# HVAC replacement on Roof, inspector asking for guard rails



## binarytrees (Jan 26, 2022)

Hi!

Recently got a heat pump to replace older system and replaced compressor on roof. The compressor on the roof is about 5-6 feet from the edge of a flat roof. When the inspector came to verify work he said a guard rail would need to be installed.

1) What code is this for residential? I am in Glendale, CA ( by LA)
2) I looked on google maps and with the amount of rooftop hvac machines in my area I see no guardrails. A lot of older homes.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 26, 2022)

Ask for the code section from your inspector.


----------



## tbz (Jan 26, 2022)

The California IRC (Part V - Mechanical) sends you to the Cali Mechanical code noting to see title 24., Part 4.

California Mechanical code, requires you to provide guards for any mechanical equipment that is within 10ft of the open side of a walking surface/roof that has a drop more than 30 inches.,  Thus if the mechanical equipment is more than 10ft from the edge, no guard required.

Does google tell you the distance the units are from the edge in the picture you are looking at from space?

The reason it is now required, is because you upgraded the system and installed NEW, not a repair, as thus current code requires the guard to be in place.

However, Rick is also correct, the inspector is required to cite the exact code section they are failing you for...ask for it, just say the contractors are asking me for it, they want to make sure they provide everything noted in that section.


----------



## steveray (Jan 26, 2022)

Not really a cali guy, but in a like for like replacement, the guardrail should not be required, unless it should have been there the whole time....Technically...


----------



## e hilton (Jan 26, 2022)

steveray said:


> but in a like for like replacement,


The inspector could get very (anally) technical to push his point.  For example … Old equipment was 3 ton 10 seer.  Replacement equipment is 2-1/2 ton 16 seer.  Is that like for like?


----------



## binarytrees (Jan 26, 2022)

It is the same tonage and brand. Just newer


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 26, 2022)

Not required in the IRC. We require the guards to be installed when re-roofing a building. That seems to be the least expensive way to eventually get the guards installed on existing buildings.


----------



## steveray (Jan 26, 2022)

e hilton said:


> The inspector could get very (anally) technical to push his point.  For example … Old equipment was 3 ton 10 seer.  Replacement equipment is 2-1/2 ton 16 seer.  Is that like for like?


IMO....yes...unless the new unit gets physically closer to the edge of the roof, I have no good way to require an upgrade....That is unless gas is introduced because NFPA 54 says 6'....


----------



## binarytrees (Jan 26, 2022)

Yeah I measured it, it's almost 6 feet. When I contact the city of glendale they kinda give me odd codes.

The latest guy said 304.3.1.1 Code. I am also in a proposed historic district so I think in the future no more rooftop HVAC even though half the neighborhood has it.

1) I couldn't get the guy at the city to say if I had an anchor point if that would suffice, I'll try again tomorrow. It's hard to get clear answers from this crew. Wondering if it even matters and I should let the permit expire.


----------



## Joe.B (Jan 26, 2022)

Yes CA is weird, our res code doesn't have the second half of the IRC. As tbz states it sends you to CMC. 


steveray said:


> Not really a cali guy, but in a like for like replacement, the guardrail should not be required, unless it should have been there the whole time....Technically...





steveray said:


> IMO....yes...unless the new unit gets physically closer to the edge of the roof, I have no good way to require an upgrade....That is unless gas is introduced because NFPA 54 says 6'....


I agree completely, I believe it's impractical and unethical to require guard installs for HVAC replacement, but unfortunately the OP not in my jurisdiction.


binarytrees said:


> Yeah I measured it, it's almost 6 feet. When I contact the city of glendale they kinda give me odd codes.
> 
> The latest guy said 304.3.1.1 Code. I am also in a proposed historic district so I think in the future no more rooftop HVAC even though half the neighborhood has it.
> 
> 1) I couldn't get the guy at the city to say if I had an anchor point if that would suffice, I'll try again tomorrow. It's hard to get clear answers from this crew. Wondering if it even matters and I should let the permit expire.


I would not recommend letting the permit expire for a couple reasons: If there is a fault in the system the manufacture could choose not to honor the warranty if the permit was never signed off. Even worse, if there is some kind of damage caused by a faulty piece of equipment (say a fire that destroys the building) the insurance company could use the incomplete (or in some cases non-existent) permit as cause to deny your insurance claim.

If you're in a historic building or area you could actually use that to your advantage by getting someone on the board (or a 3rd party concerned citizen) to state that adding guard rails would detract from the historic look. If the historic board/committee/whatever doesn't like the look of the equipment offer to add screening or some other way to hide the appearance. Offer to install a harness attachment point. Offer to install fold up rails. Point being try to work within the system and come to a solution, *and document your efforts*. If you're still running into walls or disagreeable officials then take your documented efforts to comply to the CMO and/or appeals board.


----------



## ICE (Jan 26, 2022)

California Mechanical Code

303.8.4 Clearance. Appliances shall be installed on a well-drained surface of the roof. At least 6 feet of clearance shall be available between any part of the appliance and the edge of a roof or similar hazard, or rigidly fixed rails, guards, parapets, or other building structures at least 42 inches (1067 mm) in height shall be provided on the exposed side. [NFPA 54:9.4.2.2]


----------



## ICE (Jan 26, 2022)

steveray said:


> Not really a cali guy, but in a like for like replacement, the guardrail should not be required, unless it should have been there the whole time....Technically...


I respectfully disagree with that statement.  For one, I do not have intimate knowledge of past code and if I wanted to know it would start with, "What code was in force when the previous appliance was installed"?  Taken a step further begs the question, "Was the previous appliance the first appliance"?

What other code falls in the same category as, "Didn't do that back when."..?

I have asked the OP for the exact dimension....I am not so strict that I can't bend the code.


----------



## ICE (Jan 26, 2022)

binarytrees said:


> Yeah I measured it,* it's almost 6 feet*. When I contact the city of glendale they kinda give me odd codes.
> 
> The latest guy said 304.3.1.1 Code. I am also in a proposed historic district so I think in the future no more rooftop HVAC even though half the neighborhood has it.
> 
> 1) I couldn't get the guy at the city to say if I had an anchor point if that would suffice, I'll try again tomorrow. It's hard to get clear answers from this crew. Wondering if it even matters and I should let the permit expire.


 


binarytrees said:


> Hi!
> 
> Recently got a heat pump to replace older system and replaced compressor on roof. The compressor on the roof is *about 5-6 feet* from the edge of a flat roof. When the inspector came to verify work he said a guard rail would need to be installed.
> 
> ...



Could you be specific?


----------



## steveray (Jan 26, 2022)

So here is part of the code path...Replacement of stuff is a level 1 alteration..

701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe than its existing condition.

Straight swap, no closer, no less safe...No other mechanical upgrades in a level 1 alteration, at level 2 you get ventilation...

302.3 Existing materials. Materials already in use in a building
in compliance with requirements or approvals in effect at
the time of their erection or installation shall be permitted to
remain in use unless determined by the building official to be
unsafe.

Obviously there is a god clause, but if no one has fallen off the roof in 20 years is it really unsafe?....To me unsafe has to be something you would order corrected regardless of a permit...

UNSAFE. Buildings, structures or equipment that are unsanitary,
or that are deficient due to inadequate means of egress
facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or that constitute a
fire hazard, or in which the structure or individual structural
members meet the definition of “Dangerous,” or that are otherwise
dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that
involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance
shall be deemed unsafe. A vacant structure that is not
secured against entry shall be deemed unsafe.

I can't see calling something that was CO'd "as is" unsafe....


----------



## ICE (Jan 26, 2022)

steveray said:


> So here is part of the code path...Replacement of stuff is a level 1 alteration..
> 
> 701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe than its existing condition.
> 
> ...


That's not code in California.  Nobody has fallen off the roof…or have they….if that’s correct, it matters how?  No CO is issued for mechanical equipment and I would venture to guess that permits are rare.


----------



## binarytrees (Jan 26, 2022)

The edge of the unit is 5.5 feet from the edge of the roof. Center of the unit is 6 feet.


----------



## binarytrees (Jan 26, 2022)

The one thing about that code is that it just calls out 42 inches on height. What is the width of the guard rail? Could I get away with a non-penetrating guard rail rather than messing up my torchdown roof with another penetration.

Maybe it's better to just pay someone to move the unit to the ground and bite the bullet on the space.


----------



## ICE (Jan 26, 2022)

binarytrees said:


> The edge of the unit is 5.5 feet from the edge of the roof. Center of the unit is 6 feet.


Many forum members count rain gutter as part of the building when it comes to the setback from a property line.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 26, 2022)

From what side is the unit serviced? The roof edge side or the opposite. I would look at that also and if the technicians back is to the roof edge the it would be a good idea for some type of fall protection such as an anchor point


----------



## steveray (Jan 26, 2022)

ICE said:


> That's not code in California.  Nobody has fallen off the roof…or have they….if that’s correct, it matters how?  No CO is issued for mechanical equipment and I would venture to guess that permits are rare.


Hence I am no a Cali guy...We CO everything...

(Add) R110.9 Certificate of approval. The building official shall issue a certificate of approval
indicating substantial compliance with the requirements of this code for all completed work that
requires a building permit but does not require a certificate of occupancy. Such work shall include,
but not be limited to: fences greater than 7 feet in height; retaining walls greater than 3 feet in
height; decks; garages; swimming pools; basements and attics converted to habitable space;
electrical, plumbing, and mechanical repairs or alterations.

And I would argue that the HVAC was Shirley CO'd with the original building.....


----------



## binarytrees (Jan 26, 2022)

The unit is services from the opposite side. I believe that was mentioned to the inspector he seemed to not care too much


----------



## binarytrees (Jan 26, 2022)

ICE said:


> Many forum members count rain gutter as part of the building when it comes to the setback from a property line.


It's a flat roof with a small parapet ( Spanish style ) so no rain gutters on that portion of the house. Yeah I'm off by basically half a foot. I'm wondering if I can get someone to write an exception here since this was a replacement.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 26, 2022)

binarytrees said:


> The unit is services from the opposite side. I believe that was mentioned to the inspector he seemed to not care too much


He has a boss and I believe if the service side is opposite then the work area for the technician is more than 6' away from the roof drop off  and that meets the intent of the code.


----------



## binarytrees (Jan 27, 2022)

I wonder if I can just get something like this modular and be done with it. https://www.unistrutohio.com/osha-compliant-guardrail-safety-roof-railing-section


----------



## e hilton (Jan 27, 2022)

From a practical perspective, that’s not going to work.  It’s designed for commercial usevwhere they have a place to store it, and the installer has a place to tie off during install and take down. Where at your house will you have a place to store it?  Maybe leave it laying flat on the roof?   Commercial units get serviced frequently, especially when there is mor3 than one on the roof.  You have one unit … unlikely that you would need the guard rail more than once a year.  

I think you would be better to convince the inspector you don’t need a rail, or install a proper tie-off point.


----------



## Genduct (Feb 5, 2022)

binarytrees said:


> Hi!
> 
> Recently got a heat pump to replace older system and replaced compressor on roof. The compressor on the roof is about 5-6 feet from the edge of a flat roof. When the inspector came to verify work he said a guard rail would need to be installed.
> 
> ...


Ask you Code Official if sinage and a tie off for someone to use Fall Protection would meet the Intent of the Code


----------



## Ed Cooke (Feb 15, 2022)

So, as I read these comments, many have some code references correct, others need to read or reread their current codes. 
As a short answer, a new installation is subject to the current code, period! No where does it state you have to like it, but you should be following it. I mean this, do you intend to mean the worker safety is not important because the previous RTU was installed without that code provision? Sure hope not.

Next, some of you need to quit referencing the IRC. California does not recognize that, or the IPC or IMC for these installations, as the state adopted code. If you are in Ca., you should already know to use the Ca. adopted versions.

Next, the CMC notes 6' from the roofs edge for clearance, accessibility, otherwise guards must be installed @ 42" in height. Please note, nobody mentioned CMC 304.2, which is probably most prevalent in Residential locations, roofs 4/12 or more must have a level platform at least 30" by 30" on the service side, but if it is more than 6' from the roofs edge, that's all. (NOTE: The CBC calls out 10' from the roof's edge)

(NOTE: Guards for protection and code compliance are found where? Yes, quite possibly the Building Code, specifically CBC 1015.2 which also calls for structural elements in 1607.8. Then look at 1015.6, Mechanical equip shows you must have guards, but then it adds an exception for "Personal fall anchorage connectors") That seems like the most efficient and economical solution. It helps the fall protection while keeping the aesthetics of the roof or neighborhood in mind.
I could see where most jurisdictions would accept the anchorage exception, since it is in the Building Code. Hope this assists your current and future work!!


----------



## e hilton (Feb 15, 2022)

Thank you for your valuable comments.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 16, 2022)

ICE said:


> California Mechanical Code
> 
> 303.8.4 Clearance. Appliances shall be installed on a well-drained surface of the roof. At least 6 feet of clearance shall be available between any part of the appliance and the edge of a roof or similar hazard, or rigidly fixed rails, guards, parapets, or other building structures at least 42 inches (1067 mm) in height shall be provided on the exposed side. [NFPA 54:9.4.2.2]


As noted in ICE's post it is not a CA thing, it is a NFPA 54:9.4.2.2, thing. *Add Guards or relocate the unit.*


----------



## ICE (Feb 16, 2022)

mark handler said:


> As noted in ICE's post it is not a CA thing, it is a NFPA 54:9.4.2.2, thing. *Add Guards or relocate the unit.*


Mark,
The unit is six inches less than six feet away from the edge of a flat roof.  The unit is serviced on the side away from the edge of a flat roof.  The unit was where it was previously. Moving the unit will be costly.  Tell the inspector to give the customer a break.


----------



## e hilton (Feb 16, 2022)

ICE said:


> Tell the inspector to give the customer a break.


This from the guy who is no longer on the badge side.  :}


----------



## Genduct (Feb 16, 2022)

Ed Cooke said:


> So, as I read these comments, many have some code references correct, others need to read or reread their current codes.
> As a short answer, a new installation is subject to the current code, period! No where does it state you have to like it, but you should be following it. I mean this, do you intend to mean the worker safety is not important because the previous RTU was installed without that code provision? Sure hope not.
> 
> Next, some of you need to quit referencing the IRC. California does not recognize that, or the IPC or IMC for these installations, as the state adopted code. If you are in Ca., you should already know to use the Ca. adopted versions.
> ...


You mention NEW INSTALL,  I believe this is a Replacement Roof Top Unit (or let's assume it is a replacement for this question) Does CA  require a replacement to include a Guardrail? 
 I like the Fall Protection approach that OSHA would require for a Tech to even service let alone replace the Roof Top Unit that close to the roof edge


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 3, 2022)

code allows for alternate methods and means,


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2022)

The particulars of this case indicate that the inspector has some time to go before he will be worthy.


----------



## Genduct (Mar 3, 2022)

steveray said:


> So here is part of the code path...Replacement of stuff is a level 1 alteration..
> 
> 701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe than its existing condition.
> 
> ...


In addition the quote is 303.8.4 Clearance. Appliances shall be installed on a well-drained surface of the roof.

This is a Remove and Replace NOT Construct / Install  Sounds like a major Difference 
Another aspect would have been an Engineer's Review to see if NEW Unit is OK for Install

Also OSHA is probably the real source for these requirements


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Another aspect would have been an Engineer's Review to see if NEW Unit is OK for Inst


Our determination has been that under 400 pounds gets a pass on the engineering.


----------

