Roland wrote; "Setting that code interpretation aside, answering this question will focus this discussion. When the building code does not require the use of lumber treated with a fire retardant (and it isn't used for any construction related issue such as type of construction, egress, separation etc) and one elects to use it for an issue driven by a standard, must it be the pressure treated type? My answer is obviously a NO because the per the Code w non-treated wood would be in full compliance."
Ok, Now that you put it that way ........ Pursuant to the STANDARD where the BUILDING CODE is NOT a factor the concealed space exception of the STANDARD provides for "fire retardant treated wood" per NFPA 703 "Standard for Fire Retardant Impregnated Wood and Fire Retardant COATINGS for Building Materials" a committee made up of the Gypsum Association, Glazing Industry Code Committee, Portland Cement Association and American Forest and Paper Association. (sounds like the passive folks) Ironically I'm a proponent of rated construction AND fire suppression so they shouldn't be unhappy. Just don't take sprinklers out of spaces that contain wood (like in "real milk") or items that contain wood (like in "low fat milk") in their names ! But wait you don't get to eat lunch for free.... NFPA-703 5.4 Maintenance of Protection - "Fire Retardant coatings shall posses the desired degree of permanency and shall be MAINTAINED to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditions encountered in actual use". This is a slippery slope. The building owner needs to know this ahead of time, because somehow, someway, someone is going to have MAINTAIN the '"protection". In order to do this one needs to be able to INSPECT these materials to assure their continued performance much like we do with rated construction, penetrations and so forth. If not we go back and provide the sprinklers since the conditions of the NFPA-13 concealed space exception are nullified. Fruit for dessert? John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: INTUMESCENT PAINT we are both typing English but not speaking the same language - are you Scottish lol. THis will be my last Forum email since I suspect that John and I are the only ones determined to understand each other. Allow me to adamantly state we concur on it being a bad idea to use coated lumber AND that the AHJ should not allow it based on it not being maintained (if that is defined as ever having to be reapplied). This is a discussion on how it should be treated per the building code and 13. Most of what you wrote does NOT conflict with what I am saying though I believe it is being misapplied in this issue. Exception 4 (in the 2003 edition) is about otherwise occupied rooms (not concealed spaces) AND somebody as an AHJ must concur the space qualifies. So in discussing concealed combustible spaces that allowance does not apply. I am saying the space IS a combustible concealed space. I am then following 13 on how to address COMBUSTIBLE concealed spaces. Setting that code interpretation aside, answering this question will focus this discussion. When the building code does not require the use of lumber treated with a fire retardant (and it isn't used for any construction related issue such as type of construction, egress, separation etc) and one elects to use it for an issue driven by a standard, must it be the pressure treated type? My answer is obviously a NO because the per the Code w non-treated wood would be in full compliance. Roland On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:36 PM, John Drucker wrote: > AHJ approval is not required where an exception is published and > adopted. > > You could but only if the mechanical rooms CONTENTS were also WHOLLY > NONCOMBUSTIBLE. > > The argument you are making as a circular reference. If the space is > determined to be NON COMBUSTIBLE in accordance with the BUILDING CODE > then the NFPA-13 reference to NON COMBUSTIBLE concealed spaces is > irrelevant. The BUILDING CODE provides this exception, that does not > require prior approval on the part of the AHJ, at IBC 903.3.1.1.1 > Exempt > Locations. 5. > > When we work from requirements in the BUILDING CODE we stay in the > BUILDING CODE with regards to what constitutes NON COMBUSTIBLE > construction, IBC Chapter 7 provides these parameters. For example > the > IMC (International Mechanical Codes definition varies from that of the > IBC (Building Code) in that gypsum wall board is considered > combustible, > albeit limited combustible, whereas the IBC considers gwb NON > COMBUSTIBLE. > > The discussion focuses on NON COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION. The operative > term being NON COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION not COMBUSTIBLE > CONSTRUCTION or > LIMITED COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION. > > Don't forget about; IBC 703.4 Non Combustibility Tests states; "A > material SHALL not be classified as non combustible building > construction material if it is subject to an increase in > combustibility > or flame spread beyond the limitations herein established through the > effects of AGE, MOISTURE or OTHER atmospheric conditions". > > In order for a building construction material to be considered non > combustible it must comply with the provisions of IBC 703, ASTM E-136 > and not be subject to an increase in combustibility or flame spread > beyond the limitations herein established through the effects of age, > moisture or other atmospheric conditions. That's really the clincher. > > Lets face it Roland no ones going to "re-apply" fire retardants in an > otherwise combustible concealed space. Its set it and forget it. It's > bad code language and allows constructors to go on the cheap. As for > fire retardant "wood" look at the problem we're having with fire > separation walls to the underside of FRT roofs, it can and will > burn at > nominal building fire temperatures . Lets do the right thing here, > instead of what an FRT/COATINGS manufacturer promotes. > > "Any other code reference that is considered applicable?" Oh > yes......... > > IBC 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt Locations. 5. "In rooms or AREAS that are of > non > combustible construction with WHOLLY NON COMBUSTIBLE CONTENTS". > > What's that PVC Piping ,ROMEX Wiring, etc. doing in there ?, > > Yes there are both fruit, and yes they are different HOWEVER we're > talking about fire protection and not apples, oranges. > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official > New Jersey > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: INTUMESCENT PAINT > > true but we are talking about apples and oranges - both are fruit but > are different. > > Exception 5 allows (with AHJ approval) portions of a building to be > unprotected. If YOU wanted to, you could have a mechanical room in a > concrete basement with only pipes etc to exclude sprinklers. It > does not apply to concealed spaces since 13 does not require NON- > COMBUSTIBLE concealed spaces to be protected. As you pointed out, > when this allowance for omission (and those in 13) are applied, the > building is still considered protected THROUGH-OUT. > > Now what does this have to do with the discussion on coated vs > pressure treated? We are in agreement that the code trumps the > standards. But the code is not requiring treated lumber. The code > allows standard lumber so it's done, sends you to 13, and is silent > thereafter. SInce it is not a construction issue but an installation > issue, 13 allows coated fire retardant lumber (with MAINTENANCE which > I ASSUME means recoated in the future - not goin to do it spoken in > the senior Bush accent that SNL had a blast with). > > Worth noting that treated does not equal non-combustible. Any other > code reference that is considered applicable? > > Roland > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 11:28 AM, John Drucker wrote: > >> >> IBC 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 Sprinkler Systems. >> >> "Where the provisions of this code REQUIRE that a building OR PORTION >> thereof shall be equipped THROUGHOUT with an automatic fire sprinkler >> system, sprinklers SHALL be installed THROUGHOUT in accordance with >> NFPA-13 EXCEPT as provided in Sections 903.3.1.1.1, 903.3.1.2 and >> 903.3.1.3" >> >> IBC 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt Locations. >> >> 5. "In rooms or AREAS that are of non combustible construction with >> wholly noncombustible contents". >> >> Where a building code drives the sprinkler requirement, the >> provisions >> of the building code "trump" those of the referenced standards. >> >> John Drucker >> Fire Protection Subcode Official >> New Jersey >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
