1986 residential code for attached garage ceiling.

[DENNIS OMARA]

The attached garage was insulated at the truss bottoms. No drywall for fire rating.
Can't find the requirement for when the house was built. I recommended 5/8 inch drywall be installed, but Sellers do not have to bring deficiencies up to current code.

Similar Threads:

• residential code question
• Residential Code Question
• Designing here. Code for Minimum Garage ceiling height?
• California Residential Code 2010 -14 Significant Code Changes
• Attached garage

[Jerry Peck]

Did you take a photo of the warning label on each of those batts?

Hope you did as that should resolve your problem ... all the facings I have seen have a warning label not to leave exposed - the warning is a 'risk of fire' warning.

[DENNIS OMARA]

I informed the Buyers that fire rated drywall should be installed over the insulation.
The issue is that the Buyer has asked the Seller to have it covered in drywall as recommended by me, but the Seller says "what was required in 1986" when this house was built. I have been unable to find that online anywhere. We are not CODE inspectors per se, and furthermore, Seller are not required to bring a house up to code. (at least not in Maryland)

[Jerry Peck]

... but the Seller says "what was required in 1986" when this house was built.

That gets back to what I pointed out - what does the warning on the insulation state?

That warning applies TO WHENEVER the insulation was installed.

That was my point then, and still is.

[DENNIS OMARA]

Jerry,
Point taken. Thanks. Another point is that before the insulation was installed, at a later date, the garage trusses were probably exposed entirely. So, is it now more of a fire hazard since the insulation was added ? Surely the answer is no. Once again- the issue is what kind of fire safety standard existed at the time of construction ?

Thanks for responding to my inquiry !

[Jerry Peck]

Another point is that before the insulation was installed, at a later date, the garage trusses were probably exposed entirely. So, is it now more of a fire hazard since the insulation was added ? Surely the answer is no. Once again- the issue is what kind of fire safety standard existed at the time of construction ?

"So, is it now more of a fire hazard since the insulation was added ? Surely the answer is no." Incorrect.

The answer is "yes", it IS now a greater fire hazard ... because the garage 'ceiling' is a combustible surface waiting for something ... anything ... to heat it enough, or a flame to touch it long enough, for it to allow the fire to run over the entire 'ceiling' of the garage, and those wood trusses would now be encased in flame below them.

Before insulation was installed, either at the time of construction or at some point afterward, each truss would have had to have the source of the fire for all the trusses to catch on fire.

However, answer the seller does not relate to whether or not there is a greater fire hazard - the seller is insisting that it matters only based on what was required when the house was built (or the when the insulation was added at a later date, if that is the case) - and the only answer needed to off set that answer... and pertinent at this point ... is that warning on the insulation - AS SOON AS that insulation was installed, ...

... whenever the insulation was installed no longer matters, only that AS SOON AS that insulation was installed - the insulation was required to be installed in accordance with it manufacturer's installation instructions, and those warning labels are part of the manufacturer's installation instructions, and part of how the insulation was approved ... period.

And, you have a photo showing that the insulation IS installed, which means that, at some point in time, it was installed, and, AT THAT POINT IN TIME ... is when the warning labels should have been followed ... whether or not the seller was the owner at the time does not matter ... the seller is stating that it only matters what WAS REQUIRED 'back then' ... and those warning labels answer the sellers question.

Do you have a photo of the warning labels or can you get a photo of the warning labels under the pretext of going back to verify 'the date of construction and/or the date the insulation was installed' ... then go 'By golly, lookee here, this warning labels says that this insulation required (blah-blah-blah - read the label out loud)' ... (slight pause for effect) ... 'and that was not done' ... (another slight pause) ... 'that answers (turn to the seller) your question of what was required when the insulation was installed'.

For added effect (and irritation to the seller) ... go to the next warning label and read it out loud, and the next warning label, and the next, and ...

[Jack Feldmann]

You put in your report your observations, and recommendations. How they work out the resolution is really out of your hands, and honestly, not really your fight.

I have had many conversations with sellers where they want to argue with me about my findings. At some point, it sometimes becomes a waste of time. I have told sellers that I don't really care if they believe me, or if they fix it or not. They only have to comply with what the buyers are asking for, or refuse to do the repairs. I don't have a dog in their fight.

[Tom Rees]

You put in your report your observations, and recommendations. How they work out the resolution is really out of your hands, and honestly, not really your fight.

I have had many conversations with sellers where they want to argue with me about my findings. At some point, it sometimes becomes a waste of time. I have told sellers that I don't really care if they believe me, or if they fix it or not. They only have to comply with what the buyers are asking for, or refuse to do the repairs. I don't have a dog in their fight.

My feelings exactly.

[Lon Henderson]

You put in your report your observations, and recommendations. How they work out the resolution is really out of your hands, and honestly, not really your fight.

I have had many conversations with sellers where they want to argue with me about my findings. At some point, it sometimes becomes a waste of time. I have told sellers that I don't really care if they believe me, or if they fix it or not. They only have to comply with what the buyers are asking for, or refuse to do the repairs. I don't have a dog in their fight.

Been there, done similar....

Here, the insulation label settles it. Move on.

[Jerry Peck]

You put in your report your observations, and recommendations. How they work out the resolution is really out of your hands, and honestly, not really your fight.

I have had many conversations with sellers where they want to argue with me about my findings. At some point, it sometimes becomes a waste of time. I have told sellers that I don't really care if they believe me, or if they fix it or not. They only have to comply with what the buyers are asking for, or refuse to do the repairs. I don't have a dog in their fight.

I wasn't going to respond, but must present the other point of view ...

I always provided my clients with more than 'wham, bam, thank you ma'am" - I went the extra steps to support what I stated in my reports and provided additional backup documentation where needed.

I know other inspectors who do the same.

[Alton Darty]

Just out of my own curiosity, would anyone know when the garage fire separation requirements would have been introduced? I find mention of the separation from around 1932 in a National Board of Fire Underwriters pamphlet (NBFU 88), but do not know if it was actually adopted.

[Steve Truesdale]

"So, is it now more of a fire hazard since the insulation was added ? Surely the answer is no." Incorrect.


Do you have a photo of the warning labels or can you get a photo of the warning labels under the pretext of going back to verify 'the date of construction and/or the date the insulation was installed' ... then go 'By golly, lookee here, this warning labels says that this insulation required (blah-blah-blah - read the label out loud)' ... (slight pause for effect) ... 'and that was not done' ... (another slight pause) ... 'that answers (turn to the seller) your question of what was required when the insulation was installed'.

For added effect (and irritation to the seller) ... go to the next warning label and read it out loud, and the next warning label, and the next, and ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc

And play this in the background...

[Larry Morrison]

You say it is an attached garage. And I'm guessing (but not clear from your post) that it does not have a firewall at the attic, from ceiling to roof that separates the garage attic from the living space attic, then yes you would need fire separation at the ceiling of the garage. At least in my area code would call for 5/8 back in the 80s, but now is only 1/2 inch to be installed at garage ceilings.

Now I do have a question on the fiberglass batts? They look like foil faced or radiant barrier type (from picture). Do they have the warning label that is found on kraft faced batts, Stating, "facing is flammable and should not be left exposed"? Or do they have an FSK rating?

If they are FSK-25 rated (flame spread for the insulation) they can be left exposed, but would not take the place of any required fire wall between garage and living space. (apples and oranges)

And when talking code/Date....Why? (I'm guessing some (blue) states may require code compliance when selling an existing home but most states do not) This is a lot like inspecting a 1960s home with no GFCI protection or a thirty year old Water Heater with no seismic straps...The age of the home and code it was built under, has no real bearing on how likely they (clients) are to be electrocuted in the bathtub. And a Water heater that is older than 2009 will tip over just as easy as a new one.

I hope no inspectors here are choosing to not recommend Smoke Detectors, just because a home was built in say the 50s.....We Recommend, we cant require a seller to do anything. That is between them and the buyer. (I know, I rambled on)

[Stuart Brooks]

I wasn't going to respond, but must present the other point of view ...

I always provided my clients with more than 'wham, bam, thank you ma'am" - I went the extra steps to support what I stated in my reports and provided additional backup documentation where needed.

I know other inspectors who do the same.

Same here Jerry. I always kept current specifications & installation instructions on file which I provided to the client when there were things that needed or should be corrected. Big items were trusses, TJI installation and blocking, and Hardi siding.

[Ben Jacks]

The attached garage was insulated at the truss bottoms. No drywall for fire rating.
Can't find the requirement for when the house was built. I recommended 5/8 inch drywall be installed, but Sellers do not have to bring deficiencies up to current code.

Hi Dennis,
UBC up to 1997 requires a 1 hour firewall from floor to attic truss peak for garage attached single floor constructed adjacent living areas and the ceiling will need coverage additionally where there is an upper second floor adjacent living area. The firewall must be a one hour fire rated material such as X1 rated gypsum board or equal. The foil insulation usually does not have a labeled fire rating unless it is required to be a certified one hour firewall.

Larry Morrison's post 13 reflects the earlier UBC requirement as adopted by the later IRC codes but may not be relevant to newer adopted codes that may require both ceiling and adjacent floor to ceiling 1 hour rated firewalls. Both configurations include metal or 1 hour plastic rated electrical outlet boxes.

An advisory note to the above in a report is relevant to when the 'year built' codes are encumbering to the sellers liabilities for the dwelling unless being sold 'as is' contracted.
Best regards, Ben Jacks

[Gerald Star]

Hi Dennis,

...Both configurations include metal or 1 hour plastic rated electrical outlet boxes.

Ahh, brings up yet another issue. How does one tell if a device box is 1- hour fire rated??
The Home Despot doesn't offer a clue on their blue boxes

[Jerry Peck]

Ahh, brings up yet another issue. How does one tell if a device box is 1- hour fire rated??
The Home Despot doesn't offer a clue on their blue boxes

The answer is simple ... and complicated ... as one would expect. r

It is simple: The inside of the nonmetallic box will have "UL" and "2HR" molded into the plastic

It is complicated: All that labeling tells you is that, yes, that box "may" ... under specified conditions ... install that box as a membrane pent ration in up to a 2-hr rated wall ... but only when the specified conditions are met.

If no such markings are present, then there are no conditions which permit the box to be used in a rated wall.

I will come back and use edit to link to information on the above.

Added with edit: http://jerrypeck.com/IFCN/2014-10%20...-10%20IFCN.pdf
(While the newsletter addresses Florida codes, the codes are essentially ICC and NFPA codes.

[Ben Jacks]

[QUOTE=Gerald Star;274611]Ahh, brings up yet another issue. How does one tell if a device box is 1- hour fire rated??
The Home Despot doesn't offer a clue on their blue boxes

Gerald,
Most device or equipment enclosures are manufactured with a 2 hr rating with the manufacturer's specifications cut sheets or markings on their products to comply with the White Book listed Category Code. Professional electrical inspectors will enforce the temp ratings by conductor size and box size fill permitted by the NEC Table 314.16 for metal boxes. Non metal boxes will have the awg conductor and related maximum permitted inside the enclosure wall by volume listing.
Maximum volume allowance for combined conductors are determined from NEC Table 314.16(B).
Some sales personnel at big Orange and Blue may be retired electricians that can help with this data but expect reliable answers only by researching local adopted codes or active licensed electrical professional.