Official Website of the Wisconsin
Department of Safety and Professional Services
Department of Safety and Professional Services
|
Resources
Office of Governor
Scott Walker 
|
Safety and Buildings Commercial Buildings Fire Safety Code Advisory Council Meeting Summaries Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Teleconference), Thompson Commerce Building, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, WisconsinCouncil Member Attendance: Peter Braun - Present; Kevin Cavanaugh - P; Tom Clark, Chairperson - Absent; Mike Gardner - P; Chris La Shorne - A; Kerry Vondross - P; Dave Wheaton - A Department of Safety and Professional Services staff: Tom Kasper, Sam Rockweiler, James Smith Kerry Vondross agreed to open the meeting, with a review of the agenda, and the council accepted the draft progress report for the preceding, May 28, 2009, council meeting. Review of current Wisconsin modifications to the IBC In reference to the current Wisconsin modifications of the International Building Code, which were sent to the council members in advance of the meeting, Kerry asked whether the current deletion of each reference in the IBC to obtaining an approval from a local building or fire code official could be replaced by one general deletion. Jim Smith explained the purposes of the deletions are to avoid imposing an unfunded mandate on local officials, or to avoid requiring an unnecessary action by a contractor. Tom Kasper recommended replacing all the individual deletions with a general deletion near the beginning of chapter Comm 61. Jim noted the issue extends throughout the Commercial Building Code, and may be of interest to other councils that are reviewing the 2009 changes to the IBC. Sam Rockweiler indicated a general deletion could be modeled after the current text in Comm 61 that generally deletes all requirements in the International Fire Code which specify obtaining a local permit. However, converting to a general deletion that creates too much confusion would be undesirable. The council agreed the general deletion should be pursued. In reviewing the Wisconsin modification relating to air barriers, and the included draft changes to it, for sections Comm 62.0202(1) a) and 62.1403, Mike Gardner noted there is no national-level consensus that the text is needed, and that although Wisconsin may have a unique environment warranting it, the draft text is confusing. Kerry questioned whether Wisconsin’s climate differs enough from other northern states to warrant the modification. The council agreed sections Comm 62.0202(1)(a) and 62.1403 should be deleted. Jim explained that the modification in Comm 62.1405(1) for exterior windows and doors should be repealed because the testing that it deletes is instead intended to occur. Jim explained that the modification in Comm 62.1405(2) that allows polystyrene sheathing beneath vinyl siding will likely be retained because it has not resulted in blow-offs of the siding. Kevin Cavanaugh asked whether the installation is broadly permitted for all buildings and all circumstances, and Jim explained the application is limited to the characteristics specified in the modification. Kerry questioned whether the authorization to use the sheathing could be issued in another manner that would avoid needing a modification to the IBC, and staff explained that other avenues, such as a variance, would not be nearly as useful. Kevin and Kerry agreed section Comm 62.1405 2) should be retained. In reviewing the modifications in sections Comm 62.1407(1) and (2) for submitting information to a local building code official, there was interest in replacing them with a general modification in Comm 61 that would require the submittal only if requested by the official. In reviewing the modification in Comm 62.1506 for testing of roof-covering materials, Jim noted it will likely be retained, in order to avoid requiring a local building code official to require the testing. Next steps Jim noted that following the council meeting in May, he had not received any concerns from the council relating to the 2009 IBC changes or the Wisconsin modifications to the IBC, but any such concerns can still be submitted. Jim added that public hearings on the draft changes to the Commercial Building Code are expected in the spring of 2010, and if complicated technical issues arise then relating to building code fire safety requirements, the council could be called upon again for advice. Thursday, May 28, 2009, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., City of Madison Fire Station #11, 4011 Morgan Way, Madison, Wisconsin Council members attendance: Peter Braun, Present; Kevin Cavanaugh, P; Tom Clark, Chairperson, P; Mike Gardner, P; Chris La Shorne, P; Kerry Vondross, P; Dave Wheaton, P Department of Safety and Professional Services Staff: Tom Kasper, Sam Rockweiler, James Smith Jim Smith opened the meeting with a welcome and a round of introductions. Scope and purpose Jim and Sam Rockweiler explained that the purpose of the council is to assist the department in developing the next iteration of the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code, by reviewing the 2009 changes to the requirements for fire safety in the International Building Code. The department intends to continue minimizing any Wisconsin modifications of the IBC, but wants to be informed of any concerns with the corresponding current or upcoming requirements in the IBC. Election of chairperson Tom Clark was elected chairperson, and Dave Wheaton was elected vice-chairperson. Review of handouts Jim noted that the council’s review would focus on (1) the 2009 changes to IBC chapters 7, 8, 14, 15 and 26, which were sent to the Council members in advance of the meeting; and (2) the current Wisconsin modifications of the IBC, which may be affected by the 2009 IBC changes. According to Jim, the bulk of the 2009 IBC changes are clarifications, and none of the changes are expected to be controversial. 2009 changes for chapters 7, 8, 14, 15 and 26 in the IBC In reference to the 2009 changes for IBC section 703.2, Mike Garder asked whether the exception for determining the specified fire resistance of exterior bearing walls also applies to exterior non-bearing walls, and Jim explained it does. In reference to the 2009 changes for exterior markings for fire walls, in section 703.6, Dave Wheaton and Tom Clark noted the markings are helpful for fire inspectors and for alterations to existing buildings. In reference to the 2009 changes for continuity of fire walls, in section 707.5, Mike noted that the change would extend fire walls to the underside of roof sheathing, despite his opposition to that change. Section 709.4 makes the same change for fire partitions. Tom Kasper noted the practice in Wisconsin is to extend fire barriers to structural members, but not to non-structural plywood nailing layer of a roof. Similarly in Wisconsin, fire partitions need to be continuous to either a structural deck or a rated assembly. There was interest in modifying this IBC change. In reference to the 2009 changes for shaft enclosures, in section 708.11, Paul Braun questioned whether joints between wallboard and concrete floors would then need to be caulked shut. Section 714.4 makes the same change for exterior curtain walls. Mike noted the corresponding test assemblies are air-tight, but installers typically leave a gap of about ¼ inch to prevent floor moisture from wicking into the wallboard. There was agreement that the gap would no longer be permitted, under the 2009 changes. There was interest in reviewing whether to delete the requirements for special-inspections of shaft enclosures, in section 708.14.2.6, for consistency with current deletions of other special-inspection requirements. Jim explained that the changes in section 712 include clarifying how fire barriers are differentiated from horizontal assemblies. Sections 719 and 720 now better address thermal and sound insulating materials in listed assemblies. In reference to the prescriptive fire-resistance ratings for the assemblies listed in the tables in section 720, Jim noted that all of those assemblies are tested before they are so listed, but other assemblies can be accepted that are similarly tested. There was concern for imported products which are labeled as complying with applicable codes, but which actually do not comply. Jim asked whether any corresponding special inspections in chapter 17 should be applied. Mike commented that those inspections address whether an installation is performed correctly, but do not address whether a building product itself is code-complying. It was noted that the change from 5 feet to 10 feet, for fire separations for fire-resistance rated exterior walls, in section 705.5, is inconsistent with other corresponding 5-foot fire separations, such as in sections 721.3.2.3 and 721.4.1.4 for nonsymmetrical assemblies, and in section 721.6.2.3 for wood-frame assemblies. Mike questioned whether a tested assembly would consequently be available for a 6-foot separation. Paul asked whether the published, final version of the 2009 IBC might instead consistently reference either a 5-foot or a 10-foot separation. Jim noted the 2009 IBC has already been published, so only an errata publication could now resolve the inconsistency prior to the 2012 edition of the IBC. Kevin Cavanaugh asked whether corresponding test data and specifications are available for sprayed-on and other fire-resistive materials, as addressed in sections 721.5.1.3 and 703.2. Jim agreed to review the topic further. The council did not raise any concerns with the 2009 changes in chapters 8, 14, 15 and 26. Current Wisconsin modifications to the IBC In reviewing the current Wisconsin modifications of the IBC, which were sent to the council members in advance of the meeting, Jim noted the department will likely retain the modifications in section Comm 62.0705 for exterior markings for fire walls. Jim explained that the requirements for the markings apply only where mandated by a local ordinance. Jim noted that the reference in section Comm 62.0702 to a “building face” would be updated to “face of the wall” to match the 2009 IBC text. In reviewing the criteria in section Comm 62.0703 for determining fire-resistance ratings, Jim noted that UL 263 would be added as an alternate test procedure, to match that addition to the 2009 IBC. There was interest in considering whether to repeal the current modification that precludes obtaining local rather than department approval for use of non-listed fire-resistive assemblies. Jim added that staff would likely delete any new 2009 IBC text which imposes an unfunded mandate onto local governments. There was agreement that the modifications in Comm 62.0707 for shaft enclosures could be repealed. Jim noted that the modifications in Comm 62.1405 for exterior windows, doors and wall coverings may be updated to reflect current practices, and staff will update any other modifications that include out-of-date IBC references. Next steps Jim explained that the next council meeting will likely be held by teleconference near the end of August, in preparation for presenting the results of the council’s discussions to the Commercial Building Code Council in November. Prior to then, staff may send the council further explanation of some of the Wisconsin modifications of the IBC. Jim recommended that the council members send in, by August 1, any further concerns that develop relating to the 2009 IBC changes or the Wisconsin modifications to the IBC. Jim added that public hearings on the draft changes to the Commercial Building Code are expected in the spring of 2010, and if complicated technical issues arise then relating to building code fire safety requirements, the council could be called upon for advice. Thursday, November 17, 2005, 9 a.m. - Noon, Teleconference Council member participation: Peter Braun Excused; Thomas Clark Excused; John Eagon Chairperson Present; Michael Gardner P; Jeff Leckwee Absent; Richard Licht P; David Lind (Vernon Green – Alternate) P; Kerry Vondross P; David Wheaton P; Patrick Winger P Department of Safety and Professional Services Staff: Tom Kasper, Sam Rockweiler, James Smith Jim Smith opened the meeting with an explanation of the logistics for the teleconference, a round of introductions, and a review of the agenda. The Council accepted the draft progress report from the preceding June 2, 2005 Council meeting. 2006 changes for Chapters 7, 8, 14, 15, and 26 in the International Building Code Jim initiated discussion of the proposed 2006 changes for IBC Chapters 7, 8, 14, 15, and 26, which were modified by the International Code Council in late October, and which were shown in documents that he had sent to the Council prior to the meeting. In reference to the proposed changes for IBC section 705, which were included as FS22-04/05 and which were rejected by the ICC, Patrick Winger asked whether the rejected changes could be adopted in whole or in part in Wisconsin. Jim explained that FS22 sought changes in how fire-wall assemblies are tested for structural stability. Michael Gardner commented that the changes in FS22 have been debated for about 80 years, and due to their rejection by the ICC in October, they are now a dead issue for the IBC, so he would oppose adopting them in Wisconsin. In discussing the remaining October ICC modifications, the Council noted that (1) due to ICC acceptance of proposal FS39, the fire-resistive rating for elevator lobbies can match the rating for associated corridors rather than the rating for the elevator shaft; (2) due to ICC rejection of FS90, T ratings will continue to be required for the rated-floor penetrations that were discussed by the Council on June 2 as not needing T ratings; (3) with ICC acceptance of FS134, there is more clarity for where fire dampers can be omitted in tenant partitions in covered mall buildings; and (4) with ICC acceptance of FS187, ice-dam membranes will be required where there has been a history of ice-dams occurring, rather than where the previously specified temperature threshold occurred – but that history may not be evident to some code users, so further guidance such as Web-based information from the Departmental may be helpful. The Council did not recommend any Wisconsin-based changes to the October ICC modifications. Review of draft changes to the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code (WCBC) Sam Rockweiler initiated discussion of the draft rule changes that were emailed to the Council on November 14. Dave Wheaton commented that the included section Comm 62.0713, which is Comm 62.0712 in the current WCBC, continues to delete an IBC reference that allows a local building official to verify whether a nonsymmetrical fire-rated wall assembly has been tested properly. Jim explained that the Department had deleted the reference because of concern that the IBC text would impose an unfunded mandate on local officials. Dave indicated local officials prefer to retain the reference, and John Eagon indicated that repealing the Comm section would preserve an option which potentially may be used only infrequently. The Council recommended repealing current Comm 62.0712. Dave suggested deleting the included section Comm 62.0716(1), because although it exempts installing smoke dampers in exhaust ducts for laboratory ventilation systems that comply with NFPA 45, local officials are using an IBC exemption for fire dampers to not require those smoke dampers. Tom Kasper explained that without this Comm section, smoke dampers would be required in these exhaust ducts, and would interfere there with the NFPA 45 ventilation system. The Council agreed to retain Comm 62.0716(1) in the draft rule changes. Dave questioned whether the included section Comm 62.1407(2) is still needed, for modifying a reference in IBC section 1407.8 to a mandatory submittal. Staff said yes, because the 2006 IBC version of 1407.8 continues to mandate always submitting fire-resistance evidence for aluminum-composite coverings to a code official, rather than submitting it only upon request. Dave questioned whether the WCBC should be revised to retain the requirements in IBC section 1703.5 for having specified materials and products labeled by an approved agency. Jim responded that the product approval and construction inspection scheme in Wisconsin is somewhat different than the corresponding ICC scheme in IBC chapter 17, but further comparison and study of the two schemes could be beneficial. Dave said reinstating IBC 1703.5 would eliminate a Wisconsin modification of the IBC and give local officials more authority and tools. Jim explained that consideration of reinstating currently deleted requirements of IBC chapter 17 is beyond the scope of the Building Code Fire Safety Council, but members could pursue any such interest with the Department’s Commercial Building Code Council. Patrick Winger said Wisconsin should modify the IBC requirements for testing fire wall assemblies, in the manner that was proposed in FS22-04/05, in order to have safer fire walls in Wisconsin. Richard Licht reported that the proposed FS22 changes to the corresponding fire test methods in ASTM Standard E 119 have been debated several times by the ASTM committee for that standard, but a consensus to make those changes there has not yet occurred. Richard recommended not making the changes other than through the consensus of the ASTM committee. John Eagon noted that by adopting the FS22 changes, Wisconsin would be more restrictive than the ASTM test standard. Kerry Vondross commented that adopting the changes would affect only one of three alternate methods of performing the test, and would result in test conditions that more closely resemble actual field conditions. John said designers prefer to have standards changed at the national level rather than at lower levels. Richard explained that adopting the changes would disallow all of the fire wall assemblies that have been allowed under the current test method. Richard also reported that the National Institute of Standards and Technology is reviewing structural integrity topics, including the associated test methods in ASTM E 119, and plans to submit corresponding input for the 2009 edition of the IBC. Tom Kasper commented that enforcement staff generally cannot verify which test method in ASTM E 119 has been used. Vernon Green asked whether the intent of the FS22 changes is to have all fire walls constructed of concrete, and Kerry responded that the intent is to have non-masonry walls tested under the same conditions as masonry walls. In a poll of Council members, John Eagon, Michael Gardner, Richard Licht, and Dave Wheaton opposed adopting the FS22 changes; and Vernon Green, Kerry Vondross, and Patrick Winger favored adopting the changes. Next steps: Jim reported that staff would present the results of the Council’s discussions to the Commercial Building Code Council, and if corresponding changes are made there, staff would communicate those changes back to the Building Code Fire Safety Council. Jim added that public Hearings on the draft changes to the WCBC are expected in the spring of 2006, and if issues arise then relating to building code fire safety requirements, the BCFS Council could reconvene then. Thursday, June 2, 2005, 9 a.m. - 3 p.m., Room 3C, Thompson Commerce Center, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin Council Member Attendance: Peter Braun Present; Thomas Clark P; John Eagon, Chairperson P; Michael Gardner P; Jeff Leckwee Absent; Richard Licht P; David Lind A; Kerry Vondross P; David Wheaton Excused; Patrick Winger A. Guests: Paul Coats, American Forest and Paper Association ; Bill Sullivan , Affiliated Engineers. Department of Safety and Professional Services Staff: Tom Kasper, Sam Rockweiler, James Smith. Jim Smith opened the meeting with a welcome and a round of introductions. Purpose and scope Jim explained that the purpose of the Council is to assist the Department in developing the next iteration of the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code (WCBC), by reviewing the 2003 and 2006 changes to the requirements for passive fire protection elements in the International Building Code. According to Jim, the Department intends to continue minimizing any Wisconsin modifications of the IBC, but does not expect the Council to perform an in-depth critique of every change in the 2003 and 2006 editions of the IBC. Instead, the Department is looking for any problems that could be created with these changes. Council members may want to review individual topics with their represented groups, and then discuss related issues at a future meeting. Jim noted that the Council’s review would focus on IBC chapters 7, 8, 14, 15, and 26, and the output of the Council would eventually be presented to the Department’s Commercial Building Code Council and Multifamily Dwelling Code Council. Kerry Vondross asked whether the Council could also address any problems with the current WCBC, and the answer was yes. Election of chairperson John Eagon was unanimously elected chairperson, and Tom Clark was elected vice chair. Review of handouts Jim distributed copies of pertinent text from the 2003 IBC, the 2004 IBC Supplement, draft changes for the 2006 IBC, and the corresponding current Wisconsin modifications to the 2000 IBC. John Eagon indicated that some of the IBC changes may be occurring in conjunction with concurrent changes to NFPA requirements for health care facilities, which are administered by the Department of Health and Family Services. Michael Gardner commented that many of the 2003 changes to the IBC were user driven, and resulted from aspects which were not quite right in the 2000 edition. Richard Licht commented that several corresponding standards from Underwriters Laboratories have been revised to comply with the acceptance criteria of the American National Standards Institute. John asked whether many variances have been issued under the current WCBC, and Tom Kasper noted a variance summary could be generated and presented at a future meeting. In referring to the distributed text of 2003 changes for IBC Section 715.3.3, Kerry asked why doors and windows are allowed to have a lower fire-resistive rating than walls. John commented that doors and windows are fabricated in a factory rather than assembled at the job site, and generally do not have combustible materials placed next to them. Jim added that different testing standards may be applied to doors and windows than to wall assemblies. Kerry asked why Wisconsin is not adopting the International Residential Code, and Jim responded that Wisconsin’s industry for one- and two-family dwellings prefers to continue using Wisconsin’s corresponding Uniform Dwelling Code instead. Jim added that the Department may adopt a Wisconsin modification in the WCBC to use the IRC requirements for townhouses as an exception to the corresponding IBC sprinkler requirements. In referring to the distributed text of proposed 2006 changes for IBC Section 705.2.2, Michael Gardner commented that the gypsum industry is likely to oppose the proposed change in testing procedures for fire-resistive-rated wall assemblies. Richard Licht indicated that the proposed 2006 change to IBC Section 712.4 may resolve a current problem with inadequate protection for penetrations of corresponding horizontal fire-resistive-rated assemblies. Richard commented that the proposed 2006 change to IBC Section 712.4.1.2 would authorize a current noncomplying practice, and he asked for the Department’s position on T ratings. Jim responded that a T rating is useful for protecting floor penetrations in concealed spaces having combustible materials, but is generally unnecessary in open areas where floor penetrations are not next to combustibles. John asked whether the Department initiated any of the IBC changes, and Jim explained that the Department’s administrative experience with the IBC has not yet been extensive enough to do so. John asked whether the Department foresees any major issues with the changes that were distributed to the Council, and Jim said no. Jim proceeded through an overview of the 2003 changes to IBC chapters 8, 14, 15, and 26, and no problematic issues arose. Next meeting: The next meeting was scheduled for August 31, for the same location and time period. Links -- County Web sites || City/Town/Village Web sites || State Portal || Licensing and Permitting || Build Your Business Email this page's manager, Todd Taylor, Todd.Taylor@Wisconsin.gov or 608-267-3606 The Department of Safety and Professional Services Safety and Buildings Division is an equal opportunity service provider and employer. If you need assistance to access services or need material in an alternate format, please contact us, 608-266-3151, TDD Relay dial 711 in Wisconsin or 800-947-3529, or Todd.Taylor@Wisconsin.gov |