Source: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attic-areas-home-inspection-and-commercial-inspection/46132-garage-attic-hatch-question.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 21:44:36
Document Index: 77228855

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 12', 'art 1', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 3', 'art 9', 'art 3', 'art 9', 'art 3']

06-22-2016, 03:56 AM #1
I do not come across attic hatches in garage setting often.
This access hatch cover was typical particle board with a block of polystyrene, EPS.
No markings to identify if the EPS was fire resistant.
Using code (IRC)
Anything more to ad would be appreciated.
06-22-2016, 06:19 AM #2
Re: Garage attic hatch question
06-22-2016, 10:11 AM #4
06-22-2016, 04:33 PM #7
06-22-2016, 07:29 PM #8
06-23-2016, 03:01 AM #9
06-23-2016, 04:00 AM #10
The RBQ have FULL AHJ.
AHJ have been a hot potato subject changing from Montreal to RBQ at least 2 times due to allegations of confidence.
Also, if you think finding gold is hard, try talking to an AHJ in Quebec. Use to happen but not any more.
06-23-2016, 04:14 AM #11
06-23-2016, 04:29 AM #12
1. Section: 3.1.9.1. Fire Stopping of "Service Penetrations."
2. Section: 3.1.9.2. Combustibility of Service Penetrations.
3. Section: 3.1.9.3. Penetration by Wires, Cables and Outlet Boxes.
06-23-2016, 05:50 AM #13
- have a garage and living space separation section?
- have a Private Garage separation section if no Residential Code component?
- It is possible (likely even?) that a section in a Building Code (which is not a Residential Code) has a section for separation between a Private Garage and living space which requires a fire-resistance rating, with an exception for 1- and 2-family dwellings and townhouses and/or the like by other names.
06-23-2016, 07:18 AM #14
Would you be referring to the CNBC - NBC/C or the Nation Building Code of Canada - Canadian National Build Code, or am I mistaken?
As to your question; does the building code have a section for garage and living space separation section?
As expressed, it is an attached garage without a separation unless you wish to call the space in the wall assembly a separate space.
As to my observation/s.
Ceilings require fire rating, as do walls and flooring and any penetrations and protrusions therein.
An attached garage, to which I should have mentioned in my post, is not a habitable space but a storage space, or am I mistaken?
It does not fit all the requirements of a habitable space for human occupancy, so it becomes a storage space.
Last edited by ROBERT YOUNG; 06-23-2016 at 07:23 AM.
06-23-2016, 10:02 AM #15
RBC ... typo ... because Raymond referred to the RBC.
to your question; does the building code have a section for garage and living space separation section?
That hasn't been expressed, and still hasn't been addressed by stating what the code says.
to my observation/s.
attached garage, to which I should have mentioned in my post, is not a habitable space but a storage space, or am I mistaken?
06-23-2016, 02:37 PM #16
[QUOTE=Jerry Peck;267131]RBC ... typo ... because Raymond referred to the RBC.
Not attainable as far as I know.
Not like the IRC code caffee.
06-23-2016, 03:28 PM #17
06-24-2016, 04:45 AM #18
Also, thank you for providing the IRC attic hatch fire rated requirement.
06-26-2016, 06:55 PM #19
You guys in Quebec have to do everything your own way, in French, so I suppose you could get some whiplash for saying that hatch there, she is merde, but the fact remains, that hatch IS merde.
06-27-2016, 02:51 AM #20
06-27-2016, 05:33 AM #21
Again - would you please post the code which says it does not.
Can it be paper? What code says no?
06-27-2016, 01:01 PM #22
Contrarily metal hatches are approved even though not mentioned in the code. All new homes have metal lids in the hatch and I have yet to hear any Ontario building department state they are not permitted. The code is more concerned about size of opening.
06-27-2016, 01:29 PM #23
My question has been, and still is, what is the code section which addresses the separation requirements (by whatever name) of the garage from the living space.
The attic hatch will, obviously, need to meet those same requirements.
01-29-2017, 10:31 AM #24
Looking through I notice that you still hadn't had a response to your Question Jerry.
Here's the relevant codes from the Ontario Building Code, which is itself substantially based upon the National Building Codes of Canada.
Section 3.1.7.Fire-Resistance Ratings
3.1.7.3. Exposure Conditions for Rating
(1) Floor, roof and ceiling assemblies shall be rated for exposure to fire on the underside.
(2) Firewalls and interior vertical fire separations shall be rated for exposure to fire on each side.
(3) Exterior walls shall be rated for exposure to fire from inside the building.
From 3.1.7.1.....the rating of a material, assembly of materials or a structural member that is required to have a fire-resistance rating, shall be determined on the basis of the results of tests conducted in conformance with CAN/ULC-S101-M, “Standard Methods of Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction and Materials”.
An excerpt from this standard is "The wall or partition must ... stop flame or hot gasses capable of igniting cotton waste. The average temperature of the unexposed surface cannot increase more than 139 ̊C (250 ̊F) above ambient nor shall the temperature rise at any individual point exceed 181 ̊C (325 ̊F). It is also required that a duplicate of the assembly be fire tested for half the specified resistance period, after which it must withstand the impact, erosion and cooling effect of water under high pressure from a fire hose.
Floor and roof assemblies tested and classified have to be a minimum of 16.8m (180ft) with neither dimension less than 3.66m (12 feet). The assemblies must sustain the design load throughout the test and not allow either flame or hot gasses, capable of igniting cotton waste, to pass through. The unexposed surface temperature may not rise more than an average of 139 ̊C (250 ̊F) above the initial temperature nor shall the temperature rise at any individual point exceed 181 ̊C (325 ̊F)."
A full list of the partition ratings for steel and wood framed components can be found here:
http://www.usg.com/content/dam/USG_M...-sa100-can.pdf
In section 3.1.8 of the Ontario Building Code (entitled Fire Separations and Closures)
Section 3.1.8.4 goes on to deal with closures (which presumably includes attic hatches)
3.1.8.4. Determination of Ratings
(1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2) and 3.1.8.14.(1), the fire-protection rating for a closure shall be determined on the basis of the results of tests conducted in conformance with the appropriate provisions in,
(a) CAN4-S104-M, “Fire Tests of Door Assemblies”,
(b) CAN4-S106-M, “ Fire Tests of Window and Glass Block Assemblies”, or
(c) CAN/ULC-S112-M, “Fire Test of Fire-Damper Assemblies”.
(2) Except as permitted by Sentence 3.1.8.10.(1), the fire-protection rating of a closure shall conform to Table 3.1.8.4. for the required fire-resistance rating of the fire separation.
Table 3.1.8.4.
Fire-Protection Rating of Closure
Fire-Resistance Rating of Fire Separation Required Fire-Protection Rating of Closure
1.5 h 1 h
3.1.8.5. Installation of Closures
(1) Except where fire dampers, window assemblies and glass block are used as closures, closures of the same fire-protection rating installed on opposite sides of the same opening are deemed to have a fire-protection rating equal to the sum of the fire-protection ratings of the closures.
(2) Except as otherwise specified in this Part, every door, window assembly or glass block used as a closure in a required fire separation,
(a) shall be installed in conformance with NFPA 80, “Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives”, and
(b) where required to have a fire-protection rating, shall have labels or classification marks to identify the testing laboratory.
(3) If a door is installed so that it could damage the integrity of a fire separation if its swing is unrestricted, door stops shall be installed to prevent the damage.
Of course there is a difference in the codes surrounding firewalls and fire-separation. So the issue comes back to the home being inspected.
If the garage is attached, and the attic space between the garage attic and the attic above the living accommodation is open to each other, then the ceiling assembly and any closure (opening) in that ceiling has to conform to both firewall and fire-separation regulations.
If the garage is attached, and their is an appropriate firewall between the garage attic and the attic above the living accommodation, and there is an attic hatch in the garage, my read is that there are no codes that define the fire-resistance requirements of the attic hatch.
Where there are fire-resistance ratings required, these resistance ratings may, or may not depending upon the location, apply equally to the insulation.
In order to ascertain exactly what the requirements are, one would need to check the Local Building Code compendium, the Local fire code compendium, the National and International standards for fire-rating testing, and identify accurately the manufacturer, make and composition of the components being looked at.
Would that not make the inspection a full code inspection and way beyond the scope of a normal home inspection?
And, if I've understood that correctly, would proceeding down this path, even a little, expose the inspector to all manner of liability?
01-29-2017, 10:54 AM #25
http://www.batticdoor.com/BatticDoor...ldingCodes.pdf
http://www.cansave.ca/Libraries/Atti...heet.sflb.ashx
01-29-2017, 11:06 AM #26
Part 3 does not apply to houses. One other condition to consider is separation between the attic spaces - house living space to garage. Was or is there a fire separation? (OBC)
01-29-2017, 11:34 AM #27
A perfect example why one should not be quoting code during a 'home' inspection. As you state section 3 does not apply to houses.
01-29-2017, 12:01 PM #28
Part 3 does not apply to houses. (OBC)
01-29-2017, 02:26 PM #29
Except where it does. Section 9, which applies to buildings less than 600m<sup>2</sup> refers in many places to Section 3.
9.10.3. Ratings
9.10.3.1. Fire-Resistance and Fire-Protection Ratings
(1) Where a fire-resistance rating or a fire-protection rating is required in this Section for an element of a building, such rating shall be determined in conformance with the test methods described in Part 3, or in accordance with Supplementary Standard SB-2 or SB-3.
9.10.3.2. Flame-Spread Rating
(1) Where a flame-spread rating is required in this Section for an element of a building, such rating shall be determined in accordance with the test methods described in Part 3, or in accordance with Supplementary Standard SB-2.
(2) Unless the flame-spread rating is referred to in this Part as a “surface flame-spread rating”, it shall apply to any surface of the element being considered that would be exposed by cutting through it as well as to the exposed surface of the element.
9.10.3.3. Fire Exposure
(2) Exterior walls shall be rated for exposure to fire from inside the building, except that such walls need not comply with the temperature rise limitations required by the standard tests referred to in Article 9.10.3.1. if such walls have a limiting distance of not less than 1 200 mm, and due allowance is made for the effects of heat radiation in accordance with the requirements in Part 3.
(3) Firewalls and interior vertical fire separations required to have fire-resistance ratings shall be rated for exposure to fire on each side.
9.10.6.1. Combustible Elements in Noncombustible Construction
(1) Where a building or part of a building is required to be of noncombustible construction, combustible elements shall be limited in conformance with the requirements in Subsection 3.1.5.
9.10.6.2. Heavy Timber Construction
(1) Heavy timber construction shall be considered to have a 45 min fire-resistance rating when it is constructed in accordance with the requirements for heavy timber construction in Article 3.1.4.6.
9.10.7. Steel Members
9.10.7.1. Protection of Structural Steel Members
(1) Except as permitted in Article 3.2.2.3., structural steel members used in construction required to have a fire-resistance rating shall be protected to provide the required fire-resistance rating.
9.10.11.3. Construction of Firewalls
My point was that we are not code inspectors. Quoting code, mis-quoting code, or assuming parts of the code don't apply to a particular building, can get us into hot water. This is a point we all seem to agree on.
01-29-2017, 02:48 PM #30
(1) ... Part 3 ...
(2) ... Part 3.
(1) ... Subsection 3.1.5.
(1) ... Article 3.1.4.6.
(1) ... Article 3.2.2.3 ...
(1) ... Part 3 shall apply.
You are intermixing terms, does the code intermix those terms?
Section 9, Section 3, Part 3, Subsection 3..., Article 3...
Many codes have Articles, Parts, Sections, and Subsections - make sure the references are the same context.
What section/part/article addresses dwelling units and how are the dwelling units defined.
I think it is ill-advised to say not to address code, it is, however, advised to do so only when you understand the code, in which case addressing code is your supporting documentation which you use to defend what you say in your reports.
So far, your use of the code is confusing in that you are not including the titles of the Articles, Part, Sections, and Subsections (some may have titles which state what they address, others are evident based on what they are part of, such as - I know an inspector who used to quote sections of the NEC without regard as to what the Articles were about, and it took multiple times of pointing out that those sections did not apply to site built homes because the Article was titled Mobile Homes, Manufactured Homes, and Mobile Home Parks (Article 550).
01-29-2017, 02:59 PM #31
Back to the original question - assuming this is about a garage ceiling generally it does not need to be fire rated by Canadian building codes. Again as I stated in my fire protection presentation at the Ashi conference, codes can vary from province to province and likewise state to state. I use codes simply as a reference tool, that's purpose is stating the minimum legal building standard. Knowledgeable home inspectors should have a reference point, that being understanding codes in their area.
01-29-2017, 03:04 PM #32
You got that right. 'Understand the Code'.
It does not seem to be an issue at all in new homes garage or otherwise. What I am seeing in the field in various jurisdictions is the metal lined hatch with magnetic strip.
01-29-2017, 05:36 PM #33
From the Ontario Building Code as available online: (underlining is mine)
9.10.9.16. Separationof Storage Garages
(1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) and (3),a storage garage shall be separated from other occupancies by a fire separationhaving not less than a 1.5 h fire-resistance rating.
(2) Except as permitted in Sentence (3), storage garages containing 5 motor vehicles or fewershall be separated from other occupancies by a fire separation of not less than 1 h.
(3) Where a storage garageserves only the dwelling unit it is attached to orbuilt into, it shall be considered as part of that dwellingunit and the fire separation required inSentence (2) need not be provided between the garage and the dwelling unit.
(4) Where a storage garageis attached to or built into a building of residential occupancy,
(a) an air barrier systemconforming to Subsection 9.25.3. shall be installed between the garage and theremainder of the building to provide an effectivebarrier to gas and exhaust fumes, and
(b) every door between the garage and theremainder of the building shall conform to Article9.10.13.15.
(5) Where membrane materials are used to providethe required airtightness in the air barrier system,all joints shall be sealed and structurally supported.
01-29-2017, 06:00 PM #34
(2) A doorway between an attached or built-in garage and a dwelling unit shall not be located in a room intended for sleeping.
I also concur with Claude.
Code is used as a reference to build a narrative from.
Codes can change by municipality.
Suicidal to use code in reports.
Last edited by ROBERT YOUNG; 01-29-2017 at 06:05 PM.
01-29-2017, 06:15 PM #35
If you know the code in your area, use it.
If you don't, learn it, then use it.
If you have no interest in learning code ... then you are in the wrong business because EVERYTHING you look at is code related as being 'right' or 'wrong'.
01-29-2017, 06:25 PM #36
Claude pointed that out. Use code to reference your narrative.
As well, does a 1965 require 1965 code reference?
01-29-2017, 07:19 PM #37
Depends, if you know it, then give it, but also give the current status, no different than writing up receptacles on a 1965 house which are in the kitchens, bathrooms, garage, and outdoors (at least here in the States) - there was no requirement for them back in 1965, but everyone recognizes the safety aspect of having them.
Do your write up or even mention GFCI protection which is not installed where presently required?
If so, no different.
01-29-2017, 07:35 PM #38
If a home is orignal, pre 1970,
GFCI receptacles were required in houses starting in 1971. I refer further evaluation and correction if required.
Last edited by ROBERT YOUNG; 01-29-2017 at 07:48 PM.
01-29-2017, 08:08 PM #39
So does anyone know of a home inspector that has been sued for quoting code? I doubt it, but even than any case that was successful?
01-29-2017, 09:12 PM #40
How do you do a "further evaluation" on GFCI protection which is not installed? I am curious how that is done.
Are you basing your 1971 date on the NEC?
01-30-2017, 02:56 AM #41
Jerry, post #38 was unintended.
I have a SOP and PIA to maintain.
Sop: Limitations, Exceptions & Exclusions.
PIA: "All Parties understand and voluntarily agree as follows:"
Last edited by ROBERT YOUNG; 01-30-2017 at 03:11 AM.
01-30-2017, 03:10 AM #42
I have read reports that have code compliance. Always wonder the judgement call myself.
The success rate of claims against "pre-purchase home inspectors" remains relatively low in the first place.
I exclude compliance in my PIA drafted by InterNACHI legal advisor, Mark Cohen or Joe Ferry.
As well, I have retained Joe Ferry to intercept meritless claims for almost 3 years now.
I advise other home inspectors to do the same. Out of 1006 claims, more by now, he has quashed 99.6%. Not bad!
01-30-2017, 05:01 AM #43
No; can't find any of cases where code quoting or lacking code reference has been sued.
But then one must look at the SOP as per the standard recognized by the courts. Plenty evidence that inspectors are sued for negligence and/or breach of contract.
But that is not the point of an inspection - a code inspection, this would also be defined in the contract between client and inspector.
And if you are quoting code we just read the perfect example where someone thought they knew the code but then proven wrong. If this were an actual case where the inspector suggested something was wrong when in fact it is not, and the clients acted on that advice, you may be sued for obvious reasons.
Also quoting code at least up here can be problematic since there is an appeal process.
Also I would like to ask what insurers are recommending about home inspections and inferring or reporting code issues?
01-30-2017, 05:16 AM #44
Great remark, Ray.
Regardless of all the opinions, and statements, as a home inspector you have a professional obligation, a due diligence, to treat your clients with professionalism and respect.
1: Most are unfamiliar with/when purchasing a home, and are emotionally charged to begin with.
2: Then there are the agents, on both sides.
3: Then the vendor.
They deserve professional conduct as well. Not an education in home inspections or code compliance. Now everyone is running around looking for lagitancey as to the substance of the report.
Keeping it simple is required denotes a level of professional understanding of what they are capable of.
You do not confuse your clients with code compliance. You explain the condition of the home or building so they can understand. If they want to learn more they can reach out to you.
Last edited by ROBERT YOUNG; 01-30-2017 at 05:39 AM. Reason: typo
01-30-2017, 06:20 AM #45
We have a responsibility to our business. I do not like refunding needless monies nor placing an agent held legally binding within the contract to be pursued needless. Most are highly professional and I personally do not want to disrupt their means of income needless.
This is from the OACIQ.
Now what about the inspector?
01-30-2017, 07:25 AM #46
My quotes are not from the Ontario building code compendium, but the regulations that make up those compendiums.
You can find the Ontario building code "regulations", that I quoted from, here: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060350.
In the "regulations", there are Divisions, Parts, Sections, Articles and Sentences, as well as Groups, Tables references and cross-references (both internal and external), so yes, quoting from code is confusing.
Division A of the code deals with compliance, objectives and functional statements, it consists of Part 1 through Part 3, and sections and sub-sections (also referred to as articles and/or sentences within the code) similarly numbers and sub-numbered.
Division B of the code deals with acceptable solutions. Division B also consists of individual Part 1 through Part 12, and again sections and sub-sections (also referred to as articles and/or sentences within the code) similarly numbers and sub-numbered.
Division C deals with the administrative provision of the code. This division consist of it's own Part 1 through 4, likewise with the sections and sub-sections numbering.
While Division B contains acceptable solutions, Division A is just as important, as it defines where each of the other pieces of "code" apply with respect function and objectives (for the code itself). Division C deals with areas that are more readily (here in Ontario anyway) altered by local jurisdictional differences such as permit provisions etc.
To assist in explaining the code references, where the code refers to an article or sentence in a division other than the article (sentence) that is quoting that cross-reference, the division is also included in the cross reference.
I quote "Division A,1.1.1.4. Internal Cross-references, (1) If a provision of this Code contains a reference to another provision of this Code but no Division is specified, both provisions are in the same Division of this Code. "
Here in Ontario, there is a strong emphasis on inspectors learning about Part 9.
Luckily, part 9 defines itself as being in Division B, solely because Division B is the only division of the code that has a part 9.
Unfortunately for inspectors who believe Part 9 is omnipotent, Part 3 of Division B is just as important, because in Part 9, where references to Part 3 and it's sections/articles/sentences are used, they need to be heeded too. This is not normally taught. Indeed the courses I've seen only deal with the safety aspects of Part 9, and as we've seen from this thread, some of those aspects are indeed buried in Part 3 (of Division B).
I wholeheartedly agree with you in thinking it is ill-advised to say not to address code. I'm not sure anyone here is saying that. I also agree that you should only quote code when you understand the code.
My concern is that, unless the inspection calls for the code reference, for example in a New Home Warranty or PDI inspection, does quoting the code in ANY part of a report open-up any contractual restriction that identifies the inspection as NOT being a code inspection?
Addressing code is certainly supporting documentation which an inspector would use to defend what is said in their reports, but quoting code verbatim, in my mind, should be left for a more specific defence should things go south.
Either way, I would agree understanding not just the code itself, but also how and where it may be applied, along with all the cross-referencing and externally supporting standards, as well as any jurisdictional differences, is paramount.
01-30-2017, 08:23 AM #47
Wow, how different jurisdiction approach the problems.
Thanks for your information, I was especially interested in this bit.
If conclusions contained in an existing inspection report reveal unfavourable factors which appear unfounded in whole or in part, the broker may recommend that the seller have another inspection report prepared.
Here in Ontario the Code of Ethics for real-estate registrants states:
8. (2) A registrant shall not discourage a client or customer from seeking a particular kind of service if the registrant is not able to provide the service with reasonable knowledge, skill, judgment and competence or is not authorized by law to provide the service.
(Ontario Regulation 580/05, s. 8)
I much prefer the direct approach in Quebec for the first part ( i.e. Always recommend an inspection to the buyer ) In Ontario it's barse-ackwards. The onus is on the registrant to not discourage, rather than to encourage.
As far as the second opinion is concerned, I'm not sure what it say in Quebec, but the clauses in the registrants cod of ethics says it all. If the registrant is not able to provide the services with reasonable knowledge, skill, judgment and competence....
If that's the case, then they would not be in a position to decide if the first opinion was unfounded.
01-30-2017, 08:35 AM #48
And I quoted from the Ontario Building Code, as found online (as I stated), and that addresses dwellings with the exception stated.
To each their own as they may do in trying to expand the code beyond the exceptions.
In Florida, we have a Building Code Commission, and affected parties may submit a petition for a Declaratory Statement asking a specific question about a specific instance (general questions are not accepted), and, if accepted, an official statement on that specific instance is issued which states that the question is basically 'yes, that is correct' or 'no, that is incorrect' (the answers are more involved, but that is the basic outcome).
While the Declaratory Statement only specifically addresses that specific instance, it is recognized that that is the position of the Commission and is applied to all other instances of the same kind.
Is there a similar authority which makes similar 'this is what that means' decisions up there?
If so, an affected party could inquire 'does blah, blah, blah mean ... ' and get an official position.
01-30-2017, 08:46 AM #49
Len, much thanks.
Len, as you well know, we work to protect consumers, reassure professional REA, referred or not, we are all responsible professionals.
We all try our best to earn a living as professionals.
I would not wish to take away anyones income for acting unprofessionally or implying I know more so everyone should know more.
Damn poor attitude.
But when the contract tilted in someone's favour, ethics has flown out the window.
It then becomes all about business and financial gain, with the burden placed on the taxpayer and citizen, because those mortgages are guaranteed by them/us...
Last edited by ROBERT YOUNG; 01-30-2017 at 08:51 AM.
01-30-2017, 09:35 AM #50
We have (in Ontario) The Building Code Commission (BCC) which is a group under the two headed monster, of the Ministry of Municipal affairs and Ministry of Housing.
It is a tribunal, authorized under the Building Code Act that attempts to resolve, among other thing, disputes concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code.
The parties to the commission are typically builders, developers, architects, engineers, etc. as applicants and municipal plan reviewers, building inspectors, registered code agencies (RCAs) and health officials as respondents.
I guess this would be our equivalent. I don't know what it's like in your part of the world, but up here ask a question, and you may end up collecting your pension before you get an answer.