NFPA's 18" Hearth Requirement

[Gooserider]

Bb there are code governing how close other combustible can be in relationship of that stove (IE That table furniture ect/ )

the distance is 48" you experience just confirmed the need for that code

Here is the situation you come in for a permit. In this discussion I inform you I will be enforcing the 18" distance to loading doors. I provide you a copy of that section of the code.

I do the inspection and there is 15.5" Should I pass that installation? You know from the beginning, I'm enforcing code your listing has referenced.NFPA 211

This is dodging the question Elk! We are not questioning that you can reject units not intstalled to the standards you specified (and aren't going to whether you should or not). I'm not even asking if the clearance SHOULD be 18" or not (IMHO more is better)

What has been asked now at least THREE times, by myself and others, is that if you are willing to accept reductions in the NFPA code requirements for side and rear clearances when listed by the stove maker in the manual, WHY are you NOT willing to accept a reduction in the NFPA loading door clearance listed in the SAME manual? This seems to me like a double standard, and I don't get the reason for it.

Gooserider

 

[webbie]

Elk is allowed to be wrong - that is within the rights of an inspector. It doesn't matter if it does not make sense, he can enforce what he wants - and as he said - the customer can "pound sand" (appeal).....

There used to be stoves - specially Vermont Castings Sequoia (dutchwest), which had 42" clearance from combustibles. I suppose that since NFPA says 36" it would be OK to install that differently than the manual? NOT.....

Same with just about every aspect of every stove - the manuals and labels are extensive. Following them is what needs to be done. NFPA is fine to apply to masonry fireplaces, generic stoves and even to folks who want to know about it and go over and above their manual.

The only time I would toss out an inspector would be if I was a nasty lawyer type.....

Working out these details is quite tough over an internet bulletin board. I have a feeling that Elk is more flexible in actual situations than he is when talking one side of an online debate......most municipalities have high standards for their employees that deal with the public. The town fathers do not want to constantly field complaints from residents.

I doubt any insurance company would be able to turn down a claim on a stove that was installed to it's label and manual.

 

[elkimmeg]

To answer goose I have not refused to pass a stove installation since the code change. This is a situation nobody has brought up code allows to adhere to manufacture specs Code can be written and elapsed by newer technology. Consequently Stoves are certified for 5 years before recertification that also includes there installation manuals To cover code changes that could happen before re certification is language that stove has to comply to existing codes An example of this a stove re-certified in 2003 Before the NFPA 2003 cross- sectional code allows a direct connection of up to 3 x the area in an outside chimney. However code was adopted that changed it to 2x latter that year the same model stove is selling today with the same installation manual
detailing direct connections up to 3x in that same outside chimney. As an inspector I have a choice to approve the manufactures specs or not approve due to code change 4 years prior
Should I pass a known problematic draft situation or should I require a Full liner? Should I allow Manufactures specs to trump code? Or should I apply the standard the stove tells me to?( current NFPA 211)

So in some instances code is more to date than the listings. In other cases code is behind modern technology and only the listing can be applied

In this case the latest 2006 NFPA 211 and the 18" requirement exceeds most past certified listings.

To answer Goose we are talking about modern code where research has just been completed to make the revision. The 36" code was written at a time where many stoves were not tested.
or even listed. Today every stove is tested and listed we are not comparing the same situations. I don't know how to relate to that comparison from 1978 codes to 2006 codes.

In reality. there are very few instances where 36" even comes into question today. Some how you want a 1978 code enforcement and and enforcing modern codes becomes a double standard? Either I did not understand your question or I need a road map for 1978 to get into modern time. Yes the 1978 code has been forwarded into the 2006 editions there still exist cooking stoves that are exempt from listing requirements that one can apply this 36"

To Gunner: In Canada 18" is code. I guess you threw his sorry ass out for doing his job. Also all manufactures have spected their stove sold and installed in Canada for 18"
To what point, are we to interpret your words of wisdom? Was the an educated way to spur honest discussion?

 

[Gunner]

I have 198 inches more than required, no need to worry about me :cheese:

 

[Gooserider]

Well I tend to think the 18" spec is reasonably wise - the extension I'm building is going to be giving closer to 24" when combined with what I already have on the hearth - for a stove that primarily top loads! Of course I probably would have done about the same with the old 16" spec because of the way the layout works in any case.

However the post that started this was a comment by Tom Oyen that the inspectors in his area ARE still accepting the 16" clearance, and consider the MFGR listing numbers as over-riding the NFPA in that regard. A few other posters said similar things about their inspectors as well. It seems to me Elk. that you are in a distinct minority when you insist on the 18" value. I was wondering if you had specific language pointing to why you went in that direction.

I seem to remember discussion earlier when the 18" rule first came out, that it was a change that was made as much to "standardize" the US and Canadian specs as because there was real evidence that 2" made a statisticly significant difference in safety - Thus to me it is a change that would seem less critical to enforce as long as the manual spec was met, given that the safety impact isn't high...

One problem I could see as an offbeat scenario - a person did a by the book install with the 16" requirement, and got a pass. Next week they decide to replace the stove that they installed with a different color version of the exact same stove - which has the exact same manual, clearance listings, etc, including a 16" value for the front clearance - Does the new install pass?

Gooserider

 

[elkimmeg]

Goose I don't think there had to bee too much thinking about increasing the hearth protection area in front of the loading doors All the NFPA and
IBC had to do is look at the reasoning the Canadian code has for the requirement Also it is easier for manufactures to test to one North American code than two.

I think that may have been a factor.. Open fireplaces require 20" hearths. Actually the extent of the hearth is govern by the area of the actual fireplace opening
In very small openings it is possible that 16" is compliant the usual is 20".

At times I don't get the resistance to making a or requiring a safer installation. Its not like I wrote my own code to enforce. Hell I'm hired to enforce code.
I mean if someone does not like the code their elected official approved ,they can petition for a change. After all We all approved the code by electing the officials that brought it forward.
We pay the Code writers to write code, so that we have adequate protection. Understand this ,Clearances are minimum safe distances. No penalty for increasing you margin of safety.

I get confused by peoples philosophy, Most the time bigger is better, but when safety issues arise, that philosphy disappears? Then its ridicule the inspector, for enforcing codes we all approved, Because he believes in a greater margin of safety supported by code.

 

[webbie]

Way back when, Jay Shelton (a hearth researcher in the 80's) made a lot of interesting points - he said "If X big stove needs 36", then X small stove only needs 20") and "if X square stove needs 36, then X round stove needs only 24".....and backed them up with testing!

When it comes to hearths, the common sense is that the wider the opening, the larger the hearth should be - and this is reflected in the code - wider fireplaces need wider hearths. 12" might actually be fine for a 602 (we'll have to check the European codes just for discussions).......

Stove manufacturers are not going to spend much money seeing how small of a hearth they can use - if they fail, it can cost thousands to retry the same test. So they go with an "excess" in order to pass....in most cases. So now we have to go on a steeplechase - someone check the manuals on all those European models....both the manuals for europe and the usa.......let's see what we can find.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

ok, just found the applicable section in the nfpa211standard:

"12.5.1.1.1 ;Residential-type solid fuel-burning appliances that are tested and listed by a recognized testing laboratory for installation on floors constructed of combustible materials shall be placed on floors in accordance with the requirements of the listing and the conditions of approval.

12.5.1.1.2 ;Appliances that are not listed by a recognized testing laboratory shall be provided with floor protection in accordance with the provisions of 12.5.1.2 or 12.5.1.3."

the paragraphs that are mentioned in 12.5.1.1.2 go on to describe what is needed and for how far away from the unit the floor protection must extend. these paragraphs apparantly deal with non-listed appliances as 12.5.1.1.1 does not refer to these or other paragraphs. bottom line is that the tested listed flor protection requirements in the manual are what nfpa211 tells you to follow. 12.5.1.1.2 refers only to unlisted /untested units.

 

[Corie]

(He's been up there ALL day reading that too, I caught him!)

 

[elkimmeg]

Now if Only the NFPA 211 would become a full bodied endorsed code . The IBC which is ,is the code I quoted from
Till 2006 NFPA still not recognized Now in IBC 2006 , it is only partially refferenced not endorsed in its entirety

However the IBC is. Since the IBC has not addressed this issue it defaults to 16" Now that the digressions of the inspectors If the listing calls in the code as being tested to ,then One can
apply the code or codes in the most restrictive way.. I think the sections copied and pasted here, refers to using manufactures listings in relationship to the code ,That code would allow a reduction to what has been tested and certified. Enforcing code that exceeds manufactures listings is applying the most restrictive a safest minimum allowed by code
By doing so, an inspector is not jeopardizing the listing. For instance Regency and Hampton has required 18" clearance to in front of its loading doors. Negligence on an inspector's part, would be using code that is 16" This is the intent of what Stove guy's listing infers to So in this instance the listing trumps code.
Lets stick to the specific issue ,the clearance in front of the loading door. This is what the original post started with. Not other clearances, stick with the question at hand

SECTION R102*

*APPLICABILITY*

*R102.1 General. *Where, in any specific case, different sections

of this code specify different materials, methods of construction

or other requirements, the most restrictive shall

govern.

*R102.4 Referenced codes and standards. *The codes and

standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the

requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such

reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this

code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this

code shall apply.

*Exception: *Where enforcement of a code provision would

violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or

appliance, the conditions of the listing and manufacturer’s

instructions shall apply.

This is exactly what is being discussed and said better than my explanation It clearly spells out when code trumps listings and where listing trumps code

 

[Gooserider]

Except that this brings us back to the original issue -

*R102.1 General. *Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.

would imply that you can't accept manufacturers listings UNLESS they are MORE restrictive than the code would otherwise allow. Thus you couldn't accept 16" if the MFGR said 18" - but this would apply to side and rear clearances as well - but you are accepting the less restrictive MFGR listing there.

While I tend to agree that 18" is better than 16", I still don't see how the language you cite provides different treatment of the mfgr listings on different sides of the stove. IMHO consistency would require that you either accept the manufacturers listing on all sides, or require the strict interpretation on all sides.

To me the question of how the front clearances are interpreted is something that is guided by how the other aspects of the install are interpreted. Tom said his inspectors are applying the rule in a consistent manner - that since they accept the mfgr listing on other clearances they should accept it on all.

I am less bothered by the way that you are interpreting the code strictly than I am by the apparent inconsistency.

Hopefully the issue never comes up, but I know that if I were ever judging a case where rules weren't being applied consistently I would find it far harder to accept than if there was a single standard being applied...

Gooserider

 

[stoveguy2esw]

you know , if this is true, the UL apparantly doesnt matter, as virtually every stove clearance ive seen listed by approved manual is less than what the nfpa211 shows for "unlisted units" then why even bother to list the UL approved clearances and floor protector sizes, why not just list the "unlisted" clearances and make everybody have a stove with 18 inches on all 4 sides and have a 36 inch clearance to combustibles? easy , because that much aint necessary or UL would specify it in listed units already. nfpa 211 is a general code, it is superceded by the listed clearances and floor protection distances when dealing with approved listed units by its own statement that i posted above. but if the unit does not carry that listing, aka home made, or units that have been stripped of their tags, must be given a standard which allows for a large degree of protection simply because they do not have standards established by testing and nobody really knows how hot they will get or how much heat they will radiate. nfpa 211 also allows for that. that is why that code is a necessary one in respect to this arguement. but to say that the recognized clearances the unit was tested to and UL listed under do not apply is simply unreasonable.

 

[elkimmeg]

I think I explained this adequately the stoves and manuals are certified every 5 years Usually updated at the time of certification .We are talking about specs written prior to the code change

That the listing acknowledges need to be addressed by stating the code standard, in this case. NFPA 211. All stoves certified after this code change will have 18" clearance


Again As I explained earlier to Goose, An inspector, would much rather apply a modern tested or modern code to the situation. than Antiquated 1978 codes brought forward when no testing was done

Also missing here, is these stoves are tested and listed in Canada for 18" and it has been that way since 1998. This is not something new. So What would make Goose happy. is the inspectors apply antiquated codes, where not testing was present to tested stoves of today, and be consistent as long as it does not reduce a tested listing. They could do that But that 36" requirement NFPA211 also provides safe ways it can be reduced IE close clearance protection systems According to goose IF we use Manufactures specs then Close clearance Reductions could never be allowed So Gooose which way do you want the double standard? It seems you are questioning inspectors then writing post about code reduction enclosures than are only code not manufactures specs or listings. You too are guilty of what you are requestiig

 

[Harley]

That the listing acknowledges need to be addressed by stating the code standard, in this case. NFPA 211. All stoves certified after this code change will have 18" clearance

I'm having a little problem following, so I'm not sure if this is really repeating what might have been already said, and sorry Elk, for taking this one piece whice which may be out of context.

Doesn't this really mean that stoves certified prior to this change (to the 16" clearance), are still OK to install with a 16" clearance, but once the same exact model comes up for re-certification (assuming after the implementation date of the change to 18") it would be required to list an 18" distance upon re-certification?

In other words - lets say a stove was certified in 2005 to the existing 16" clearance.... it's re-certification will happen in 2010, after the change to 18". I'm thinking that would mean the exact same stove would be OK to install with a 16" clearance, up until 2010, when it has to be re-certified and required to have an 18" clearance.

I'm not sure if that was over-simplifying, or if I missed something completely. Again - building code is not my area (wow... and I thought tax code was complicated).

 

[MrGriz]

Harley, you're not the only one who's confused by this. If the code requirement trumps the manufacturer's engineered and tested specifications, why would the manufacturer bother to test and list clearances at all. The only way I can see this being an issue is if the manufacturer's clearance requirements were greater than the code requirements.

In some ways, this really seems like the tail wagging the dog. After all, code creators (whoever they may be) don't engineer stoves (do they).

Edit: This doesn't make sense on another level; for example: I buy a stove and install it to the manufacturer's specifications as listed in their manual. After all, that's all I have to go by, I don't have or want to read the entire code book. I then have it inspected and they hold me to a different standard. That just doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to argue that the code is wrong or that it should be superseeded by the manufacturer's specifications (or the other way around). I just think they should somehow jive a bit better and be more clear.

 

[Gooserider]

Well as far as I know, the manufacturer tested AND PASSED the stove at 16", or whatever value they used in their manual - The 16-18 change in the NFPA spec was not accompanied by new test criteria in terms of UL 1482 or other temperature ratings, so it was basically an arbitrary change, since the stove didn't change, and the test spec didn't change.

I would also point out that in every manual I've looked at, which is by no means all, but is a fairly large sample, they DO give clearance reductions using wall protection systems, so wall protection comes both from NFPA-211 and from the manufacturer listing. (with the mfgr listing often giving tighter specs than NFPA-211) In some cases, the manuals don't talk about ceiling clearances, in which case, I would expect NFPA 211 to fill in the gap.

IOW, I would give the following order of interpretation -

1. Manufacturers listing - if any
2. Code spec if no listing, or no reference in listing

And yes, it means that while I agree with you reccomending 18" plus, I would reluctantly accept the manufacturers listing of 16" if that's what's in the manual.

Harley -

(wow… and I thought tax code was complicated).

I think the guys that wrote the building codes PRACTICED on the tax codes - obfuscation takes practice... :-S

Gooserider

 

[ChrisN]

Edit: This doesn't make sense on another level; for example: I buy a stove and install it to the manufacturer's specifications as listed in their manual. After all, that's all I have to go by, I don't have or want to read the entire code book. I then have it inspected and they hold me to a different standard. That just doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to argue that the code is wrong or that it should be superseeded by the manufacturer's specifications (or the other way around). I just think they should somehow jive a bit better and be more clear.

Griz, this is the most concise point made yet. As an ignorant, but well intentioned homeowner, If I buy a stove and build my hearth IAW the listed stove's manual, and then have an inspector tell me it is inadequate I would tear my hair out.

Well said.

Chris

 

[elkimmeg]

This is cut and past second page of a Jotul f 400 To tell you how far behind manufactures update their manuals note 1990

Also note it clearly states that NFPA compliance is called in I doubt the manufactures is calling in 1990 compliance, but compliance to the current code.

I highlighted sections in bold that point to enforcement of NFPA 211


b]July 1, 1990. [/b]
Check Building Codes
When installing, operating and maintaining your Jøtul F 400
woodstove, follow the guidelines presented in these instructions,
and make them available to anyone using or servicing the
stove.
Your city, town, county or province may require a building permit
to install a solid fuel burning appliance.
In the U.S., the National Fire Protection Association’s Code, NFPA
211, Standards for Chimneys, Fireplaces, Vents and Solid Fuel
Burning Appliances, or similar regulations, may apply to the
installation of a solid fuel burning appliance in your area.
In Canada, the guideline is established by the CSA Standard,
CAN/CSA-B365-M93, Installation Code for Solid-Fuel-Burning
Appliances and Equipment.
Always consult your local building inspector or authority having jurisdiction to determine what regulations apply in your area.

 

[elkimmeg]

Edit: This doesn't make sense on another level; for example: I buy a stove and install it to the manufacturer's specifications as listed in their manual. After all, that's all I have to go by, I don't have or want to read the entire code book. I then have it inspected and they hold me to a different standard. That just doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to argue that the code is wrong or that it should be superseded by the manufacturer's specifications (or the other way around). I just think they should somehow jive a bit better and be more clear.

Griz, this is the most concise point made yet. As an ignorant, but well intentioned homeowner, If I buy a stove and build my hearth IAW the listed stove's manual, and then have an inspector tell me it is inadequate I would tear my hair out.

Well said.

Chris

Chris this is why it pays to do the right thing first pull the permit before the installation If I were issuing you the permit You would know what code and areas I inspect for before you installed anything Again in a prior post I make this statement.

I'm not all that inflexible This is a debate on a forum where no one is suffering economics's hardship. Yes I can accept manufacturer's specs and approve the installation. Part of this debate is who trumps who and it is a debate not an actual situation. Installers that install to manufactures specs that never read or keep current to code need not apply here. My point is there are situations where manufactures specs can be over ridden it the code requires more clearance than the tested listing. Code can not reduce what has been tested and listed.

I repeat this is only a debate All existing installations that passed inspections are grandfathered and legally in existence.