 29, 2011)

2009 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."

2009 IBC "*1013.2 Height. *Required guards shall be *not less than 42*

*inches *(1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the adjacent

walking surfaces, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting

the leading edges of the treads."

Where's the problem?


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2011)

Well it must be a California amendment because it's 42" here.  This is the second time in a few days that a CA amendment has left me looking dumb.  I think I'll look for a CA forum.

2009 IRC "R312.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be *not less than 42 inches* (1067 mm) high measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

Exceptions:

1. Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

2. Where the top of the guard also serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall not be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads."


----------



## mark handler (Nov 29, 2011)

"...not less than...."

42" complies with both.


----------



## tbz (Nov 30, 2011)

ICE,

Yep 42" all the way is a CA amendment.  Knowing the local code is your job, knowing everything is not possible and why we use this forum.

Don't sweat the amendments, from the pictures you post, you have enough to deal with.


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 30, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> Yep I am very aware of Tony's writings and as shown in your pic, the guard does not comply without a top bar of some sort or as tony calls it "the guard".Known Tony since the 70's, great person, by the way for all you architects and designers out there.
> 
> The Wagner Companies will come and provide training classes (CEU) if you have a group and I don't believe they charge.
> 
> ...


Tom, you also may want to let Tony know that O'Hare is in Chicago and Chicago does not adopt the I-codes...they write their own.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagobuilding/buildingcodeandrelatedexcerptsofthemunic?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagobuilding_il


----------



## tbz (Nov 30, 2011)

TJ,

That is not the only place IL does funky things I guess.

Thanks for the information.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 30, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> ICE, from the pictures you post, you have enough to deal with.


So true a statement has rarely been uttered. Sheesh! :agree


----------



## tonyleto (Nov 30, 2011)

Thanks TJ.

Is O'Hare covered under Chicago code even though it's in Rosemont? I looked through your link and haven't been able to find their code definition on guard. Do they not have similar wording to the ICC regarding the 200 lb concentrated load at the top of a guard (with a 4x safety factor)?

Everything I know about building codes I learned from TBZ so I blame him for the holes in my knowledge.  

There was an update to that article this past year at http://www.wagnercompanies.com/domains/wagnercompanies/files/pdf/GlassRailTop.pdf

I have seen a large number of railing systems that have been introduced similar to the photo above using 1/4" and 3/8" glass. They are being promoted for being a system with no top rail. Their justification is that it is a post system and the glass is an infill and therefore only needs to meet the 50 lb/sq ft requirement. But the code clearly states that the guard must meet a load of 200 lbs concentrated or 50 lbs/ft uniform at the top of the guard. Top of the guard is glass and thin glass just won't meet the load requirement when the safety factor is applied. This past summer there were numerous cases of glass railing failures in Canada and the US. Providing safe glass railing systems is going to be a primary concern with these installs going forward.

Info on the glass railing failures can be seen here: http://www.usglassmag.com/digital/2011/Oct2011.pdf the article appears on page 32.


----------



## TJacobs (Dec 1, 2011)

O'Hare is in the city of Chicago even though it has suburbs all around it.


----------

