Are process structures exempt from IBC code? 4

[Z2Z]

A proposed structure is inside fence of a refinery. Does state officials have authority to enforce the structure comply with IBC code?

 

[EDub24]

Typically this question arises with non-structural requirements that are in the IBC. Such as, the IBC essentially requires that all (non-residential) stairs have a max rise of 7" and a min run of 11", OSHA allows up to a 10" rise and a 10" run. In industrial facilities, this can be a huge difference in the cost and size of a structure as it takes a much larger footprint to fit the "IBC compliant" stairs (typically, its the footprint that is the issue). I don't see wanting to follow OSHA requirements but not IBC requirements as a lack of ethics in this case.

I agree. I should have clarified that I was referring to structural items and not non-structural when I mentioned a lack of ethics. For non-structural I often turn to OSHA than the IBC like for stairs as you mention. Another common item is guadrails. IBC requires something like a 4" sphere can't pass through but we usually use guardrails with only 2 or 3 rails.

 

[r13]

Chances are, if you work on projects for the prominent industry mammoth, the specification will refer to OSHA, ACI, AISC, design manual/recommendations from trade organizations (such as CMAA, SDI..), design manual/guidelines from major equipment manufacturers (such as GE, Hitachi...). ASCE7 may, or may not included. IBC - unless project involves strictly building only.

 

[dauwerda]

retired13, I think you are missing the point here. It doesn't matter if the client/owner/"prominent industry mammoth" specification refers to the IBC or not. If the authority having jurisdiction has adopted the IBC (without any amendments otherwise exempting industrial type structures) into law. All aspects of the IBC are, by law, enforceable. That said, often times a call to the AHJ explaining the situation will often result in many "commercial" aspects of the IBC being waived, however without that communication, all of requirements in the IBC must be met to be compliant with the law.
Similarly, all industrial facilities must be compliant with OSHA 1910 as it is a federally adopted/enforced regulation. It doesn't matter if the owner spec specifically refers to it or not.

OSHA 1910 is specifically geared towards industrial type structures, so complying with it is generally not an issue. The IBC is not written with industrial type structures in mind, many aspects of it do not align with the intent and purpose of these types of structures yet it's unamended verbiage forces all of it's requirements onto them.
As discussed previously in this thread, this is a non-issue if the AHJ has not adopted the IBC or has amended it to exempt certain industrial type structures.

 

[r13]

dauwerda,

It seems we might have vast differences in our experiences. I worked in a large industrial plant (like a small town) for 5 yeas, all designs were abided with the owner's specification, and was never required to go to the local jurisdiction. I even witnessed the plant operation engineer took out an old bridge and rebuilt without interference from the local, and/or the DOT, thought the bridge was on a public road in the private land.

I also worked on nuclear power plant, hydroelectric powerplants, and some electrical substations, I wonder how much weight IBC, or any building code, has on these industries, or the mind of those authorities.

 

[dauwerda]

I worked in a large industrial plant (like a small town) for 5 yeas, all designs were abided with the owner's specification, and was never required to go to the local jurisdiction.

Great! I wish more AHJ's took this stance, but this is an example of one local AHJ out of how many in the US? Did this AHJ even have an adopted building code? Many of the industrial facilities I have worked in are in areas that don't have an enforceable (i.e. not adopted into law) building code and therefore never have any issues like this either.

I even witnessed the plant operation engineer took out an old bridge and rebuilt without interference from the local, and/or the DOT, thought the bridge was on a public road in the private land.

Just because there was no involvement/interference and nothing happened doesn't mean that's how it should have been handled. Many people speed and never get a traffic ticket, that doesn't mean they are in compliance with the law.

I also worked on nuclear power plant, hydroelectric powerplants, and some electrical substations, I wonder how much weight IBC, or any building code, has on these industries, or the mind of those authorities.

I have worked on substations and power plants that did have to submit everything to the AHJ and I have worked on them where they didn't. The entire point I have been trying to make here is that it depends on the location of the facility and the AHJ and what they have or haven't adopted into law.

A simple blanket statement that industrial facilities don't have to follow the IBC is incorrect and ill advised. I have seen an entire cement terminal need to be redesigned because the AHJ would not permit it unless all of the stairs (think maintenance access to bucket elevators and air slides) in the facility complied with the IBC - a lot of time and energy could have been saved if the assumption wasn't made at the beginning of the project that the IBC didn't apply and only the industry standards needed to be followed.

 

[r13]

Time may have changed. We used to treat owner's specification next to OSHA only when work on industrial projects. The reason is simple, many times only the owner knows who the real/pertinent authority is for their interest. Don't blanket assume IBC controls everything.

 

[charliealphabravo]

I think dauwerda is just making a technical point that the building code is law once adopted by the local jurisdiction unless specifically exempted. Also that the IBC scope language is not self aware as to its actual real-world authority.

I found the link to the local code adoption ordinance I referred to above. There are many exemptions from various aspects of the code, inspections, permitting, contractor regulation, plan review, etc.

 

[r13]

I don't against the code, and agree 100% that "the building code is law once adopted by the local jurisdiction", if the "local jurisdiction" is the authority of the trade by rule/law. What I was trying to point out is that there are a few "industries" have their own authority of trade, that does not necessarily recognize IBC as the prominent governing code as it claims. So, it is essential and imperative to identify the governing authority, and know theirs requirement, when dealing with industry project. Also, be prepared, and don't be surprised, when asked why the use of IBC provisions in the design.

 

[charliealphabravo]

I think we are on the same page.

The enabling local ordinances seem to be rather advanced in recognizing exempt industries/trades. I don't see power transmission towers explicitly stated but I'm guessing that falls under some federal exemption (nvm i see it now).

I've hacked these example references up so please don't quote them.

The following I read as code exempt:

(a)Building and structures specifically regulated and preempted by the Federal Government.
(b)Railroads and ancillary facilities associated with the railroad.
(c)Non-residential farm buildings on farms.
(d)Temporary buildings or sheds used exclusively for construction purposes.
(e)Mobile homes or modular structures used as temporary offices, except that the provisions of part V (§§ 553.501—553.513, Florida Statutes) relating to accessibility by persons with disabilities and permits shall be required for structural support and tie down, electric supply and all other such utility connections to such mobile or modular structures as required by this jurisdiction.
(f)Those structures or facilities of electric utilities, as defined in § 366.02, Florida Statutes, which are directly involved in the generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity.
(g)Temporary sets, assemblies, or structures used in commercial motion picture or television production, or any sound-recording equipment used in such production, on or off the premises.
(h)Chickees constructed by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians or the Seminole Tribe of Florida. As used in this paragraph, the term "chickee" means an open-sided wooden hut that has a thatched roof of palm or palmetto or other traditional materials, and that does not incorporate any electrical, plumbing, or other non-wood features.
(i)Family mausoleums not exceeding 250 square feet in area which are prefabricated and assembled on site or preassembled and delivered on site and have walls, roofs, and a floor constructed of granite, marble, or reinforced concrete.
(j)Temporary housing provided by the Department of Corrections to any prisoner in the state correctional system.
(k)Building or structure having less than 1,000 square feet, which is constructed and owned by a natural person for hunting, and which is repaired or reconstructed to the same dimension and condition as existed on January 1, 2011, if the building structure1)is not rented, leased, or used as a principal residence; and(2)is not located within the 100-year floodplain, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's current Flood Insurance Rate Map; and(3)is not connected to an offsite electric power or water supply.

102.2.1 In addition to the requirements of §§ 553.79 and 553.80 Florida Statutes, facilities subject to the provisions of Chapter 395 Florida Statutes and Part II of Chapter 400 Florida Statutes shall have facility plans reviewed and construction surveyed by the state agency authorized to do so...(basically hospitals I think)

102.2.2 Residential Buildings or structures moved into or within Hernando County shall not be required to be brought into compliance with the state minimum building code....

102.2.4 This section does not apply to the jurisdiction and authority of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to inspect amusement rides or the Department of Financial Services to inspect state-owned buildings and boilers.

102.2.6 This section does not apply to swings and other playground equipment accessory to a one- or two-family dwelling.


Following I read as permit exempt but not code exempt:

105.2 Work exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code. Permits shall not be required for the following:
Building:
1.One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, to a Group R-3 occupancy provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet, at grade level.
2.Oil derricks.
3.Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2:1.
4.Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route.
5.Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work.
6.Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.
7.Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R-3 occupancy that are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep, do not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 L) and are installed entirely above ground.8.Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes, not including service systems.
...

Following I read as exempt from plan review but not the code:

107.3 Examination of documents. The building official shall as deemed necessary examine or cause to be examined each application for a permit and the accompanying documents, consisting of drawings, specifications, computations and additional data, and shall ascertain by such examinations whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements of the technical codes and all other pertinent laws or ordinances.

Exceptions:

1.Building plans approved pursuant to § 553.77(5) Florida Statutes and state-approved manufactured buildings are exempt from local codes enforcing agency plan reviews except for provisions of the code relating to erection, assembly or construction at the site. Erection, assembly and construction at the site are subject to local permitting and inspections. Photocopies of plans approved according to F.A.C. 9B-1.009, F.A.C. shall be sufficient for local permit application documents of record for the modular building portion of the permitted project.

2.Industrial construction on sites where design, construction and fire safety are supervised by appropriate design and inspection professionals and which contain adequate in-house fire departments and rescue squads is exempt, subject to local government option, from review of plans and inspections, providing owners certify that applicable codes and standards have been met and supply appropriate approved drawings to local building and fire-safety inspectors.

 

[r13]

Charlie,

Good hack Yeah, where I used to work falls squarely in the exemption.

 

[oldinspector]

To the original question: Do state authorities have the authority to enforce a structure to comply with the IBC code? The answer is as follows:
It depends on the enabling legislation of the particular state. If a state exempts buildings inside of a moat and the structure is within a moat, the structure is exempt. A list of states and their various exemptions would go on forever. The number of these would be in the hundreds, maybe thousands. RPMG has it right. Most states have adopted the IBC with local amendments. To be thorough, when I enforce the Mass State Building Code, I must look at the IBC (adopted in MA) then look at the MA amendments. Do I think this is efficient 21st century code enforcement? NO. But it's my job.
ICC publishes a helpful resource on the state authority to regulate codes: "Legal Aspects of Code Administration." It's accurate, informative, and an average woodchuck could probably understand it.
This question and a couple of others have referred to the OSHA/IBC situation on the stair treads. That's a separate question. (And an excellent topic for discussion). When we inspect buildings in the industrial parks, we always enforce 7 and 11 on stairs.