HomeMy WebLinkAbout0117916-Electric
e
OSHKOSH
ON THE WATER
Job Address 100 N MAIN ST
CITY OF OSHKOSH
No
117916
ELECTRIC PERMIT -APPLICATION AND RECORD
0 Change
0 Temp
Owner AKO OSHKOSH/PARKVIEW OSHKOSH/OS Create Date 01/18/2006
Category 643 - Commercial-Addition/Remodels Plan
. N/A Type 0 Overhead 0 Underground
Circuits ~ Fixtures ~
Switches ~ Receptacles ~
Contractor
SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERINo
Service 0 New
Volts 120/208
Amps 400
Appliances
Use/Nature of Cranky Pats Pizza /3400 Sq Ft Restaurant wiring. Price does not include cost of the luminaires.
Work
Fees: Valuation $30,500.00
Issued By: ~.~"~
Plan Approval
$0.00
Permit Fee Paid
$275.50
Date 01/18/2006
0 Permit Voided I
Parcelld # 0800570000
In the performance of this work I agree to perform all work pursuant to rules governing the described construction.
While the City of Oshkosh has no authority to enforce easement restrictions of which it is not a party, if you perform the work
described in this permit application within an easement, the City strongly urges the permit applicant to contact the easement
holder(s) and to secure any necessary approvals before starting such activity.
Signature
Date
Address
709 HICKORY FARM LN
Agent/Owner
APPLETON
WI 54914 - 0
Telephone Number 920-739-5156
To schedule inspections please call the Inspection Request line at 236-5128 noting the Address, Permit Number, Type of
Inspection (i.e. Footing, Service, Final, etc.), Access into Building if Secure (how do we gain entry), your Name and Phone
Number. Unless specified otherwise, we will assume the project is ready at the time the request is received. Work may
continue if the inspection is not performed within two'business days from the time the project is ready.
~f
,~
."
,~
~
OJHKOfH
City of Oshkosh
Division of Inspection Services
215 Church Avenue
PO Box 1130
Oshkosh WI 54903-1130
www.cLoshkosh.wi.us
ON THE WATER
March 15,2006
--......
8,0, _.. -'\
~' ~'
rri ^'
. ~
II
;J .,
Paul Sobieck
Milwaukee Stove & Furnace
2442 Hutson Road
Green Bay, WI 54303
100 Block LLC
100 N Main St.
Oshkosh, WI 54901
Site: Plan Number: R3-107-1105-H2
Cranky Pats
100 N Main St
Oshkosh WI 54901
For:
Description: Kitchen Exhaust Systems
Object Type: HV AC only
Class of Construction: IIA - 3400 Sq Ft.; sprinklered
Occupancy: A: Assembly
The submittal described above has been reviewed for conformance with applicable Wisconsin Administrative Codes and
Wisconsin Statutes. The submittal has been CONDITIONALLY APPROVED. The owner, as defmed in Chapter
101.01(10), Wisconsin Statutes, is responsible for compliance with all code requrrements
Key Item(s) I Conditions:
· IMC 302.1 The building or structure shall not be weakened by the installation of mechanical systems.
Verify that existing structure is capable of supporting the additional weight of the proposed roof top
equipment.
· IMC 304.1 Equipment and appliances shall be installed as required by the terms of their approval, in
accordance with the conditions of the listing, the manufacture's instructions and this code.
· IMC 401.5 Opening Location Outside air exhaust and intake openings shall be located a minimum of 10
feet (3048 mm) from lot lines or buildings on the same lot. Where openings front on a street or public way,
the distance shall be measured to the centerline of the street or public way.
· IMC 401.5.1 Mechanical and gravity outside air intake openings shall be located a minimum of 10 feet
from any hazardous or noxious contaminant such as vents, chimneys, plumbing vents, streets, alleys,
parking lots and loading docks.
· IMC 403.1 The amount of supply air shall be approximately equal to the amount of return and exhaust air.
Provide interlock with exhaust systems.
· IBC 904.11.2 System Interconnection The Interconnection of the fire suppression system shall
automatically shut down the fuel or electrical power supply to the cooking equipment. The fuel and
electrical supply reset shall be manual.
II:\briann\2006 Comm Plan Rev'jew\R3-107-1105-1I2 100 N Main ::it Kitd]l;;'n lIoods.dtK
Page 1 of2
...
'"
;;;.,
· Comm 61.31(4) Revisions to approved plans. All proposed revisions and modifications which involve
rules under this code and which are made to construction documents that have previously been granted
approval by the department or its authorized representative, shall be submitted to the office that granted the
approval. All revisions and modifications to plans shall be approved in writing by the department or its
authorized representative prior to the work involved in the revision or modification being carried out. A
revision or modification to a plan, drawing or specification shall be signed and sealed in accordance with
Comm 61.31(1).
· MUN 30-35 (1)(5) All roof top and ground level mechanical equipment and utilities shall be fully screened
from view of any street or residential zoning district. Contact David Buck - Associate planner (920) 236-
5062 for additional information on screening requirements. All screening shall be properly anchored in
place to resist wind loads. Additionally IBC 1608.8 Roofprojectlons - Drift loads due to mechanical
equipment, penthouses, parapets and other projections above the roof shall be determined in accord.ance
with Section 7.8 of ASCE 7. A screening plan for the make-up air unit is required to be approved prior
to HVAC permit being issuedfor this work. .
· City of Oshkosh Municipal Ordinance Section 14-1.2 "Smoking prohibited inside restarants"
Note: This plan has not been reviewed for complete compliance with this ordinance, as it does not include
information that addresses all the requirements for review. If there is a desire to create a separately
ventilated smoking room, additional plans are required to be submitted for review.
SUBMIT:
· Comm 61.50 (4) Supervision. Prior to the initial occupancy of an alteration the supervising professional
shall file a compliance statement form SBD-9720 with this office.
A copy of the approved plans, specifications, and this letter shall be on-site during construction. All permits are required to
be obtained prior to connnencement of work.
In granting this approval the City of Oshkosh Inspection Services Department reserves the right to require changes or
additions should conditions arise making them necessary for code compliance. As per state stats 101.12(2), nothing in this
review shall relieve the designer of the responsibility for designing a safe building, structure, or component.
Inquiries concerning this correspondence may be made to me at the number listed below or the address on this letterhead.
B'
Building Systems Consultant
(920) 236-5051 Monday-Friday 7:30 A.M. to 8:30A.M and 12:30 A.M to 1:30 P.M.
bnoe@ci.oshkosh.wi.us
cc: Property file
Fee Required $
Fee Received $
Balance Due $
,.230.00
230.00
0.00
II:\briann\2006 (:omm Plan Review\R3-107-1.105-H2 lOG N Main:'it Kitehen Hoods.do,"
Page 2 of2
Job Address 100 N MAIN ST
Electric Permit Work Card
Permit Number 117916
Create Date 01/18/2006
Owner AKO OSHKOSH/PARKVIEW OSHKOSH/OSI
Contractor SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERIN(
Category 643 - Commercial-Addition/Remodels
Service ,0 New
0 ChangeD Temp. N/A
Amps
120/208
~
Circuits
I Type 0 Overhead
45
15
0 Underground . N/A
Fixtures 29
Receptacles 38
Value $30,500.00
Volts
Switches
Fee
$275.50 0
Appliances
Use/Nature
of Work
Cranky Pats Pizza /3400 Sq Ft Restaurant wiring. Price does not include cost of the luminaires.
Inspections:
Date 02/22/2006 Type Consultation
Inspector Kevin Benner
approved
Reviewed the XFMR locatlojn that was previously reviewed. There are heat ducts that are being located above
the unit. The electrician on site requested the paperwork associated with the structure that encloses the PVC
raceways that are not installed within a 15 minute finsh rated structure. I did provide him with copies of the pies
and emails from the State Dept. of Comm. that approved the installation.
DatelTime requested: 02/21/2006 01:02 PM
Access:
Meet Matt Hines on site all day Wednesday
Ready DatelTime: 02/22/2006 07:04 AM Requested by:
0 Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied 0 Reinspect Fee Paid
Notice Type:
Phone Number: 920-641-7026 Matt
SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Date 03/14/2006
Type Service
Inspector Kevin Benner
pproved w/cond.
REQUEST LINE
The electrician on site said that he will install temporary labels identifying the panelboards, meter and location
of the disconnects until the permenant labels are on site.Approved to energize
Faxed to WPS 3/14/06
DatelTime requested: 03/14/2006 07:59 AM
Access:
CALL MATT TO SCHEDULE, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE PRESENT
Ready DatelTime: 03/14/2006 07:59 AM Requested by:
~~
0 Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied 0 Reinspect Fee Paid
Notice Type:
Phone Number: NOT GIVEN
SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
"tl
Job Address 100 N MAIN ST
Electric Permit Work Card
Permit Number 117916
Create Date 1/18/2006
Owner AKO OSHKOSH/PARKVIEW OSHKOSH/OSf Contractor SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERIN(
Service ~ 0 ChangeO Temp . N/A I Type 0 Overhead 0 Underground. N/A
Volts 120/208 Circuits 45 Luminaires 29
Amps 400 Switches 15 Receptacles 38
Use/Nature 643 - Commercial-Addition/Remodels Cranky Pats Pizza / 3400 Sq Ft Restaurant wiring. Price does not include cost of
of Work he luminaires.
Value
$30,500.00
Inspections:
Date 01/19/2006
Type Consultation
Inspector Kevin Benner
approved w/cond.
Discuss the service installation
Reviewed the concealment requirements with Bob Accord (Architect), Egress lighting, bonding, XFMR wiring, service installation
Date/Time requested: 01/19/2006 07:05 AM Notice Type:
Access: Meet Perry @ the north end of the building
Requested by:
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied D Reinspect Fee Paid
Ready Date/Time: 01/19/200609:30 AM
Phone Number:
-- - - - ---- - - ---- - - - ---- - ----- - - - - - ---- - - - ---- - ---------- ----- ---- -- ----- - - - --- -- ---- - ---- -- - ---- - - ----------- - - - ---- - ---- - ---- - - --- - - ----- - -- ---- - - - ---- - ----
Date 01/25/2006 Type Rough In Inspector Kevin Benner not approved
Request Line - in wall RI ~
Need a 15 Min. finish rating for non-metallic wiring methods, discussed access to areas above ceilings, transformer location, piping in the
oor.
Date/Time requested: 01/25/2006 10:05 AM
Access:
Notice Type:
Ready Date/Time: 01/25/200610:05 AM
Requested by: SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied D Reinspect Fee Paid
Phone Number: 920-841-7026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --
Date 02/02/2006 Type Re Rough In Inspector Kevin Benner approved w/cond.
Request Line - prefer 2/1/06 AM
he areas with mtallic wiring methods are approved to close. This was reviewed with Jeff from the G.C. on site
J
Date/Time requested: 01/31/2006 02:45 PM
Access:
Notice Type:
Ready Date/Time: 02/01/2006 07:00 AM
Requested by: SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied D Reinspect Fee Paid
Phone Number: 920-841-7026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --
Date 02/03/2006 Type Consultation
rake pi", of the pipe ,haw.
Date/Time requested: 02/03/2006 00:00 AM
Access:
Requested by:
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied
Inspector Kevin Benner
not approved
Notice Type:
Ready Date/Time: 02/03/2006 00:00 AM
Phone Number:
D Reinspect Fee Paid
- - - ----- - - - ---- - - ---- - - - ---- - - - --- - - - - - ---- - - - ---- --- ------ ---- - - - ---- - - - --- -- --- ------ - - - ---- - - ----- - - ---- -- ---- - ---- -- - -- - - - - - - - - ----- - ---- - - - --- - - - - -- - --
. .. .
Job Address 100 N MAIN ST
Electric Permit Work Card
Permit Number 117916
Create Date 1/18/2006
Owner AKO OSHKOSH/PARKVIEW OSHKOSH/OS~ Contractor SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERIN(
Service pNew o Change 0 Temp . N/A Type 0 Overhead o Underground . N/A
Volts 120/208 Circuits 45 Luminaires 29
400 Switches 15 Receptacles 38 Value $30,500.00
Amps
1643 - Commercial-Addition/Remodels Cranky Pats Pizza / 3400 Sq Ft Restaurant wiring. Price does not include cost of
rhe '"m;oa"".
Use/Nature
of Work
Inspections:
Date 02/22/2006 Type Consultation Inspector Kevin Benner approved
Reviewed the XFMR locatiojn that was previously reviewed. There are heat ducts that are being located above the unit. The electrician on
ite requested the paperwork associated with the structure that encloses the PVC raceways that are not installed within a 15 minute finsh
rated structure. I did provide him with copies of the pies and emails from the State Dept. of Comm. that approved the installation.
DatelTime requested: 02/21/2006 01 :02 PM Notice Type:
Access: Meet Matt Hines on site all day Wednesday
Requested by: SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Ready DatelTime: 02/22/2006 07:04 AM
Phone Number: 920-841-7026 Matt
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied
o Reinspect Fee Paid
Type Service
Inspector Kevin Benner
approved w/cond.
Date 03/14/2006
REQUEST LINE
he electrician on site said that he will install temporary labels identifying the panel boards. meter and location of the disconnects until the
permenant labels are on site.Approved to energize
Faxed to WPS 3/14/06
DatelTime requested: 03/14/2006 07:59 AM Notice Type: Ready DatelTime: 03/14/2006 07:59 AM
Access: CALL MATT TO SCHEDULE, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE PRESENT
Requested by: SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Phone Number: NOT GIVEN
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied 0 Reinspect Fee Paid
- ----- - - - ---- - - ---- -- - - - .--- - - ------ - ------ -_.-- - - - ---- - - - ---------- - - - ---- - - - ----- -- ---- -- --- - - ----- ----- ----- - - ------ ---- - - ---- - - - ----- ---- - - --- - - ---- - ---
Date 03/14/2006 Type Abv Ceiling Inspector Kevin Benner approved w/cond.
~bove ceilings except the Bar and Dining areas which are to be done by Witzke Electric.
fA,lso the Firestopping is not complete and the access panels to the spaces encasing the PVC conduits shall be verified that they are
compliant with the required FinishRating.
DatelTime requested: 03/14/2006 00:00 AM
Access:
Requested by:
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied
Notice Type:
Ready DatelTime: 03/14/200600:00 AM
Phone Number:
o Reinspect Fee Paid
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- --
Date 04/25/2006 Type Final Inspector Kevin Benner not approved
epen boxes for Fire Alarm that is not installed and other CL2 wirng that is not complete, Cooler wiring was not done, Work Space in the
garbage room, temporary wiring in the adjacent common area which includes wiring that has been installed without permits and has open
I onductors and splices. Dining room lighting does not have permits (E.C. discussed with the G.C.). The raceway enclosure access panel
may not provide the 15 Min. finish rating (G.C. refuses to provide info). Firestop drawings.
Date/Time requested: 04/20/2006 09:18 AM
Access: Meet Scott & Matt on site
Requested by: SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied 0 Reinspect Fee Paid
Notice Type:
Ready Date/Time: 04/25/2006 01 :30 PM
Phone Number: 841-7096 Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job Address 100 N MAIN ST
Electric Permit Work Card
Permit Number 117916
Create Date 1/18/2006
Owner AKO OSHKOSH/PARKVIEW OSHKOSH/OSf Contractor SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERIN(
Service b New 0 ChangeO Temp . N/A I Type 0 Overhead 0 Underground. N/A
Volts 120/208 Circuits 45 Luminaires 29
Amps 400 Switches 15 Receptacles 38
Use/Nature 643 - Commercial-Addition/Remodels Cranky Pats Pizza /3400 Sq Ft Restaurant wiring. Price does not include cost of
of Work he luminaires.
Value
$30,500.00
Inspections:
Date 05/03/2003 Type Re Final Inspector Kevin Benner approved w/cond.
Electrical Inspector called the E.C. to arrange the inspection
IMissing Fire Alarm J-Box & identification of FA boxes, 2x4 troffers by the coolers are to be secured to the grid, open boxes. Scott stated he
ould call when corrected.
DatelTime requested: 05/02/2006 09:02 AM
Access: Meet Scott from Suburban on site
Requested by:
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied
Notice Type:
Ready DatelTime: 05/02/2006 09:02 AM
Phone Number: 841-7096 Scott
D Reinspect Fee Paid
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --
Type Re Final
Inspector Kevin Benner
no time
Date
Scott stated the violations were corrected on 5/10/6.
DatelTime requested: 05/12/2006 08:50 AM
Access:
Requested by: SUBURBAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
o Reinspect Fee 0 Fee Wavied D Reinspect Fee Paid
Notice Type:
Ready DatelTime: 05/10/2006 00:00 PM
Phone Number: 841-7096 Scott
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
p
~
OJHKOJH
City of Oshkosh
Inspection Services Division
215 Church Avenue
PO Box 1130
Oshkosh WI 54903-1130
ON THE WATER
Fax
To:
Suburban Electric / Perry Schisel
From: Kevin Benner (920-236-5046)
Fax: 920-739-4767
Pages: 2
Phone: 920-739-5156
Date: 03/01/06
Re:
Cranky Pats
CC:
D Urgent
D For Review
D Please Comment D Please Reply
D Please Recycle
. Comments: Hi Perry,
I reviewed the attached lighting layout that you submitted to our office with the Building Inspector. The
Building Inspector added an additional area to be illuminated in addition to the egress path that was
predetermined by your supervising professional. It appears that the light levels would be acceptable,
but it is difficult to verify without knowing what luminaries (fixtures) you intend to install. Also we did not
know exactly what the XX's & O's are for on the plan. Any questions or concems please feel free to
contact me.
Kevin
"
\0
o
o
N
--
N
~
N
:;
="0
",.-
~O
.... ;i';
.5 Go)
oZ
~ ..
'0
~':'1
;!.t)
=
0:; r/l
~r/l
~~
cd
~~
o~
;"0
~~
.- E-<
...;l<t::
p...
~
~
".
~\,
~
f',
\.i\
~
:)
I'-
~
'-t
>n
N
II
N
6
~
u
~
g~
~~
d~",
~~.~
o bI) t;j
~.5 "0
::::= t::
~Go)Go)
~U8
0'--'8
r-:oo
.....Nu
ll;e
Z>nr/l
......--~
__ ~o~
~ ~~:E
1- .....:lr/l;i';
...... <t::~Go)
>-- UUu
~ r/lZa
Z 6;"S-g
~~~U 8 ~
ua:l~;:S g ~
~~<t:: ~.5 e,;,
u~r/l~"O'"
~~g3::Ei~
0~.....:l0 ,.,o::!l
~~<t::o::;""
p...p...>~8~
r/l
E-<
<t::
p...
~
~
u
B
€5
(\ ,(\ ~
X .!)
><V
Z
.....0-
~M
~r-:
<~
~
Z
.....N
~\O
~."t
>M
<
~N
>0-
<....;
~>n
<0-
~.n
Z\O
..... 0
~o
+'
ffi
~
~
~
-
..J
-.
'"
~
Cl.,
.J
1
~
I::
A
p
~
~
(fJ
i.b
~
~ N ~
~ ~
~ ,;i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ N
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
" ~
~ ~ ~ $ ~
~ :t. ~ ~ ~ E
"
~ ..; ~ ~
~
OJHKOJH
ON THE WATER
City of Oshkosh
Division ofInspection Services
215 Church Avenue
PO Box 1130
Oshkosh WI 54902-1130
Office 920-236-5050
Fax 920-236-5084
BOB ACORD
4825 COUNTY RD A
OSHKOSH WI 54901
February 2, 2006
Re: Cranky Pat's Electric Chase/Soffit
Dear Mr. Acord;
This office has spent considerable time researching the 15 Minute Finish Rating requirement which
you and this office have differing views/ understanding of the code requirement.
Background
The site involves the Cranky Pat's restaurant being developed at 100 N Main St. This restaurant is
classified as an Assembly occupancy by both the State Building and Electric Code. The building is a
Type II, non-combustible building. Prior to developing this Assembly occupancy, the wiring
methods employed included the use of non-metallic tubing or conduit. Per the State Electric Code,
section NEC 518, non-metallic tubing/conduit may not be used in an Assembly occupancy that is
located within a non-combustible building unless said tubing/conduit is either encased in two inches
of concrete (NEC 518.4(A)) or concealed in walls, floors and ceilings where the walls, floors and
ceilings provide a thermal barrier of material that has a least a 15 minute finish rating as identified in
listings of fire-rated assemblies (NEC 518.4(C).)
You have chosen to comply by utilizing the later method.
Code Issue
You have taken issue with this office's application ofNEC 518.4(C). This office has advised you
that the soffit being designed to encapsulate the existing non-metallic tubing/conduit must be
designed using tested/listed assemblies providing a 15 minute finish rating. This office has also
advised you that assemblies utilizing metal framing will not meet this requirement, as pointed out in
subsection II, 3. Finish Ratings of the U/L Fire Resistance Directory. You have sent information
indicating that UL staff support your opinion that a metal stud framed, one tested listed fire wall
provides this required finish rating.
In response to your fax sent yesterday, February 1,2006, I have contacted Jill Witt of Underwriters
Laboratories to make further inquiry on this topic. Ms. Witt has confirmed that this office's
understanding and application of Finish Rating requirements is correct. The highlights of this
conversation confirmed the following:
1. The Finish Rating of a tested/listed assembly applies to the temperature of the face of the
structural member supporting the assembly/gypsum board. The U/L section cited above states
the following regarding Finish Ratings:
A finish rating established for assemblies containing combustible (wood) supports. The finish
rating is defined as the time at which the wood stud or wood joist reaches an average
temperature rise of 250 Deg. F or an individual temperature rise of 325 Deg. F as measured
on the plane of the wood nearest the fire. A finish rating is not intended to represent a rating
for a membrane ceiling.
2. A Finish Rating is not established for assemblies utilizing steel supports because steel readily
conducts temperature change. Meaning, assemblies utilizing steel supports would not pass the
requirements to establish a Finish Rating due to thermal conductivity.
3. Gypsum Board by itself does not have a Finish Rating, it must be part of a tested/listed assembly.
Summary
Therefore as stated in my fax to you on January 31,2006, section NEC 518.4(C) specifically calls for
protection by at least a 15 minute finish rating as identified in listings of fire-rated assemblies. At
this time I would ask you to submit details referencing what assemblies, vertical and horizontal, will
be used to satisfy this requirement.
Apparently, you have obtained differing direction on this matter from State of Wisconsin, Division
of Safety and Buildings personnel. If the Division of Safety & Buildings desires to render a differing
interpretation on this matter, this office will require such to be in writing.
Please forward the soffit details to this office at your earliest convenience. If you have further
questions, please call me at 920-236-5045.
Sincerely;
Allyn Dannhoff
Director of Inspection Services.
cc: Brian LaFriniere, Ganther Construction
Tom Garvey, Safety & Buildings, Electric Code Consultant
Joe Hertel, Safety & Buildings, Program Manager
Henry Kosarzycki, Safety & Buildings, Program Manager
F~ lOON Main
Page 1 of2
Benner, Kevin
From: Robert Acord [rjacord-csi@new.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06,20068:52 AM
To: Dannhoff, Allyn J.; kbenner@cLoshkosh.wLus
Cc: Robert Acord; Brian LaFriniere; Duane Helwig
Subject: Re: 100 N Main
Greetings Allyn Dannhoff and Kevin Benner.
I am sure by now you have received and read State Electrical Inspector Joe Hertle's letter referring to what the NEC and
UL consider a 15 minute thermal barrier. I hope this finally clarifies things for the City of Oshkosh. As you will read, a 15
minute thermal barrier is what is required to protect the non-metallic electrical pipes. Not a 3-hour wall which was what the
City first requested. After a masonry wall was constructed which provided this rating, we were told that a two hour barrier
would be required around the non-metallic pipes. Now we find out that a 15 minute barrier is the requirement. Confusion
was overwhelming since the understanding of finish rating, and thermal barrier seamed to be different between the City
Inspectors, UL, State of Wisconsin and NEC. I am glad that Joe Hertle was finally able to contact the proper
authorities who clarified that a 15 minute barrier is what is required.
The following are responses to your questions:
1. Since the fire treaded lumber serves no structural purpose other than holding up one layer of 5/8" gypsum board, a 10'
long, 2x4 will easily support the weight. The lumber members don't need fasteners if face nailed as I have shown in the
section sent to you earlier. Please be more specific on just what "other issues" are shown in your photo's.
2. See answer to question #1.
3. Again, the 2x4's support very little weight. 1-1/2" of bearing will suffice for the end of these furring strips. The tested
listed rating of 15 minutes is accomplished in the drywall alone. The furring, blocking, (metal or wood) only holds the
thermal barrier in place and does not interfere with the 15 minute barrier. If the members have been notched to the point
of not providing sufficient blocking for the gypsum board, then a new wood member can be sistered to the existing
support, or metal plates can be fastened on the side of the wood member to strengthen it. A field decision should be
made.
4. All that is required is a 15 minute barrier. The 5/8" gypsum will butt against the masonry wall, fastened to blocking. The
joint will then be fire caulked.
5. There should never be service personnel crawling in this space. Repairs will be made by opening the 15 minute barrier
where required. The wood supports for the gypsum board is just below the conduits. If someone were to crawl in this
space they would not be supported by the 15 minute barrier supports but by the support structure for the conduits. This
structure looks quiet sufficient but was not meant to crawl on.
Additional note:
This chase will terminate at the common wall between the toilets and unoccupied space. First fire packs (fire-rated bags)
will be used to fill any voids between pipes, then 5/8" FireGard Gypsum board will be cut and fit around the pipes.
Fire caulk will then be applied around the pipes to provide the required barrier.
Please advise us as soon as possible as to when we can close this soffit in. This confusion about the thermal barrier has
delayed this project for weeks and has incurred expenses that could have and should have been avoided.
The City's cooperation in avoiding any further delays will truely be appreciated.
Thank you,
Robert J. Acord
2/28/2006
FW: 100 N Main
-,
Page 2 of2
Project Architect
----- Original Message -----
From: Qg!lnholf, Allyn J.
To: IJgC;:Qrq:_c;:~i@t}~W,IL_g_Qm:
Sent: Friday, February 03,20062:47 PM
Subject: FW: 100 N Main
Bob;
I left message with Jeff about determining what kind of fasteners and hangars have to be used. These photos show
other issues to address in addition to the testedllisted assembly issues.
1. What type of fasteners can be used with Fire Retardant Treated Lumber. Hangars also. Please provide literature
address this topic.
2. Verify 2x4's can span almost 10' as a ceiling.
3. Some of the soffit ceiling 2x4's have been notched excessively. How are they to be supported/reinforced? How will
that affect the tested/listed assembly?
4. The masonry electric chase will have to be fire stopped where it communicates into the soffit! first floor ceiling area.
How will this be accomplished? Provide details of the tested/listed assembly.
5. Demonstrate the soffit can support service personnel. Service personnel have to gain access to the inside of the
soffit for future electric installation/maintenance issues.
Please advise Jeff/Brian not to sheet rock the. soffit until all issues are approved. Also advise them not to rock on
Monday as the Plumbing Inspection has not been done. Apparently the Plumbing request came in today at the same
time they applied for the permit.
---Original Message---
From: Benner, Kevin
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1 :52 PM
To: Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Subject: 100 N Main
<<DSC00008.JPG>> <<DSC00002.JPG>> <<DSC00010.JPG>> <<DSC00003.JPG>> <<DSC00013.JPG>>
<<DSC00009.JPG>> <<DSC00004.JPG>> <<DSC00005.JPG>> <<DSC00006.JPG>> <<DSC00011.JPG>>
<<DSC00021.JPG>> <<DSC00012.JPG>> <<DSC00020.JPG>> <<DSC00017.JPG>> <<DSC00014.JPG>>
<<DSC00022.JPG>>
2/28/2006
Finifih Rating Requirements
\,
Page 1 of7
t'
Benner, Kevin
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,20063:04 PM
To: Benner, Kevin
Subject: FW: Finish Rating Requirements
-----Original Message-----
From: Kraft, Warren P.
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,20062:16 PM
To: 'Kosarzycki, Henry'
Cc: Dannhoff, Allyn J.; Hertel, Joe
Subject: RE: Finish Rating Requirements
Sir:
Thank you for your clarifying remarks. Based on what you state, I will advise the Inspection Services Division to follow the
state's position as agents of the state. In this regard, should anything untoward occur because of the state's agents
adhering to Mr.. Hertel's instruction, the City of Oshkosh will not be held responsible because our inspectors are acting as
state agents under the Department's specific direction and control.
As a further note to your response about circuit court intervention, the city raised that issue in the then-ending litigation
and both the circuit and appellate courts brushed it aside. We day-to-day practitioners all learn the hard way that what the
state says is not always what the court necessarily adopts as the law of the land -- all those interpretative rules we're
trained to follow notwithstanding.
Please note that, for the record, while I do not view the Department's education as legally defensible, because of the role
the city inspectors are playing as agents of the state, I understand that I have no choice but to advise the inspectors to
follow Mr.. Hertel's missives.
TNX,
Warren P. Kraft
City Attorney Office
215 Church Ave I P.O. Box 1130 I Oshkosh WI 54903-1130
(920) 236-5115 I (920) 236-5090 fax
~!5rgft@glQ~bJs9-Rb,~L1t~
IMLA Regional Vice President
Washington DC 20005
-----Original Message-----
From: Kosarzycki, Henry [mailto:hkosarzycki@commerce.state.wi.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,20062:06 PM
To: Kraft, Warren P.
Cc: Dannhoff, Allyn J.; Hertel, Joe
Subject: RE: Finish Rating Requirements
Good Afternoon Mr. Kraft,
I have been included in the preceding string of email communication based on my role as program manager acting
as auditor and liaison with all of our agent municipalities in the state of Wisconsin. In an attempt to clarify the
matter at hand I would like to offer the following points.
. Specific to the matter at hand the City of Oshkosh is acting as an agent of the state and for that reason must
recognize and administer the rules under our direction.
. Mr. Hertel is providing instruction, which is all too often referred to as interpretation suggesting individual
2/22/2006
Fini~;h Rating Requirements
Page 2 of7
opinion. Mr. Hertel is providing this direction based on the division of Safety and Building's consistent
administration of the said rule.
. The City of Oshkosh under "home-rule" reserves the right to enforce what ever rules they have under
municipal ordinance which may be more restrictive than the state code. Contrary to that, where there is no
municipal rule on any given subject the state administrative rules, adopted standards and statutes are
applied accordingly.
. One final concern that I had was specific to your comment regarding "circuit" court action over state
administrative rule. Under the Administrative section of the Commercial Building Code (s. Comm 61.21 and
subsequently Comm 16.07) an appeal process is in place where by an individual can appeal a municipal
order as well as state direction. If in fact resolution can not be met, a hearing process is in place.
I understand that you find the Inspection Services Division interpretation to be quite reasonable and legally
defensible, I would caution you that the Inspection Services Division is assuming the role of interpretation and
subsequent enforcement of state code that is contrary to the Division of Safety and Building Division direction.
I am always available to discuss these matter further at your convenience. I hope that this has helped resolve the
matter at hand.
Henry Kosarzycki, AIA
mailing address:
141 NW Barstow Street
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186-3789
mobil phone number:
608-212-0138
From: Kraft, Warren P. (mailto:WKraft@ci.oshkosh.wi.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,200612:33 PM
To: 'Hertel, Joe'; Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Cc: Kosarzycki, Henry; 'rjacord-csi@new.rr.com'; Ewing, Monte; Garvey, Tom; Meneguin, Dan; Weber, Ray;
Bending, Brian; Benner, Kevin
Subject: RE: Finish Rating Requirements
Sir
Contrary to your assertion that this exchange is wasting your time, I respectfully request that if this is indeed
the Department's official policy and interpretation, that the department put this in writing on its letterhead.
Otherwise, because I find the Inspection Services Division interpretation to be quite reasonable and legally
defensible, I will instruct the city staff to proceed accordingly. This city has been taken to court attempting to
enforce the department's "interpretation" without any assistance from the department's legal staff and has
been soundly thrashed in circuit and appellate court.
Therefore, we will continue to enforce our division's interpretation unless and until the city receives an official
interpretation on Department letterhead.
TNX,
Warren P. Kraft
City Attorney Office
215 Church Ave I P. O. Box 1130 I Oshkosh WI 54903-1130
(920) 236-5115 I (920) 236-5090 fax
wkraft@ci.oshkosh.wi.us
2/22/2006
Fini~h Rating Requirements
Page 3 of7
IMLA Regional Vice President
Washington DC 20005
-----Original Message-----
From: Hertel, Joe [mailto:jhertel@commerce.state.wLus]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,20069:57 AM
To: 'Dannhoff, Allyn J.'; Hertel, Joe
Cc: Kosarzycki, Henry; 'rjacord-csi@new.rr.com'; Ewing, Monte; Garvey, Tom; Meneguin, Dan;
Weber, Ray; 'Kraft, Warren P.'; 'Bending, Brian'; 'Benner, Kevin'
Subject: RE: Finish Rating Requirements
Allyn, You are missing my point and wasting my time along with all others involved. The
department's position is that a 15-minute thermal barrier is a 15 minute finish rating and the
installation you are playing with is acceptable to the department. If you do not undestand please give
me a call.
Joe Hertel
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J. [mailto:adannhoff@ci.oshkosh.wi.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,20069:37 AM
To: 'Hertel, Joe'
Cc: Kosarzycki, Henry; 'rjacord-csi@new.rr.com'; Ewing, Monte; Garvey, Tom; Meneguin, Dan;
Weber, Ray; Kraft, Warren P.; Bending, Brian; Benner, Kevin
Subject: RE: Finish Rating Requirements
Joe;
I recognize the parallel you are trying to draw. However one must also consider that chapter
three of the NEC is a general chapter that discusses installation issues and Chapter 5
discusses issues that are applied to specific occupancies. (Similar to the building code having
chapters that are general to all structures and then having chapters or code items that
are applied to specific occupancies.)
In this case article 362.10(2) (which only applies to ENT, not rigid non-metallic
conduit)) contains specific language in the code (not the commentary) that states "The 15
minute finish rated thermal barrier shall be permitted to be used for combustible or
noncombustible walls, floors, ceilings."
So from a general code installation requirement it is recognized in the code that the intent of
362.10(2) is to focus on the 15 minute thermal barrier vs. a 15 minute finish
rating. However, section 352.12(F) prohibits the installation of Rigid Non-Metallic Conduit in
Places of Assembly except as allowed in 518.4 and section 362.12(8) prohibits the installation
of Electric Non-Metallic Tubing in Places of Assembly except as allowed in 518.4. One should
note section 518.4 does not contain the same language as 362.10(2) stating "The 15 minute
finish rated thermal barrier shall be permitted to be used for combustible or noncombustible
walls, floors, ceilings." Therefore one must recognize that this provision may not have been
included because a greater degree of protection may have been desired because it is a place
of assembly. This is similar to the Building Code having stricter provisions that apply to
assembly occupancies. Since section 518.4 does not contain the language that 362.10(2) has,
we believe article 518.4 was intending to focus on a Finish Rating Assembly vs. simply a
thermal barrier. If the intent is/was to apply the language of 362.10(2) to places of
assembly, there would be no reason to have article 518.4 because non-metallic tubing and
rigid conduits would already be compliant with the general installation methods of Chapter 3
wiring methods.
When you review the code requirements in chapter 5, Special Occupancies, Article 518 does
not contain this same language (either in the actual code or commentary) indicating that 15
minute finish rated thermal barrier can be used for combustible or noncombustible walls, floors,
2/22/2006
Fini~h Rating Requirements
Page 4 of7
ceilings. In absence of such language, one must apply the 15 minute finish rating requirement
as printed.
It is recognized that previously section 362.10 said "only assemblies containing combustible
support members have published finish ratings." This was modified to allow both combustible
and non-combustible framing behind the thermal barrier as a general rule. Apparently there
was a recognition that this article in chapter 3 needed to be modified to meet the intent of the
code for most installations. However, since this language change was not carried over into
section 518.4, one cannot interpret that it was the intent to apply this change to Places of
Assembly. If there was an intent to allow this in assembly halls, the code would no longer
need the exceptions in 352.12(F) or 362.10(2) referring one to section 518.4.
Regarding your reference to IBC Table 720.2.1.4(2): You must first go to the start of this code
section to understand the entire section is about the methodology in establishing fire ratings
for non-tested/listed assemblies (not finish ratings.) This table, to my understanding has
nothing to do with finish ratings. Rather it is the amount of time the material will contribute to
the overall Fire Rating of an assembly. In this case the table you cited is to establish the
amount of time in Fire Rating (not finish rating) that would be added to a precast or cast in
place concrete wall. I have not read the entire scope of section 720, but from what I have
skimmed through in the entire section, it never talks about Finish Ratings. Section 720 is a
recipe method for establishing fire ratings for various assemblies, I did not see any language
about Finish Ratings.
The more we research this and analyze this issue, the more I am convinced this office is
enforcing article 518.4 correctly. After discussing this issue with our City Attorney, we do not
believe we have the latitude to apply/enforce article 518.4(C) in any other manner than what
we have stated. If the Division of Safety & Buildings desires this section to be applied or
enforced in any other manner, then such direction must be provided on Division of Safety &
Buildings Letterhead. Until such direction is received this office has no choice but to enforce
the code as we have stated.
As previously indicated, we believe there is justification for supporting a variance. Discussing
this with our Electrical Inspector, we believe that protection offered by the required sprinkler
system along with the 15 minute thermal barrier ( in place of a 15 minute finish rated system)
would provide equal or greater protection. We believe this may be a method to satisfy the
code requirements.
Sincerely;
Allyn Dannhoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Hertel, Joe [mailto:jhertel@commerce.state.wi.us]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:30 PM
To: 'Dannhoff, Allyn J.'
Cc: Kosarzycki, Henry; 'rjacord-csi@new.rr.com'; Ewing, Monte; Garvey, Tom; Meneguin,
Dan; Weber, Ray
Subject: RE: Finish Rating Requirements
Allyn,
This is not an interpretation but rather the application of the building code in Wisconsin.
1/2 inch gypsum provides a 15-minute finish or thermal barrier regardless of the support
material.
Table 720.2.1.4(2) of the IBC provides a table of values for time assigned to finish
materials on fire exposed side of a wall. It does not distinguish whether the support is
combustible (wood) or metal. The key is to provide at least a 15 minute thermal barrier
2/2212006
Fini~h Rating Requirements
2/22/2006
Page 5 of7
and this is accomplished with the 1/2 inch gypsum. If it is Type X gypsum the rating
increases to 25 minutes from the 15 at a nominal 1/2 inch thickness. It seems that UL
has tested a finish rating for gypsum where it was fastened to wooden studs. The IBC
does not distinguish the support means. The department adopts the IBC which says
1/2 inch gypsum is a 15 minute finish rating and the IBC is the department position.
The NEC Handbook has comments which just like the Fine Print Note you cite from
Section 518.4(C) are not enforceable. The commentary following Section 362.10 says it
is not the intent to limit ENT to construction of combustible support members. They
previously had said only assemblies containing combustible support members have
published finish ratings. These rules would also apply to rigid nonmetallic conduit
installed in accordance with Article 518 requirements.
Joe Hertel
Program Manager
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J. [mailto:adannhoff@ci.oshkosh.wi.us]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:54 AM
To: 'Hertel, Joe'
Cc: Benner, Kevin
Subject: RE: Finish Rating Requirements
Thanks Joe. I too wondered about the specifics of the thermal barrier vs. a 15
min. Finish rating assembly. The reason I copied you on this is to determine
if S&B has or will issue a formal interpretation or direction on this. This office
tries to follow State Direction for the sake of establishing some level of
uniformity/consistency with how codes are applied elsewhere in the state. At this
point, all I can work with is the verbiage in NEC 518.4 which could be
interpreted/applied in two different directions:
1. Meet a tested/listed finish rating, which per U/L assemblies with steel framing
will not pass.
or
2. provide a 15 minute thermal barrier which is simply 1/2" sheetrock.
As far as point two, such an interpretation would be similar to the 15 min thermal
barrier required to protect foam insulation in the Comm Bldg and Uniform
Dwelling Code. Neither says it has to be an assembly. Rather one could use
metal studs, metal furring strips, 1/2" wood furring strips with the rock. Non of
these methods would be a tested listed assembly, but are common practices.
Due to the specific manner in which 518.4 is worded, it is not this office's position
to take what might be viewed as a lesser approach. Had the verbiage stopped at
15 min. thermal barrier, we could simply allow an assembly with 1/2" sheetrock.
So, as the Program Manager, how do you (or the Dept.) desire this code to be
applied/interpreted. While I supervise the office, I do not believe it is appropriate
for me to render this interpretation because I do not know what the goal of the
code writers was when this code section was crafted. Was it to provide a simple
thermal barrier to delay the time in which the non-metallic conduit would
succumb to the effects of heat and release toxic chemicals or was it to do more
than that?
However the NEC handbook does contain a FPN (footnote) that specifically cites
verbiage from the U/L directory that makes specific reference to the fact that
finish ratings are only established for assemblies utilizing wood framing
members.
Similar to the Q&A section of the Dept's Web site that gives direction on many
Fini~h Rating Requirements
2/22/2006
Page 6 of7
Bldg & HVAC issues, I think it would be appropriate to render an official dept.
interpretation/direction on this topic if it is the Dept.'s position that only a thermal
barrier is needed, because the NEC language did not stop at thermal barrier,
rather it went on to say "as identified in listings of fire rated assemblies. Such an
interpretation/direction should be presented in a manner where it is recognized
as official department policy. Possibly the code writers simply wanted to
make sure the thermal barrier was simply something that was nationally
recognized as a thermal barrier vs. opening up the code to interpretation on what
types of material provide the 15 min. thermal barrier. If this isthe case.and the
Dept. desires to issue a clarification/interpretation please do so. However, again
I have to refer back to the FPN provided in the NEC Handbook; if this was the
case I do not believe the FPN would have cited the language about establishing
finish ratings for assemblies with wood framing. I think the answer truly hinges
on this last aspect.
If the Dept. is leaning toward rendering direction to only apply the 15 min. thermal
barrier, the contractor would like to see this happen rather quickly as they have
completed the rough framing stage and want to install the sheetrock.
VARIANCE CANDIDATE????
Another thought on this is whether the Dept. would support a variance. We will
try to send you a photo of the installation later today. Briefly, this is a type II,
seven story building, completely sprinklered. The soffit being built is approx. 10'
wide to house upwards of 70 parallel conduit runs that feed primarily the
apartments on stories 2-7. Some of the conduits will feed the rest of the first floor
as it is developed (vacant right now.) The sprinkler system covers the top side of
the parallel conduits and the below the soffit housing the conduits. It is my
understanding the intent of the 15 minute finish rating is to retard the flow of heat
to allow time for the occupants to exit before the conduits succomb to
heat (release of toxic chemicals and/or failure of the electric system.) One could
argue that protecting this area with a sprinkler system would offer equal or better
protection. What are your thoughts as far as supporting a variance request for
this?
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic.
Sincerely;
Allyn Dannhoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Hertel, Joe [mailto:jhertel@commerce.state.wi.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 20069:02 PM
To: 'Dannhoff, Allyn J.'; 'rjacord-csi@new.rr.com'
Cc: 'blafriniere@ganther.com'; Garvey, Tom; Kosarzycki, Henry; Hertel, Joe; 'Benner,
Kevin'
Subject: RE: Finish Rating Requirements
Allyn,
I am not going to say you are wrong and neither is Jill Witt. For sure, a
wall of gypsum on metal studs does not have a finish rating since it has
never been evaluated for that purpose. I had an interesting discussion
with one of the Senior Engineers at UL and think I can lend a reasonable
interpretation to this issue.
the NEC says in Section 518.4(C)(1) "concealed within walls, floors, and
Finiesh Rating Requirements
Page 70f7
ceilings where the walls, floors and ceilings provide a thermal barrier of
material that has at least a 15-minute finish rating .." The key in here is a
thermal barrier. It does not say we need a 15-minute finish rating but
rather a thermal barrier that has a least a 15-minute finish rating. A
concrete deck/ceiling or a rated wall (1, 2, 3, or 4 hour) will provide a
thermal barrier that exceeds a 15-minute finish rating.
for additional verification you could check out the commentary in the
handbook under Section 362.10. It states that "It is not the intent to limit
ENT to construction consisting of combustible support members. This
section is intended to provide a 15-minute thermal barrier as a minimum
threshold of acceptability."
While a 1-hour wall does not have a 15-minute finish rating I have no
doubt that it provides a thermal barrier that exceeds 15 minutes. If I
followed the 15-minute finish rating I cannot get it with poured concrete or
cement blocks since they have not been evaluated but I think you will
agree that they are a thermal barrier and by construction should exceed a
15-minute finish rating. A 1-hourfire rated wall should exceed a 15-
minute finish rating although it does not have a finish rating.
I trust this answers the question on this installation.
Joe Hertel
Program Manager
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J. [mailto:adannhoff@ci.oshkosh.wi.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 1:41 PM
To: 'rjacord-csi@new.rr.com'
Cc: 'blafriniere@ganther.com'; Tom Garvey (E-mail); Henry
Kosarzycki (E-mail);.jhertel@commerce.state.wi.us.; Benner, Kevin
Subject: Finish Rating Requirements
Bob;
attached is a letter I prepared outlining the requirements for
covering the Non-metallic tubing/conduit at the Cranky Pat's
restaurant.
<<100 N Main - soffit_.doc>>
2/22/2006
Benner, Kevin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Wednesday, February 08,20063:19 PM
'rjacord-csi@new.rr.com'
Benner, Kevin; 'jhertel@commerce.state.wLus'; Kraft, Warren P.
15 minute thermal barrier
Bob;
This office will enforce the 15 minute thermal barrier (rather than finish rated assembly) as directed by the State. As such,
you would not be obligated to use the fire retardant treated lumber, rather you can use metal framing.
Please forward the structural information regarding repairing the notched joists. Please advise Brian or Jeff to call for an
inspection of the soffit when all repairs are made.
Also, reviewing the plan review letter, I found mention of an occupancy separation requirement at the south end of this
tenant space. Please advise how this will be addressed. How will the conduits penetrating this south wall be addressed?
Thank you.
Allyn Dannhoff
1
F\V: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Page 1 of3
Benner, Kevin
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Friday, February 10, 2006 8:49 AM
'jhertel@commerce.state.wLus'; Henry Kosarzycki (E-mail)
'rjacord-csi@new.rr .com'; 'tgarvey@commerce.state.wi.us'; 'rweber@commerce.state.wi.us';
'dmemeguin@commerce.state.wi.us'; Kraft, Warren P.; Benner, Kevin; " mewing@commerce.state.wi.us';
'blafriniere@ganther.com'
Subject: FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Good Morning Joe and Henry;
While this office is considering our disagreement regarding the application of NEC 518.4(C) closed, I thought you might
appreciate the following commentary from NFPA. I had tried gaining this information prior to this past Wednesday
because I recognized the State was not going to reconsider its position on this issue regardless of the logic presented.
I am also forwarding this to the Supervising Professional and Contractors involved to demonstrate this office was
not "fabricating its own interpretation" or "making a mountain out of a molehill" as we were accused. In fact, this office
spends considerable energy in trying to help designers and contractors by pointing them in the direction to find solutions
to their code issues, rather than just pointing out code violations and leaving them at their own devices to find such
solutions.
Respectfully;
Allyn Dannhoff
-----Original Message----
From: Sargent, Jeffrey (mailto:jsargent@NFPA.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 20064:17 PM
To: adannhoff@ci.oshkosh.wi.us
Cc: Carpenter, James (E-mail);donald.j.talka@us.u1.com; Vondrasek, Bob; Henderson, Carol
Subject: RE: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
To: Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services
From: Jeffrey Sargent, NFPA Senior Electrical Specialist
Date: 2/9/06
Section 518.4(C) in the 2005 NEC permits the use of rigid nonmetallic conduit and electrical
nonmetallic tubing within walls, floors, ceilings and above suspended ceilings of assembly
occupancies provided that the assembly (wall covering and supporting structure) provide a minimum
15 - minute finish rating. The 15 - minute finish rating is established in a compilation of listings of fire-
rated assemblies that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. This section does not open
the door for the assembly to be constructed of materials other than those identified in the listings of
fire-rated assemblies that provide a 15-minute finish rating.
It should be noted that by its location in Chapter 5 of the NEC, the requirements of Article 518 may
amend or modify the general requirements of Chapters 1 through 4. In this case, the bar has been
raised for the useofthese methods in assembly occupancies and this provision is more restrictive
than the general rules for uses permitted in 352.10 for RNC and 362.10 for ENT. The substantiation
2/2212006
FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Page 2 of3
for this proposal that resulted in the inclusion of this provision (first included as Exception No.3 to
518-4 in the 1996 NEC) indicated that due to the type of occupancy covered in this article, the need
to provide enhanced protection for the nonmetallic wiring methods was achieved through strict
adherence to the use of assemblies identified as being able to provide the 15 minute finish rating as
described in the current fine print note following 518.4(C) and that the rules for assembly occupancies
were indeed more restrictive than the general installation allowances. As with any requirement of1he
NEC, 90.4 allow the authority having jurisdiction to permit alternative approaches to compliance
where equivalency can be demonstrated and documented.
This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPARegulations.
Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily
represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition,
this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied upon, to provide
professional consultation or services.
We are on the Web! !
Visit out home page at www.nfpa.org
NFPA e-mail addresses are as follows:
National Electrical Code: NEC@NFPA.org
Life Safety Code: LSC@NFPA.org
National Fire Alarm Code: FIREALARM@NFPA.org
Sprinklers: NFPA13@NFPA.org
Hazardous Materials/Chemical: HAZCHEM@NFPA.ORG
Fire Investigations:INVESTIGATIONS @NFPA.ORG
Marine Fire Protection: MARINE@NFPA.org
library: Library@NFPA.org
Customer Service: Custserv@NFPA.org
--Original Message--'-
From: Dannhoff. Allyn J.
Sent: Monday. February 06, 2006 4:50 PM
To: 'nfpa70@nfpa.org'
Subject: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEe
Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services
City of Oshkosh
Member 10419420
phone 920-236-5045.
Dear Sir or Mam;
We have the following situation and seek your direction. We have a restaurant/tavern (Assembly Hall) being developed
in a non-combustible building, 7 stories tall. When the building was builtin 2002, the first floor was left vacantforfuture
commercial tenant development. Floors 2-7 are apartments. The electric that is supplied to the upper floors is fed from
the basement. All of the wiring as it runs through the first floor is in rigid non-lJ1etallic conduit.
We have identified that section 518.4(C) requires this non-metallic conduit to be concealed behind walls, floors, ceilings
that provide a thermal barrier of material that has a least a 15 minute Finnish rating as identified in listings of fire rated
assemblies.
2/22/2006
FV!: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Page 3 of3
Thir.) has caused some difference of opinions with interpretation and application.
Should this be applied in a manner in which a tested/listed assembly that provides a 15 minute finish rating is used
or
is this simply meant to require a membrane/material that provides a 15 minute thermal barrier and the code only stated
"as identified in listing of fire rated assemblies" as a way to identify what wall/floor/ceiling covering materials are allowed to
satisfy this requirement.
I see that the 2005 NEC Handbook commentary for 362.10 offers a more in-depth analysis of this question. Specifically,
the commentary on page 398 states "it is not the intent to limit ENT to constructions consisting of combustible support
members. This section is intended to provide a 15-minute thermal barrier as a minimum threshold of acceptability."
However, I do not know if this same thought process was intended or should apply to section 518.4(C) because this
section involves Assembly Halls, and the intent of the code may have been to offer better protection for assembly halls
than what is required in section 362.10.
In summary, can non-metallic tubing and conduit in assembly halls simply be concealed in walls, floors and ceilings with
a 15 minute thermal membrane (as is allowed in section 362.10) regardless of how the walls, floors and ceilings are
constructed? Or are we to require the floors, walls and ceilings to meet a 15 minute finish membrane as a tested-listed
assembly?
The issue at hand locally is whether a steel stud/metal frame assembly with 5/8" X sheetrock can be used, or must a
system with wood framing be used as found in tested/listed assemblies (referring to the FPN found after section 518.4
(C).
If there is any way to expedite an answer, it would be greatly appreciated. We have been trying to solve this for days and
I am of the opinion the section 518.4(C) could be applied in either direction.
Thank you for your assistance.
2/22/2006
FW:Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
,t-~.
Page 1 of3
(,~
Benner, Kevin
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:33 AM
To: Benner, Kevin; Kraft, Warren P.
Subject: FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
I will "kraft" a response to forward to all involved in the previous melee. Pun intended.
-----Original Message~----
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Sent: Friday, February 10,20067:31 AM
To: 'Sargent, Jeffrey'
Subject: RE: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Thank you. I want to share this primarily for the purpose of demonstrating that this office was not creating its own
interpretation. Rather this office has a solid grasp of the requirements for this code section. Obviously, the State of
Wisconsin Division of Safety & Buildings as the AHJ, can and has rendered a differing opinion/direction in this regard.
It's reassuring to know that my staff has the correct understanding of this code section.
I appreciate your efforts.
Allyn Dannhoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Sargent, Jeffrey [mailto:jsargent@NFPA.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 20064: 17 PM
To: adannhoff@ci.oshkosh.wi.us
Cc: Carpenter, James (E-mail);donald.j.talka@us.ul.com; Vondrasek, Bob; Henderson, Carol
Subject: RE: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
To: Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services
From: Jeffrey Sargent, NFPA Senior Electrical Specialist
Date: 2/9/06
Section 518.4(C) in the 2005 NEC permits the use of rigid nonmetallic conduit and electrical
nonmetallic tubing within walls, floors, ceilings and above suspended ceilings of assembly
occupancies provided that the assembly (wall covering and supporting structure) provide a
minimum 15 - minute finish rating. The 15 - minute finish rating is established in a compilation
of listings of fire-rated assemblies that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. This
section does not open the door for the assembly to be constructed of materials other than those
identified in the listings of fire-rated assemblies that provide a 15-minute finish rating.
It should be noted that by its location in Chapter 5 of the NEC, the requirements of Article 518
may amend or modify the general requirements of Chapters 1 through 4. In this case, the bar
has been raised for the use of these methods in assembly occupancies and this provision is
more restrictive than the general rules for uses permitted in 352.10 for RNC and 362.10 for
ENT. The substantiation for this proposal that resulted in the inclusion of this provision (first
included as Exception NO.3 to 518-4 in the 1996 NEC) indicated that due to the type of
2/22/2006
FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
.."
Page 2 of3
occupancy covered in this article, the need to provide enhanced protection for the nonmetallic
wiring methods was achieved through strict adherence to the use of assemblies identified as
being able to provide the 15 minute finish rating as described in the current fine print note
following 518.4(C) and that the rules for assembly occupancies were indeed more restrictive
than the general installation allowances. As with any requirement of the NEe, 90.4 allow the
authority having jurisdiction to permit alternative approaches to compliance where equivalency
can be demonstrated and documented.
This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA
Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of the author, and does
not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical
Committees. In addition, this correspongence is neither intended, nor should be
relied upon, to provide professional consultation or services.
We are on the Web!!
Visit out home page at www.nfpa.org
NFPA e-mail addresses are as follows:
National Electrical Code: NEC@NFPA.org
Life Safety Code: LSC@NFPA.org
National Fire Alarm Code: FIREALARM@NFPA.org
Sprinklers: NFPA13@NFPA.org
Hazardous Materials/Chemical: HAZCHEM@NFPA.ORG
Fire Investigations:INVESTIGATIONS @NFPA.ORG
Marine Fire Protection: MARINE@NFPA.org
library: Library@NFPA.org
Customer Service: Custserv@NFPA.org
---Original Message---
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:50 PM
To: 'nfpa70@nfpa.org'
Subject: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEe
Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services
City of Oshkosh
Member ID 419420
phone 920-236-5045.
Dear Sir or Mam;
We have the following situation and seek your direction. We have a restaurant/tavern (Assembly Hall) being
developed in a non-combustible building, 7 stories tall. When the building was built in 2002, the first floor was left
vacant for future commercial tenant development. Floors 2-7 are apartments. The electric that is supplied to the
upper floors is fed from the basement. All of the wiring as it runs through the first floor is in rigid non-metallic
conduit.
We have identified that section 518.4(C) requires this non-metallic conduit to be concealed behind walls, floors,
ceilings that provide a thermal barrier of material that has a least a 15 minute Finnish rating as identified in listings
of fire rated assemblies.
2/2212006
FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
'"
Page 3 of3
This has caused some difference of opinions with interpretation and application.
Should this be applied in a manner in which a tested/listed assembly that provides a 15 minute finish rating is used
or
is this simply meant to require a membrane/material that provides a 15 minute thermal barrier and the code only
stated "as identified in listing of fire rated assemblies" as a way to identify what wall/floor/ceiling covering materials
are allowed to satisfy this requirement.
I see that the 2005 NEC Handbook commentary for 362.10 offers a more in-depth analysis of this question.
Specifically, the commentary on page 398 states "it is not the intent to limit ENT to constructions consisting of
combustible support members. This section is intended to provide a 15-minute thermal barrier as a minimum
threshold of acceptability." However, I do not know if this same thought process was intended or should apply to
section 518.4(C) because this section involves Assembly Halls, and the intent of the code may have been to offer
better protection for assembly halls than what is required in section 362.10.
In summary, can non-metallic tubing and conduit in assembly halls simply be concealed in walls, floors and
ceilings with a 15 minute thermal membrane (as is allowed in section 362.10) regardless of how the walls, floors
and ceilings are constructed? Or are we to require the floors, walls and ceilings to meet a 15 minute finish
membrane as a tested-listed assembly?
The issue at hand locally is whether a steel stud/metal frame assembly with 5/8" X sheetrock can be used, or must
a system with wood framing be used as found in tested/listed assemblies (referring to the FPN found after section'
518.4(C).
If there is any way to expedite an answer, it would be greatly appreciated. We have been trying to solve this for
days and I am of the opinion the section 518.4(C) could be applied in either direction.
Thank you for your assistance.
2/22/2006
FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Page 1 of3
''''
Benner, Kevin
From: Noe, Brian
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:13 AM
To: Jill Witt (E-mail)
Cc: Benner, Kevin
Subject: Finish ratings
Last week when we talked, you apologized for giving uS bad advice on the finish rating issue. I explained that your
advice was in fact not bad, and was further supported by an informal interpretation we received from NFPA. The
following is message is the response we received from NFPA.. I wanted to forward this to you so you didn't go on
thinking you gave us the wrong information. Feel free to share this with the others in your office, that may have been
involved in this project.
Thanks again for all you help,
Brian Noe
Building Systems Consultant
City of Oshkosh
Inspection Services
(920) 236-5051
-----Origina1 Message-----
From: Sargent, Jeffrey [mailto:jsargent@NFP A.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 20064:17 PM
To: adannhoff@ci.oshkosh.wi.us .
Cc: Carpenter, James (E-mail);donald.j.talka@us.ul.com; Vondrasek, Bob; Henderson, Carol
Subject: RE: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
To: Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services
From: Jeffrey Sargent, NFPA Senior Electrical Specialist
Date: 2/9/06
Section 518.4(C) in the 2005 NEC permits the use of rigid nonmetallic conduit and electrical
nonmetallic tubing within walls, floors, ceilings and above suspended ceilings of assembly
occupancies provided that the assembly (wall covering and supporting structure) provide a minimum
15 - minute finish rating. The 15 - minute finish rating is established in a compilation of listings of fire-
rated assemblies that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. This section does not open
the door for the assembly to be constructed of materials other than those identified in the listings of
fire-rated assemblies that provide a 15-minute finish rating.
It should be noted that by its location in Chapter 5 of the NEC, the requirements of Article 518 may
amend or modify the general requirements of Chapters 1 through 4. In this case, the bar has been
raised for the use of these methods in assembly occupancies and this provision is more restrictive
than the general rules for uses permitted in 352.10 for RNC and 362.10 for ENT. The substantiation
for this proposal that resulted in the inclusion of this provision (first included as Exception NO.3 to
2/27/2006
FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Page 2 of3
""
518-4 in the 1996 NEC) indicated that due to the type of occupancy covered in this article, the need
to provide enhanced protection for the nonmetallic wiring methods was achieved through strict
adherence to the use of assemblies identified as being able to provide the 15 minute finish rating as
described in the current fine print note following 518.4(C) and that the rules for assembly occupancies
were indeed more restrictive than the general installation allowances. As with any requirement of the
NEC, 90.4 allow the authority having jurisdiction to permit alternative approaches to compliance
where equivalency can be demonstrated and documented.
This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations.
Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily
represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition,
this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied upon, to provide
professional consultation or services.
We are on the Web!!
Visit out home page at www.nfpa.org
NFPA e-mail addresses are as follows:
National Electrical Code: NEC@NFPA.org
Life Safety Code: LSC@NFPA.org
National Fire Alarm Code: FIREALARM@NFPA.org
Sprinklers: NFPA13@NFPA.org
Hazardous Materials/Chemical: HAZCHEM@NFPA.ORG
Fire Investigations:INVESTIGATIONS @NFPA.ORG
Marine Fire Protection: MARINE@NFPA.org
library: Library@NFPA.org
Customer Service: Custserv@NFPA.org
---Original Message----
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:50 PM
To: 'nfpa70@nfpa.org'
Subject: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services
City of Oshkosh
Member ID 419420
phone 920-236-5045.
Dear Sir or Mam;
We have the following situation and seek your direction. We have a restaurant/tavern (Assembly Hall) being developed
in a non-combustible building, 7 stories tall. When the building was built in 2002, the first floor was left vacant for future
commercial tenant development. Floors 2-7 are apartments. The electric that is supplied to the upper floors is fed from
the basement. All of the wiring as it runs through the first floor is in rigid non-metallic conduit.
We have identified that section 518.4(C) requires this non-metallic conduit to be concealed behind walls, floors, ceilings
that provide a thermal barrier of material that has a least a 15 minute Finnish rating as identified in listings of fire rated
assemblies.
2/27/2006
FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Page 3 of3
This has caused some difference of opinions with interpretation and application.
Should this be applied in a manner in which a tested/listed assembly that provides a 15 minute finish rating is used
or
is this simply meant to require a membrane/material that provides a 15 minute thermal barrier and the code only stated
"as identified in listing of fire rated assemblies" as a way to identify what wall/floor/ceiling covering materials are allowed to
satisfy this requirement.
I see that the 2005 NEC Handbook commentary for 362.10 offers a more in-depth analysis of this question. Specifically,
the commentary on page 398 states "it is not the intent to limit ENT to constructions consisting of combustible support
members. This section is intended to provide a 15-minute thermal barrier as a minimum threshold of acceptability."
However, I do not know if this same thought process was intended or should apply to section 518.4(C) because this
section involves Assembly Halls, and the intent of the code may have been to offer better protection for assembly halls
than what is required in section 362.10.
In summary, can non-metallic tubing and conduit in assembly halls simply be concealed in walls, floors and ceilings with
a 15 minute thermal membrane (as is allowed in section 362.10) regardless of how the walls, floors and ceilings are
constructed? Or are we to require the floors, walls and ceilings to meet a 15 minute finish membrane asa tested-listed
assembly?
The issue at hand locally is whether a steel stud/metal frame assembly with 5/8" X sheetrock can be used, or must a
system with wood framing be used as found in tested/listed assemblies (referring to the FPN found after section 518.4
(C).
If there is any way to expedite an answer, it would be greatly appreciated. We have been trying to solve this for days and
I am of the opinion the section 518.4(C) could be applied in either direction.
Thank you for your assistance.
2/27/2006
Secti9.ll 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
~
Page 1 of2
Kevin
From:
Sent:
To:
Dannhoff, Allyn J.
Monday, February 27,20067:32 AM
Benner, Kevin
Subject: FW: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC (Log #24820) MH
It would seem that NFPA staff has differing opinions, interpretations on this topic also. Maybe this will result in some
clarifying language in the next version of the handbook.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hlbert [mailto:hilbert@metrocast.net)
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:49 AM
To: adannhoff@ci.oshkosh.wi.us
Cc: James W. Carpenter; Donald J. Talka; Carol Henderson
Subject: RE: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC (Log #24820) MH
To: Allyn J. Dannhoff
From: Mark R. Hilbert, Advisory Service Staff
Dear Mr. Dannhoff:
As I understand your question, you are asking if the Rigid Nonmetallic Conduit, installed in the specific occupancies
described in Section 518.4 (C), must be concealed within a wall assembly that has a 15-minute finish rating or concealed
behind a material that has a 15-minute finish rating. In my opinion, this section would require the material that is
providing the thermal barrier (Gypsum wallboard, etc.) to have at least a 15-minute finish rating. I agree this is the same
thought process described in the Handbook commentary to Section 362.10.
I hope this answers your question and addresses your concern.
CC: James w. Carpenter, Chair NEC-TCC
Donald J. Talka, Chair NEC-P15
Important Notice:
This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFP A Regulations. Any opinion
expressed is the personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent the official position ofthe
NFP A or its Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied
upon, to provide professional consultation or services.
Weare on the Web!! Visit out home page at "'-":'':W-,-nfu.~&rg
NFP A e-mail addresses are as follows:
National Electrical Code: ~lK~D1REGT@NEPA,-Qrg
Life Safety Code: LSC@NEI~AJrrg
National Fire Alarm Code: FIREALARM@NFPA.org
Sprinklers: NEPAJ.3@...NEPA,QIg
Hazardous Materials/Chemical: l:LAZGHEJvl@NEPA,.QRG
Fire Investigations: INVESTIGATIONS @NFPA.ORG
Marine Fire Protection: MARlNE@NEPA,m::g
library:LibIary@NEPA,Qrg
Customer Service:CJ1~S.ITY~NEP A,org
2/27/2006
Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
".:\
Page 2 of2
From: Dannhoff, Allyn J. [mailto:adannhoff@ci.oshkosh.wLus]
Posted At: Monday, February 06,20065:50 PM
Posted To: EE Pool
Conversation: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Subject: Section 518(C)4.- 2005 NEC
Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services
City of Oshkosh
Member 10 419420
phone 920-236-5045.
Dear Sir or Mam;
We have the following situation and seek your direction. We have a restaurant/tavern (Assembly Hall) being developed
in a non-combustible building, 7 stories tall. When the building was built in 2002, the first floor was left vacant for future
commercial tenant development. Floors 2-7 are apartments. The electric that is supplied to the upper floors is fed from
the basement. All of the wiring as it runs through the first floor is in rigid non-metallic conduit.
We have identified that section 518.4(C) requires this non-metallic conduit to be concealed behind walls,f1oors, ceilings
that provide a thermal barrier of material that has a least a 15 minute Finnish rating as identified in listings of fire rated
assemblies.
This has caused some difference of opinions with interpretation and application.
Should this be applied in a manner in which a tested/listed assembly that provides a 15 minute finish rating is used
or
is this simply meant to require a membrane/material that provides a 15 minute thermal barrier and the code only stated
"as identified in listing of fire rated assemblies" as a way to identify what wall/floor/ceiling covering materials are allowed to
satisfy this requirement.
I see that the 2005NEC Handbook commentary for 362.10 offers a more in-depth analysis of this question. Specifically,
the commentary on page 398 states "it is not the intent to limit ENT to constructions consisting of combustible support
members. This section is intended to provide a 15-minute thermal barrier as a minimum threshold of acceptability."
However, I do not know if this same thought process was intended or should apply to section 518.4(C) because this
section involves Assembly Halls, and the intent of the code may have been to offer better protection for assembly halls
than what is required in section 362.10.
In summary, can non-metallic tubing and conduit in assembly halls simply be concealed in walls, floors and ceilings with
a 15 minute thermal membrane (as is allowed in section 362.10) regardless of how the walls, floors and ceilings are
constructed? Or are we to require the floors, walls and ceilings to meet a 15 minute finish membrane as a tested-listed
assembly?
If there is any way to expedite an answer, it would be greatly appreciated. We have been trying to solve this for days and
I am of the opinion the section 518.4(C) could be applied in either direction.
Thank you for your assistance.
2/27/2006
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main1
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main2
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main3
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main4
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main5
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main6
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main7
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main8
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main9
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main10
Taken by Kevin Benner
100 N Main11