Narrowing the gap between compliance and enforcement.
My describing a poorly designed installation is last week’s blog post does not necessarily mean that my interpretation of compliance would be accepted by the enforcement.
We do not have rules of compliance regarding anchoring there are studies, but they are not recognized by the majority of the AHJ’S nationally, statewide, or locally. Without rules of compliance, asking the AHJ to enforce the current code that states a tent must be anchored to withstand the elements has little value, only interpretation. Without industry compliance or standards attach to the tent permit, the AHJ’S hands is tied trying to resolve a poorly designed installation.
For instance, if I had contacted the local AHJ and stated that the mall installation did not meet manufacturers, recommended installation and calculated the proper ballasting required, it would have been on my interpretation. The AHJ has the responsibility to cover their liabilities and should ask, “Where in IFC Chapter 31 does it back up my interpretation?” There is none; it states that it must be anchored to withstand the elements. And there you have the beginning of another interpretation by the AHJ. Include the installer which creates the third interpretation and you have the foundation of an exciting game without rules.
To formulate a solution, it becomes imperative that conversations begin with “What is anchorage to withstand the elements?” then submit a detailed report to the IFC for the 2021 cycle. If we fail, the alternative is the IFC will create their own staking and ballasting numbers and we will have to accept their numbers.
It is not a threat from the AHJ creating a formula for proper anchorage, they are looking for solutions that cover our combined shared responsibilities and liabilities. What can we do? Start a conversation today on how to narrow the gap between compliance and enforcement!