SectionFormat Regulatory Requirements

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 60 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 03:39 pm:    I wish I had noticed this when David L was looking for discussion & comments... I often need to make a statement about regulations the Contractor is required to meet. Now I am working on developing a few Sections for Haz mat abatement so thought this would be a good time to address this with the collective. In the new SectionFormat the Article for Regulatory Requirements has been moved from Part 1 to Part 2. It doesn't quite make sense to me to place this in Part 2 under the "Description" Article heading so I'm looking for some explanation of why? It makes more sense to me to place it under Part 1-Administrative Requirements. What are the rest of you doing on this? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 12:10 am:    I am going to try responding on my iPhone as I am at our region conference. System Description was moved to Part 2 and renamed Performance/Design Requirements. Somehow we reused the Description part of System Description as the article heading for Regulatory Requirements. Many sample sections included fire ratings an other code requirements under Materials. Some Plan checkers were looking at the Materials article for code requirements that were already included on Part 1. The main reason, however, was that the task team considered regulatory requirements as a product attribute. The title Description may appear awkward, but after two years of using it, it has become normal. Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: jo_drummond_fcsi Post Number: 38 Registered: 06-2007 Posted on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 05:24 pm:    Or, as Humpty Dumpty said in "Through the Looking Glass" When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 41 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 12:03 pm:    This is one case where I think the task team missed the boat. Some regulatory requirements apply to products. Other regulatory requirements apply to the installed product. The code official is not concerned about the slip resistance of the supplied floor finish product, but rather the slip resistance of the installed floor finish product after any sealer or wax has been applied. More importantly would be an assembly or system comprised of the field installation of multiple products into an completed assembly (partition assembly). To be put regulatory requirements for the latter instances in PART 2 - Products makes no sense. I had a long discussion with the task team during its deliberations on the similar subject of performace requirements. Putting the performance requirements for the field installation of multiple products into an completed assembly in PART 2 - Products makes no sense. The performance requirements of the individual products is completely different from the performance requirements of the completed assembly. The typical instances of this are delegated-design sections for such topics as metal stud framed partitions and walls, light gage metal framing, metal stairs, fire sprinkler systems, masonry partitions and walls, etc. In these instances, the contractor is given regulatory requirements and performance requirements to meet and he is free to design the assembly to meet those regulatory and performance requirements under other restrictions included in the section. Putting regulatory and performance requirements for installed products or the field installation of multiple products into an completed assembly in PART 2 violates the basic organization of SectionFormat in terms of the type of requirements to be included in each of the three parts. You do not put requirements that apply to both PARTS 2 and 3 in PART 2. As is obvious by the completed format, the task team did not agree with me. The final conclusion that I received from the team was that the distinction wasn't compelling and that it was too subtle for even experienced people. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 366 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 01:33 pm:    I had forgotten about this posting, but was thinking about the issue earlier this mornng. I think everyone is becomming more and more concerned about the performance of certain types of installed systems rather than the performance of particular products. Bob mentioned some good ones, but the ones that I frequently am involved with are windstorm resistant assemblies. The requirements here in Texas not only have to do with individual products (like glazing and framing) but with anchoring and what the item(s) are anchored to. It does no good to specify hurricane-resistant glazing if you don't have a hurricane-resistant frame to put it into (with at least an inch of glazing bite in most cases). And it does no good to specify hurricane-resistant glazing and frames if you don't indicate the anchoring to transfer the load to a hurricane resistant wall assembly. I am also facing this more frequently with ballistic-resistant ("bullet-proof") stuff. Although it is done all the time, what good does it do to specify a "bullet-proof" window if the wall assembly is not indicated to have comparable performance. I am told by many law enforcement agencies that the bad guys simply aren't that smart in most cases; that by the time a bad guy realizes that he is trying to fire through UL-rated Level 3 glazing (rated for .44 magnum weapon) with his .32 Saturday night special and might do better firing through the wall, a bunch of cops will have drawn down on him. I have specified "bullet-proof" glass in a wood frame in some cases, but usually when I raise the issue, we do agree that at least we need a bullet-resistant window assembly even if we don't do the whole wall (and adjacent door). I also see, but not as often, requirements for "blast-resistant" construction, and I am sure that many of you see much more of it than I do. Many clients will focus on the glass without giving adequate consideration to the fennestration assembly, the wall around it, or the interface between the two (the anchorage). These kinds of issues actually go to a deeper problem with MasterFormat, one that really does not go far enough in recognize certain types of "work results" for these types of assemblies. I am thinking about a small conference center I am working on now. There is an operable partition, and I am specifying the product to be identical to those that have been tested and have achieved an STC rating of more than 50. have not included field testing. In this case, the specified performance is a product requirement. Were I to specify a field test (field quality control in Part 3), that would be a characteristic of the installed system. I am concerned about the response of the SectionFormat team to Bob's concerns which have been similar to responses to concerns I have raised about MasterFormat "classifications" of certain work results and educational materials being developed by CSI. I would suggest that "products" developed under the CSI banner should go beyond what appears to be correct to most people. There are those who will "get it" cognatively, and I would suggest that there are others who will use it and then have one of those "aha" moments, realizing that there is something more substantial that what might have met the eye originally. I believe that we have an obligation in all that we work on to be "clear, concise, correct, complete"; that is really at the core of developing good specifications. SectionFormat is a tool that should enable us to better achieve the 4Cs, not a tool dumbed down for the masses. Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 62 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 03:16 pm:    But what about the general regulations (laws) that are required... such as in my Haz Mat Sections where there are requirements to meet CFR, OSHA and local regs? Would you concur that these would be best stated in Part 1 as they are administrative in nature? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1118 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 - 08:43 am:    Well I, for one, like these in Part 2, at least the way the term has typically been used. I prefer to keep Part 1 restricted to administrative requirements, and not put things there that are related to the products, processes or systems I'm specifying. When we specify an assembly or product within the confines of a section, there are numerous performance characteristics we want which we typically specify around testing results. Many regulatory requirements are essentially just that. I don't really see the objection to putting these in Part 2, as if they somehow don't apply as well. As to regulatory requirements that Karen refers to, I put very few of these in specifications, maybe none. Contractors must meet laws and regulations whether they are in a contract or not. One exception may be to clarify which entity is responsible for certain tasks, but I don't think that is the case with hazmat work generally. Anyway, I think regulations fit fine into Part 2 "Performance/Design Criteria" if the decision is to spell them out. (I admit that this is typical for abatement work.) I think some of the concerns come from just how accustomed we've been to these things being in Part 1, not really any solid reason they can't go in Part 2. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 222 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 - 01:09 pm:    Regulatory requirements is an article that is easily abused and as a result should probably be renamed. There are so many regulatory requirements that even the most obsessive individual would have difficulty listing let alone understanding all of them. If you start listing them where do you stop? If you miss one what is your liability? I adopt the view that specification sections should only list those that the Contractor needs to comply with and that impact the performance of the completed construction. There may be exceptions but they would be few. There are situations where I design portions of the structure for OSHA specified loads. When I do so I do not mention OSHA in the construction documents nor do I specify that the Contractor complies with OSHA requirements. To do so would get into the area of means and methods. Except when specifically delegating design of a sub system to the contractor general references to the building code are inappropriate since it is not clear what the Contractors obligations are. When I have seen lists of regulatory requirements in Division 1 it seems that they are seldom if ever well thought out. I do know that I have never been consulted regarding those that would be specific to my dicipline.