1. Code Change Training 2015 Virginia Residential Code SIGNIFICANT
International Changes and
State Amendments
Welcome to each of you! It’s good to have you here. The objective for this portion of 2015 Code Change Training is to make each of you aware of the major changes from the 2012 Virginia Residential Code to the 2015 Virginia Residential Code.

2. Welcome! Emergency Exits Restrooms Breaks
2/1/2020
Welcome!
Emergency Exits
Restrooms
Breaks
Phones on vibrate, take important calls outside
Ask questions!
Please turn your cell phones off or set to vibrate
We will break as required
Restrooms are located…
Lunch will be…
Training is meant to be participatory. You are encouraged to speak up if you have any questions or comments.

3. Agenda Virginia Residential Code Significant Changes in chapter order
2/1/2020
Agenda
Virginia Residential Code Significant Changes in chapter order
State Code Change
This code change training focuses on VA amendments. We will cover the IRC and any Virginia amendments to it in chapter order. Feel free to follow along in your own code book. Codes specific to the state of Virginia will be marked in yellow, so be sure to take note.
Important: This training does not include ALL 2015 code changes. It focuses on the most significant International and Virginia changes.

4. Table R301.7 New Deflection Criteria
2/1/2020
Table R New Deflection Criteria
Table R301.7 has been modified to include additional categories for ceilings and exterior walls
Footnote a has been modified to clarify that component and cladding loads should be obtained from Table R301.2(2)
Updated table shown on next slide
Instructor Notes:

5. 2/1/2020
Table R301.7
Table R301.7 has been modified to include additional categories of ceilings and exterior walls
Instructor Notes:
In the previous version, there was just one row for “floors/ceilings with plaster or stucco finish”. We now have two additional rows for ceilings with brittle finishes and ceilings with flexible finishes.
Exterior walls now take wind load into account for all finishes

6. R303.4 Mechanical Ventilation
2/1/2020
R303.4 Mechanical Ventilation
Clarifies that dwelling units shall be provided with mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section M1507
Instructor Notes: This removes previously confusing code language and makes things very simple going forward: All single family dwellings require mechanical ventilation.
2012 code language: Where the air infiltration rate of a dwelling unit is 5 air changes per hour or less where tested with a blower door at a pressure of 0.2 inch w.c. (50 Pa) in accordance with Section N , the dwelling unit shall be provided with whole-house mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section M
Reason [cdpVA Mike already requires whole house mechanical ventilation for low-rise dwelling units in all cases unless a builder follows the performance path of the energy code, has a blower door test result greater than 5 ACH50, and is still able to meet the performance requirements of the code. Achieving compliance with the performance path while maintaining building air leakage greater than 5 ACH50 is very difficult to do in practice. And, reaching a building air leakage greater than 5 ACH50 is very difficult to achieve if the builder is following the IECC's mandatory air sealing checklist. Nevertheless, this loop hole establishes an unintended incentive for builders to build leaky to avoid costs associated with mechanical ventilation. The code should be explicit and unconditional in its requirement to provide energy efficient homes with the tools necessary to achieve acceptable indoor air quality, including whole house mechanical ventilation and local exhaust. This proposal ensures that this message and requirement are clearly communicated and established. 

7. R308.4.2 Glazing Adjacent to Doors
2/1/2020
R Glazing Adjacent to Doors
Glazing installed perpendicular to a door in a closed position and within 24 inches of the door only requires safety glazing if it is on the hinge side of an in-swinging door.
Instructor Notes: This code section has been modified to state that glazing installed perpendicular to a door in a closed position and within 24 inches of the door only requires safety glazing if it is on the hinge side of an in-swinging door.
Two diagrams (second of which is shown on this slide) in the student guide will help explain.
R  Glazing adjacent to doors.
Glazing in an individual fixed or operable panel adjacent to a door shall be considered to be a hazardous location where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the floor or walking surface and it meets either of the following conditions:
1.Where the glazing is within 24 inches (610 mm) of either side of the door in the plane of the door in a closed position.
2.Where the glazing is on a wall perpendicular to the plane of the door in a closed position and within 24 inches (610 mm) of the hinge side of an in-swinging door.
Exceptions:
1.Decorative glazing.
2.Where there is an intervening wall or other permanent barrier between the door and the glazing.
3.Where access through the door is to a closet or storage area 3 feet (914 mm) or less in depth. Glazing in this application shall comply with Section R
4.Glazing that is adjacent to the fixed panel of patio doors.

8. R308.4.5 Glazing and Wet Surfaces
2/1/2020
R Glazing and Wet Surfaces
This section was modified by VA amendment to help make this section more clear and easier to understand.
Complete code section included in student guide.
Instructor Notes: This was a VA Amendment to help make this section more clear and easier to read and understand. The previous and international version of this code section lists the vertical requirement in the main section and then has an exception for glazing more than 60 inches horizontally. This makes this a bit simpler by include the vertical and horizontal requirement. The 2012 section also inadvertently left out “shower” in the exception (but was corrected in 2015 I codes) so this solves for that omission as well.
Reason (cdpVA J Robert Allen): This revision eliminates the exception by inverting the condition stated in the exception and including it in the general requirement. The result is the same; however, this would help clarify a requirement that users sometimes find confusing. 

9. R308.4.7 Glazing at Stair Landings
2/1/2020
R Glazing adjacent to the bottom stair landing
The horizontal measurement of the 60 inches now takes place in the form of an arc.
Instructor Notes: This is a clarification of an existing code section. The horizontal measurement of the 60 inches now takes place in the form of an arc. The full code text is shown in the student guide. In the 2012 VRC, this section simply stated “within 60 inches horizontally of the bottom tread…” which was not specific on where the 60 inch measurement should be taken from. This update makes it very clear.
R Glazing adjacent to the bottom stair landing
Glazing adjacent to the landing at the bottom of a stairway where the glazing is less than 36 inches (914 mm) above the landing and within a 60-inch (1524 mm) horizontal arc less than 180 degrees from the bottom tread nosing shall be considered to be a hazardous location.

10. R310.3.2.1 Drainage Required for Bulkhead Enclosures
2/1/2020
R Drainage Required for Bulkhead Enclosures
Change Type: New section under R Bulkhead Enclosures
R Drainage
Bulkhead enclosures shall be designed for proper drainage by connecting to the building’s foundation drainage system required by Section R405.1 or by an approved alternative method
Exception: Drainage system not required for Group I soils as detailed in Table R405.1
Note that entire section 310 has been reorganized for clarity, but only this one new requirement is added. There are no intended technical changes to the rest of 310

11. R310.5, 310.6 EERO for Additions, Alterations, and Repairs
2/1/2020
R310.5, EERO for Additions, Alterations, and Repairs
Change Type: Clarification
Change Summary:
The basement of a dwelling addition does not require an emergency escape and rescue opening if there is access to a basement that does have an emergency escape and rescue opening (EERO).
Remodeling of an existing basement does not trigger the EERO requirements unless a new bedroom is created.
Both code sections are provided in the student guide.
Instructor Notes: Use diagram on next slide to help explain. Instruct students to review the two code sections in their student guide and discuss any questions or concerns.

12. R310.5, 310.6 EERO for Additions, Alterations, and Repairs
2/1/2020
R310.5, EERO for Additions, Alterations, and Repairs
Directly from significant changes.

13. Height (Guards)
Guard height no longer measured from surface of adjacent fixed seating
From Richard Moore on 7/12/18:
2012 IRC:
R Height.
Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) high measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
2015 IRC:
R Height Adjacent fixed seating language removed from the code section

14. 2/1/2020
R R331 Interior Passage
Now R331 (Moved out of Means of Egress section to its own section)
Section has been rewritten to improve clarity
In VA Code, section will be R331.1 through R331.6
Full code sections are included in the student guide.

15. R314 Smoke Alarms Change Type: Modification
2/1/2020
R314 Smoke Alarms
Change Type: Modification
Summary – two significant changes:
Household fire alarm systems no longer require monitoring by an approved supervising station.
New provisions address smoke alarms installed near bathrooms and cooking appliances.
These two changes are explained on the next SIX slides

16. R314.7.3 Permanent Fixture (Fire Alarm Systems)
2/1/2020
R Permanent Fixture (Fire Alarm Systems)
Summary: Language requiring that the system be monitored by an approved supervising station and maintained in accordance with NFPA 72 was deleted.
R Permanent Fixture
Where a household fire alarm system is installed, it shall become a permanent fixture of the occupancy, owned by the homeowner.
This change removes the monitoring requirement for Fire alarm systems. Only the permanent fixture provisions remain, so this section was renamed “permanent fixture”. It was determined that the system providing local notification satisfies the intent of the code, and the monitoring requirements and the additional cost associated was difficult to justify and enforce.

17. R314.3 Location (Smoke alarms near bathrooms)
2/1/2020
R314.3 Location (Smoke alarms near bathrooms)
Summary: A new item #4 addresses smoke alarm distance from a bathroom with a tub or shower.
4. Smoke alarms shall be installed not less than 3 feet (914mm) horizontally from the door or opening of a bathroom that contains a bathtub or shower unless this would prevent placement of a smoke alarm required by Section R314.3
Note the important component “unless this would prevent placement of a smoke alarm required by Section R314.3.” In other words, the location requirements must be met, even if the distance requirements are not possible.
Obviously, this requirement would not apply to a “half-bath” without a shower or tub. (It’s the heat/steam from the tub/shower that causes the nuisance false alarms)

18. R314.3.1 – Smoke Alarms Near Cooking Appliances
2/1/2020
R – Smoke Alarms Near Cooking Appliances
R – Installation Near Cooking Appliances Smoke alarms shall not be installed in the following locations unless this would prevent placement of a smoke alarm in a location required by Section R314.3
(Type) smoke alarms shall not be installed less than (Feet) horizontally from a permanently installed cooking appliance
These provisions are new for It lists three types of smoke alarms, which determines the minimum horizontal distance between the appliance and the smoke alarm. This is to help reduce nuisance/false alarms from cooking. Other than being a nuisance, frequent false alarms could cause an occupant to disable the smoke alarm near the appliance to avoid the false alarms.
Note the condition: “unless this would prevent placement of a smoke alarm in a location required by Section R314.3”. In other words, if you have to violate this distance rule to meet (Required Locations), that is ok as having the alarm in the required location is more important.
This requirement may create a new need to identify the type of smoke alarm. If alarm is in the 6 to less than 10 foot range, it would need to be of the Photoelectric type. This information should be available on the label on the backside of the alarm, on the box it came in, or on the instructions that accompany the alarm. Note that combination ionization/photoelectric alarms do exist, so it’s possible for one alarm to be both.
Facilitation Note: Instructor should make sure that they are familiar with difference between an Ionization and photoelectric smoke alarm and be prepared to explain the differences. For details on the two types, see this article on NFPA.org: Click the NFPA icon to go directly to this webpage (if additional details are needed). Keep in mind that inspectors don’t necessarily need to explain how they work, the most important info to know is how to identify each type, which is done by inspecting the label
Code Change Note: remains a deleted section in the 2015 VRC (IRC requirement that smoke alarms be installed/located as if a new building for alterations, repairs, and additions)
Smoke Alarm Type
Minimum horizontal distance
Ionization
20 Feet
Ionization w/ alarm silencing switch
10 Feet
Photoelectric
6 Feet

19. R314.3.1 – Smoke Alarms Near Cooking Appliances
2/1/2020
R – Smoke Alarms Near Cooking Appliances
How do we identify Ionization vs. Photoelectric?
Ionization is most common
“Ionization” or “photoelectric” should appear on the label, box, or instructions label examples next slide
All ionization alarms use a small amount of radioactive material called Americum 241. If you see a notice/warning regarding this, it is an ionization type alarm (or a combo alarm)
This requirement may create a new need to identify the type of smoke alarm. If alarm is in the 6 to less than 10 foot range, it would need to be of the Photoelectric type. This information should be available on the label on the backside of the alarm, on the box it came in, or on the instructions that accompany the alarm. Most are the ionization type as these are typically cheaper. There are also combination alarms that use both technologies, although there are many critics that argue that these don’t perform as well and do not recommend these. We should make sure to distinguish between combination ionization/photoelectric and combination fire/O2 detectors.
Facilitation Note: Instructor should make sure that they are familiar with difference between an Ionization and photoelectric smoke alarm and be prepared to explain the differences. For details on the two types, see this article on NFPA.org: Click the NFPA icon to go directly to this webpage (if additional details are needed). Keep in mind that inspectors don’t necessarily need to explain how they work, the most important info to know is how to identify each type, which is done by inspecting the label
Code Change Note: remains a deleted section in the 2015 VRC (IRC requirement that smoke alarms be installed/located as if a new building for alterations, repairs, and additions)

20. Smoke Alarm Label Examples
2/1/2020
Photo examples of smoke alarm labels.
Top left: obviously ionization type based on label
Lower Left: examples of photoelectric markings
Right: Example of the radioactive material warning on back of alarm (indicates an ionization alarm)
“Radioactive material” = Ionization or Combo

21. R322.1, 322.2 Flood Hazards Change Type: Modification Summary:
2/1/2020
R322.1, Flood Hazards
Change Type: Modification
Summary:
Section is modified to emphasize that the provision applies to existing buildings in flood hazard areas where 50 percent or more of the structure has damage and requires restoration.
Section is modified to increase the minimum floor elevation for dwellings in flood hazard areas to base flood elevation plus one foot.
Full code section is provided in the student manual in 2012 > 2015 comparison format

22. R322.3 Coastal High-Hazard (Flood) Areas
2/1/2020
Change Type: Modification
Summary:
Coastal A Zones must now meet the requirements for a coastal high hazard areas, including foundation requirements (pilings, columns, etc).
Full code section is provided in the student manual in 2012 > 2015 comparison format
Diagram on next slide

23. R322.3 Coastal High-Hazard (Flood) Areas
2/1/2020
Change Type: Modification
Summary: Coastal A Zones are defined and an exception for foundation types in Coastal A Zones is added.
Full code section is provided in the student manual in 2012 > 2015 comparison format

24. R404.1.1 Design Required (Concrete or Masonry Foundation Walls)
2/1/2020
R Design Required (Concrete or Masonry Foundation Walls)
Summary:
Modified section now specifies when masonry foundation walls must be engineer designed
Full code text included in student guide.

25. R408.2 – Openings for Under-Floor Ventilation
2009 CCT/Presentation title/author
2/1/2020
R408.2 – Openings for Under-Floor Ventilation
Additional text is added to existing exception in 408.2: “nor shall the required openings need to be within three feet of each corner provided there is cross ventilation of the space.”
Explanation: This change clears up when and where foundation vents are required to be installed in conventional crawlspace construction. “Bump outs” 3 feet or less do not require foundation vents in the corners when vapor retarder material installed
Reason (CR-R408.2 cdpVA-15)
This intent of this change has been written to address the non-uniform code enforcement of the USBC 2012 / IRC 2012 Section R408.2 exception shown below. In the IRC 2003 the STATE BUILDING CODE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD concluded in Code Interpretation No. 1/2003 that foundation vents were not required to be placed within 3 feet of each corner(see below). Under IRC 2012 the wording for the exception is essentially the same as IRC The building inspection departments are still requiring a vent within 3 foot of every corner. Some localities have even made a stamp to place on the plans stating such. Even showing the calculations for the foundation vents required and the number shown on the plan as well as showing the "Code Interpretation No. 1/2003 ". Still the building inspection departments are writing or stamping "vent required within 3 foot of every corner" forcing the builders to install non-required vents and introducing extra moisture to the foundation space. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE Section (International Residential Code Section R408.2) Code Interpretation No. 1/2003 First Issued: 11/18/05, 2003 Edition QUESTION: Does Exception No. 2 provide an exception to the general requirement that one ventilation opening shall be within three feet of each corner? ANSWER: Yes, provided the openings are placed so as to provide cross-ventilation. on 9/9/2015 Vernon Hodges reconfirmed vents are not required to be 3 foot from the corners .
The need for this change is to help clarify the code for the building officials allowing all localities to uniformly enforce the code provisions. This will remove the subjective interpretation of this section.
Note that the diagram was provided as part of a different proposal (CR-R408.1 cdpVA-15 0 Michael Eutsey and Chuck Bajnai), but is also applicable here as the proposals were similar attempts to clarify this requirement.

26. Where a Class 1 Vapor Barrier is Installed
Diagram showing example of where vents within 3’ of a corner would not be required where a class 1 vapor barrier is installed.

27. R507.2 Deck Ledger Connection to Band Joist
2/1/2020
R507.2 Deck Ledger Connection to Band Joist
Change Type: Clarification
Change Summary: The deck ledger section is reorganized to better describe the minimum requirements for connection of deck ledgers to band joists.
Recommend having students review the new code section in their code books, and discuss any questions or concerns.

28. R602.7 Headers Change Type: Modification Change Summary:
2/1/2020
R602.7 Headers
Change Type: Modification
Change Summary:
The girder and header span tables of Chapter 5 have been moved into Chapter 6, to the header section.
Multi-ply and single header tables are combined.
A new section describing rim board headers is added.
How many of your are using or have inspected single member headers? Construction methods are changing, and this type of construction can save natural resources and installation time. If you are using/inspecting single member headers, you’ll now need to verify they are fastened according to the new requirements

29. R602.7.1 Single Member Headers
2/1/2020
R Single Member Headers
2012 did not specify the fasteners required for single member headers.
2015 specifies single headers be face nailed to the top and bottom of the header with 10d box nails spaced 12 inches on center.
How many of your are using or have inspected single member headers? Construction methods are changing, and this type of construction can save natural resources and installation time. If you are using/inspecting single member headers, you’ll now need to verify they are fastened according to the new requirements

30. 2/1/2020
R Rim Board Headers
A new section describing rim board headers is added
Diagram showing rim board header construction on next slide
Rim board header diagram next slide
New code section is included in student guide.

31. 2/1/2020
Image directly from 2015 IRC. Workgroup to provide actual pictures.
Good picture examples include crawlspace with a header over the opening and basement with header over a window.

32. R602.7 Header Tables
2/1/2020
There are also VA Amendments for two important tables in this section:
Table R602.7(1) – Girder spans and header spans for exterior bearing walls
Table R602.7(2) - Girder spans and header spans for interior bearing walls
CR-R602.7 cdpVA-15
Proponent : Matthew Hunter, Representing American Wood Catlett, Representing American Wood
Reason: The update of Table R602.7(1) Girder Spans and Header Spans for Exterior Bearing Walls is proposed. Updated spans address use of Southern Pine No. 2 in lieu of Southern Pine No. 1. Footnote "f" is added to clarify that header spans are based on laterally braced assumption such as when the header is raised. For dropped headers consisting of 2x8, 2x10, or 2x12 sizes that are not laterally braced, a factor of 0.7 can be applied to determine the spans or alternatively the header or girder can be designed to include any adjustment for potential buckling. Laterally braced (raised) and not laterally braced (dropped) header conditions and building widths for which header spans are tabulated represent the same conditions used to develop header span tables in the Wood Frame Construction Manual (WFCM). 
The update of Table R602.7(2) Girder Spans and Header Spans for Interior Bearing Walls is proposed. Updated spans address use of Southern Pine No. 2 in lieu of Southern Pine No. 1. Footnote "e" is added to clarify that header spans are based on laterally braced assumption such as when the header is raised. For dropped headers consisting of 2x8, 2x10, or 2x12 sizes that are not laterally braced, a factor of 0.7 can be applied to determine the spans or alternatively the header or girder can be designed to include any adjustment for potential buckling. Laterally braced (raised) and not laterally braced (dropped) header conditions and building widths for which header spans are tabulated represent the same conditions used to develop header span tables in the Wood Frame Construction Manual (WFCM).
Cost Impact: Increased cost may be associated with reduced spans that result from the not laterally braced condition and application of footnote f (in Table R602.7(1)) or e (in Table R602.7(2)). Due to smaller building width column (12'), permissible use of Southern Pine No. 2, and the laterally braced assumption for tabulated spans, there are also cases where this change will not increase the cost of construction and may reduce the cost of construction.

33. R802.2 Design and Construction
2/1/2020
R802.2 Design and Construction
Change Type: Modifications w/Significant VA Amendments
Change Summary: This section has been significantly rewritten for clarification and ease of reading
Complete section included in student manual (too much to list on slides).
CR-R802.2 cdpVA-15
Proponent : Charles Bajnai, Representing Chesterfield
Reason: I rewrote Section R802.2 with the help of AWC. My proposal (RB310) was approved as modified by the ICC committee at the Louisville meeting. 
This code proposal is a rewrite with minor technical changes and some new charging language. It is intended to reorganize the roof and ceiling assembly by separating out the requirements of the components:
R802.3 Ridge
R802.4 Rafters
R802.5 Ceiling joists
1. The current text is rather scrambled and the major components intermingled. It is not easy to understand. The IRC and the IBC appear to have different requirements.
2. Section R802.2 says that section R802. only apply to roofs with a slope of 3:12 or greater. That infers that roofs with less than 3:12 are not governed by the VA-IRC. I consulted with AWC and discussed what the intentions were for "flat" rafters. They said the existing tables are fine for flat roofs.
3. The IBC talks about rafter ties at a maximum of 48" o.c., while the IRC is silent on rafter ties. Again AWC wanted rafter ties on each rafter.
Cost Impact: There should not be any cost impact. The code section was rewritten for clarification and ease of reading.

34. R1003.18 Chimney Clearances Change Type: Modification Change Summary:
2/1/2020
R Chimney Clearances
Change Type: Modification
Change Summary:
The 2012 version required 12” clearance from inside surface of nearest flue for exposed combustible trim and limited overlap to 1”
For 2015, this changes to 8” clearance from inside surface of nearest flue and the overlap language has been removed

35. What Questions do you Have?

36. Thank You A special thanks to:
Bruce Cornwall, Culpeper County
Mike Dellinger, Albemarle County
Richard Moore, Henrico County
Michael Eutsey, King and Queen County
for their partnership, commitment of resources and time to the Jack A. Proctor Virginia Building Code Academy in developing this presentation