Thread: Attic Access Requirements

............

Similar Threads:

• Hi/Low vents terminate in the attic?!
• Inspectors must meet Md. license requirements - Daily Record (subscription)
• Short Attic Ladder
• Furance Access.
• Protection of wiring in the attic

Dan,

The attic access pathway must meet this:
From the IRC. (bold is mine)
- M1305.1.3 Appliances in attics.

Attics containing appliances requiring access shall have with an opening and a clear and unobstructed passageway large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance, but not less than 30 inches (762 mm) high and 22 inches (559 mm) wide and not more than 20 feet (6096 mm) long when measured along the centerline of the passageway from the opening to the appliance. The passageway shall have continuous solid flooring in accordance with Chapter 5 not less than 24 inches (610 mm) wide. A level service space at least 30 inches (762 mm) deep and 30 inches (762 mm) wide shall be present along all sides of the appliance where access is required. The clear access opening dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30 inches (508 mm) by 762 mm), where such dimensions are large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance.
- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. The passageway and level service space are not required where the appliance can be serviced and removed through the required opening.
- - - 2. Where the passageway is unobstructed and not less than 6 feet (1829 mm) high and 22 inches (559 mm) wide for its entire length, the passageway shall be not more than 50 feet (15 250 mm) long.

- - M1305.1.3.1 Electrical requirements.

A luminaire controlled by a switch located at the required passageway opening and a receptacle outlet shall be installed at or near the appliance location in accordance with Chapter 38.

Other parts of that, I am sure, will also apply to your attic access being incorrect, but that "continuous solid flooring" is frequently missed by inspectors who see that everything else meets the requirements.

"Continuous"

That's a mighty big word.

Yes there should be a ladder in place to access the equipment. Could be a pulldown stairway or site built ladder permanently in place.

I also have a side comment about the ductwork shown in the picture. Here in Houston we have problems with ductwork sweating on the exterior when they are in contact with each other. You may not have the humidity there that we have here and it may not be an issue for you locally.

On hot humid days when you see ductwork like that you should slide your hand between the ducts to see if there is condensation forming between them. Here in Houston the pictured configuration would most likely be dripping water off the ductwork into the attic.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Dan,

The attic access pathway must meet this:
From the IRC. (bold is mine)
- M1305.1.3 Appliances in attics.

Attics containing appliances requiring access shall have with an opening and a clear and unobstructed passageway large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance, but not less than 30 inches (762 mm) high and 22 inches (559 mm) wide and not more than 20 feet (6096 mm) long when measured along the centerline of the passageway from the opening to the appliance. The passageway shall have continuous solid flooring in accordance with Chapter 5 not less than 24 inches (610 mm) wide. A level service space at least 30 inches (762 mm) deep and 30 inches (762 mm) wide shall be present along all sides of the appliance where access is required. The clear access opening dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30 inches (508 mm) by 762 mm), where such dimensions are large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance....

I see an apparent contradiction in the code.
What is the minimum dimension for the attic opening? 20 x 30 or 22 by 30?
It seems that there's an typo error. The minimum opening for the attic access should be 22 inches by 30. IMHO.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

I see an apparent contradiction in the code.
What is the minimum dimension for the attic opening? 20 x 30 or 22 by 30?
It seems that there's an typo error. The minimum opening for the attic access should be 22 inches by 30. IMHO.

Nope. 508mm IS 20 inches, was no typo, on the SCUTTLE or access opening minimum. You're confusing the appliance gangway access/passage way minimum width (heighth and depth) with what was the access entrance minimum, or didn't catch what follow/ed:

...The clear access opening dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30 inches (508 mm by 762 mm), where such dimensions are large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance...

Of course when you nit pick a 3-1/2 y.o. thread, especially when the OP has been deleted, you might come up with some strange IDEAS about what other posters have contributed, IN A TIMELY fashion with circa (2006) code references consistant with the post time stamps.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Dan,

The attic access pathway must meet this:
From the IRC. (bold is mine)
- M1305.1.3 Appliances in attics.

Attics containing appliances requiring access shall have with an opening and a clear and unobstructed passageway large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance, but not less than 30 inches (762 mm) high and 22 inches (559 mm) wide and not more than 20 feet (6096 mm) long when measured along the centerline of the passageway from the opening to the appliance. The passageway shall have continuous solid flooring in accordance with Chapter 5 not less than 24 inches (610 mm) wide. A level service space at least 30 inches (762 mm) deep and 30 inches (762 mm) wide shall be present along all sides of the appliance where access is required. The clear access opening dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30 inches (508 mm) by 762 mm), where such dimensions are large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

I see an apparent contradiction in the code.
What is the minimum dimension for the attic opening? 20 x 30 or 22 by 30?
It seems that there's an typo error. The minimum opening for the attic access should be 22 inches by 30. IMHO.

Ben,

No contraction when read as written - see below:
"Attics containing appliances requiring access shall have with an opening and a clear and unobstructed passageway large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance, but not less than 30 inches (762 mm) high and 22 inches (559 mm) wide and not more than 20 feet (6096 mm) long "

That part is talking about the "unobstructed passageway" being not less than 22 inches wide by 30 inches high by not more than 20 feet long.

This part is talking about the "opening" required in the part above:
"The clear access opening dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30 inches (508 mm) by 762 mm), "

Thus, there is no conflict and no typo.

After getting help from an InterNACHI inspector, we've come up with IRC R807.1 Attic Access.

This section makes it very clear.

The rough-framed opening [of the attic access] shall be not less than 22 inches by 30 inches (559 mm by 762 mm for you Canucks ).

What I really like... It shall be located in a hallway or other readily accessible location.
I've often found the attic access located above a "permanent" closet shelf.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

After getting help from an InterNACHI inspector, we've come up with IRC R807.1 Attic Access.

This section makes it very clear.

The rough-framed opening [of the attic access] shall be not less than 22 inches by 30 inches (559 mm by 762 mm for you Canucks ).

Ben,

Not as clear as you think ... ... that section is only talking about "attic access", the other sections are talking about attic access for "Attics containing appliances".

One is a minimum for any attic which has the required 30" headroom (vertical height); the other is minimum for "Attics containing appliances ", and this latter one is more restrictive as it also includes "where such dimensions are large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance" - meaning that the opening may actually be required to be larger if the appliance is larger.

Oh, and I didn't need an InterNACHI inspector for that, all I had to do was to read what is stated in the code, so it sounds like your InterNACHI inspector may have given you inaccurate or incomplete information. (Which depends on what your question was, the answer may have been accurate and complete for your question, but inaccurate and incomplete for the discussion above.)

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

After getting help from an InterNACHI inspector, we've come up with IRC R807.1 Attic Access.

This section makes it very clear.
.

LOL.. Two non-nacho members of this site gave you an answer, then you come back and say a nacho member gave you an answer that you decided was the correct one. Why do you even bother asking inspectors that you and members of your org support, and pay your brother to tell the public, inspectors that don't pay $s for his instant on-line , non verfied home inspector certificiation, are dumb, stupid scum bags and other names.

To top it off you ask on another of you advertizing posts if ASHI [the Home Inspector Association your brother also bashes to the public] would want you to do a promo for their SOP..

Someone is clearly clueless, Dan. What's up with bringing up a thread as old as this one?
There is a very funny book by John Kennedy Toole that pretty much says it all about clueless individuals.

Originally Posted by Jack Feldmann

Someone is clearly clueless, Dan. What's up with bringing up a thread as old as this one?
There is a very funny book by John Kennedy Toole that pretty much says it all about clueless individuals.

J.F.,

Speaking of "clueless"...

Don't get on Dan H., it was Ben Gromicko who "revived" the 3-1/2 year old thread and who started the self-serving "re-animation" of a long DEAD topic thread!

Silly too since the ORIGINAL POST, and the ORIGNAL POSTER'S PROFILE (including location) have long since been DELETED (six months+ after originally posted)!

Now, I'll "deal" with B.G.'s revival and the POINT that HE HAS MISSED, (and his "wrongness" in thinking he's made a "gotcha", WHICH HE HAS NOT):

Mr. Gromicko:

YOU, Nick, and whoever this "Steve" is HAVE CONFUSED the DISTINCTIONS WITH DIFFERENCES Reading and grasping such "details" or "catching" that what the unammended IRC actually SAYS and when it uses different words and phrases, THEY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS, not what you unknowingly, unauthoritiately, ignorantly ASSUME it means: is obviously not your, Nick's, "kate's", Joe H's, "Steve's" or many of your resource material, developmental teams' strong point!


Between the MINIMUM FRAMED OPENING DIMMENSIONS (2-planes) with no provision for fixed 3-dimmensional passage (X,Y,Z)

WITH CLEAR ACCESS OPENING DIMMENSIONS which provide for removal of 3-dimmensional objects (minimum 30" headroom/height above - and hmmm the length of the object which has been installed, may someday be removed, or is to be installed - CLEAR ACCESS VIA THE OPENING! and retained clear access at all times for that opening unencumbered by ANYTHING to maintain that access when portal/accessway is open!).

As one who has "-produced" videos and training materials regarding inspecting to the STAIR code....

You should "get" the DISTINCTION with a DIFFERENCE, i.e. clear access - especially with a scuttle which has been fit with a permanent stair, ladder, or a pull-down stair.

The framed dimmensions into a floor (or wall from upper story) IS NOT THE SAME as the CLEAR ACCESS OPENING. Obstructions, DEPTH of the framed opening, pitch of the roof or truss webs above, roof superstructure supports, mechanicals installed within the attic space, the FLOORING installed in the attic space - can negatively effect, that is to say ENCROACH upon the clear access opening, even one which EXCEEDS framed dimensions of 22 x 30". Say for example the PITCH or angle of the ladder, pull-down stair, etc. further restricts the CLEAR ACCESS of a "framed opening".

Irrespective of the "minimums" the effective result must be sufficient to provide for the removal of the appliance(s) AND have a minimum clear effective opening as installed.

You seem to have MISSED that you can frame and meet R807 minimums and yet not have an effective clear access that meets the LESSER width minimum provided in 1305.1.3 - which may then require EXCEEDING the minimal framed width of R807 in order to accomplish an AFFECTED and EFFECTIVE clear access opening width which provides 20" and 30" depth AND YET MAY still be too small to provide/effect removal of the installed appliances. An attic floor-ceiling assembly framing 10" depth vs. 8" vs. 12" vs. 6"; vs. a wall access of differing framing depths. Bodies of those who "access" bend around encroachments to the clear access opening, the mechanicals are not expected to.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE a Scuttle framed with a 22" width which still does not provide 20" width CLEAR ACCESS - and this would NOT be meeting the minimum requirements to have any mechanicals present in the attic.

This is why M1305 enhances the requirements with specificity beyond R807.

CLEAR ACCESS OPENING is not the same as framed opening dimmensions. The later (R807) one involves just 2 dimmensions and axis considerations X & Y; The former (M1305) involves X, Y and Z axis considerations, and still must be sufficient (quite possibly larger) to provide for the mechanical device to be removed via the opening without deconstruction of either the opening, framing, roof or wall superstructures, or the stair or ladder if present and a prohibition to any encroachments to said clear access opening, attic zone or below, or within the access/egress path to, through, and beyond the 3-dimmensional ceiling/floor assembly (or wall to an upper floor) portal itself.

Perhaps NOW you will have a shot at "getting" "it"; and go back and re-do your "stair" and "stairway" materials - this time maybe you will "get it right" when you try to "apply" it.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Now, I'll "deal" with B.G.'s revival and the POINT that HE HAS MISSED, (and his "wrongness" in thinking he's made a "gotcha", WHICH HE HAS NOT):
...

Don't be silly...
We "Googled" and this InspectionNews thread popped up. Then I posted a question.


IRC M1305.1.3 uses the word "opening" twice. And they mean two different things. Opening as in an access; and opening as in pathway.

That's confusing.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

...
and go back and re-do your "stair" and "stairway" materials ...

To what are you referring?

[QUOTE=Benjamin Gromicko;150510][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]
Don't be silly...
We "Googled" and this InspectionNews thread popped up. Then I posted a question.

QUOTE]

Soooo out of the millions and millions of pages on your orgs web site, the inspection site that your brother claims to be the biggest and best, no nickey certifed inspector ever brought this topic up?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

J.F.,

Speaking of "clueless"...

Don't get on Dan H., it was Ben Gromicko who "revived" the 3-1/2 year old thread and who started the self-serving "re-animation" of a long DEAD topic thread!

Silly too since the ORIGINAL POST, and the ORIGNAL POSTER'S PROFILE (including location) have long since been DELETED (six months+ after originally posted)!

H. G. I'ts a known fact that I could be clueless but I didn't think that Jack was getting on me.

BEN

is it me or do you only show up every three months or so and just advertise, aggravate and stir the pot. and on multiple threads.
to me it is annoying and i have put you on my ignore list. recommend everyone do the same. we don't need your crap here

what is your problem, and where do you get your ego

CVF

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

IRC M1305.1.3 uses the word "opening" twice. And they mean two different things. Opening as in an access; and opening as in pathway.

That's confusing.

Not confusing at all ... when one thinks of the word "opening" in the context of the way it was used.

It would only be confusing to those who are confused by the word "ball" in the following:
A) The pitcher pitched the ball, missing the outside corner of home plate.
B) The umpire called out "Ball four" and the batter walked to first base.

Same word "ball", different meaning - one simply must read the entire sentence before deciding on what the meaning of "opening" is, or, in the above, what the meaning of "ball" is.

[QUOTE=Dan Harris;150515]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]
Don't be silly...
We "Googled" and this InspectionNews thread popped up. Then I posted a question.

QUOTE]

Soooo out of the millions and millions of pages on your orgs web site, the inspection site that your brother claims to be the biggest and best, no nickey certified inspector ever brought this topic up?

ITS INSANE THE POMPOUS IMAGE BEING DIRECTED HE AT NICK AND BROTHER.
ONE COMES HERE WITH A VALID QUESTION, AND OFF GOES THE EGO,S.
Every were in life one asks questions for clarity.
Every were in life you find the ego,s that DRIVE AWAY ones looking for clarity.
Its the members that state a distinction of the pride ''the best '' as ASHI members do with there association. Be proud.
To attack someone looking for answers .
wow its still low grade childish mentality.
SHAME ON YOU ALL.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Nope. 508mm IS 20 inches, was no typo, on the SCUTTLE or access opening minimum. You're confusing the appliance gangway access/passage way minimum width (eighth and depth) with what was the access entrance minimum, or didn't catch what follow/ed:



Of course when you nit pick a 3-1/2 y.o. thread, especially when the OP has been deleted, you might come up with some strange IDEAS about what other posters have contributed, IN A TIMELY fashion with circa (2006) code references consistent with the post time stamps.

I read it the same way.
I build.
So the wording is confusing and is in error and lacks total meaning to description.20 opening and 22 onening.
They are both openings are they not.
So by description one must state finished or unfinished to draw a conclusion.

IRC 807.1 is clear to me - with its dimensions for "attic access". (30" X 22")

However IRC M1305.1.3 regarding the attic passageway access (not attic access) is not as clear, because it uses two different dimensions in relation to the term 'opening' used twice in the same paragraph.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Hi Robert,
The wording is confusing when the code sections are being mixed and used as gospel. Here is the bottom line...

R807.1 Attic Access (Roof and ceiling construction)
"The rough-framed opening shall not be less than 22 x 30 inches"
(my underline)

M1305.1.3 Appliance Access (General Mechanical Requirements)
"The clear access opening dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 x 30 inches" *

The above two sections are compliant to each other when the sentences are read correctly...(I.e. rough-framed opening)

*When the 22" rough is finished, it will be 20" due to the sheetrock, mud and trim application buildups. Should a pull-down ladder or recessed trouffer be installed, that complies to the original 22" rough context of a 24" o.c. truss or rafter distance.

Be free to print this out and paste it in a reference book.




.

When the 22" rough is finished, it will be 20" due to the sheet-rock, mud and trim application buildups.

You hit the nail one the head.
Your words are an assumption.
To know the finished product is the must import issue here.
The materials being used can be many and different in size. ''assuming''
No assuming. ass/u/me you know that oldie.
That is the point to this discussion and question being brought up by Nick.
To me it is very relative.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

However IRC M1305.1.3 regarding the attic passageway access (not attic access) is not as clear, because it uses two different dimensions in relation to the term 'opening' used twice in the same paragraph.

Ben,

Not sure what is unclear to you in the following, but I will change the highlighting and see if that clears it up for you.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

From the IRC. (bold is mine)
- M1305.1.3 Appliances in attics. Attics containing appliances requiring access shall have with an opening and a clear and unobstructed passageway large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance, but not less than 30 inches (762 mm) high and 22 inches (559 mm) wide and not more than 20 feet (6096 mm) long when measured along the centerline of the passageway from the opening to the appliance. The passageway shall have continuous solid flooring in accordance with Chapter 5 not less than 24 inches (610 mm) wide. A level service space at least 30 inches (762 mm) deep and 30 inches (762 mm) wide shall be present along all sides of the appliance where access is required. The clear access opening dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 inches by 30 inches (508 mm) by 762 mm), where such dimensions are large enough to allow removal of the largest appliance.

- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. The passageway and level service space are not required where the appliance can be serviced and removed through the required opening.
- - - 2. Where the passageway is unobstructed and not less than 6 feet (1829 mm) high and 22 inches (559 mm) wide for its entire length, the passageway shall be not more than 50 feet (15 250 mm) long.

Okay, I'll try it like this:
a) The part in underlined, bold, red text, the rest of that sentence and the next sentence, are about the requirement for the "passageway".
b) The underlined only part is about the "service space" which is required at the appliance.
c) The underlined, bold text part is about the "access opening".

That code section is about THREE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT components - the passageway, the service space, and the actual access opening.

Where does the 22" wide passageway come from? It comes from rafter/truss spaced 24" on center, which leaves 22-1/2" between them, and the 1/2" difference allows for slight differences in rafter/truss placement.

Where does the 20" wide opening come from? You start out with a rough framed opening of 22-1/2", allowing for the differences in rafter/truss placement makes that 22", then trim the opening with trim, which projects inward 1/2" to 1" from the rough opening all around the rough opening, leaving 20" to 21" for the "clear" opening within the trim.