Page 1 of 1

Question of the Day - #23 Waterproof Foundation Conflict

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:01 pm
by RDavidson
It is April of 2015 and you are doing a foundation waterproofing inspection of a dwelling under construction. You fail the work because the waterproofing stops at the finished grade and you tell the contractor that the waterproofing must extend to the top of and across the top of the foundation wall. The contractor tells you to take a long walk off a short dock and reads you MN Rules section 1309.0406, subpart 2, R406.2, which states: “Waterproofing shall be installed at a minimum from the top of the footing to finished grade or in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions”. She says it is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions so now approve the work and sign my record card.

You say, not so fast. That is because 1322.0402, subpart 2, R402.1 states that “the waterproofing shall extend from the top interior wall edge, across the top of the wall, and down the exterior wall face to the top of the footing”. The contractor asks who was the …. who wrote two foundation waterproofing rules and put them in two different chapters of the Minnesota Building Code, which weren’t adopted on the same date, and that conflict with each other? Good question you say. What do you tell the contractor? Do you tell her that one person must have written one chapter and another person wrote the other chapter and they don’t talk to each other? Or, they didn’t care if there was a conflict in the rules so live with it? Or do you just tell her this is government and it doesn’t have to make any sense? Seems that a coordination of the rules would have been appropriate or a reference in the residential code to the energy code or something, don’t you think? Would you look in the energy code for foundation waterproofing requirements?