Thread: Insulation

This looks like a type of wool insulation to me. There is paper on both sides. My thoughts are that it probably should not be used in the attic because of the flame spread possibilty due to the paper. You would not be able to turn it over. I could not find a label that tells me about the applications. Can anyone elese offer any insight on this type of insulation.

Thanks!

Similar Threads:

• wet insulation
• Great Foam Insulation
• Insulation
• Electrical cable insulation cover
• Insulation type

Just curious. Why are you worried about flame spread? The whole attic is wood.

The thing about an inspection like this is knowing when the house was built. It may have been to code at the time it was built. Then it would be legal.

Just my thoughts.

Good thoughts

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Just curious. Why are you worried about flame spread? The whole attic is wood.

The thing about an inspection like this is knowing when the house was built. It may have been to code at the time it was built. Then it would be legal.

Just my thoughts.

Allen is correct, it has never been approved to leave the paper facing exposed - fire hazard.

Ever try to ignite a wood rafter/truss? Takes quite a bit to get the fire started.

Ever try to ignite that paper? Poof! It's on fire!

Besides, the paper should be facing the gypsum board wall, not the attic space.

He said that there was paper on both sides though.

Also that's why I made the comment that it depends on when the house was built. It may have been within the code at the time.

Todays codes don't allow it but like I said.......what year was the house built. The insulation looks like some of the "old" stuff from the ummmmm maybe 50's. Just a wild guess on that one! Don't even know if they had insulation in the 50's but I know I've seen that type of insulation on older houses.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

He said that there was paper on both sides though.

That is true, I forgot he said that, me bad.

Also that's why I made the comment that it depends on when the house was built. It may have been within the code at the time.

Does not matter, if it can catch fire today, and today's codes recognize that, then it can catch fire today, even if the old code did not recognize that.

FIRES DO NOT READ CODE BOOKS.

In fact, code change *because things like that happen*, what was once allowed is no longer allowed ... think lead water service pipe, lead based paint, asbestos, etc., ... just because it may have been allowed when mankind did not know any better does not mean it should be allowed to remain. *I* would not want that on my conscience if that house burns down from that stuff catching fire.

Todays codes don't allow it but like I said.......what year was the house built. The insulation looks like some of the "old" stuff from the ummmmm maybe 50's. Just a wild guess on that one! Don't even know if they had insulation in the 50's but I know I've seen that type of insulation on older houses.

Does not matter, you don't want exposed paper in the attic.

Jerry; I respectfully disagree.

Now here's the contradicting part of the respectfully disagree.

I agree with you on it shouldn't be allowed. It should be noted that it is not within the limits of the code now but you cannot legally make anyone change out anything that was within the code at the time it was built.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Does not matter, you don't want exposed paper in the attic.

I know you don't want it but you can't legally make them change it out.

R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs; Additions, or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated.

If it was allowed at the time the structure was built then legally you can't require a homwowner/builder to change out any pre-existing work "if" it was to code at the time it was constructed.


Watch this.....Allen's going to come back and say the house was built last year! Then I'll suck it up and eat a little crow...well maybe a lot of crow!

Well, I can't legally make anybody do anything. I can only report and advise.


mlc

That's the difference between HI and a inspector that works for a municipality.

As an inspector for a city I can legally require the homeowner/builder to change things to meet code.

I have had a few experiences in the past where HI told homeowners that their blah blah blah does not meet code when it actually does. And that was because it was legal at the time of construction.

Mitchell, it looks like you are one of the good ones!!

I know there are constant battles between HI and municipal inspectors and they (HI) find a LOT of things that the MI (municipal inspectors) missed. I want to really congratulate you guys for being there for the future homeowners.

We as MI do not always have the manpower or the time to do a complete inspection like you guys do! There are days that I have made 35 to 40 inspections (some are 5 minute some are 1 hour and more) and I know I didn't catch everything. I try but I know I don't/can't because of time restraints that I miss something.

When I have days like that I look for the really obvious things. Then that is when you guys come in and say WOW! How in the world did the inspector miss that? God bless you guys for what you do! Besides....I'm going to be one of those guys that say...WOW! How in the world did the inspector miss that?.......Oooops it was me!!!