Everyone learns on the job - share your knowledge with us!

Check out ACCA-St. Louis' new blog- information straight from other contractors, just like you!

• Current IRC Requirements and What is Coming Soon

  March 16, 2011

  This information comes from Martin Galucia from Reliable Heating and Cooling

  The City plan review would ask to verify the following:
   
  1.Is the existing furnace large enough to supply the added habitable space.
  
  2.Heat loss/gain calculation.  ACCA manual D requires either a balanced supply and return in each habitable room (no return in the bath and 20 feet minimum distance to a kitchen exhaust hood but you still have to take into consideration the supplies in these spaces when figuring the return for the lower level finish) or if you locate the return outside of a space then you must show properly sized air transfer grills.
  
  3.Duct calculation. Verification that there is enough supply and return air to condition the habitable space and that the system is balanced out-cfms of air supplied equals cfms of air returned. Show the location of each supply and return and the amount of cfms at each supply and the amount of cfms and fpms at each return. Friction must be taken into consideration.
  
  4.Verify that each return air grill/register is limited to 350 fpm’s maximum of air returned.
  
  5.Note that the Code now requires sealing of ducts and building cavities used as return air plenums to prevent air leakage.
   
  I hope this helps. These requirements should becoming fairly consistent as they come from the IRC and the ACCA manuals that the Code references/refers us to. And the 2009 Code goes even further because from what I hear, of federal mandates. Higher R values when installing ducts in unconditioned spaces, air leakage test on the hvac duct system if you have ducts located in unconditioned space, again sealing of all joints, panning, building cavities used as plenums, and so forth. More attention will be paid to efficiency and sizing of systems. The old rule of thumb and jobsite sliding calc will not be good enough to meet today’s Code and efficiency standards. And a builder grossly over sizing the hvac system on the main levels to cover a basement finish 10 years down the road or maybe never will no longer be an option because of efficiency standards.

  Full story

  Comments (0)

• St. Louis City Accepts E-Commerce Permit Payments

  March 05, 2011

  -from David Kovac, Gaines HVAC, Inc.

  
  

  Check out the City's webpage for directions on opening an account to pay for permits via the web!
  
  

  Here's what it says about fees: Electronic Check and Credit Cards "The City is able to accept payment via e-check.  There is a flat fee of $1.00 that will be added to each transaction that is processed using this electronic-check option. We also accept credit card payments on this site.  The cards that are being accepted are Visa,  MasterCard and Discover.  There is a 3.5% processing fee that will be added to the total amount of the credit card transactions. Currently, we are not able to absorb the costs associated with these transactions, and we do not receive any of the fees. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding." Open an account with the City and save some drive time!

  Full story

  Comments (0)

• New County Requirement: Locking Refrigerant Caps

  February 22, 2011

  A Big Thank You to Velinda Anderson at Bone Heating and Cooling for bringing this to our attention and for Lennox for following up with the specifics:
  
  

  St. Louis County is starting to enforce an ordinance passed in November 2010. This ordinance requires all new condensing units and heat pumps (replacement & new construction) to have Locking Refrigerant Caps installed on the unit.

   
  

  Click here for the St. Louis County Residential Codes
  This link will allow you to enter a search at the top of page for :  Locking Refrigerant Caps
  This will bring up a search result of:

  CHAPTER 1116 RESIDENTIAL CODE
  St. Louis County, Missouri - Code of Ordinances

  ... Section M1411.3.1.1 Water level monitoring devices. Delete M1411.6 Tamper-resistant port caps. Refrigerant circuit access ports located outdoors shall be fitted with tamper-resistant caps. (O. No. 24427, 6-29-10) 1116.1500 Amendments to the International Residential Code for... Referenced in code section number 34-2004 Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants M1411.1 ASHRAE-2005 ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook-2005 N1102.1.3...shall comply with the requirements of Section AG105.2, Items 1 through 7, and shall be equipped to accommodate a locking device. Pedestrian access gates shall open outward away from the pool and shall be self-closing and have a self-latchi...
  
  
  

  Full story

  Comments (0)

• Clayton now requires...

  February 08, 2011

  -from David Kovac, Gaines HVAC, Inc.

  City of Clayton now requires Carbon Monoxide detectors on mechanical permit jobs.

  Carbon Monoxide Alarm Requirement
  The 2009 International Residential Code requires carbon monoxide alarms in new one and two family dwellings and in existing one and two family dwellings when work requiring a permit takes place. The carbon monoxide alarms must be installed in the immediate vicinity of all sleeping areas. Hardwired, battery operated or plug-in alarms may be used. Unlike the smoke alarm requirements, there is no exception for exterior work or the addition of decks or porches. Roofing, siding, window replacement and other exterior work requiring a permit will require the installation of carbon monoxide alarms.

  2009 Code Adoption
  Effective December 14, 2010, the City of Clayton has adopted the following codes:
  Part I, the 2009 International Building Code
  Part II, the 2009 International Mechancial Code
  Part III, the 2009 International Plumbing Code
  Part IV, the 2009 International Residential Code
  Part V, the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code
  Part VI, the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code
  and all appendices to each Code.
  The 2008 National Electric Code has also been adopted as part of the St. Louis County Amendments.

  Full story

  Comments (0)