An additional look at ICC’s 2015 mechanical and fuel gas code changes.
In last month’s column, I addressed a number of proposed changes to the International Code Council’s International Plumbing Code. This month, I will continue with a review of the proposed changes to the International Mechanical Code and International Fuel Gas Code.
More than three-quarters of the changes proposed to the mechanical code directly relate to air-moving systems. While I’m not ignoring these changes, I will not be addressing any of them other than the changes to plenums.
Unfortunately, the proposed changes to plenums impact all other systems, including plumbing piping, fuel gas piping and hydronic piping. For the last 30 years, there has been a saying, “What’s a mechanical code hearing without hours of discussion on plenums?”
That will occur again this year. There are 16 proposed changes to the plenum section. A number of changes propose to completely eliminate plenums and require ducts for every air-handling system. When you read the justification for some of the plenum changes, you would be convinced that plenums are the most dangerous components that could ever be added to a building.
While these changes are somewhat crazy, it would make life easier for all of us since we would no longer have to worry about what type of piping material was exposed in a plenum or what type of insulation could be used in a plenum.
Many of the remaining plenum changes relate to what can be exposed in a plenum. Some changes want tighter requirements and additional fire testing of material. Other changes want to expand the allowance of materials, such as plastic water pipe. I always found it strange that certain individuals get so concerned about plastic water pipe. If it does burn through, wouldn’t the water that comes out of the pipe help to put out the fire?
Most of the plenum changes are submitted by those with vested interests. The finest proposed change was submitted by the code action committee. This is a group that studies issues in detail - without any vested interests. When I read the committee’s change to plenums, I can say that I was very impressed. Committee members have addressed all the concerns and have logical, straightforward requirements.