# No building codes?



## khsmith55 (Oct 18, 2011)

Going to create a fire storm here. Eight Counties in Colorado HAVE never had a Building Code, bad or good? Residential: live and let live, most residential construction is empirical and works. Commercial, most lending institutions require an Architects seal on requests for payment. The I-Codes are getting out of hand, more of a nanny code as opposed to a LIFE SAFETY Code.


----------



## cda (Oct 18, 2011)

maybe:

good for developer/ builder???

bad for building owner???


----------



## brudgers (Oct 18, 2011)

Does the state Fire Marshal have jurisdiction and adopted codes (they do here)?


----------



## steveray (Oct 18, 2011)

khsmith55 said:
			
		

> Going to create a fire storm here. Eight Counties in Colorado HAVE never had a Building Code, bad or good? Residential: live and let live, most residential construction is empirical and works. Commercial, most lending institutions require an Architects seal on requests for payment. The I-Codes are getting out of hand, more of a nanny code as opposed to a LIFE SAFETY Code.


I have seen enough MAJOR issues with stamped plans that would not have me slepping soundly at night without some other supervision.....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 18, 2011)

41 cities and 4 counties are authorized to enforce building codes in MT. The state does not issue permits or inspect 4 plexes and less except for electrical and plumbing.

So it is not uncommon


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 18, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> I have seen enough MAJOR issues with stamped plans that would not have me slepping soundly at night without some other supervision.....


I agree completely. Not every DP is as knowledgeable as brudgers.


----------



## permitguy (Oct 18, 2011)

CO does not have a state fire marshal.  The state division of fire safety basically enforces codes for the construction of new public schools and state facilities.

I wouldn't be suprised if a study found that the majority of the country -by area, not population -did not have building codes enforced.

As for the "nanny code" talk, in my experience it's largely offered by uninformed people who see the thickness of the book and freak out.  I'm not saying things are perfect with the I-codes, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## ICE (Oct 18, 2011)

In the early 70's I worked in residential construction in Colorado Springs.  I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about inspectors.  The guy that owned one company I worked for walked around with a 44 magnum on his hip.  He drank a lot and had a bad temper.  Actually, he was an as$hole with a gun and a bottle always.

I remember telling Curly that one day someone crazier than him was going to take that magnum away from him and beat him to death with it.  As it turned out a laborer ran over the blue room with him in it.  Used Curly's own truck to do it too.  Didn't kill him but I never saw him again.

He pretty much had it coming.  One day the laborer was sitting in the blue room and Curly dropped several cherry bombs down the vent.  After that Curly would use a sh!ter way away from us.  He would leave his F350 4x4 running with the door open.  I watched the kid run across the site and jump in the truck.  Curly got a surprise.  One minute he's playing with his magnum and he's under his truck the next.

Those were the days.  Contractors would approach me during breakfast looking to hire carpenters.


----------



## Keystone (Oct 18, 2011)

With all the pics you post and if your still in Colorado, heck yeah they need building codes:/

Yes the I-Codes have lost the intent and are well beyond the scope of life safety but some type of minimal oversight should be in order.

I would be interested to know if that county has more or less building issues than the surrounding counties after a decade or greater of use.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 18, 2011)

I hope he's not in CO with those pics. CO does have statewide plumbing and electrical codes. But, yes, there is a lot of square miles not under building/mechanical. Go figure, don't license the guys building the structure, or the ones that could be pumping carbon monoxide into it.


----------



## ICE (Oct 18, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I hope he's not in CO with those pics.


Nobody wants to think that I could be anywhere near their area but I bet I can find it where you are too.


----------



## BSSTG (Oct 19, 2011)

Greetings all,

Interesting topic. Mere moments ago we had similar discussions in our office regarding the amount of regs etc and how it's really getting out of hand in many regards. We are officially on the 2011 NEC here in Tx now and I've got real reservations about some of it. Same with IBC and IRC.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not going to be too long before we are requiring doghouses to be sprinkled!

Byron


----------



## permitguy (Oct 19, 2011)

What's interesting to me is the way so many think that more pages always means more restrictions.  Many times sections are made longer to add clarity about intent (eliminating common arguments and saving us time).  Other times it is taking something that used to be prohibited outright and creating regulations to allow it.  For example, I recently had to refer to the 1970 UBC on a question over special (revolving) doors used for egress.  Guess what?  The 1970 UBC didn't allow it.  The section on "special doors" was one or two sentences that basically said "these can't be used for required egress".  The IBC allows this, with conditions; therefore, the 2009 IBC has several paragraphs written about special doors that the 1970 UBC did not have, but the IBC is actually less restrictive.

Without specifics on where things have gotten out of hand, improvements will never be made.  So, what is it that makes the IBC more of a nanny code than the UBC?  I'm not saying the statement is incorrect, I'm just saying it needs to be supported.


----------



## GCtony (Oct 19, 2011)

The main reason I stop by this site is to become more educated. There are some posts that can fire me up, the kind when I see "big Brother" going too far (Icodes) Or a AHJ, looking to "burn" someone to get their way.  (see the pool fence thread) It's really refreshing seeing some of you positioned on the other side of the fence also thinking it's gone too far and the intend is no longer about protecting peoples lives and well being. Back in the day, I worked (and learned) construction in an area that didn't have a building code office.  Most construction people took on the responsability of building it right. The boss, came out to the jobs and inspected our work, if it wasn't right, we fixed it. After all, it was is name and reputation on the line.  When we didn't know something, we asked someone who did know, like an Architect of Engineer. I'm proud to say. I think we built it better 25 years ago than some of the trash I see being built today.  However I do think public buildings are MUCH safer today, from a fire and life safety standpoint but that seems to come from the old BOCA, NEC days.

From my perspective,  I think the Icodes are trying to address every condition that could come up. When you start getting "incidental" items in a book, the important big items can start to loose some credibility with the end users (the tax payers).  Stop coming out with a new version every 3 years, DP's and contractors can't keep up. If a AHJ see's something that needs to be adressed in their community, let them do that locally.  I would love to see the AHJ start using the Icodes as a guide and not an answer to everything. Allow the local code officials to have some flexabily to use what works best for them and their community. Of couse we would need to get ride of all the lawyers first!

Back to the orginal post....Are the DP's and Contractors in places without codes better than places that live and die by the codes?  Maybe.  Have DP's and contractors gotten lazy when you have code officials counting every nail, screw and lightbulb?  Definatly!


----------



## Yankee (Oct 19, 2011)

Technology is advancing so rabidly, if we want to "permit" or accept/allow the use of new products, we need to have regs on how the use is appropriate. Could be ICodes, could be ANSI, but there has to be some formal documentation to turn to, for us, AND for the user.


----------



## Msradell (Oct 19, 2011)

It's not only building codes that have lost sight of their original purpose in many cases.  There are many NFPA regulations that apply to fire department equipment and while they are not mandatory many places feel they are.  Recently even FDNY (the New York City fire department) which is the largest in the world has begun not complying with many of the NFPA regulations.  The reason?  They just don't make sense and they feel like many others that the NFPA is just trying to justify its existence!  There are many examples they can be cited in the building codes that form along the same lines.  It's not saying that some types of codes are not needed but the number and complexity of them seems to be becoming ridiculous even for those who were trying to enforce them!


----------



## permitguy (Oct 20, 2011)

Sixteen posts into this thread, and still nobody has posted a specific example to illustrate their point.  If there are "many examples that can be cited", then cite them.  That's how debate occurs.  That's how change occurs.

Do you all vote, or do you just complain about the poor job others did in voting?


----------



## codeworks (Oct 20, 2011)

there are lots of places(?) that don't adopt/enforce codeds, but it  is less common. i recently relocated from vermont to texas, in vermont there were 5 "local jurisictions" that looked at residential work, all "small cities (40,000) or less. that's the population. very rural, and independant. the state regulates public buildings, but when it comes to private residential the sentiment is " i don't want some a@#hole from the capital down in montpelier trying to tell me what to do on my own property". legislature is hard to move there,for years we tried to change the electrical licensing rules to make it a requirement that only licensed electricians could wire houses, it' never leaves committee. you wind up with licensed guys competing with any old handyman for work, hang a level in the back window of you're truck and you're in business. you wind up with a mess. if you don't have the right selling points, the fiqures (fire deaths, insurance savings, importance with respect to safety, child safety etc, ) it may not happen. then, there are places where they've had codes for 30 years, but no real inspectors, so you get c#@P work and installations, it takes time


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 20, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Sixteen posts into this thread, and still nobody has posted a specific example to illustrate their point. If there are "many examples that can be cited", then cite them. That's how debate occurs. That's how change occurs.Do you all vote, or do you just complain about the poor job others did in voting?


Here is one

2009 IMC

1101.10 Locking access port caps.

Refrigerant circuit access ports located outdoors shall be fitted with locking-type tamper-resistant caps.

Just because a few huffers died from huffing freon. It was an emotional reaction to adopt this code requirement


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 20, 2011)

How about this one

[F] 903.2.8 Group R.

An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area .

There are many single room cabins in campgrounds such as a KOA or single story motels with 4, 8 or 16 rooms that have direct access to the outside from every room that makes this requirement excessive.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Oct 20, 2011)

Here's one.

IBC's Chapter 13 referencing the IECC.

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

GPE


----------



## permitguy (Oct 20, 2011)

> Here is one2009 IMC
> 
> 1101.10 Locking access port caps.
> 
> ...


I agree, especially since these are only available from one manufacturer and the tool to remove them can be purchased on ebay for less than most kids' weekly allowance.  The membership really dropped the ball on letting this get voted in.



> How about this one[F] 903.2.8 Group R.
> 
> An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area .
> 
> There are many single room cabins in campgrounds such as a KOA or single story motels with 4, 8 or 16 rooms that have direct access to the outside from every room that makes this requirement excessive.


Has an exception ever been debated during code hearings for these cabins or small motels with direct access to the outside?  Anyone here could propose the change.  Given such a small percentage of these types of occupancies being constructed (compared to other R occupancies), I can see where this could have been an oversight.

I understand the sentiment, though I'm not in complete agreement that this is excessive.  In a single room cabin, the occupants would be sleeping in the compartment where the fire originates.  The environment can easily become untenable from the time a sleeping person is made aware of the problem (smoke detector activation) to the time it takes them to react (including waking their kids who slept through the smoke detector activation) and get to safety.  Zero visibility can occur in a matter of seconds in such a small compartment, and this is also an unfamilar environment to the occupants.


----------



## Frank (Oct 20, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Here is one2009 IMC
> 
> 1101.10 Locking access port caps.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Frank (Oct 20, 2011)

Here are a few more

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.

For a sidewalk accross the front of a strip shopping center or other accessible route adjacent to and parallel to a building

A117.1-2003 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.

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?

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.


----------



## permitguy (Oct 20, 2011)

> 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 (Oct 20, 2011)

> 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 (Oct 20, 2011)

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 (Oct 20, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				permitguy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				permitguy said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 20, 2011)

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

give me a break


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 20, 2011)

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

amen


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 20, 2011)

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 (Oct 20, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 20, 2011)

> 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 (Oct 21, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 21, 2011)

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 (Oct 21, 2011)

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 (Oct 21, 2011)

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 (Oct 21, 2011)

"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 (Oct 21, 2011)

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 (Oct 21, 2011)

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 (Oct 21, 2011)

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

BS


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 21, 2011)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 21, 2011)

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


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 22, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 22, 2011)

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 (Oct 22, 2011)

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 (Oct 22, 2011)

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 (Oct 22, 2011)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Oct 22, 2011)

Awesome discussion!  Everyday I encounter violations of codes I either don't understand or don't agree with.  Some of them I think I understand and fully know the intent of and just plain disagree with so I might "not see" the violation.  I know, not what I'm paid for but at the end of the day I think it helps me keep my job and if I keep my job I will be around to stop a real violation, one that really would impact life safety.  One of the problems I have though is this question;  What if I'm wrong?  What if I think I understand something and therefore don't like it and don't see it and it turns out to a completely valid code requirement.  I am very careful to go by the book as much as possible, not so much that I fail people for pin head code violations but at least to the extent that I will try to educate them for the next time around.  I think picking and choosing which codes to enforce based on what we like or understand is a slippery slope though I admit I do it to some extent as I'm sure everyone does.  Speaking back to the areas without codes, I have recently started enforcing codes for a large county with 100,000 residents, they have never had codes before.  I see both sides of this argument.  Lots of guys doing great work, some not.  Lots of guys that do great work can still be unaware of some basic life safety provisions though.  In the end the code could sure be better but I would hate to see what could happen if it wasn't around.  As a former GC I will also say this;  consistancy is one of the biggest problems GC's face.  The only way I have figured out to be consistant from jurisdiction to jurisdiction is if we all tried to go by the book.  If I modify a code to suit what I like and the next city over does it another way the contractors problems really add up quickly.  Good, consistant education would be great.  Some states like NC have a division of engineering which oversees and administers to the code officials and it really helps them stay together.  Be great if we all had something like that.  Short of that forums like this are good too.


----------



## Sifu (Oct 22, 2011)

One other thing. the energy code has gone nuts!  That is one area I just can't get on board with.  Maybe my bias against the dirt people is showing.  Thats one flavor of the koolaid I just can't stomach.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 24, 2011)

A lot of stuff in the code is to make up for lax parents, or fear of lawsuits because the code didn't do enough to protect someone - window bars, guard rails behind fixed benches, tamperproof electrical outlets, 4" spacing on guard rails, etc.

We got stuck with the toilets you have to flush more than once because of an energy policy act in the early 1990s.  The fed's reasoning (?) was that energy would be saved if less water had to be pumped.  It didn't matter how well they flushed.

Energy regulations seem to be the most complex.  The NEC requires a certain minimum watts per square foot for lighting, but the energy code makes you almost list every lamp to show that you are actually using less than half that amount.  Heat gain/heat loss calculations and ASHRAE ventilation standards are also complex and aim at an unrealistic level of precision.

On the other hand, I agree with the inspector who wanted an original A/E signature.  It's too easy to copy a signed seal and paste it onto another set of prints then pdf it so you can't tell it's pasted on.


----------



## iggentleman (Oct 26, 2011)

I wonder how not having a building code affects their legal system. Normally a building code would provide something of a safe harbor for the building designers. Does that mean that there is no limitation on liability for anything that might go wrong with a building, whether it was done to code or not?


----------



## Mark K (Oct 28, 2011)

From a professional liability perspective if you have building regulations they can simplify your discussions with your client and provide a safe harbor in many cases.  The problem is that if the design does not comply with the code there is a presumption of negligence.

If there are no building regulations there is more of a likelyhood that you will have a disagreement but if you do it is harder to prove negligence.  Even when there is no formal code compliance with the model code will provide the design professional a lot of protection.

If code enforcement is lax you are more likely to have a contractor who does his own thing which means you will have more problems which increases the likelyhood of litigation.  When there is litigation you have problems even if you did everything right.


----------

