April 30, 2007 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Jim Sparkes, Bryan Wyatt, Gary Mohr, Kevin Chaney |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Mark Jarboe |
|
|
|
|
|
GUEST PRESENT: |
|
Bill Schweitzer, IAPMO Billy Pope, ICC |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT:
EX-OFFICIO: |
|
Tim Pinnick, Plan Review Manager
Patrick O’Brien, Mechanical Inspector |
|
|
|
|
Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m.
After review, Wyatt stated that a comment that Mohr made was showing that he had made it, but he had only echoed Mohr’s comment. Staff stated that they would make the change. Mohr made a motion to approve the minutes as changed. Seconded by Wyatt, pass 4-0.
Discuss the review of chapters 19-24 of the 2006 IRC
Chaney stated that since he did not attend the previous meeting that he would like to discuss the items that he had comments on in chapters 12-18. The first item was in section N1101.8, there is a requirement to place on the house electrical panel the energy provisions for the home, he suggested requiring the placement of the “J Sheet” in the same location. He also suggested placing the engineering data for the air conditioner and coil in the same location.
Staff stated that they could check the feasibility of that kind of requirement.
Mohr inquired that the “J Sheet” was for the inspector during inspection.
Staff confirmed, and also stated that language has been developed for the requirement of the “J Sheet” and was shown as an amendment in the handout of suggested amendment.
Chaney stated that he thought it would make calculating the need for additional heating and cooling easier if the house was added on to in the future.
Mohr stated that attaching all the information to the (electrical)panel may not be very effective.
Chaney replied that if not to the panel, maybe to the plenum.
Staff stated that they have been discussing how to administer the requirement of placing the efficiency provisions onto the electrical panel.
Pinnick asked what the present practice of placing the manual to the furnace was.
Chaney replied that most of the time the manual was placed in an area near the furnace.
Mohr was concerned about the attachment methods.
Staff stated that requiring a specific attachment method gets to be something that is more difficult to enforce.
Chaney asked staff if all documents are kept so a contractor could access them for future reference.
Staff assured the board that all documents that are received in their office are scanned and are available to the public.
Chaney responded that having access through the City may work better.
Pinnick stated that any document received is scanned and is associated with that address in a database for access.
Chaney asked if staff would rather have the paperwork present on the job site.
Staff responded commonly on equipment changeouts, inspectors meet the homeowner for the inspection and the homeowner may not be aware of the location of the paperwork and would be easier to bring it with them.
Wyatt asked about systems that are presently not large enough to handle an addition to the system.
Chaney responded there was not any jurisdiction on existing systems, and they would need to be updated when the system was changed.
Wyatt was inquiring as to a house that was added onto and they had no provisions to upgrade the existing system.
Chaney stated that if they were not able to upgrade the existing system, they would have to install a new system for the addition.
Sparkes stated that the board had discussed when finishing the basement that the City would require to upgrade the duct system.
Staff responded that a basement finish would be treated differently because the basement is typically considered part of the building envelope.
Chaney’s concern was to avoid a contractor from placing an addition onto a house and not taking into consideration upsizing the furnace and air conditioner.
Staff referred to the language added to the sizing section to require the manual “J Sheet” for additions and new houses.
Mohr stated that he did not think that the City had the authority to require air conditioning if the homeowner chooses not to add air conditioning to an addition they were placing on their house.
Staff replied that all new houses built today are equipped with air conditioning. There are times that weather prevents the air conditioner from being installed at the final inspection, due to safety concerns until the air conditioner is installed, the electrical wiring must be terminated safely and the air conditioner installed as soon as possible.
Wyatt stated that the City does not require air conditioning, but if air conditioning is provided, it must be installed to the requirements of the code.
Mohr suggested adding an exception that if the homeowner did not want to upgrade the entire system, they could sign a waiver to “opt out” of the requirement.
Wyatt responded that and exception could be acceptable, but since most homeowners move every 3 to 5 years, a “waiver” would not protect the next potential homeowner.
Pinnick stated that there should not be a problem with the requirement of the “J Sheet”.
Chaney stated that he found that the IRC does address the “J Sheet” in section M1401.3.
Wyatt asked if the requirement of the “J Sheet” will be something that is feasible and enforceable.
Pinnick responded that the City will require the “J Sheet” as a condition of issuing a building permit.
Chaney continued with discussion of the IRC with chapter 15 referring to the language of the dryer vent length requirements. He suggested rewriting the section to ensure the length requirement was not exceeded.
Mohr agreed with revising to reflect more closely with the UMC.
Wyatt stated that as long as the inspection department understand the language and can enforce the requirement, then to just leave it alone. If in the future an appeal was brought before the board, then the language could changed to be more specific.
Sparkes stated that the dryer in his house is about 25 to 28 feet with at least two bends.
Staff stated that the inspection department had been allowing approximately 25 feet and two to three bends. He explained the background that most dryer manufacturers allow up to 40 feet and the department has worked that in to the dryer vent length requirement.
Chaney asked staff who had made the decision to require the longer length?
Staff did not know the origination of the decision. If the requirement of the code were followed, all dryers would have to be placed on the outside wall.
Chaney asked if at some point the City will allow 40 foot dryer vents.
Staff replied that longer length would require the manufacturer recommendations for dryer vent lengths over 25 feet as allowed in the code.
Mohr asked what the maximum length of flexible duct is for dryer vents.
Staff replied the maximum length of flexible duct for a dryer is six feet and can only be used as a connector between the dryer and the wall connection.
Wyatt’s concern is that the code is a minimum standard and the minimum standard is not even being met. Wyatt suggested that the City discontinue the longer allowed length.
The board agreed to recommend follow the letter of the code.
Staff replied that the requirement can be followed in the code but would need to have a notification sent to the building community to make sure houses are designed to meet the shorter dryer vent lengths.
Mohr was concerned about the exception that allows the longer length when the maker of the dryer is known. That the next homeowners dryer may not meet the same allowance.
Sparkes asked what would be the best way to change the enforcement of the dryer vent in the smoothest way possible.
Staff responded that placing a hard date that all permits issued after that date would have to comply with the code.
Pinnick stated that the adoption of the code would be the best time to make the changes known to the building community. The plan review process will ensure the dryer vent length maximum is followed.
Wyatt was still curious how the longer dryer vent length has been allowed even through the plan review process.
Pinnick responded that sometimes old habits are hard to break and that he could not defend the requirement.
Chaney also brought up section M1601.1 #5, use of gypsum products.
Wyatt responded that the board had discussed it and added the word return to plenum as shown in the handout.
Chaney asked if the underground duct requirements had been covered.
Staff replied that the handout covers the existing amendment for underground ducts.
Chaney mentioned section M1701.4 prohibited sources of combustion air. He asked if the requirements were more stringent than the existing code.
Staff replied that the requirements are more specific.
Mohr agreed that the requirements were more specific and would allow direct vent appliances in a bathroom.
Chaney also stated that he found a situation that was not covered in the code. The furnace was located off of a room with a hot tub and he stated that his opinion was that a hot tub room should meet the same requirements as a bedroom or bathroom.
Staff stated that the definition of a bathroom does not cover hot tubs.
Chaney suggested adding “hot tub rooms” to the prohibited locations for obtaining combustion air.
Pinnick asked if the combustion air was obtained from a different location, could the furnace remain.
Chaney said that the sealed door would need to be installed on the furnace room.
Pinnick stated that there are not many hot tubs in basements but a good point is raised about the location.
Chaney referred the question to Billy Pope with ICC to learn the intent of the section.
Pope responded that the intent is to reduce the premature corrosion of the equipment in high moisture areas such as bathrooms and toilet rooms and could also include hot tub rooms.
Schweitzer stated that consideration should be made whether the tub is always full of water or filled each time. The code does not address hot tub rooms but the moisture should be considered.
Chaney made a motion to add “hot tub rooms” to prohibited sources of combustion air.
Sparkes asked if there was scenario that a hot tub was installed without a permit, then the City would not be able to enforce it.
Chaney stated that when a mechanical contractor visits the site for a furnace change, the hot tub requirement would need to be addressed.
Wyatt seconded the previous motion. Pass 4-0.
Chaney asked about the masonry chimney liner requirements.
Wyatt stated that the issue had been discussed at the previous meeting but was waiting for the full board to make any decisions.
Chaney stated that if a clay chimney liner is in good condition, it should be allowed to be used.
Wyatt stated that if a liner shows no blockage and is in good condition, to use the existing liner.
Chaney stated that his company inspects the chimney and if there is a question, they put a sewer cam down and make sure there are no blockages.
Wyatt stated that the issue with the liner is more of a liability issue rather than what the code requires. Wyatt stated that not every chimney should need to have a liner installed.
Chaney mentioned section M1902.3 combustion air was already covered previously. Chapter 20 covers water heaters and he stated that water heaters should not be in the mechanical code.
Mohr stated that the IRC is a residential building code and covers residential.
Sparkes stated that there was a discussion at the last meeting about clearances in front of furnaces that the requirements are 30” unless there is a change out and can not meet the 30”, the clearance can be reduced if any components can be removed.
Wyatt stated that staff has required removing the blower to ensure there is adequate clearance.
Chaney stated that he has a concern with section G2406.2 appliance prohibited locations, #3 & 4, unvented room heaters. He suggested those two items should be removed and that all unvented room heaters should be prohibited inside a dwelling. He asked if there should be a requirement that spells out that all is prohibited in dwelling units.
Pinnick stated that any mention of unvented room heaters can be removed from the code.
Chaney replied that if there is no mention of unvented heaters then someone may think they can install them. Just make an amendment that prohibits unvented appliances in dwellings.
Mohr stated that the requirement can not prohibit unvented appliances because then you could not put in a gas range.
Chaney made a motion to add language that prohibits unvented room heaters in dwelling units. Seconded by Wyatt. Pass 4-0.
Staff stated that there may be another area that regulates unvented room heaters that the prohibition can be placed.
The board agreed to let staff find the appropriate location of the prohibiting unvented room heaters.
Schweitzer asked the board if they were going to discuss the gas piping test pressure that had been discussed at a previous meeting.
Mohr stated that staff had covered that in an e-mail sent to the board and the code had been amended in the 2003 UPC.
Staff confirmed Mohr’s comment that the Plumbing Board had amended the code to require gas piping test pressure to remain at 10 pounds.
Wyatt stated that the plumbing contractors perform the gas pressure testing and will be covered in their code book.
Sparkes inquired about gas piping that the mechanical contractor could run gas piping without a pressure test as long as it wasn’t over 10 feet.
Mohr read from the IRC that minor alterations are not required to be tested provided that the connections were leak tested located in section G2417.1.2.
Staff stated that a small alteration would not require a pressure test, but extending piping to a new appliance would require a permit and a pressure test. Staff added that there was a concern that mechanical contractors would not be able to install gas piping under the I-Code. Since the testing agency that is used to license mechanical contractors includes questions that pertain to gas piping. So any mechanical contractor will still be able to install gas piping.
Sparkes had a concern about section G2414.6 plastic piping, he stated that he wasn’t aware of any place that still allowed plastic gas piping.
Chaney replied that the gas company will provide the piping with the risers already installed. The contractor only needs to provide the trench and the exact length of pipe needed and the contractor can install it.
Mohr stated that the K.C.C. requires that the gas company or an approved contractor can install plastic and the gas company is the only approved contractor, strictly from a liability standpoint.
Sparkes had a question about section G2415.7 the elevation of the gas piping above grade. He stated that he always thought the gas piping had to enter at least 18 inches above grade.
The board stated that this section pertained to elevating the piping above ground at least 3½ inches to protect against moisture retention and corrosion of the pipe.
Sparkes stated that he thought there was a requirement that the gas pipe could not enter the house below 18 inches above ground.
Mohr replied that the gas piping is required to enter above ground to avoid a leak in the piping to follow the piping into the house.
Chaney and Wyatt both stated that they knew of no provision requiring piping at least 18 inches above grade.
Wyatt stated that what Sparkes is concerned about is a different issue separate from the section that he brought up.
Sparkes mentioned that in section G2415.1 stating that in townhouses that gas piping can not pass through separate dwelling units. What would be done in the situation of an 8-plex.
Staff stated this issue had been brought up in an IRC update class and the instructor stated that one must look at the definition of a townhouse that a row house is defined as a townhouse and that 8-plexes would not be regulated under the IRC. The reasoning behind the gas piping not passing through other dwelling units is that most townhouses are individually owned and that the owner would not have control over their entire gas piping system. In the event of a leak, other property owners would have to be disrupted to search for a leak in the gas piping system.
Sparkes was still concerned about an 8-plex situation.
Pinnick stated that a townhouse would be different than an 8-plex and is not regulated by the IRC.
Staff stated that a duplex would require the gas piping not to pass through the adjoining unit.
Chaney asked if the changes could be ready for the next meeting.
Staff replied the changes that the board has requested will be ready for the next meeting. Staff requested the board review the fuel gas code next since there should not be very many changes other than the same changes that were made in chapter 24 of the IRC. Chapters 3,5 and 6 will need to be reviewed.
Wyatt stated that he did not receive a gas code and asked if those had been handed out.
Staff assured Wyatt that he had distributed the gas code along with the mechanical code.
The board agreed to review the fuel gas code next and the next meeting will be June 4th.
Mohr reminded staff to review G2401.1 since the section refers to the fuel gas code if it is not covered in the IRC.
Miscellaneous
Sparkes asked what the ICC had that is better than the uniform code that the City has been using for several years.
Chaney added, other than the single family of codes that they have heard before.
Pope replied that technically, the two codes are very similar. Where the differences lie are the different I-codes are all intertwined with each other, they refer back and forth with each other. The coordination between the codes is smooth, rather than trying to blend in the Uniform codes.
Chaney commented that there were a lot of books.
Pope replied that any way you go, there are going to be a lot of books. If you utilize the uniform codes, you will still have the same amount of books as the international codes.
Sparkes stated that many communities are using the blended codes and what he is being told is that the blended codes will not work.
Pope replied that with enough effort, anything can work. The problem with trying to blend the codes is the amount of time it takes to go through each code and change any reference that is made to the mechanical or plumbing codes. Trying to coordinate the blended codes is the big problem. The I-codes are all coordinated.
Sparkes asked if ICC was going to furnish books like IAPMO has in the past.
Staff replied that ICC provided all the books that the board has been reviewing.
Chaney asked if ICC will provide new books at the next code cycle.
Pope replied that ICC will provide those books when the time comes around.
Mohr had a comment that he requested Pope take back to ICC for consideration. He stated that the selling point of the family set of codes is not a selling point for the design engineers and consultants that have to reference the books all the time. He stated that the books continually reference each other. When the IMC references the IBC, why doesn’t the IMC just say it instead of referencing the IBC. Consulting engineers have to buy every book published, but contractors don’t want to have to buy all the code books to be able to do their jobs.
The main reason the books have been separated is there are the different disciplines that take a look at the different books. Most contractors only practice one discipline.
Mohr replied that they still would need to at least carry there trade and the building code.
Pope replied that the IRC is there attempt at placing all the trades into one book and they are headed in that direction with the building code.
Pinnick stated the one advantage to the separate books for each discipline is for example the fire department can look at the fire code and have clear dividing line of what to look at.
Mohr stated that what is a selling point to the jurisdictions is a frustration for design consultants.
Pope stated he understood his frustration and ICC is attempting to develop something similar to the IRC in the building code.
Wyatt stated that he hopes to reduce the frustration with the separate disciplines that he changes out a furnace and has to add combustion air and there is a new water heater that has been installed and approved. He hopes the IRC will help everyone gets on the same page and the trades work together to get things done right the first time.
Motion to adjourn made by Wyatt, seconded by Mohr, passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.