Best New Energy Code Idea–City of Richland’s Approach (IECC)

Posted on February 11, 2011 by admin
 505 Swift Boulevard, P.O. Box 190, Richland, WA 99352Telephone 509-942-7390, Fax 509-942-5666
    www.ci.richland.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Permits & Inspections Division

840 Northgate Drive

Richland, WA  99352

Telephone 509-942-7794

Fax 509-942-7764

 January 5, 2011

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

City of Richland approves use of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code

The City of Richland is hereby approving the use of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as an approved alternate to the 2009 Washington State Energy Code (WSEC) during an interim period while the State Building Code Council (SBCC) resolves pending lawsuits and other problems with the adoption of the 2009 WSEC.  The 2009 IECC may be used for residential or commercial buildings.  When used for commercial buildings, the City encourages the use of the supplemental and coordinated “International Green Construction Code” (IGCC) which was adopted by the City in July 2010 as a reference code.  The City of Richland is implementing this temporary policy for at least one year, until January 2012, to allow builders, developers, architects, and engineers, enough time reasonably to use and apply the 2009 IECC to their various projects, both residential and commercial.  Since residential builders have been anxious to know what energy requirements will apply to new homes, we are excerpting some requirements of the 2009 IECC below.  We encourage builders to obtain a copy of the 2009 IECC and peruse other detailed requirements.  The City also strongly encourages residential builders to investigate and use the “Built Green” program offered by the Home Builder’s Association of the Tri-Cities, as this program is an excellent method of achieving high energy efficiency and sustainability in our community.

City of Richland is in Climate Zone 5B (5-Dry) requiring the following insulation, window, and door energy-efficiency values for RESIDENTIAL construction.

Table 402.1.1 from 2009 IECC (Residential)

Window U-value Door U-value Skylight U-value Ceiling Insulation Wall Insulation* Floor Insulation Slab Insulation
 0.35  0.35  0.60  R-38  R-21  R-30 R-10 for 2ft.

*Note:  Since the IECC only requires R-20 and R-21 has been the common practice for many years, the City will continue with the R-21 common practice for wall insulation.

Concerning the air sealing requirements, the 2009 WSEC created controversy with the mandated blower door testing requirement.  The 2009 IECC offers two options, EITHER the blower door test OR visual inspection by the City.  Since the City has done this visual inspection for many, many years, we will continue to do so without increasing permit fees in order to promote affordable, yet energy efficient, residential construction.

402.4.2.2 Visual inspection option. Building envelope tightness and insulation installation shall be considered acceptable when the items listed in Table 402.4.2, applicable to the method of construction, are field verified.  Where required by the code official, an approved party independent from the installer of the insulation shall inspect the air barrier and insulation.

The City has a detailed justification for this temporary, alternate code approval that includes many varied reasons.  You may request a listing of these reasons through the Request for Public Information process.  We readily admit that there may be things in the 2009 IECC that may be different than common practices here in the Tri-Cities, and so we ask everyone for their help in identifying any requirements that appear unusual.  We can then discuss them with you and figure out what to do specifically or generally.

Thank you to all who have helped in coming to this policy decision on energy codes for the coming year.  Special thanks to the local builders and suppliers for their patience while the City researched these energy code issues.

Kevin K. Rex, AIA, CBO

City of Richland Building Official

Final version (not included in the letter of January 5, 2011) of justification for using 2009 IECC instead of the 2009 WSEC

1. During the WSEC revision cycle, the SBCC tried to reach a goal of 30% energy savings over the 2006 WSEC. They fell well short of that goal, somewhere in the range of only 15% better than the 2006 WSEC with their 2009 WSEC. The 2009 IECC meets this range, being approximately 15% better overall in energy saving features for both commercial and residential construction, as verified by at least two independent sources (see “Meeting the 2030 Challenge Through the Building Codes” from Architecture 2030 and the graph entitled “LEED, ASHRAE, ICC Comparison” from ICC), while still meeting Federal guidelines for mechanical equipment efficiencies (see item #4 below).

2. The SBCC did not follow important legal requirements for adopting the 2009 WSEC as noted by Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (see WAC 51-11 published by the Office of the Code Reviser through the following web-link http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=51-11-0101) which caused the building industry and code officials many concerns during the past year. In June of 2010, Governor Christine Gregoire requested that the SBCC temporarily suspend the implementation of the 2009 WSEC until April 2011 so that the SBCC could correct the adopting deficiencies. The SBCC did not do so during the temporary suspension, but only overrode the governor’s request and made an even earlier implementation to January 2011, thus not allowing jurisdictions (let alone the building industry) time to even understand the new version of the WSEC.

3. A motion by Mr. Don Jordan from a May 7, 2009 meeting of the SBCC, which was unanimously approved by them at that meeting, was never implemented in the final version of the 2009 WSEC, creating confusion in the WSEC about what energy provisions apply to duplexes, townhouses, and live-work units. The 2009 IECC is coordinated with the other International codes to resolve this conflict.

4. The “pick list” included in the new Chapter 9 of the 2009 WSEC requires HVAC and plumbing equipment to have efficiency standards higher than federal government standards. Not only is this prohibited by Federal law (a prohibition set in place to allow manufacturer’s of HVAC and plumbing equipment to have a set standard for design and manufacturing nationwide), but the practicality of obtaining such equipment is difficult and expensive at best and sometimes such equipment is not available at all for residential use. The 2009 IECC has received Department of Energy approval as equivalent to the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 Standard and use of the 2009 IECC was endorsed in various 2009 economic stimulus bills of the Federal government.

 

5. RCW 19.27A allows local jurisdictions to adopt a different (equivalent) energy code for commercial buildings, and the 2009 IECC together with the 2009 IGCC (adopted by the City as a non-mandatory reference code) have energy efficiency requirements that are at least comparable and equivalent to the 2009 WSEC and possibly exceed that standard. (See item #1 above).

6. RCW 19.27A specifically adopts the 2006 WSEC for residential buildings, and states that such is both a minimum and a maximum standard, implying that a very strict legal standard must be used when changing that code. Such strict legal standards were not followed by the SBCC as they moved through the adoption cycle for the 2009 WSEC. Since RMC Title 21 relied heavily on the SBCC to adopt properly the state building code by allowing continual, automatic City adoption of any state amendments and codes, the City of Richland now has an obligation, a public duty, to take some temporary action in finding an energy code that meets federal requirements as well as provides for increased energy efficiency, especially for new residential buildings within the City of Richland.

Posted in Building Official, Building Permit, Code Official, Construction Code, Energy Code | Leave a comment

2009 WSEC; Petition Filed Under RCW 34.05.003; to SBCC

Posted on February 11, 2011 by admin

 

The Office of Financial Management (OFM) has adopted this form for members of the public who wish to petition a state agency to adopt, amend, or repeal an administrative rule (regulation). Full consideration will be given to a petitioner’s request.

Please complete the following:
PETITIONER’S NAME (PLEASE PRINT)       

John P Neff, CBO

 TELEPHONE NUMBER (INCLUDE AREA CODE)
STREET ADDRESS 

Submitted with Petition to SBCC                    

PO BOX NUMBER CITY STATE ZIP CODE
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINSTERING THE RULE

WA State Building Code Council, as authorized by RCW 19.27 and RCW 19.27A
Please submit completed and signed form to the “Rules Coordinator” at the appropriate state agency. The agency will contact you within 60 days.

Submitted to Tim Nogler, Rules Coordinator, SBCC.

 
Check all that apply below and explain on the back of this form with examples. Whenever possible, attach suggested language. You may attach other pages if needed.
 1. NEW: I am requesting that a new WAC be developed.  [Not implemented]
 2. AMEND: I am requesting a change to existing WAC.  [Not implemented]
 3. REPEAL: I am requesting existing WAC 51-11, WA State Energy Code 2009 Edition, be removed/repealed.
I believe this rule should be changed or repealed because (check one or more):
[Author’s Note:  this form has been modified slightly to strictly conform with the items noted in RCW 34.05.330 for specific items to be “addressed, among other concerns [RCW 34.05.330.(4)]”
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (a) Is the rule authorized?

 In the adoption of 19.27.160, “The state building code council shall evaluate and consider adoption of the international energy conservation code [IECC (added by author for clarity)] in Washington state in place of the existing state energy code.”  Further, in Section 5, Subsection (2), the Legislature explicitly stated, “The council shall adopt state energy codes from 2013 through 2031 that incrementally move towards achieving the seventy percent reduction in annual net energy consumption as specified in subsection (1) of this section. The council shall report its progress by December 31, 2012, and every three years thereafter.”  It is very clear from the wording of the legislation that the Legislature’s action intended first that the SBCC would consider the IECC for adoption, and that the adoption of the new codes would occur starting in the year 2013.  From this legislation, which replaces the equivalent sections of the previous RCW 19.27A, there was no statutory authority to consider any new code prior to 2013, and in that consideration, the IECC needed to be considered to be adopted.  The adoption of the current WSEC by the SBCC is in violation of the legislation addressing this energy code issue in two ways:

  1.  The SBCC lacked the authority to consider new codes under the newly-revised legislative authority until 2013; and
  2. The SBCC was directed by the legislature to use the time from the passage of the legislation to 2013 to review and consider adoption of the IECC.

 
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (b) Is the rule needed?

 The rule is not needed, as it is not authorized by statute, and since the Legislature clearly directed the SBCC to consider the IECC, which is the energy code endorsed and promoted by the U.S. Department of Energy, for compliance with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (c) Does the rule conflict with or duplicate other federal, state or local laws?

 The adoption of the current WAC rule adopting the WSEC clearly conflicts with 42 USC 6297 (f) (3) (a through g).  This will be addressed further, in detail, in Item (i), below.
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (d) Do alternatives to the rule exist that will serve the same purpose at less cost?

 The adoption of the IECC will produce the same energy efficiencies at less cost.  The adoption of the IECC is endorsed by the U.S. Dept. of Energy.  Equal to the efficiencies gained in the actual construction of structures; the answer to this question has to address the costs to local governments to train to the new code; to purchase the new codes; to gain proficiency in plan review of new plans submitted for permits; for inspection of the construction in the field; for training of the registered design professionals (home designers, architects, etc.); and training of the contractors who will have to comply with this new rule for construction. 

 In the adoption of this rule, there is no written evidence that the SBCC ever considered any of those training or implementation costs; let alone the costs of the comparison of the implementation of the IECC as currently written by ICC compared to the adoption of the WSEC as they proposed it for adoption. 
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (e) Does the rule apply differently to public and private entities?

 (Not applicable to this submittal.)
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (f) Does the rule serve the purpose for which it was adopted?

 In a very narrow application of these words, the adopted rule may barely serve the “purpose for which it was adopted.”  However, in review of the rule and the legislation which authorized such rule adoption, it clearly does not serve that purpose.  The rule, as adopted, does not “review and consider” adoption of the IECC, and does not consider the vast amount of work needed to review to codes to get to the Legislative goal of adoption of a new code by 2013.  Further, there is no defined support system in place for the adoption of the code, such as exists for the IECC, through the U.S. DOE, Building Energy Code Program, for support of the IECC.  For the IECC, the U.S DOE provides a vast support system for plan review, inspection, and code interpretations.  In the State of WA, there is the out-dated W.S.U. Energy Extension office supported by vested interests for keeping the current code in place; and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance—again supported by those with the vested interest of keeping the current code in place.

 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (g) Are the costs imposed by the rule unreasonable?

 The costs imposed by the adopted rule are clearly unreasonable, for local government who will be tasked for implementation; and for contractors who will be required to implement.  The WA Administrative Procedures Act, RCW 34.05, requires that the adoption agency, in Section .320 (j), to prepare and file a  small business economic impact statement prepared under chapter 19.85 RCW, or an explanation for why the agency did not prepare the statement.  The SBCC received a letter from the Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee stating clearly that the SBCC did not comply with that requirement and did not provide the required economic impact statement.  RCW 19.85 defines a small business as “any business entity, including a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity, that is owned and operated independently from all other businesses, and that has fifty or fewer employees.”  This definition applies to the majority of all construction contractors within the State of WA.

 Further, the implementation of the adopted rule falls squarely on the shoulders of local government building safety departments (divisions).  There has been no thought given in the adoption of the rule or the adoption of the effective date, of the impact on local government.  Local building departments have been decimated by the current economy and the current downturn of building permits.  The training budgets and total staff have been reduced to the lowest levels in years.  Yet, the adoption of this new rule falls on those departments to enforce.  There has been no system developed by the SBCC for training, funding, staffing, or other appropriate means to assure the enforcement and implementation of the rule.

 Even further, the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors stated clearly that the “economy needed to rebound,” prior to implementation of the new code.  The action taken by the SBCC was contrary to the Governor’s own request.
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (h) Is the rule clearly and simply stated?

 No.  The adopted rules are not clear as they do not correlate with the legislatively-mandated building codes specified in RCW 19.27.031.  To provide a rule that has been developed in the same manner as the other mandated codes, and is coordinated and correlated with them—to provide that clarity—would require the SBCC to review and adopt the IECC as noted in ESSSB 5854.
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (i) Is the rule different than a federal law applicable to the same activity or subject matter without adequate justification?

 This adoption of the rule is in direct conflict with 42 USC 6297(f)(3)(A-G).  This issue was raised to the SBCC numerous times during the development of the rule, and was ignored.  As this code was adopted in violation of this federal law, the entire adoption is in question.
 RCW 34.05.330 (4) (j) Was the rule adopted according to all applicable provisions of law?

 No.  The adopted rule was not adopted in accordance with RCW 34.05.320, for development and adoption of a small business economic impact statement, even though the SBCC is clearly required to do so by RCW 34.05 and RCW 19.85; and because of the direct request from the Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee to do so [RCW 19.85.030(1)(b)].

 The adopted rule was not adopted in accordance with the SBCC’s own Bylaws, requiring that only designated TAG Committee members vote on code proposals.  The code proposals were routinely adopted by a voice vote of all the people in the room, whether TAG members or not, as the TAG Chair insisted on that procedure, even though in violation of the SBCC’s own rules. 

 
 Other (1) Was a needs assessment of training of local inspectors, plan reviewers, registered design professionals and contractors completed prior to implementation?

 As noted above, the SBCC did not develop any needs assessment of the training requirements of all of the affected parties.  As such, there has been very little training of those persons.  What has occurred was through WSU Energy Extension Service for residential applications, such as blower-door testing, duct testing, etc. 
 Other (2) Did the agency develop a well thought out implementation plan prior to adopting and later setting an effective date?

 No.  The SBCC has not shown any development of how this adopted rule is to be implemented by local governments, registered design professionals, contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, homeowners, or any other party affected by its adoption.  The current action of putting the code into effect on January 1, 2011, shows a complete disregard for those considerations.
 Other (3) Did the agency reply to the Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee as requested?  If not, what implications have arisen from the agencies adoptive action?

 No.  RCW 19.85.030, Agency rules — Small business economic impact statement — Reduction of costs imposed by rule.

(1)    In the adoption of a rule under chapter 34.05 RCW, an agency shall prepare a small business economic impact statement: (a) If the proposed rule will impose more than minor costs on businesses in an industry; or (b) if requested to do so by a majority vote of the joint administrative rules review committee within forty-five days of receiving the notice of proposed rule making under RCW 34.05.320.   

The answer given in public by the SBCC for not doing so was that the SBCC is “Executive Branch,” and the JARRC is “Legislative Branch,” so they were not bound to do so.  That action is in clear violation of the requirements of law.  The answer provided did not comply with the requirements of RCW 19.85, or the JAARC’s request.
 Other (4)  Local Government’s Implementation Dilemma:

 The adoption of this rule, in violation of several different sections of RCW statutes as noted above and the SBCC’s own Bylaws and procedures puts local government in a very precarious situation.  The administrators of the building departments, the Building Officials, are first and foremost bound to enforce and uphold law.  The enforcement and implementation of a rule that was adopted in violation of statutory and rule requirement exposes local government to legal challenge.  Local government cannot either legally, or ethically, enforce a rule that was adopted in violation of State and Federal laws and adopted rules.  To do so would put those local governments at risk.
  Other (5)  WAC 51-11-0701, Reference Standard 33, and all references to it contained within WAC 51-11,  is not authorized by law.

 RCW 19.27.074 is the first statute containing the statutory Duties of the SBCC.  In Subsection (1)(c), the statute states that the Council, “As required by the legislature, [may] develop and adopt any codes relating to buildings.”  Further, in RCW 19.27A, the SBCC is given the authority to, “(1) The state building code council shall adopt rules to be known as the Washington state energy code as part of the state building code.
(2) The council shall follow the legislature’s standards set forth in this section to adopt rules to be known as the Washington state energy code. The Washington state energy code shall be designed to: [remainder omitted from this document]. . . . 

 There is no statutory authority for the Council to develop a “licensing,” “certification,” or special inspection testing program for the energy code, which RS 33 essentially creates.  In fact, the beginning chapter of the energy code, WAC 51-11, clearly defers to the International Building Code (IBC) for requirements for inspections and states that the inspections be a part of the requirements of that code.  Further, the IBC, as adopted by RCW 19.27.031, provides specifically for all special inspections within the scope of the IBC and leaves that responsibility and authority up to the local building official to determine the requirements and then administer. 

The adoption of these rules is clearly intended to remove authority from the local governments, which under the WA Constitution, SECTION 11. POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS, it states, “Any county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.”  RCW 19.27. 19.27.050. Enforcement, states, “The state building code required by this chapter shall be enforced by the counties and cities.”  There is no statutory authority for the SBCC to adopt any rule removing any of the power of the local building official under the administrative portion of the code  [WAC 51-04-030 (5), Exception]. 

Further, and perhaps more importantly, RS-33 is not a “standard,” because  it was not developed under the procedures of a nationally recognized standards developing organization (SDO), and cannot be assumed to be  a standard. Examples of two consensus processes by SDOs are ASTM and ANSI. Further, OMB 119, defining for the Federal use of Standards, defines a Standard as,

What Are Voluntary, Consensus Standards?

For purposes of this policy, “voluntary consensus standards” are standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, both domestic and international. These standards include provisions requiring that owners of relevant intellectual property have agreed to make that intellectual property available on a non-discriminatory, royalty-free or reasonable royalty basis to all interested parties. For purposes of this Circular, “technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies” is an equivalent term.

(1) “Voluntary consensus standards bodies” are domestic or international organizations which plan, develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary consensus standards using agreed-upon procedures. For purposes of this Circular, “voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies,” as cited in Act, is an equivalent term. The Act and the Circular encourage the participation of federal representatives in these bodies to increase the likelihood that the standards they develop will meet both public and private sector needs. A voluntary consensus standards body is defined by the following attributes:

(i) Openness.
(ii) Balance of interest.
(iii) Due process.
(vi) An appeals process.
(v) Consensus, which is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity, and includes a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reasons why, and the consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing the comments.

 

 

 RCW 19.27.020 states, “The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the occupants or users of buildings and structures and the general public by the provision of building codes throughout the state. Accordingly, this chapter is designed to effectuate the following purposes, objectives, and standards:
     (1) To require minimum performance standards and requirements for construction and construction materials, consistent with accepted standards of engineering, fire and life safety.
     (2) To require standards and requirements in terms of performance and nationally accepted standards.

 RS-33 is merely a process developed by the WSU Energy Extension Office staff, identified as WSUEEP-09-008.  While it may be a testing method that could be utilized by local government code officials for testing purposes, the requirement of these methods and requiring that all persons wishing to do the testing take this class and test to this document is improper and not authorized by law.

 
 
 
PETITIONER’S SIGNATURE

              //ss// (John P Neff)

 DATE

01-07-2011
             

OFM 01

Posted in Building Official, Code Official, Construction Code, Energy Code, Ventilation | Leave a comment

S/F Residential Egress Door(s); Hardware Requirements! Too Often Misunderstood!

Posted on February 11, 2011 by admin

Too often, there is a misunderstanding that a house–since it only requires a house to have a minimum of one egress doors from the house, that all of the other doors added do not have to meet the safety issues for the locks/hardware for those other egress doors.  You have to understand that it is true that a single family house requires only one swinging egress door–but to not analysis the code as noted below, will allow very unsafe egress doors.  Please read all of this analysis, and then my final notes at the bottom!

Single Family Dwelling; Lived in by owners, renters; or Adult Family Home residents and Staff

Q:           For example a home is observed with 2 or 3 exit doors. The main exit door (one door) meets the new handleset egress hardware requirement, as approved by the building inspector.  The posted evacuation floor plan shows the other exit door/s as an exit for emergency.  Do we then enforce the “special knowledge and effort” to unlock exit doors?  What if the posted evacuation floor plan only shows the main exit door as a fire/emergency exit, then can the provider use whatever type of lock they want to on the other doors? 

A:           First, here are the building code history versions:

  1. 1979 UBC, Section 3303(a).  Note that applicable subsections changed in this version.  “This section shall apply to every exit door serving an occupant load of more than 10, or serving  hazardous rooms or areas, except that Subsections (c), (i) and (j) shall apply to all exit doors regardless of occupant load.”

(c) Type of Lock or Latch:  Exit doors shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort.

               Exceptions:         1.  [Group B, not applicable to this discussion.]

               Exc. 2:  Exit doors from buildings or rooms having an occupant load of 10 or less may be provided with a night latch, deadbolt, or security chain, provided such devices are openable from the inside without the use of a key, special knowledge or effort and mounted at a height not to exceed 48 inches above the finished floor.

1982 UBC:  Same language as in the 1979 UBC, noted above.

1985 UBC:  Same language as noted in 1979 and 1982 versions.

1988  UBC:  Same language as noted in 1979, 1982 and 1985 versions.

 1991 UBC.  Same basic language, except a minor change to Exception 2, as noted:  “Exit doors from individual dwelling units, Group R, Division 3 congregate residences and guest rooms of Group R Occupancies having an occupant load of 10 or less may be provided with a night latch, dead bolt or security chain, provided such devices are openable from the inside without the use of a key, special knowledge or effort and mounted at a height not to exceed 48 inches above the finished floor.

1994 UBC.  [Note:  Chapter formats changed starting in the 1994 codes.  This provision is now in Chapter 10, instead of the former Chapter 33.]  Section 1004.3, has the same language as noted above in the 1988 UBC.

1997 UBC.  [Note:  the format remained different chapters, but many of the subsections changed in numbering.]  Subsection 1003.3.1.8:  Same language as in the 1994 UBC, Subsection 1004.3.

2003 International Residential Code (IRC).  [Note:  2000 version of the I-codes were not adopted within WA State while the major changes were being undertaken.] 

Section R311.4.1:  “Not less than one exit door conforming to this section shall be provided for each dwelling unit. . . .”  Section R311.4.4:  “All egress doors shall be readily openable from the side from which egress is to be made without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.”

2006 IRC: Same language as noted from the 2003 IRC, above.

2009 IRC (current applicable code in WA State): 

R311.2 Egress door. At least one egress door shall be provided for each dwelling unit. The egress door shall be side-hinged, and shall provide a minimum clear width of 32 inches (813 mm) when measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). The minimum clear height of the door opening shall not be less than 78 inches (1981 mm) in height measured from the top of the threshold to the bottom of the stop. Other doors shall not be required to comply with these minimum dimensions. Egress doors shall be readily openable from inside the dwelling without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.

Analysis of Code Sections above:

Beginning in the UBC 1979, and continuing through the 1982, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994 and 1997 all stated specific language as, “Exit doors from buildings or rooms having an occupant load of 10 or less may be provided with a night latch, deadbolt, or security chain, provided such devices are openable from the inside without the use of a key, special knowledge or effort and mounted at a height not to exceed 48 inches above the finished floor.”  Note specifically, the plural use of the exit doors in a single home.  The code had first required “at least”  one exit door, but then noted that “all exit doors” have to have this specific hardware issue addressed.

The 2003 IRC (used again in the 2006 version) stated, “Not less than one exit door conforming to this section shall be provided for each dwelling unit. . . .”  It went on to state,  “All egress doors shall be readily openable from the side from which egress is to be made without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.”

The 2009 IRC again, even though worded slightly different, states, “At least one egress door shall be provided for each dwelling unit. . . . Egress doors shall be readily openable from inside the dwelling without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.”

Conclusion to Answer for Question Being Asked Above:

               There is a very clear provision in this code—based even on the history of the previously adopted building codes—that there could be “at least one exit door” meaning than any single family home is allowed to limit to one egress door.  And, as the code states, and egress door is to be side-hinged, width 32” and height of 78”.  Other doors, that are not side-hinged, size compliant, such as sliders, etc., would not have to comply as they are strictly not acceptable egress doors.  But, if a home provides more than one egress door (side-hinged, etc., as noted for egress doors) the plural language would apply the requirement for the proper hardware and locking devices to all egress doors in the house.

So–look at some analogies of this issue.  If someone says that since a house only requires one exit door, all of the other exit doors can be as unsafe as necessary.  For example–the code only requires one legal, code-mandated stair from the second floor to the main floor–with the proper tread, riser, handrail, etc.  So, again, using this improper logic, that would allow unsafe doors, would say that if the code only requires one legal stair, and the contractor/owner wants to have a second stair, it would not need to have a handrail, or proper riser or tread requirements???! 

To have doors that are expected by the occupants of the house for exiting in case of fire, etc., the most important issue is to have it safe for all of the occupants.  This analysis truly needs to be followed by all building departments in this issue!  jpn

Posted in Building Code, Building Official, Building Permit, Code Official, Construction Code, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

OK, just Enjoy the Power of a Code Official:

Posted on February 9, 2011 by admin

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WSEC Electrical Issues–to Cities and Counties that Can’t Do Electrical???

Posted on February 8, 2011 by admin

Here’s another marvelous WSEC invention for developing some information for someone in the future: 

First, here is the quotation from the WSEC, Chapter 12, for the adoption of the electrical metering rules IN the energy code.  After this re-print, go below for my comments:

 WAC 51-11-1200

Section 1201 — General.

  All buildings shall comply with Chapter 12. Whole building energy supply sources shall be metered to supply energy consumption data to the building owner to effectively manage energy. The building shall have a totalizing meter for each energy source.

1202 Whole Building Energy Supply Metering. Meters with remote metering capability or automatic meter reading (AMR) capability shall be provided to collect energy use data for each energy supply source to the building including gas, electricity and district stream, that exceeds the thresholds listed in Table 12-1. Utility company service entrance/interval meters are allowed to be used provided that they are configured for automatic meter reading (AMR) capability.

 TABLE 12-1
Energy Source Meter Thresholds

Energy Source Main Metering Threshold
Electrical Service >500 kVA
On-site renewable electrical power >10 kVA (peak)
Gas and steam service >300 kW (1,000,000 Btu/h)
Geothermal >300 kW (1,000,000 Btu/h) heating
On-site renewable thermal energy >10 kW (30,000 Btu/h)
Master submetering with remote metering capability (including current sensors or flow meters) shall be provided for the systems that exceed the thresholds in Table 12-1 to collect overall totalized energy use data for each subsystem in accordance with Table 12-2.

TABLE 12-2
     Component Energy Master Submetering Thresholds 

Component Submetering Threshold
Chillers/heat pump systems >70 kW (240,000 Btu/h) cooling capacity
Packaged AC unit systems >70 kW (240,000 Btu/h) cooling capacity
HVAC fan systems >15 kW (20 hp)
Exhaust fan systems >15 kW (20 hp)
Make-up air fan systems >15 kW (20 hp)
Pump Systems >15 kW (20 hp)
Cooling towers system >15 kW (20 hp)
Boilers, furnaces and other heating equipment systems >300 kW (1,000,000 Btu/h) heating capacity
General lighting systems >15 kVA
Miscellaneous electrical loads >15 kVA
Metering shall be digital-type meters for the main meter. Current sensors or flow meters are allowed for submetering. For subsystems with multiple similar units, such as multicell cooling towers, only one meter is required for the subsystem. Existing buildings are allowed to reuse installed existing analog-type utility company service/interval meters.

1203 Metering: Where new or replacement systems or equipment is installed that exceeds the threshold in Table 12-1 or Table 12-2, metering shall be installed for that system or equipment in accordance with Section 1201.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27A.025, 19.27A.045. 10-03-115, 10-13-113 and 10-22-056, § 51-11-1200, filed 1/20/10, 6/21/10 and 10/28/10, effective 1/1/11.]

 

Notes:
     Reviser’s note:  Notice of Objection

: The Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (Committee) finds that, in adopting the 2009 proposed changes to the State Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, on November 20, 2009, the State Building Code Council (Council) failed to comply with all requirements of the law and failed to adequately respond to the Committee’s request for additional economic impact and cost-benefit analyses prior to adoption.

     On October 1, 2009, the Committee found that the Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS) for the proposed changes filed with the Code Reviser failed to comply with all requirements of law. The Committee requested that the Council conduct a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to RCW 34.05.328 and amend the SBEIS to provide additional economic impact information, including an estimate of the number of jobs that would be created or lost as a result of compliance with all the proposed rules, as required by RCW 19.85.040 (2)(d).

     The Council provided the Committee with information and data on November 18, 2009. On December 2, 2009, the Committee found that the Council failed to adequately respond to the Committee’s request for additional data. Specifically, the Committee found that the Council failed to amend the SBEIS to (a) estimate the number of jobs that would be created or lost as a result of compliance with the proposed changes; and (b) support the SBEIS with a detailed and rigorous costs analysis of the cumulative impact of all the changes. In addition, the Committee found that the Council failed to provide the Committee with a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed changes and pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.05.328.

     The Committee strongly supports a process that makes thoughtful and informed progress towards changes that result in improved energy efficiency in our buildings, wherever practicable. While the Council worked diligently, it is the opinion of the Committee that the Council did not fully develop and consider the economic impacts and costs versus benefits of these significant changes to our Energy Code. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Committee that the Council and the Legislature need this information to fully evaluate the value, impacts, and consequences of the proposed codes, with due diligence to their respective fiduciary responsibilities, in order to create the best informed public policy.

     As a result, the Committee recommends that the Governor suspend the adoption and implementation of the changes to the Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, adopted by the Council on November 20, 2009, until such time as a more adequate analysis has been completed and considered by the appropriate bodies.

     For all of the above stated reasons, the Committee objects to the changes to the State Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, that were adopted by the Council on November 20, 2009, and hereby directs the Code Reviser, pursuant to RCW 34.05.640(4), to publish this Notice of Objection in the Washington State Register and along with any publication in the Washington Administrative Code of changes to Chapter 51-11 WAC that were adopted by the Council in 2009 and filed with the Code Reviser.

So—you now see that entire requirement!  In the State of WA, about 30 cities have the authority to perform electrical plan review, inspections and issuance of electrical permits.  The other 251 cities and towns do not do so, and none of the 39 counties even have the ability to do so for electrical.  In all of those, the WA State Dept. of Labor and Industries, Electrical Division, have that sole authority.

Here is the specific question I wrote to the WA Chief Electrical Inspector, Ron Fuller:

“OK, here are the WSEC electrical metering requirements.  As you all know, about 30 cities in WA do their own electrical permits and inspections.  The other cities and towns do not, and none of the counties are allowed to do so. All of those are under the purview of the Electrical Section of L&I.  So, under the Energy Code, you will have to administer these requirements, and require additional electrical metering in buildings that fit into the requirements.  So, it causes the following questions—the WSEC requires the additional metering, which requires additional electrical work, falling under the provisions of RCW 19.28.  The department of L&I will not enforce any of this energy code issue, but would inspect any electrical installed.  However, the plan review of the building, including this electrical issue, falls under the purview of the local building department, not L&I.  The requirements will be solely at the requirements of local authority.”

Ron gave me this information in return:

“We won’t [enforce these requirements].  We have no authority to adopt the energy code because it does not fall under our enabling statute – 19.28.  This situation is similar to locating smoke detectors.  The same thing applies.  The building official issues the correction if one is missing.   Electrical inspectors do not have authority to issue a correction.  A building inspector could, but it would be based upon the building code requirements, not electrical.  So, if the local building department requires this, and the electrical inspector sees it to not meet the energy requirements, it would be up to the local building inspector to write the correction—the electrical inspector will not do so.”

And, Ron Fuller specifically told me, “This appears to be . . . not one for the building official or electrical inspector.  Also, in L&I jurisdictions, electrical plan review remains with L&I, not the building official in the cities and counties we inspect.”

So—here it is:  (1) this is a requirement of the WSEC; (2) if you do not issue electrical permits in your own jurisdiction, (3) you cannot do electrical plan review or require electrical items; (4) you do not have any ability to work this with L&I, as (5) they don’t enforce the WSEC and don’t enforce this. 

What another major screw-up! 

jpn

Posted in Building Official, Building Permit, Code Official, Existing Building Code, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Guess What!!! SBCC Doesn’t Care About Leakage in New Homes!!!

Posted on January 27, 2011 by admin

To use an old phrase on this one—“For Pete’s Sake!”  The SBCC, even though passing a part of the WSEC that requires home testing and says that the testing will only be acceptable when tested for air leakage and passing at a specific leakage test—obviously doesn’t really care.

The SBCC has now passed an “Interpretation” of the leakage, stating that if a home is leakage tested, and fails; the builder “seals the leaks;” does another leakage test, and it still fails—“yes, it is acceptable. . . .”

What the heck is the SBCC even there for?  Obviously the WSEC rules don’t matter.  They have shown that they don’t care.  So, you—the local building official—is somehow responsible for administering the code in your jurisdiction, but the SBCC says they really don’t care.  What legal perspective does that put you into? 

Again, only one phrase—“For Pete’s Sake!” (The actual code Section; and the SBCC “Interpretation” are below:)

Actual Code Section:

 502.4.5 Building Air Leakage Testing: Building envelope air leakage control shall be considered acceptable when tested to have an air leakage is less than 0.00030 Specific Leakage Area (SLA) when tested with a blower door at a pressure of 50 Pascals (0.2 inch w.g.). Testing shall occur any time after rough in and after installation of penetrations of the building envelope, including penetrations for utilities, plumbing, electrical, ventilation, and combustion appliances and sealing thereof. When required by the building official, the test shall be conducted in the presence of department staff. The blower door test results shall be recorded on the certificate required in Section 105.4.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Additions less than 750 square feet.

2. Once a visual inspection has confirmed the presence of a gasket (see Section 502.4), operable windows and doors manufactured by a small business shall be permitted to be sealed off at the frame prior to the test.

Reviser’s note:  Notice of Objection: The Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (Committee) finds that, in adopting the 2009 proposed changes to the State Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, on November 20, 2009, the State Building Code Council (Council) failed to comply with all requirements of the law and failed to adequately respond to the Committee’s request for additional economic impact and cost-benefit analyses prior to adoption.
     On October 1, 2009, the Committee found that the Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS) for the proposed changes filed with the Code Reviser failed to comply with all requirements of law. The Committee requested that the Council conduct a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to RCW 34.05.328 and amend the SBEIS to provide additional economic impact information, including an estimate of the number of jobs that would be created or lost as a result of compliance with all the proposed rules, as required by RCW 19.85.040 (2)(d).
     The Council provided the Committee with information and data on November 18, 2009. On December 2, 2009, the Committee found that the Council failed to adequately respond to the Committee’s request for additional data. Specifically, the Committee found that the Council failed to amend the SBEIS to (a) estimate the number of jobs that would be created or lost as a result of compliance with the proposed changes; and (b) support the SBEIS with a detailed and rigorous costs analysis of the cumulative impact of all the changes. In addition, the Committee found that the Council failed to provide the Committee with a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed changes and pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.05.328.
     The Committee strongly supports a process that makes thoughtful and informed progress towards changes that result in improved energy efficiency in our buildings, wherever practicable. While the Council worked diligently, it is the opinion of the Committee that the Council did not fully develop and consider the economic impacts and costs versus benefits of these significant changes to our Energy Code. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Committee that the Council and the Legislature need this information to fully evaluate the value, impacts, and consequences of the proposed codes, with due diligence to their respective fiduciary responsibilities, in order to create the best informed public policy.
     As a result, the Committee recommends that the Governor suspend the adoption and implementation of the changes to the Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, adopted by the Council on November 20, 2009, until such time as a more adequate analysis has been completed and considered by the appropriate bodies.
     For all of the above stated reasons, the Committee objects to the changes to the State Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, that were adopted by the Council on November 20, 2009, and hereby directs the Code Reviser, pursuant to RCW 34.05.640(4), to publish this Notice of Objection in the Washington State Register and along with any publication in the Washington Administrative Code of changes to Chapter 51-11 WAC that were adopted by the Council in 2009 and filed with the Code Reviser.

Actual Code “Interpretation:”

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

 STATE BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATION NO. 11-03

CODE: 2009 WSEC

SECTION: 502.4.5 Building Air Leakage Testing

QUESTION: This section requires a blower door test on buildings. Where a blower door test reveals a higher leakage than the target specific air leakage area, the builder identifies and seals the air leaks, and a second test is conducted. Is it acceptable if the final leakage area, recorded on the certificate as required by Section 105.4, is a higher leakage area than required by the code?

ANSWER: Yes, the result can be considered acceptable if all leakage areas identified by the initial test have been sealed, and the final result is recorded on the certificate.

SUPERSEDES: None

REQUESTED BY: City of Shoreline [Note:  Building Official in Shoreline is Ray Allshouse, AIA, member of SBCC, and elected as Vice-Chair, 2011]

Posted in Building Official, Code Official, Construction Code, Energy Code, Uncategorized, Ventilation | Leave a comment

WA State Energy Code, Enforceable in 2011? Absolutely Not!

Posted on December 30, 2010 by admin

OK–I’ll give you one reason right now.  I’ll give you more later.  But, if you look at the WAC rules published by the WA Code Reviser’s Office as WAC 51-11, every single code section includes this “Notice of Objection:”

Notes:

     Reviser’s note:  Notice of Objection: The Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (Committee) finds that, in adopting the 2009 proposed changes to the State Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, on November 20, 2009, the State Building Code Council (Council) failed to comply with all requirements of the law and failed to adequately respond to the Committee’s request for additional economic impact and cost-benefit analyses prior to adoption.     The Council provided the Committee with information and data on November 18, 2009. On December 2, 2009, the Committee found that the Council failed to adequately respond to the Committee’s request for additional data. Specifically, the Committee found that the Council failed to amend the SBEIS to (a) estimate the number of jobs that would be created or lost as a result of compliance with the proposed changes; and (b) support the SBEIS with a detailed and rigorous costs analysis of the cumulative impact of all the changes. In addition, the Committee found that the Council failed to provide the Committee with a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed changes and pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.05.328

.

     The Committee strongly supports a process that makes thoughtful and informed progress towards changes that result in improved energy efficiency in our buildings, wherever practicable. While the Council worked diligently, it is the opinion of the Committee that the Council did not fully develop and consider the economic impacts and costs versus benefits of these significant changes to our Energy Code. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Committee that the Council and the Legislature need this information to fully evaluate the value, impacts, and consequences of the proposed codes, with due diligence to their respective fiduciary responsibilities, in order to create the best informed public policy.

     As a result, the Committee recommends that the Governor suspend the adoption and implementation of the changes to the Energy Code, Chapter 51-11

WAC, adopted by the Council on November 20, 2009, until such time as a more adequate analysis has been completed and considered by the appropriate bodies.

     For all of the above stated reasons, the Committee objects to the changes to the State Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, that were adopted by the Council on November 20, 2009, and hereby directs the Code Reviser, pursuant to RCW 34.05.640(4), to publish this Notice of Objection in the Washington State Register and along with any publication in the Washington Administrative Code of changes to Chapter 51-11 WAC that were adopted by the Council in 2009 and filed with the Code Reviser.

So, can you, as a local authority, enforce this code which is documented as being adopted in violation of State Law?  You should certainly ask your City or County Attorney about the enforcement of this code, to assist you, as Building Official, to determine if this is enforceable or not!  It says specifically, that it was adopted in violation of “the laws” that governed this adoption.  As such, you should stay with the 2006 WSEC until this is straightened out!  And, in the very near future, you will see so many more defects in the adoption of the 2009 WSEC, you will be convinced you made the right decision!
This code adopted by the SBCC is not correct; was not adopted in accordance with State law; and is fatally flawed, as will be noted very, very soon on this Blog.  Keep in touch! jpn

     On October 1, 2009, the Committee found that the Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS) for the proposed changes filed with the Code Reviser failed to comply with all requirements of law. The Committee requested that the Council conduct a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to RCW 34.05.328 and amend the SBEIS to provide additional economic impact information, including an estimate of the number of jobs that would be created or lost as a result of compliance with all the proposed rules, as required by RCW 19.85.040

(2)(d).
Posted in Building Code, Building Official, Code Official, Construction Code, Energy Code, Uncategorized, WABO | Leave a comment

The Confusing WA State Code Adoption Process

Posted on November 1, 2010 by admin

Note: I created this document for a specific group of people who asked for this explanation.  I am including it here for anyone else who may want to know how this actually works:

A PRIMER ON THE WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE ADOPTION PROCESSES (and why it is so confusing)

The WA State building code adoption process (including all of the various codes included in the WA State Building Code Act) is a bit confusing to those who are not familiar with all of the various players and various processes involved.  It is hoped this document will help in understanding an otherwise quite confusing process.

WA Legislature:

First—there has to be a statute (law) adopted by the WA State Legislature.  That law is the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 19.27, which adopts the various codes by reference.  RCW 19.27.031 states,

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, there shall be in effect in all counties and cities the state building code which shall consist of the following codes which are hereby adopted by reference:

     (1)(a) The International Building Code, published by the International Code Council[,] Inc.;

     (b) The International Residential Code, published by the International Code Council, Inc.;

     (2) The International Mechanical Code, published by the International Code Council[,] Inc., except that the standards for liquified petroleum gas installations shall be NFPA 58 (Storage and Handling of Liquified Petroleum Gases) and ANSI Z223.1/NFPA 54 (National Fuel Gas Code);

     (3) The International Fire Code, published by the International Code Council[,] Inc., including those standards of the National Fire Protection Association specifically referenced in the International Fire Code: PROVIDED, That, notwithstanding any wording in this code, participants in religious ceremonies shall not be precluded from carrying hand-held candles;

    (4) Except as provided in RCW 19.27.170, the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Plumbing Code Standards, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials: PROVIDED, That any provisions of such code affecting sewers or fuel gas piping are not adopted; and70.92.100 through 70.92.160.

     (5) The rules adopted by the council establishing standards for making buildings and facilities accessible to and usable by the physically disabled or elderly persons as provided in RCW

     In case of conflict among the codes enumerated in subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the first named code shall govern over those following.

     The codes enumerated in this section shall be adopted by the council as provided in RCW 19.27.074. The council shall solicit input from first responders to ensure that firefighter safety issues are addressed during the code adoption process.

State Building Code Council (SBCC):

You just read in the last italicized paragraph, above, that the various codes “shall be adopted by the council as provided in RCW 19.27.074.”  That statement then removes the legislative duty of reviewing each new code version, amending those codes, and putting them into effect from the Legislature and empowers the SBCC to enter “rule-making” for the purpose of reviewing, amending and adopting the codes.

Rule-making by the SBCC is the same as for any other WA State Agency with rule-making authority, with one exception, as will be discussed later.  But, for general purposes, rule-making by the SBCC has to comply with every requirement of RCW 34.05, the Administrative Procedures Act.  That Act (law) puts into place the requirements for entering new rule-making, holding public hearings on the proposals, filing new rules with the Office of the Code Reviser, and having rules published for public use.

The SBCC, in accordance with RCW 34.05, enters rule-making to create a new Washington Administrative Code (WAC) rule.  Remember that no WAC rule can be written or adopted without the original statutory authority behind it.  If the Legislature doesn’t tell an agency to write a rule about a certain subject, the agency cannot do so.  Further, any rule that is adopted has to comply with the statute as it was written; and must be adopted in the manner prescribed in RCW 34.05.

So, here is what the SBCC does:

  • Reviews new versions of the model* codes for implementation in the State of WA
  • Amends those codes as appropriate by WAC rule (51-50 [building code]; 51-51 [residential code]); etc.
  • As I mentioned above, the SBCC has one exception to the rule-making process that does not apply to any other agency.  The SBCC is only State Agency with statutory timelines for adoption of WAC rules amending and implementing codes
    • All WAC rules amending and implementing the codes must be approved by December 1st of any given year, and cannot go into effect until after the next Legislative Session
      • Legislature not required to act on those rules for them to become effective.

The SBCC typically enters rule-making every year to review code changes submitted by interested parties.  However, the SBCC’s own rules advocates only having any rule amending a specific version of a model code have an effective date of when the new code is implemented.  For example—the 2009 versions of the codes were made effective on July 1, 2010.  Any rule-making done in 2011 should not go into effect in 2012, but wait for the effective date of the new 2012 version of the codes in 2013.  This is an attempt to have new code requirements change only every three years.  Of course, the SBCC can make an exception to this if a new code amendment (rule) is determined to be of such importance to life safety and/or health that its early implementation is in the best interests of the public.

What is a “Model” Code?

A “model” code is one that is provided as a “base” document to be used by governmental bodies, either by adopting it as printed, or amending and adopting with those amendments.

The codes named within RCW 19.27.031 are “model” codes developed by non-profit code-promulgating organizations.  The International Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fire Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Existing Building Code are all promulgated and published by the International Code Council (ICC).

The Uniform Plumbing Code is promulgated and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO).

These are all national, model codes developed for their specific subject.  Each code organization—ICC and IAPMO—develop and publish a new edition every three years.  Hence, the SBCC starts their review process of the newly published codes, and the process for amending and adoption starts over.

What is a “Standard” and how do Standards relate to the codes themselves?

In this section, I will use the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A117.1 as the example to explain the standards process.  ANSI A117.1 is the “Standard on Accessible & Usable Buildings.”  This standard just as written and as published has no force of law in and of itself.  In its simplest explanation, a standard is an agreed, repeatable way of doing something. It is a published document that contains a technical specification or other precise criteria designed to be used consistently as a rule, guideline, or definition. Standards are created by bringing together the experience and expertise of all interested parties such as the producers, sellers, buyers, users and regulators of a particular material, product, process or service.  In accordance with Federal Law, a Standard needs to be developed by a very specific process that provides:

(i) Openness.
(ii) Balance of interest.
(iii) Due process.
(vi) An appeals process.
(v) Consensus, which is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity, and includes a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reasons why, and the consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing the comments.

The ANSI process is one such process that meets all of those requirements.  Because of that, many different standards on very different subject have been developed using the ANSI process.

As noted above, a standard does not have the force of law unless there is a code (law) mandating its use.  Just as a WAC rule cannot be implemented without the back-up statutory authority, a standard needs to be named within a code to have its content implemented. Again, using the example of ANSI A117.1, the International Building Code (IBC) in Chapter 11, and the International Residential Code (IRC) in Chapter 3, specify when accessibility needs to be applied within a building.  They then after noting the requirement, state that it needs to be done in accordance with ANSI A117.1.  That is now what implements the standard for accessibility items within the building.

What is the role of local government in building codes?

All cities, towns and counties are mandated to enforce the State codes, RCW 19.27.050.  A local government may amend the codes with the following exceptions:

  • May not reduce the performance of the State code by local amendments, and
  • May not make effective any local amendment that impacts construction of one- to 4-unit residential structures, unless local amendment is approved by the SBCC.    Except:  may adopt Appendix S (Residential Fire Sprinklers) locally without further SBCC approval

 Who has the “final say” in an application of a building code provision in WA State?

There is only one person (repeated about 384 times) who has the final authority to determine whether something meets code or not.  That person is the local building official—the person who in that specific jurisdiction has been given the authority to be the final “arbiter” of the code within the boundaries of that jurisdiction.  There is typically an appeal process within that specific jurisdiction, but there is no State oversight or appeal to a State body, as there is in other States. 

 Hope this helps! jpn

Posted in Building Code, Building Official, Code Official, Existing Building Code, Fire Code, Plumbing Code, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WA State Building Code Council Ready to Blow it Again; and Dept. of Commerce is There With Them!

Posted on September 30, 2010 by admin

So, the Governor (obviously, head of the Executive Branch) asks the State Building Code Council (SBCC) to delay the implementation of the 2009 WA State Energy Code until [at least] April 1, 2011.  So, what does the SBCC do?  What does the Governor’s own Energy Office (in WA Department of Commerce) do?

Well, get this.  Remember when the SBCC was chastised by the Legislature’s Joint Administrative Rules Committee for adopting the Energy code in contradiction of existing state law?  They, oh so “wisely” stated, that that is the Legislative Branch of government–and we are part of the Executive Branch–so we don’t have to do what they say.  So, now that their boss, the head of the Executive Branch, asks them to delay until April 1, 2011, they pass the requested emergency rule, but enter permanent rule-making, stating “January 1, 2011″ in their filing of the rule.   Bright, huh?

Now, the Governor’s own Dept. of Commerce–the very agency that can’t figure out that their role is “energy strategy” and not “writing energy codes,” states on the record at the SBCC public hearing, that they–contrary to the Governor, support the January 1 date.  So–their boss, the Governor, asks for one date, and the SBCC and the DOC go on record for a different date?

It is past time for the Governor to do something about both of these agencies.  And, if the Governor won’t, it is time for the Legislature to do so.  Regardless of political party, this whole system is broken–fatally flawed at this point.  Governor–do you get it? 

jpn

Posted in Building Code, Building Official, Code Official, Construction Code, Energy Code, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Adult Family Homes: Redux.

Posted on September 29, 2010 by admin

Well, OK, I like that word, “redux.”  So, here is a re-visiting of that subject. 

As you know, one of my initial blog posts was regarding adult family homes in WA State and the inclusion of a “white paper” to show code officials and AFH providers what the real needs are for the residents of such homes and to provide alternate methods of providing—not only equal accessibility, but—enhanced accessibility, designed for their specific needs.

As you know, I have to share an opinion I have on providers of Adult Family Homes and the code official’s role in their approval.  First, providers of adult family home services (your applicants for inspection and approval) are entering a new business.  So, what are the things necessary for a person to start a new business?  Here are the 10 things all business consultants will tell you:

1. Know what you will do.

2. What will you need to start?

3. What are the government regulations you need to follow

4. How much money do you need to start?

5. How much money will you make?

6. Where can you get help?

7. How do you intend to reach your target market?

8. How can you get started?

9. What tools can you use to operate and improve your work?

10. Your exit strategy.

Especially note #2, #3, and #4.  They are:  what do they need to start their business; what are all of the regulations they need to follow (including all of the building code issues); and how much money do they need to start?  An applicant’s financial condition has absolutely nothing to do with our work as code officials and seeing that their AFH meets all of the requirements. 

Too often, people who want to start an AFH are under-planned and under-capitalized.  We know that if you want to open a new store as a business you need to have enough capital to be able to purchase the product to sell.  The same applies in opening an adult family home.  The applicant has to have enough money to buy the products—the ramp(s); the handrails; the grab bars; the smoke detectors; the door hardware.  And, those are just our code requirements.  The State AFH licensing laws require much more than that in other areas.  If a person says that something that is required “is too expensive,” or “I don’t have the money for that,” you have to realize that they have a business decision to make. 

Further, you have to realize that they are attempting to open a business to take care of the elderly in your own community—those who through their own energy helped build your town, and paid its taxes and helped it grow.  Who do you want providing care to the elderly in your community?  Someone who is capitalized and can provide the best care possible or someone who can’t afford a few dollars for a proper grab bar?  Pretty easy decision, isn’t it?

Code officials have a role to play in these inspections and approvals.  If the person can’t afford the minimum code requirements, you don’t want them in town providing their sub-standard level of service.  But, you also have a role to play in providing the absolute best care—so review the previous blog post about what the specific needs of the elderly residents of such homes actually are.  And, then, do what you can as the code official to approve the absolute best solution that will provide the best level of accessibility to those residents.  That is your job. 

And, finally, remember that none of the residents of these homes would have ever chosen to be there.  They just . . . got old.  And, in getting old, they lost strength.  But, that does not mean that they should not be allowed to be as independent as they can possibly be.  If any provider tells you that “I will be with them all the time, and I can help them,” you know you have an issue. First, that is not what the provider is to do—they are to first, provide the best independence they can, by providing the best “product” they can provide.  And, there can be up to six residents in the home.  So, how can they always be there?

Next—remember that you, too, will be there someday.  What would you want?

Think about it. 

jpn

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment