City of Lawrence
Building Code Board of Appeals
Meeting
May 3rd 2007 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Lee Queen - Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, Janet Smalter John Craft, Mike Porter |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Barry Walthall Building Safety Manager Tim Pinnick Plan Review and licensing Manager Tony Hoch Housing Rehab Specialist |
|
Guess Present : |
|
Bruce Snead Extension Specialist Kansas Radon Program Brian Hanson Radon Program Coordinator - Kansas Radon Program |
|
Ex-Officio |
|
Adrian Jones |
|
Attachments |
|
2. Kansas Radon Facts- Kansas State University
|
Meeting called to order at 11:40
Review Minutes from Meeting on March 29th, 2007
Stogsdill asked to change the wording on the last page from “bay windows” to “egress windows”. Porter asked to strike a statement referencing converting an active system to a passive system. Stogsdill motioned to accept minutes as amended, seconded by Porter. Motion passed 5-0.
Contractor licensing Board update by Barry Walthall
Walthall advised the Board the Contractors Licensing Board was seated on May 2nd. The chairman and Vice chairs were elected. Walthall said the Licensing Board discussed some of the challenges associated with the licensing program. Walthall also updated the Board on the status of the I-code adoptions. He told the board that Neighborhood Resources presented a report to the Commission on the progress of the code adoption process. The report was available to the Board if they wished to view it. The Plumbing Board has completed their review of the International Residential Code, International Plumbing Code and the International Fuel Gas Code.
Jones added that the Plumbing Board has also completed and voted on draft ordinances for each code which are ready to forward to legal staff for review.
Craft asked if the Plumbing Board made any amendments to the Codes.
Walthall replied that there were no amendments.
Radon Resistant Construction Methods Presentation by Bruce Snead
Chairman Queen introduced Mr. Snead and Mr. Hanson and welcomed them to the Board meeting. Bruce Snead Extension Specialist and Brian Hanson Radon Program Coordinator with the Kansas Radon Program made a PowerPoint presentation to the Board. Mr. Snead introduced himself and advised the Board that he has been with the Engineering extension department at Kansas State University since 1982. He has a Bachelor of Architecture degree, and he has been working on radon issues since 1988.
He is also a 12 year member of the City of Manhattan Commission and has served two terms as mayor. Brian Hanson is the program coordinator. They have administered the Kansas Radon program for 17 years under contract with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. He stated that he was here as a resource to the Board in it’s efforts to determine if appendix F of the 2006 IRC makes sense for the City of Lawrence and Douglas County. He said that he worked with his code officials in Manhattan in adoption of the IRC and also worked with the code officials in the City of Topeka.
The presentation lasted approximately 20 minutes.
Craft asked if the maximum level indicated on the map of 10 times the level, which is indicated as high, was unusual. Radon levels are considered high when the measurement is 4.0 pCi/L or higher. The maximum level tested in Douglas County is 44.7 pCi/L.
Snead replied that level was not unusual. The majority of homes that test with high levels are in the 4-10 pCi/L range.
Hanson stated the highest level tested in Kansas was 203 pCi/L. He also stated that they have received reliable reports of some homes testing in the 500 range in Kansas City.
Craft asked if high levels were associated with geology.
Snead replied that the radon level in any house is a result soil under the house, the pathways to the house from the soil, the permeability of the soil and foundation, the vacuum the house exerts on the soil, and the air change rate of the house.
Stogsdill asked how air to air interchangers affect radon concentrations.
Snead replied that heat exchangers can be used in existing homes that are suitable for those installations. The homes have to be pretty tight for air interchangers to be utilized properly. They can work if properly balanced. The systems are more expensive, complex, costly and more difficult to maintain than a vacuum system installed during construction.
Stogsdill stated that in some northern climates air to air heat exchangers are required. Stogsdill asked about houses on slabs.
Snead replied that slab on grade homes can have high radon levels. The only way to know is to test. All things being equal there is greater soil exposure in basement homes than slab on grade, and therefore a greater potential for radon. Older slab on grade homes that have the air ducts in the floor are a perfect radon mining system and the most difficult to mitigate.
Jones noted that on page 31 of the booklet a passive rough-in system was not recommended. He said that in previous Board discussions there was consideration of proposing such a system as an amendment to the code.
Snead replied that the most difficult task in mitigating radon in existing homes is to run the pipe from the basement ceiling to the roof penetration. Rough-in does not do anything to mitigate radon. It only makes it easier to fix the system if radon is detected. Radon can only be detected by testing. If the home is not tested then the rough in serves no purpose.
Craft asked Snead if he was surprised testing was not mandatory.
Hanson said that he has heard that Bank of America will not close on a house unless it has been tested.
Snead said only the state of Maryland is moving toward mandatory testing.
Hanson said that Maryland passed a law that requires the buyer to sign a sheet that allows the buyer to choose whether or not if he or she wants the radon test.
Snead says that his office recommends that all homes be tested.
Porter stated that the Board has been working with the statistic that 1/3 of all homes in Douglas have high radon potential.
Queen said that he agrees with everything Snead has said but his issue is more philosophical. Why have all homes install a radon system when only one out of three homes needs it? We here in Lawrence have an affordable housing problem.
Snead said that the goal of the program is not to impose this on any jurisdiction. The goal is to allow for jurisdictions to make informed decisions. The only way to know if a home has a radon problem is to test all the homes. If all homes were tested as soon as they were habitable that would be great. The question is how can that be accomplished?
Queen asked if 12% of cancer deaths in Kansas are because of radon, why are we only testing new homes?
Snead said that his office’s main effort is to get owners to test existing homes. If we build a house that is radon resistant then we never have to worry about that house again. Whoever lives in the house over the lifetime will not have any issues with radon. It is a tradeoff on what makes the most sense.
Craft said that given the fact that a passive system reduces radon levels by an average of 36%, and we want to make radon mitigation possible in every new home constructed, do we go to the expense of a passive system or do we simply stub in what could be an active system if the house test positive? If the goal is to make sure that each house built has the ability to reduce radon effectively then only putting an active system in only one of three houses that’s going to test positive is cheaper overall than putting a passive system in that only provides some reduction and is not as effective as an active system.
Snead said the issue is dollars. If you determine that the cost of a passive system in a new home is $500, if a builder builds 3 houses then the cost is $1,500. Versus if no system is installed and all three houses are tested and only one proves to have high radon levels then only one house has to retro fit a $1,000 mitigation system. The key issue is testing.
Porter said that the Board has discussed requiring a rough-in system which is exactly what the booklet recommends against. If the one in three number is real then we’re not spending much money to rough in the pipe that would be necessary for an active system.
Snead replied if all you did was rough in a system then it would be false to say that this house is radon resistant. If you adopt the other aspects of Appendix F and say you’re not going to run the vent pipe but just rough it in so it can be activated for those houses that are necessary, then you have a blend. In other words the Board in essence would be saying these components of Appendix F we’re going to recommend. It comes in on how you present it to the people who are buying the house. Do you present it as radon resistant? Well, if you’ve only adopted 60% of the appendix and left out the vent pipe how are you going to characterize that and do people know to test? That’s the only way the risk reduction is going to be achieved.
Hanson stated that if the City of Lawrence is already using gravel and poly as part of its construction practices, what is the cost of 25 feet of PVC pipe?
Queen replied, what is the cost of sealing every crack? What is the cost of sawing control joints because good builders will do that? What is the cost of the four cans of sealant to seal those two showers in the basement? What’s the cost of the $100.00 sewer ejection pit versus the $15 pit? What’s the cost of the plumber to plumb that pit? Queen said he thinks worst case scenario and others are thinking best case scenario. Somewhere in the middle is probably the actual figure. It’s a drop in the bucket on a $350.000 house, but on a house that my daughter would buy then it’s a big deal. We say $500, but I say $700. Then you add builders profit and amortirization over thirty years. Along with that fact the city is about to adopt the new residential code which will add more costs. We’re getting ready to drive the last nail into the affordable house coffin. Why install systems in a house when we don’t have to.
Snead said that he really understands those concerns. As a Commissioner for 12 years and having gone trough the code adoption process he knows what the pulls and tugs are. If a City adopts a code every three years it’s difficult enough but adopting after 12 years it’s a gigantic lump to swallow. That’s part of the political context of it. It affects the overall code impact for affordable housing. There’s no easy answer for it.
Craft asked if the intent was to rough in an active system knowing that a fan was going to be installed if the house tested positive for high levels of radon, can the system be roughed in with a 2” pipe instead of a 4” pipe.
Snead replied that it is hard to give a quantitative answer to that question. They recommend a 4” pipe.
Craft said that if they are creating a negative pressure with a mechanical fan at that point the diameter of pipe becomes much less important than if you’re trying to create a little bit of flow from stack pressure. Were talking about 10 or 20 times the amount of pressure. Any plumber knows that flow rate depends on pipe diameter and pressure.
Snead agreed and added that it’s difficult say whether that could be a solution to all houses, because each house has a different resistance to flow. If the sub-slab materials are permeable such as gravel then it’s a cakewalk. The key is to get a good pressure field extension. If you’re roughing in a pipe then a 3” pipe is the thing to do.
Queen asked if the Board would recommend installing the under-slab “T” with gravel and poly, and extending the 3” pipe through the roof. If that system was in place and high radon levels detected, at that point it would only be necessary to install a fan in the system to mitigate to acceptable levels. That would be without the sealing and caulking.
Snead said he could not give a quantitative answer as to sealing versus unsealing. All he could say for sure is that sealing enhances the chance for success.
Hanson stated that a house with gravel and poly was going to be pretty much sealed to start with.
Snead added the problem is the big openings like sump pits and bathtub openings. If you don’t put a lid on the sump pit that would be the path of least resistance. In Topeka there was discussion about not sealing the sump pit. The sump pit is a huge pathway from the sub-slab to the interior.
Queen asked what happens when a fan is on the system and the pit is not sealed.
Snead replied that conditioned air goes down into the pit through the permeable subsurface materials and into the pipe. The system is pulling conditioned air versus soil gas. This also results in a thermal penalty. The air pulled from the house is being replaced by air infiltrating back in through leaks and cracks.
Porter said if the Board were to recommend installing the under slab system, and the pipe through the roof, if high levels were detected then the owner could put in a fan. If that did not reduce the levels to acceptable, then the owner could seal the pit.
Queen asked if a home had levels around 7 pCi/l, with a system consisting of gravel, poly, and vented out through the roof, would Snead be surprised if installing a fan without sealing did not get levels to under 4pCi/L.
Snead said that if you install a fan he’s expecting that it would get it below 4pCi/L.
Craft asked even without sealing the pit.
Snead said he can’t answer that for sure.
Queen said that would be a retro fit install by a qualified person who would obviously recommend the sump pit be sealed.
Snead said that if you’re going to put in a fan, seal the lid. We would say that if you’re going to activate a passive system then seal the lid for the overall performance of the system for the lifetime of the system.
Hanson said even a fitted lid is better than an open pit.
Smalter asked with radon is true to say that either you have it or you don’t? Can radon levels change over the life of a structure?
Snead said the answer to that question is sometimes and maybe.
Smalter replied to her that would be yes.
Hanson stated if you build a house and don’t make any changes to that house the levels would remain static. If you make any changes that affect the footprint or the thermal envelope we recommend that you retest. As an example he purchased an older leaky Victorian home. After he put insulation in the side walls the levels went up to just under 4Ci/L.
Smalter asked what about a swimming pool.
Snead replied the things that influence radon levels are things that change the air pressure dynamics of the house. If you take out an old gravity feed furnace and install a furnace that gets combustion air from the outside instead of pulling it in through the walls. That would reduce the dilution effect. If you add on foundation area or finish the basement then the air volumes have changed.
Craft asked if levels fluctuate based on the seasons when more windows would be open.
Hanson said the highest levels are in the heating season followed by the cooling season.
Craft asked with the adoption of the energy Code and tighter buildings is that going to effect radon levels.
Snead replied the things that make a house energy efficient also make it radon resistant. We have found that high radon in tight houses, and high radon in drafty houses. We have even found high radon in a mobile home because it had tight skirting and the under belly had dropped away. When the furnace kicked on it sucked more air from under the trailer than inside the trailer. Their levels were 11.4 pCi/L. That’s why he answers sometimes and maybe. The potential is that by making the house tighter you reduce the dilution effect. But that same type of construction also reduces the vacuum.
Porter asked if the Board adopts Appendix F and says to the builder if you want to label the home as Radon resistant then you have to comply with the requirements of Appendix F or you can rough in a passive system. The rough in would be to install the “T” and run the pipe through the roof. Present the builder with those two options. If a builder roughs in a system then he or she cannot say the home is radon resistant. You have to do one or the other. He asked Snead what he thought of that logic.
Snead confirmed that option “A” was a roughed in “T” with sub-slab system and a pipe running from the basement ceiling through to the attic floor, and Option “B” is sub-slab system “T”, 3” pipe through the roof which would be considered radon resistant.
Hanson said the sealing has to do with efficiency of the system.
Craft asked Porter if he meant to the attic floor or through the roof.
Porter said he was open to either way.
Craft said at that point where it’s roughed to the attic floor then we’re just talking about a few feet of pipe.
Queen said that at the point where it is in the attic it might as well go through the roof and gain that advantage. Then at final inspection the inspector would make sure the pipe was properly labeled.
Porter said that unless you follow Appendix F completely then you can’t say it’s radon resistant.
Hanson stated that according to EPA the system the Board has described as a rough in from the sub-slab system out the roof is considered radon resistant without the sealing.
Snead said that if the board provided a roughed in system from the under slab out through the roof and made sealing a “should” instead of a “shall” that would be great.
Queen thanked Mr. Snead and Mr. Hanson for all the information and told him he would keep him informed on the City’s adoption progress.
Snead said that he would be happy to provide any additional resource that the City found necessary.
Jones updated the Board on Chapter V reorganization
Jones advised the Board that with the adoption of the I-Codes staff determined with consultation of the legal department to take the opportunity to streamline the Building and construction chapter in the City Code. Currently each ordinance adopting the building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes contain an administrative section.
With the I-codes those administrative sections which contain requirements for permitting, inspection and makeup of the boards are identical. Staff decided to have one administrative section and deleted chapter 1 from each code. This would dramatically reduce the time to adopt ordinances and reduce the size of the ordinance. As an example the IBC ordinance should go from 20 pages to 2 pages. The plumbing ordinance would go from 15 pages to 2 pages. The permitting, fees, inspections and makeup of the boards can be contained in one ordinance. Jones also said that he has provided the Board with the outline of the new reorganization as well as drafts of the IRC, IBC, and IECC ordinances.
Motion to adjourn made by Porter Second by Craft. Motion passed 5-0.
Meeting Adjourned 12:58