City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

October 19^th , 2006 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Lee Queen - Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter Janet Smalter John Craft
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF  PRESENT:
Guess Present :
Ex-Officio	Adrian Jones - Building Structural Inspector

Meeting called to order 11: 52

Review minutes August 31^st , 2006

Motion by Porter to accept minutes as written seconded by Smalter.   Motion passed 5-0.

Update on joint and Code adoptions.     

Queen stated that Board chairs met last week. The meeting was unproductive because the Mechanical Board Chair had not had a chance to meet with the Mechanical Board and report the results of the last joint chair meeting. The meeting was rescheduled. Queen asked Jones to report on information he had received concerning the Plumbing Board.

Jones stated that the Plumbing Board met and decided that they did not want to review the IRC and propose any amendments that would allow the plumbing portion of the IRC included as part of the adopted code.  The Plumbing Board wanted to delete the plumbing section of the IRC and was willing to work with the Building code Board to work on any amendments that allowed use of the UPC.  It is his understanding that the Plumbing Board feels that they already have a code and do not need another Code.

Craft stated that he would like to forward a message from the Recycling Board. The Recycling Board will be sending a message to the City Commission recommending adoption of the entire set of 2006 International Codes.

Queen stated that the IAPMO representative will bring every plumber to the City Commission meeting.  Queen says that he has asked the plumbers “Guys what is the difference?” and there is no reply. They just want the UPC and they have not even opened the IPC and looked at it.

Jones says that in his examination of the minutes from the Plumbing Board it appears as though the board never make any technical arguments against the IPC other than to say the UPC is more restrictive. They never go on to say what more restrictive means, or point to any data indicating problems with the IPC.  The single biggest argument the plumbers have with the IPC is vent sizing.  ICC maintains that it’s vent sizing utilizes modern engineering practices, and the UPC only sells more vent pipe.

Craft said when the Commission received the recommendation from the Code Review Committee it directed the Boards to review the I-Codes and other codes they would like to consider.  It would seem the trade Boards have not made a genuine effort to consider the IPC and IMC along with the IRC.

Queen said that he is much more optimistic in the outcome of the review of the Mechanical Board.  He feels the Mechanical Board realizes that there is not much difference between the two Codes and all the work that would have to go into amending the codes to make them work together would be a tremendous waste of time.      

Stogsdill asked if anyone has actually gone through and made a comparison for residential construction the difference between the IPC and UPC.

Jones replied that Mark Mills has informed him that for a typical single family home vents are allowed to be reduced.  Millions of homes have venting sized according to the IPC.  If there was a problem with venting it would have been addressed in the code cycle changes. 

Stogsdill asked if there would be a major effort to amend the plumbing section of the IRC to make it work with the current plumbing code.

Jones stated that the vent sizing was the main issue.  That should not require much time or effort.  Jones said that he personally is against amending codes. There should be a very good reason to amend codes.  The construction codes are based on and science and testing by nationally recognized testing agencies.  The amendments should be backed by some type of data or based on unique local conditions. The other issue with the UPC is fixture counts.  Fixture counts are also in the IBC and UBC.  There is a conflict between the fixture count of the two codes. The UPC in general requires more plumbing fixtures.  When the Plumbing Board adopted the 2003 UPC they did not amend the fixture table. So when the city adopts the IBC there will be a conflict that will need to be addressed.

Craft asked if the Commission wanted to adopt the I-Codes across the Board what is the point of conflict?

Jones stated that he thinks it come down to brand loyalty.

Queen said on the plumbing side there is not a whole lot of difference. On the mechanical side there are at least 70 issues that have to be amended.  Someone will have to sit down and write out over 100 amendments total to make all the codes work together.  It’s not as simple as before where you just scratch out a line and add another.  Queen said that he has advised the other chairmen that the Building Code Board is not going to do the work to amend these codes.  If the trades boards want to adopt Uniform Codes to go with the I-Codes then they will have to do the work.

Craft said that it seems as though the Board is all in favor of the I-Codes.  Would the Board consider either co-signing a letter with the Recycling Board or generating a Letter of our own to the Commission?

Queen stated that the Board has already issued a very strongly worded letter to the Commission recommending adoption of the entire I-Code set.  The Home Builder’s Association wrote a similar letter.  The Fire Code Board wrote a similar letter.  Queen stated that he believes that the Mechanical Board is seriously considering adopting the IMC and IRC.   It is the same code and there are too many amendments to deal with.  He suggested that the Board not waste too much energy wondering what the Plumbing or Mechanical Boards are going to do.  20 years from now they will not be on the Uniform Code.   Sooner or later it will happen.  The City will have the Residential Code where the whole book counts.  It might be three years from now it might be two years but it will happen.

Complete Review of the 2006 Energy Code

As requested by the Board at the previous meeting Jones used the Rescheck software to evaluate a typical slab on grade home using tradeoffs to compare the results.  Jones stated that he used the Rescheck version based on the 2003 International Energy Code parameters.  He used the plans from a current home under construction.  The structure was a 1457 square foot slab on grade single family home.  Jones described the home as a typical slab on grade home for the City of Lawrence.   Using the prescriptive values from 2006 IRC Table N1102.1  for climate zone 4 except marine, he entered the minimum R-values and U-factors for building components.  He entered a 78% efficient furnace and a unheated un-insulated slab edge.  He stated that the structure received a passing score of 4% above code requirements.  Jones said that program was easy to use and only required about 15 to 20 minutes to enter the values after he became familiar with the software operations.

Porter noted that the total UA value for the entire structure was 462 and the UA for the slab was 201.  That basically says that nearly half of the heating loss for the home is due to the slab edge.  The UA is how much heat is going through a surface.  Porter says that he agrees with Queen that insulating the slab edge is a big problem for the builders, but looking at the numbers indicate that one building component is a huge loss of heat.

Craft said it would be interesting to see if the values change by using the 2006 IECC parameters for slab edge insulation.

Queen said that he would be interested to see the values for a 90% furnace.

Craft noted that the home passed by just .4% better than Code.

Stogsdill noted that Rescheck does not take into account if the structure is sitting in the middle of a field or the direction that the structure is facing.  The commercial version does consider those parameters.

Jones returned from entering the new values.  He changed the unheated slab un-insulated slab on grade to an insulated R-10 down 2 feet below grade.  The overall UA declined from 201 to 148.  The overall score increased from 4% better than code to 11% better than code.   He changed the furnace from a 78% efficient furnace to a 90% efficient furnace and the passing score increased to 14.3% better than Code.  He added the slab insulation and the 90% furnace together and increased the overall score to 24.2 % better than Code.

Queen said without the slab insulation or the high efficiency furnace the house passes by 4%.  With the slab insulation it passes by 11%.  With the furnace it passes by 14% and with both it passes by 24%.  He asked why insulate the slab if the house passes code using the prescriptive method alone.

Jones noted that the furnace made a bigger impact on the score.

Stogsdill noted that his experience with the former energy software Mecheck an un-insulated full basement has a much higher heat loss. It almost always requires a upgrade of the windows and increasing the efficiency of the furnace to receive a passing score.

Jones noted that the Energy Code requires floors over unfinished basements to be insulated.

Porter asked Queen if he at one point advocated substituting a high efficiency furnace for slab edge insulation. Porter said that he thought that was a good idea. Craft agreed.

Queen said that if the structure was failing by 4% instead of passing and he was faced with the choice of slab edge insulation or high efficiency furnace he would gladly choose the furnace for the long term benefit of the homeowner, but since the home seems to be passing without the slab edge insulation.

Porter said that he thinks that the board discussed at the last meeting that if the builder wanted to use Rescheck and the structure passed then that was acceptable. If the builder wanted to use the prescriptive method he or she could substitute a 90% efficient furnace for slab edge insulation.

Jones noted that this particular structure passed by a slim margin.  This structure had a total of 12% glazing.  One more window may have caused structure to fail.  The homes in the higher price range typically have more windows than this sample.

Queen asked if the Board was ok with R-6 duct if covered by more than 50% insulation.

Craft said that was already agreed to.

Queen said that he knows that Jones had some concerns with that amendment.

Jones stated his concern was trying to enforce that provision. He believes that contractors would rather install R-8 duct than spend the extra time and effort to configure the flex duct to run down through the ceiling joist spaces which would allow it to be covered by blown in insulation. It would be difficult to run the main trunk line low in the attic spaces through truss systems.  He feels it would be an acceptable amendment.

Queen replied that his mechanical contractor runs the joist on the ceiling joist and other contractors could learn to do so.

Craft said the goal is to have insulated air ducts.

Jones noted that the high efficiency furnace has close to the same effect on the total UA value as slab edge insulation.

Queen suggested that someone make a motion to amend the prescriptive methods to allow elimination of the slab edge insulation if a high efficiency furnace is installed. If a builder wanted to use Rescheck that would be permitted as long as the structure received a passing Score.

Craft noted that the wording in the Code allowed for Rescheck software to be used.  The only amendment would be elimination of the slab edge insulation.

Porter said the Board code vote to adopt the Code with an amendment to swap out slab insulation for a high efficiency furnace.  Rescheck need not be addressed.

Craft added that this would only apply for slab on grade construction.

Queen asked if a home passed Rescheck did that mean it was a Energy Star Home.

Craft replied that in order to qualify for a Energy Star rating and thereby receive a better mortgage rate the home had to have a HERS rating.

Queen stated that he wanted to point out that if the Code is approved as recommended a new home buyer would not receive a break on the mortgage payment unless it was an Energy Star home. The new codes makes the home much more energy efficient but you still don’t get a break from the bank.

Jones asked Craft what extra added steps was necessary to make a home which qualified under the 2006 Energy Code then qualify as a Energy Star home.

Craft replied that a HERS rater had to come out and perform a blower test on the home and evaluate the plans. The home would have to receive a score of 84 or better to qualify for the HERS Energy Star rating.

Porter asked how that differs from Rescheck.

Craft replied that the HERS rating is much more detailed.  Each building component is evaluated separately. The windows are not only checked for efficiency but whether it is shaded or exposed to the sun. The test is $300 to $500.

Queen asked Craft, assuming sample project was sealed properly, would it passed the HERS test.

Craft replied most not likely. The sample house passed the Rescheck software by only 4%. Two important issues with HERS which causes failure is penetrations and window orientation.  If the builder has not paid attention to properly sealing ceiling penetrations like can lights or wall outlets then the house will fail the blower test.  If there are a lot of north. east and west facing windows instead of south facing windows which have less exposure that could lower the score by as much as 5%.

Porter said that Rescheck probably tells what needs to be done and HERS tells if it was done correctly.

The Board agreed to amend the code to include allows R-6 duct if covered by more than 50% blown in insulation and to allow substitution of a 90% or higher efficiency furnace in place of slab edge insulation. The Board discussed wording on how to include on methods to amend the code.

Queen suggested a component R-value chart which would be easy to understand and comply with.

Stogsdill suggested the Building Safety Division create a handout for builders and design professionals. That information should be made available online.

The Board directed staff to include the amendments in a draft ordinance to review and vote on at a later date.

Queen said that he wanted to discuss pipe insulation. He said that it is his understanding that the IECC requires a thicker insulation on AC refrigerant lines than what is the current standard.  His contractors tells him that the lines come pre-insulated. If the new code is adopted then they will have to strip off all of the insulation and apply thicker insulation which is not readily available.   Before he signs off on the new code he wants to know for sure what will be required.

Craft stated that the Energy Code was the national standard and he is sure manufacturers would supply what was required.

Jones noted that R-2 pipe insulation was only required on mechanical system lines carrying fluid within a certain temperature range.

Queen asked what was defined as mechanical systems.

Jones said he thought that only applied in residential to hot water recirculation line.

Stogsdill said that it was his understanding that regular hot water lines did not have to be insulated.

Porter agreed and added that water lines in conditioned space did not have to be insulated.

The Board held a brief discussed on the definition of conditioned space. 

Queen asked if that applied to potable water. He said that his plumber told him that if he had to insulate all the waterlines it would cost an extra $500 a house.  

Staff was directed to research the definition mechanical system as it applied to the Energy Code and if that included potable hot water piping.

Motion made to Adjourn.  Motion seconded. Motion passed 5-0.