Transcript Reducing Flood Risk Through Building Code Enforcement

Reducing Flood Risk Through
Building Code Enforcement
Tom Leatherbee, CFM
City Planner, City of Del City
Vice-Chair, Oklahoma Floodplain Managers Association
ASFPM 2010
May 18, 2010
Overview
• Incorporating floodplain management into
building code enforcement provides for a
seamless approach to ensuring compliance with
NFIP minimum standards.
• Such an integrated approach has positive impacts
on a wide variety of stakeholders, including
developers, home/business owners, and
government officials.
• Using building codes as the basis for floodplain
management provides opportunity for
implementation of higher regulatory standards.
Floodplain Management Provisions of
the 2009 I-Codes
• NFIP minimum standards have been included in ICodes since 2003 editions.
• Floodplain management provisions are contained
in the IBC, IRC, IMC, IFGC, IPC. IPSDC contains a
higher standard related to installation of sewage
disposal systems in areas of flood hazard.
• IPMC does not contain specific floodplain
management language, but contains language
critical to removing structures that have been
substantially damaged.
2009 IBC / 2009 IRC
• The 2009 International Building Code incorporates the
NFIP minimum standards.
• Requirements are made for lowest finished floors to be
elevated (or floodproofed, for non-residential
structures) to the design flood elevation, for
determinations of substantial damage/substantial
improvement, and for utilities to be elevated or made
safe from flooding.
• The 2009 International Residential Code applies these
same provisions to one and two family residential
structures.
2009 IPC
• The 2009 International Plumbing Code incorporates
the NFIP minimum standards:
– Section 309 contains several provisions relating to flood
hazard resistance.
• 309.1 General. Plumbing systems and equipment in structures
erected in flood hazard areas shall be constructed in accordance
with the requirements of this section and the International
Building Code.
• 309.2 Flood hazard. For structures located in flood hazard areas,
the following systems and equipment shall be located at or above
the design flood elevation.
– Exception: The following systems are permitted to be located below the
design flood elevation provided that …
• Section 309.3 prohibits plumbing from being mounted on
breakaway walls (V Zones).
2009 IFGC AND 2009 IMC
• The 2009 International Fuel Gas Code and 2009 International
Mechanical Code incorporate the NFIP minimum standards:
– IFGC Section 301.11 Flood Hazard. For structures located in flood
hazard areas, the appliance, equipment and system installations
regulated by this code shall be located at or above the design flood
elevation and shall comply with the flood-resistant construction
requirements of the International Building Code.
• Exception: The appliance, equipment and system installations regulated by this
code are permitted to be located below the design flood elevation provided
that they are designed and installed to prevent water from entering or
accumulating within the components and to resist hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and stresses, including the effects of buoyancy, during the
occurrence of flooding to the design flood elevation and shall comply with the
flood-resistant construction requirements of the International Building Code.
2008 NEC
• 2008 NEC does not directly address floodplain
management.
• Provisions in the IBC, IRC and IEBC do require
that electrical systems be protected to NFIP
minimum standards.
2009 IEBC
• The 2009 International Existing Building Code
incorporates the NFIP minimum standards but
also provides for a higher standard relating to
additions.
• Section 302.2, 303.2, 304.5, and 308.2 mirror
the requirements contained in 44 CFR 60.3.
2009 IPSDC
• The 2009 International Private Sewage Disposal Code goes beyond the
minimum NFIP standards.
• Minimum standards, per 44 CFR 60.3, require that “new and replacement
sanitary sewage systems be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration
of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into
floodwaters” and that “onsite waste disposal systems be located to avoid
impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.
• The 2009 IPSDC provides specific standards that are more restrictive than
the minimum:
– Section 303.1 prohibits soil absorption-type systems from flood hazard areas
(although an exception is provided for properties with no suitable site outside
of the flood hazard area).
– Section 303.2 requires that tanks be anchored to resist buoyant forces
associated with the design flood. This section also requires that the vent
termination and service manhole be located at least 2 feet above the design
flood elevation or be fitted with protective covers.
– Section 303.3 prohibits mound systems from flood hazard areas.
• Consideration should be given to prohibiting all private sewage disposal
systems from areas of special flood hazard.
2009 IPMC
•
•
•
The 2009 International Property Maintenance Code provides minimum standards
for property maintenance and applies those standards to owners and occupants of
property.
Since this code deals with existing conditions, rather than new construction or
changes/alterations to existing structures, no floodplain management regulations
were incorporated.
What the IPMC does provide is a blueprint for condemning, securing, and ordering
demolished structures that are dilapidated or unsafe. These provisions provide a
floodplain manager with the ability to deal with substantially damaged structures.
Most flood damage prevention ordinances have no specific provision for ordering
the demolition of substantially damaged structures.
– “110.1 General. The code official shall order the owner of any premises upon which is
located any structure, which in the code official judgment after review is so deteriorated or
dilapidated or has become so out of repair as to be dangerous, unsafe, insanitary or
otherwise unfit for human habitation or occupancy, and such that it is unreasonable to
repair the structure, to demolish and remove such structure; or if such structure is capable of
being made safe by repairs, to repair and make safe and sanitary, or to board up and hold for
future repair or to demolish and remove at the owner’s option, or where there has been a
cessation of normal construction for a period of more than two years, the code official shall
order the owner to demolish and remove such structure, or to board up until future repair.
Boarding the building up for future repair shall not extend beyond one year, unless approved
by the building official” (2009 IPMC, emphasis added).
2009 IPMC (cont’d)
• The 2009 IPMC did add an additional provision that could
be very useful in dealing with the aftermath of flooding.
– 604.3.1 Abatement of electrical hazards associated with water
exposure. The provisions of this section shall govern the repair
and replacement of electrical systems and equipment that have
been exposed to water.
• 604.3.1.1 Electrical Equipment. Electrical distribution equipment,
motor circuits, power equipment, transformers, wire, cable, flexible
cords, wiring devices, ground fault circuit interrupters, surge
protectors, molded case circuit breakers, low-voltage fuses,
luminaries, ballasts, motors and electric control, signaling and
communication equipment that have been exposed to water shall be
replaced in accordance with the provisions of the International
Building Code.
– Exception: The following equipment …
Requirement for Lowest Finished Floor
Inspections
• The 2009 IBC, IRC and IEBC provide for lowest
finished floor inspections as part of the required
inspection schedule.
• These inspections are conducted after the floor is
constructed.
• This timing is different from the normal
requirement for elevation certificates, which are
usually required before permit issuance and
before occupancy, after final inspections.
• The codes do not specifically require a separate
EC before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
A Warning Regarding Substantial
Damage / Substantial Improvement
• I-Codes, including IPMC, are so specific with regard to
existing properties that they could actually complicate
substantial damage declaration due to exclusion for
“any project for improvement to a structure to correct
existing violations of state or local health, sanitary or
safety code specifications which have been identified
by the local code enforcement official and which are
the minimum necessary to ensure safe living
conditions” (44 CFR 59.1).
• Solution: Implement a “higher standard” to remove
this exception from the definition of substantial
improvement.
2009 IBC Grading Provisions
• Appendix J, Grading, provides significant
opportunity for higher standards.
• Appendices have no force of law unless
specifically adopted.
• As written, Appendix J requires grading permits
for certain earth movement, but makes no
mention of development within the SFHA. The
exceptions provided for related to the grading
permit could lead some to believe that a
floodplain development permit is not necessary
in these circumstances.
Adoption of Flood Maps through the
Building Code
•
•
•
•
•
Section 1612.3 of the 2009 IBC provides for establishment of flood hazard areas –
adoption of flood maps. The 2009 IBC contains an appendix that provides for
adoption of administrative provisions.
While it may be theoretically possible to use the IBC to adopt maps and, in effect,
to replace a community’s flood damage prevention ordinance, current language
contained within the codes is not sufficient to meet all requirements for NFIP
participation.
In some states, adoption through building codes would not meet state-specific
requirements. For example, in Oklahoma, this method of adoption would be
inadequate to meet the requirements placed on Post-80 communities.
Communities must be aware of this code section and must make amendment to
refer back to the adopted Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, floodplain board
regulations, or other legally adopted floodplain management regulations.
The I-Codes, without the appendix, do not provide for a floodplain development
permit, instead relying on the individual permits described in each code. This is
particularly problematic because of the exceptions contained in each code,
another reason that a stand-alone flood damage prevention ordinance that is
referenced by the adopted codes is the best approach.
I-Codes in Approximate A Zones
• Based on NFIP minimum standards, developments in A Zones with no BFE
provided that do not exceed 5 acres or 50 lots in size are subject to lesser
standards.
• The I-Codes make no distinction between Zones A and AE, requiring that
structures and utilities be elevated to the design flood elevation.
• In effect, this requirement constitutes a higher standard, as the permit
applicant must provide BFE data and must elevate to the design flood
elevation in order to be compliant with the codes.
• However, it should be noted that many of the codes provide an exception
to the elevation requirement, which could actually cause conflict with
higher standards commonly adopted in Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinances. The simple solution is to amend the codes to remove the
exceptions. In addition, it would appear that a building official would
need to require an engineer’s seal in order to document that the criteria
listed in the exception have been met, even though this requirement is not
explicitly stated within the codes.
Higher Standards
• The I-Codes provide a number of opportunities to
implement higher regulatory standards.
• Some of these higher standards (e.g. stormwater detention,
elevation of mobile homes, freeboard) will be contained in
a flood damage prevention ordinance and should be
mirrored by amending codes.
• Some standards will be contained solely in the codes, by
means of amendment of existing sections (e.g. requirement
for engineered fill).
• Other higher standards will require significant amendment
of the I-Codes so that they do not conflict with the higher
standard contained in the FDPO (e.g. requirement to
elevate mechanical/plumbing systems).
Caution!
• The fact that the I-Codes contain floodplain
management standards is good for the overall
effort to reduce risk.
• The fact that minimum standards are
incorporated, however, means that floodplain
managers implementing higher standards must
take special care to ensure that conflict or
ambiguity is not created between adopted
building codes and adopted floodplain
management regulations.
Questions