Changes to IBC, IRC codes that will cost you money

[dave_k]

I received this email from one of my suppliers today. This issue doesn't affect me for obvious reasons but I thought it would be a good idea to pass the information on to you builders and contractors in the USA that will be affected.

This is the body of the email:


Members of the Door Industry,
The Association of Millwork Distributors (AMD) was successful delaying codes relating to residential exterior doors during earlier code hearings, but it isn't over yet. The International Code Council will consider this issue again at upcoming hearings.
�*
We need your help in fighting this issue.
�*
We need comments from people in the industry and they need to be submitted by Monday, June 9 at the latest. The process is very easy. The link below will take you to the AMD site with a video and the forms that need to be used. View the video and follow the instructions in the video. This process should take just a few minutes.
�*
Again, this needs to be done by Monday at the latest and thank you for your help.
�*

Bruce Norlie
Norfield President and member of the Board of Directors of AMD
AMD Site http://www.amdweb.com/code_informati...hp?id=%2725%27


You go to the AMD site, view the video, then fill out the form as instructed in the video and email a copy to both the IBC and the IRC comittees.

It sounds like if these code changes go through you will have to pay more for your doors to pay for the associated testing.

[David Meiland]

Dave, where can we read a summary of the changes?

[dave_k]

Here's a PDF I received on the subject back in January. These guys have been sending updates on this issue for some time but since it doesn't affect me I haven't given it much thought. Other than this document I don't know anything else about building code amendments, or where you would look for documentation of proposed amendments for you guys. I have trouble enough keeping track of our own code changes ;)

[Dick Seibert]

Dave:

I've been following this in the DWM magazine I get, I think it's a good idea, it's a proposal to test and label doors much like they do windows.

The standard includes five separate tests for each
door system configuration, meaning that all side hinged exterior doors or combinations thereof will need to be tested, certified
and labeled for performance criteria in the areas of force to latch, air infiltration, water penetration resistance, structural
performance, forced entry, door cycling, and vertical loading WDMA states in the S141 that this amendment will,” increase
complexity and cost of manufacturing side-hinged door assemblies because it requires side-hinged door assemblies to be
tested, and labeled, to performance requirements previously not required.”

[bread and roses]

A heads up is always good, but that was a very uninformative video- I hope no offense to Dave K, you're just passing on the word.

It says the door industry doesn't want to have standards put in place because it will cost money.

They say the testing is unnecessary but don't say why it's unnecessary. Becuase we're good honest guys? Because we don't like to be told what to do? Or because our doors meet those requirements without the testing provision? If they had some evidence of that, I'd be more interested.

I can imagine a better regulation that could be written, one that was more flexible in that it allowed for different ways of showing that the doors met a standard. But the video isn't arguing for that; it's just saying "don't regulate us 'cause we don't like it".

[dave_k]

A heads up is always good, but that was a very uninformative video- I hope no offense to Dave K, you're just passing on the word.

It says the door industry doesn't want to have standards put in place because it will cost money.

They say the testing is unnecessary but don't say why it's unnecessary. Becuase we're good honest guys? Because we don't like to be told what to do? Or because our doors meet those requirements without the testing provision? If they had some evidence of that, I'd be more interested.

I can imagine a better regulation that could be written, one that was more flexible in that it allowed for different ways of showing that the doors met a standard. But the video isn't arguing for that; it's just saying "don't regulate us 'cause we don't like it".

Aspen

First off, no offense taken. The reason I posted this was for awareness and discussion.

I think you have to be very careful in accepting changes of this nature to the building code. For obvious reasons I have not read the proposed amendments to the codes in question but it would worry me that testing would be requires on entry systems. There are a lot of components to an entry system. Doors, hardware, frames, thresholds, gasketing and glazing. If you change out any of these components does it mean the system has to be re-tested? I could see it working for factory made entry systems (testing is requires for these systems in Canada) but what about custom or site built entry systems? If the amendments are poorly written every carpenter who pulls a permit then changes an entry door may be required to have it tested.

From my own experience I wired the shop I built 20 years ago. As the owner I was allowed to pull an electrical permit and do the work myself. I had some woodworking machines stored in the building when the electrical inspector did his rough in inspection, which passed without a problem. A week or so later I got a letter from the electrical safety authority stating that I had un-approved electrical machinery in my possession and I would be required to either have it CSA approved or independently tested by them for a very large sum (I can't remember how much now) and went on to list my General cabinet saw, Delta contractor's table saw, General jointer and Delta drill press. I could not get an occupancy permit without getting the machines inspected.

Each of these machines were CSA approved, the motors were CSA approved and the switches were CSA approved. When I put the motor on the machines and wired them to a switch I had built a custom machine that wasn't CSA approved. The electrical safety authority wanted me to get these machines tested for more than the machines were worth. I worried about it for a couple of days then I sent a reply stating that I destroyed the machines. This satisfied them and I just stored my machines off site until I had my final inspection.

In light of that experience and the way I have seen municipalities react to other code changes I would agree to testing of components in the entry system but not on the system itself. The devil is in the details.

Edit: I just noticed a thread on the finish carpentry forum about a custom entry system. Could he have built that beautiful entry system if he was required to have it tested?

[Dick Seibert]

Dave:

You'll have to read the whole thing, the window labeling contains a section for "site built" which takes one time custom installations into consideration and doesn't require testing, I would assume the same sort of thing will be in here.

[Ohiobuilder]

I have a brother that has a millwork shop that does mainly entry door systems. Thanks for posting this info, I passed it on to him and he was aware of it.

I wonder if the folks proposing these types of changes are really in construction?

[bread and roses]

Aspen

First off, no offense taken. The reason I posted this was for awareness and discussion.

I think you have to be very careful in accepting changes of this nature to the building code.

Dave, you make a good, thoughtful argument about why we might not want the amendment. If I were making the video I would ask what flaws, defects, failures, and so on have been documented in the market as it is that need to be corrected. But the video didn't bring up any of that stuff, it just expanded on "this is bad, it costs money". So thanks for expanding.

[dave_k]

Dave, you make a good, thoughtful argument about why we might not want the amendment. If I were making the video I would ask what flaws, defects, failures, and so on have been documented in the market as it is that need to be corrected. But the video didn't bring up any of that stuff, it just expanded on "this is bad, it costs money". So thanks for expanding.

I agree the video wasn't much to watch. I have been getting emails on this subject for some time so I think it has been widely discussed throughout the industry. I don't think the video was to educate the public (at least I hope it wasn't) but just to get already informed members of the AMD to post their objections. I would have posted on this subject back in January but I figured the AMD had the situation in hand then came their call for action this weekend so I figured I'd pass it on. It probably wouldn't be hard to get a job as PR person / press secretary at the AMD would it.