swimming pool enclosures

for a residential swimming pool, 2003 IBC allows a power safety cover complying with ASTM F 1346 in lieu of the 4' high barrier surrounding the pool. 2003 International RESIDENTIAL code has almost word for word the same requirements as the 2003 IBC - EXCEPT the exemption if the power safety cover is used.

WHY would that be - is it just a mistake, or is there some reason the two codes are different?
Original Post
cog,
Why are you using the '03 codes? Most places in the country are using '06.
Many states have swimming pool enclosure requirements that are different (and more restrictive) than ICC codes and many Cities and Counties as well due to the late 1980's campaign by a Mom that lost a child in a pool drowning incident.
Jim:

Not every jurisdiction tries to keep up. The Arizona State Fire Code, which applies to all state facilities, are on the 2003 I-codes.

And you thought California was bad hanging on to the 1997 UBC for so long, the Big Island in Hawaii is still on the 1991 UBC!
Some counties in Az. are still on the 97 UBC, how ever I'm not reallly sure about the Question asked.
Here we require a 5 ft fence, however the IRC is meant for one and two familty dwellings and the IBC other, please correct me if I am mistaken. Below are two links to a couple of i-code pool papers.


http://www.co.madison.al.us/in...ngpoolbarrierRef.pdf

http://www.dupageco.org/emplib...SwimmingPoolCode.pdf
I don't choose the code that is adopted in my town.

The power cover has a 100% safety rate - no one has ever drowned when the cover used. The key is kept inside and up high. No one wandering by in the yard or from the house can access the pool without permission. Beats ANY fence or gate.

question is: why does one code allow the exception for residential but the other does not? So, why the differences in the code?
Likes (0)
×
×
×
×
×