What Code?

[jtp10181]

What code actually regulates re-lining a masonry flue with w SS liner. I looked through NFPA 211 and I can only find references to doing a stub install. I am wondering what the code cooks have to say about when to use insulation on the liner and when you don't need to. I know everyone has their opinions but I really need to know letter of the law so to speak.

 

[Corie]

It all comes down to clearence to combustibles and the liner listing, the way I understand it.

 

[BrotherBart]

It all comes down to clearence to combustibles and the liner listing, the way I understand it.

Yep. NFPA just speaks to when it needs to be relined, that being when it isn't tile lined, tile liner is busted or it doesn't meet the cross sectional requirement for the appliance. To insulate or not to insulate is within the purview of the listing for the liner. And I have never seen a liner listed for zero clearance to combustibles without insulation. That isn't zero clearance to the flue tiles, but the exterior masonry with zero clearance to framing members or other combustibles. A debatable point is if the air space between clay tiles and the exterior bricks of the chimney counts.

On mine me and local inspector guy agreed that the four inches between the flue tiles and the bricks counted and we didn't tear off any siding to see how close the bricks are to wood so mine isn't insulated. No room to insulate it anyway.

Only one code jockey on the Forum and he will be along soon.

 

[jtp10181]

So the clearance to combustibles the liner mfg's are talking about does not include any of the masonary work. You are looking for a 1" clearance from the outer brick wrap to the framing of the house. Did I understand that correctly?

 

[BrotherBart]

I don't have a copy of the International Building Codes that rule in all localities but here is enough of the clearance to combustibles part of the formulation of the 2000 version to make your brain hurt.

http://www.rumford.com/code/article.html

 

[jtp10181]

From what I can gather this is what most manufacturers are requiring for re-lining

------------

ZC air cooled chimney - Must be insulated to obtain 2100 deg rating

Prefab Class A - (Guessing) Reline if needed to size correctly, no insulation required

Masonary with no clay liner - Must be insulated

Masonary with clay liner, good condition, meets NFPA 211 guidelines - No insulation needed

Masonary with clay liner, good condition, unknown if its code compliant - Must be insulated for 0" clearance or have 1" air space around liner (using spacers)

Masonary with clay liner, damaged or poor condition - Must be insulated

--------------

Does this sound about right?

 

[Hogwildz]

DuraLiner double wall insulated rigid is spec'd to 0 clearance

 

[jtp10181]

DuraLiner double wall insulated rigid is spec'd to 0 clearance

Yes I know.... thats one option I am considereing.

 

[elkimmeg]

From what I can gather this is what most manufacturers are requiring for re-lining

------------

ZC air cooled chimney - Must be insulated to obtain 2100 deg rating Correct unless it is already rated to UL 103 HT ( 2100 HT)

Prefab Class A - (Guessing) Reline if needed to size correctly, no insulation required Correct

Masonary with no clay liner - Must be insulated Correct UL 1777 required which is lined with 1/2" insulation

Masonary with clay liner, good condition, meets NFPA 211 guidelines - No insulation needed Correct liner is only needed to satisfy cross-sectional code

Masonary with clay liner, good condition, unknown if its code compliant - Must be insulated for 0" clearance or have 1" air space around liner (using spacers)
IF unknow then it will have to comply with UL 1777 meaning insulation required

Masonary with clay liner, damaged or poor condition - Must be insulated Correct the insulation UL 1777 is needed to ensure clearance fulfillment

--------------

Does this sound about right?

 

[elkimmeg]

I have to correct my past post because ir is not entirely right there are three standards that need to be Met and insulation may be needed to meet HT 2100

I think Metal has the UL standards

Here is an instance I thinking about a liner is made of 304 ss and by its self can not maintain the HT2100 testing without insulation

Then again I keep coming up with products tested to UL but not Listed By the approved recognized UL standard Says tested to but not UL approved. I'm having issues with this
would any please clarify or work out what tested to is but not obtaining complete certification If I get time I will try to figure this out

At ont point home saver is UL 1777 approved with one " spacers and 1/4" insulation there are so many variables.

Went to Magnaflex website That site is all but useless sorry no info there at all.

 

[GVA]

Elk I would think that the tested it to UL standards, in a controlled environment but can't list it because each install, chimney will be different...
Here's something I went thru last week I sent a Class1 div 1 (hazardous area) motor out for repair... It needs some bearings. A guy from UL will inspect the shop and issue a new standards # for the motor for $500 but, once it is opened it is no longer UL approved.......It's a wierd world.....

 

[webbie]

What code actually regulates re-lining a masonry flue with w SS liner. I looked through NFPA 211 and I can only find references to doing a stub install. I am wondering what the code cooks have to say about when to use insulation on the liner and when you don't need to. I know everyone has their opinions but I really need to know letter of the law so to speak.

Short and sweet answer is that there is no single code which either requires or regulates this. When you start looking and cross referencing, the code often does not make sense because each part applies to only part of the "universe" of chimneys and stoves. The code will often tell you that installing to the listing (manual) is an exception, then the same manual will say that you must install to local codes! Riddle me that....

Codes only come into effect when you actually do something - install something, repair something, etc.

So if you are doing something over and above the letter of the manual, nfpa, etc.......that becomes a common sense issue - using common and accepted practice and workmanship. Example: you have a wall in your house which holds up the house - You decide to build a decorative wall in front of it. That wall does not have to hold up the house!

One of the most used words in the code books (especially NFPA) is "exception". That in itself should tell you that the code writers understand the real world.

The code cycle also takes years and years to change. So one code/reference/manual may change, the others may look at that and then change, etc. etc.

In the end, the combination of the manual, your local inspector and (hopefully) a skilled installer should be able to work out what is acceptable. But if we compare exactly what this is - it would often come out differently!

 

[webbie]

Here is some good news. the new NFPA code is available to the public for free - the bad part is that you can only read it, not print or save - unless you do screen shots:
(broken link removed to http://www.nfpa.org/freecodes/free_access_agreement.asp?id=21106)

then hit accept......

Someday I will read and highlight parts of it....but at first glance, these appear to be two parts which address the question at hand:
1. Using existing masonry fireplaces for a stove - the code says this is OK as long as the flue size is not too big
(what it does NOT say in that section is how to make the flue size smaller).

2. In another completely different section, it says that bad flues which cannot hold the products of combustion must be lined using the fully listed system.

Note that these two instances are, as I mentioned before, different. In #1 the chimney liner may be in excellent shape, but just too big. In #2 the chimney has failed.

I'm certain there is much more, but I will leave that to the good readers.

 

[BrotherBart]

Then again I keep coming up with products tested to UL but not Listed By the approved recognized UL standard Says tested to but not UL approved. I'm having issues with this
would any please clarify or work out what tested to is but not obtaining complete certification If I get time I will try to figure this out

I think something that gets missed a lot Elk is that UL's main business is developing and selling standards. More often than not those are standards that are applied by independent testing agencies. They do have labs for testing and listing products but that isn't their bread and butter. They currently maintain over 800 safety standards and it just isn't feasible that they could maintain labs to do all of the testing themselves. They would also get the crap sued out of them for trying to maintain a monopoly on safety testing. A lot of their lab facilities spend more time with testing for standards development than they do doing actual testing of products. While third parties like Intertek and Omni spend their time testing to the standards UL has formulated.

If every stove manufacturer had to wait in line for UL to do the testing it would take forever to get a new model approved. And UL would not be able to do the EPA certification tests on the stoves anyway. Third party labs can do both and keep the pipeline moving.

Just my take on it.

 

[webbie]

Even more confusing is REALLY reading these standards. I just actually read the paragraph posted above, and it says - in English

If a chimney has bad flue tiles, you can EITHER:

1. Repair them (patch or many other options?)
2. Replace them
3. Relined with a listed system
OR
4. other "approved" materials that will hold up, etc.

A lot of inspectors and sweeps will look at that paragraph and say it means #3 must be done. But the paragraph clearly gives those 4 options. AND, many of the options could be interpreted in various ways. For instance, they would not have even listed #4 if it was the same as #3 (listed system), so this must allow the inspector, installer or others to determine what "approved" means.

The key to this kind of code is the word : "or" and the assumption of "either".

So, while some may read the code as limiting the options, this code actually gives a vast array of different actions which can be taken. As I've said before, it's like the Bible - some read it strict, and some read it loose. I am simply actually reading it.

 

[elkimmeg]

Then again I keep coming up with products tested to UL but not Listed By the approved recognized UL standard Says tested to but not UL approved. I'm having issues with this
would any please clarify or work out what tested to is but not obtaining complete certification If I get time I will try to figure this out

I think something that gets missed a lot Elk is that UL's main business is developing and selling standards. More often than not those are standards that are applied by independent testing agencies. They do have labs for testing and listing products but that isn't their bread and butter. They currently maintain over 800 safety standards and it just isn't feasible that they could maintain labs to do all of the testing themselves. They would also get the crap sued out of them for trying to maintain a monopoly on safety testing. A lot of their lab facilities spend more time with testing for standards development than they do doing actual testing of products. While third parties like Intertek and Omni spend their time testing to the standards UL has formulated.

If every stove manufacturer had to wait in line for UL to do the testing it would take forever to get a new model approved. And UL would not be able to do the EPA certification tests on the stoves anyway. Third party labs can do both and keep the pipeline moving.

Just my take on it.

I'm in agreement with what you have said so far but After omni test a product it can submit its data to UL for approval and t if accepted ul can give its seal of approval I agree UL dose not test all but assign or certifies independent labs to do so under their guidelines and testing procedure . So my question is Omni test it to meet the UL standard then, why not submit the paper work and make it a done deal? Another issue is as an inspector can I accept test to without, proof of whether it passed the test or not What the UL listing does prove it met the standard.
I don't have to interpret what test to means. There is a big difference to test to and whether it passed I can hire any certified lab to have a product test to a standard what I'm not saying it passed that standard To me that is Very misleading I put this out here not to argue any one point but to determine what test to means can I accept it should I accept when so many other products are in full compliance Its not like BMD is the only liner company. Hell Zogelzang claims tested to them states that model is not UL approved

 

[BrotherBart]

I'm in agreement with what you have said so far but After omni test a product it can submit its data to UL for approval and t if accepted ul can give its seal of approval I agree UL dose not test all but assign or certifies independent labs to do so under their guidelines and testing procedure . So my question is Omni test it to meet the UL standard then, why not submit the paper work and make it a done deal? Another issue is as an inspector can I accept test to without, proof of whether it passed the test or not What the UL listing does prove it met the standard.

I don't know Elk. I will check with ESW, who made my stove, and you check with Vermont Castings. Both of them test their stoves and have them listed at Warnock Hersey (Intertek), not UL.

"Most wood stoves, manufactured by under the brand of Vermont Castings are safety tested and certified by Warnock Hersey International (WH) a division of Intertek ETL Semco, also one of the largest safety testing organizations in the world. Warnock Hersey are an independent test laboratory accredited by international standards councils to evaluate and certify solid fuel burning equipment to standards, ANSI/UL-1482 and ANSI/UL-737 for the United States and standards ULC627 and CAN/CSA-B366.2 For Canada."

I don't know the answer Elk. Maybe the guys in Bethel can tell us.

 

[webbie]

To my knowledge, these companies do not submit anything to UL, nor do the test labs......that is, not on each stove.

Larger stove and fireplace companies do most or all of their testing "in house" in their own labs. They have a relationship with Intertek (which is Warnock Hersey) or OMNI, and depending on the test.....the test is either witnessed or simply logged. Then, when the data is submitted and reviewed, the unit is approved. UL, IMHO, would neither know nor care about these hundreds or thousands of tests.

I think even UL - which we used to call UL-UL (to mean it was actually their test lab and mark), allows their clients to do their own testing. This has been confirmed to me by some large chimney and fireplace manufacturers. There are HUNDREDS of separate parts, caps, pipe sections, kits, ets. for pre-fab fireplaces and it would be impossible to submit each instance to a far-away test lab and then wait for another test and the results.

The standard is the standard...and the manuals from UL or other orgs clearly spell out how to test to the standard. As with everything else, there is an element of trust involved........and, to make the point, there was a situation years ago with CHEATING (as I remember) on a bunch of EPA tests at a lab. The employee was fined and fired.....I can't find the link right now, but I do remember it....

 

[elkimmeg]

Again no dispute here every thing Craig an Bb said testing is done in house under Omni Warnock or other approved labs under the watchful eye of UL EPA certified inspectors this we all agree with Then the results as submitted to UL for review and approval
Again nothing here to dispute or question

The question is the claim tested to without Ul approval My point is understanding what this means. I can have Jeff Gordon test my 4 banger Isuzu to 100mph Doesn't mean he ever made it to 100 mph till it is certified to have reached that goal. I doubt it could make 100mph but I had it tested to that level it d failed to make it What I wondering is why not say tested and achieved the test standard.. Like I said this claim could be very misleading.

This quote is from HomeSaver liners

To have a truly UL Listed product, it must be subjected to Underwriters Laboratories for testing and later for their suprise visits to the manufacturing facility, and of course, the product must bear the UL trademark . Some companies test to UL Standards by another testing laboratory. Their product can't be UL Listed because UL didn't do the test. They often advertise as "Listed to UL 1777".

This is why I asked this question in the first place I have found BMD to list their liners tested to UL 1777 but I can't find where there is a UL approved their liners or listed them

the problem I'm wrestling with can I approve test to when other companies have full approval listings?

BB as far as VC goes, both my stoves have UL approval even though Warnock was certifying the testing They do not say tested to.

Web BB honestly This question puzzles me I'm not defending sides of manufactures I really feel it is misleading advertisement/ claims

I do not want to be fooled by inferior liners and approve them because of a groundless misleading l claims. Its this type of missleading claims, I would rather expose and force companies to get it right

 

[webbie]

I think I get what Elk is looking for - and that is whether manufacturers mislead customers and officials by testing products themselves and NOT listing them.

That is probably too deep of a subject for us to explore, because it would be difficult to prove, and certain instances of it must even be allowed. In other words, certain basic materials may be so common as to be allowed to be "tested" without being "listed and labeled".

And, even though it is always nice to get to the bottom of things, it is probably not in the realm of an inspector or sweep/installer to usually follow the whole thing back to "ultimate" proof....that would mean one would have to do so with ALL building materials, appliances, electronics, etc.

An example of this might be with chimney caps - NFPA might say that chimney caps or hoods, or dampers for that matter - have to be made of steel that is 20 ga or thicker, or of stainless steel. They may specify the screen size in a chimney cap. So a manufacturer would be (probably) fully within their rights to claim "meets NFPA guidelines" or other similar statements....even "exceeds NFPA".

Testing is often done on a "system". In these cases, the actual mark of the testing lab is usually on the product or at minimum on the manual or literature. I think that is one "rough" way of knowing if a "system" is listed.

Actually Elk, you are probably correct that there is a lot of misinformation out there - but what is exactly "right" is another story. As we see by the NFPA paragraph I posted above, placing some patching cement in a cracked tile may meet the intention of the standard. So I think this is a matter of:

Adequate
Decent
Good
Better
Best
Rolls Royce

in many cases. In other words, there is little doubt that those .000000005 (my joke) liners will not last as long or hold up as well as a listed Heat-Fab or Dura or Ventinox system. But the $300 price tag attracts many buyers. They may have to replace it in 10 years when the chimney brush goes right through it.

There is no doubt that the best system is the best system - and it's actually probably the poured-in-place liners done right! But one thing I learned in the retail world is that you have to have a "seat for every arse" - and while we never sold unlisted products, we did sell some that were cheaper.

I think that ALL the lining manufacturers can provide you with some kind of test report from an agency - and probably a listing also. However, in the real world it is doubtful that every screw, cap, insulation, fitting, etc. will match up with that listing report.....and that is where discretion comes in. A stainless pop-rivet is as good (well, actually better in many cases) than a screw.

As a retailer and installer, the question I would always ask myself is whether I am making it (the situation) safer. Maybe I have low standards, but I didn't ask "am I making it as safe as it can possibly be, with no expense spared", because no matter what we like to think $$$ figures into everyones calculations.

if we asked that question, none of us would drive in anything else but the safest car on the road.....as it is, we often buy the safest we can afford - which is all in all, MUCH safer than what we had before.

 

[elkimmeg]

Web which leads me back to question asked before can.05 liner stand on its own or does it need insulation to meet the listing UL requirement
there are two parts of the issue meeting the heat requirement or meeting the clearance to combustibles IF listed for HT 2100 in a decent Condition chimney
I can approve it. We know UL 1777 is required for clearances, but with in that listing, it doubles its listing for heat range and is not separately listed for HT 2100 then UL 1777 requirements are needed.

I understand the $$ compromise factor But I would hate to pass a product that miss lead people to purchase it solely on price without a seal of approval

I went to a seminar a few years back given by Sotty Bob Naturally he would push is product lines and he said something similar to the Home saver quote above

beware of pretenders and quality I guess I will have to dig into it more Till I find the answer

Did you know there are codes requiring the lettering of listed products For instance pipe insulation or Duct insulation the product shall be installed so that the labeling can be clearly read

Even code as the lettering size and frequency or where the information is repeated This also is the same with wiring plumbing and all construction material it all has to be labeled.

Common CDX plywood will be labeled 16/32 16" spacing for roofing and flooring 32" spacing on side wall applications. Structural members have to be stud grade #2 or better

Labeling and listing is part of the job of inspection, to determine if the correct grade of material is being used.

 

[BrotherBart]

Elk, enough already. Your job is to insure that the appliance conforms to the UL standard. It does not make one tinker's damn which UL approved and inspected lab did the testing or listing of the appliance. The requirement is tested "to" the standard. Period.

Show me one code on this planet that requires a wood stove to be listed by UL itself. You can't.

UL certifies labs like Omni and Warnock and makes regular visits to verify that their testing procedures assure satisfaction of the UL standards. Of course their are a lot of claims that while UL wasn't looking cheating took place. I have a grand that says UL testers screw up every once and a while too. The best you can do is to assure that the manual that comes with that stove, liner, cap or whatever says that a UL approved testing facility fired the crap out of it and that that testing facility listed that it meets the standard.

And yes, that means ya gotta pass the Vogelzang stoves that Warnock tests and lists too.

Done with this for this round. I'll be sitting on the side waiting for the next round of "You can have 18 feet of non-listed snap together pipe from Harvey's Hardware in your living room but if the pipe is listed seamless stainless steel running up a chimney it has to have a blocking plate on top of the stove or it will kill you.".

 

[elkimmeg]

BTW it was Omni labs that did the cheating and got caught I guess they had a video camera that picked up signals that tipped off the inspectors as to when they were going to substitute wood during the test. The guy Bill running the place got the maximum fine allowed They were going to loose draft picks Opps wrong post this isn't the ash can Got confused here and The lab lost certification Fudging test results.. Web is always eluding to fudging testing These guys got caught red handed

BB I will do sme research to find out if it is worth adding to this. I did not intend to tarnish a quality product but to figure out if some companies were using tested to to be mis leading

BB mis leading Buy the way you have already won A brand new BMW you and a very select few can have the keys to you very own new BMW
Hurry this offer is only good for 24 hours please call one of our reps a 555 1212 and enter the code on you notice To qualify you will need to be over 18 and hve an average
combine income of 60k and both youaand you spouse have to attend one of out tours and seminars

Nah no company tries to be miss leading

 

[Gooserider]

Well for whatever it's worth - my Smoke Dragon's label says it was tested AND CERTIFIED by "Arnold Greene Labs" and lists the UL test standards by number, but does not have the "UL BUG" imprint... Aside from questions about the age of the stove, my understanding is that this would be considered a "listed and approved" stove, despite the lack of the UL label.

OTOH, when I was working on voice mail systems at Comverse, I had to babysit a few of our systems through compliance testing at the test lab - this was NOT a UL lab, but rather an independent testing firm - however after passing their testing, we were able to put a UL bug label on our systems.

I agree with Elk, that in my mind there is a significant difference between somebody putting their name on a product saying it was certified to meet a standard, and just saying that it was "tested to" a standard. "Tested To" does not mean "Passed" in my book...

Standards can be very rigid in some cases - try working on sattelite grade electronics - you not only have to track the lot numbers of the wire and the connectors, but also the solder, the label material and even the lot number of the typewriter ribbon cartridge used to print the labels that go on the cable...

I have used machinery that required calibration to "ANSI Trace" standards, where there is a trail of every test made on the tools that calibrated the tools etc. all the way back to the official "STANDARD" units. Kind of tools you DON'T drop...

So yes, I think Elk has legitimate concerns over the difference in what words are used to describe a products relationship to any testing standards, especially if it isn't something that is visibly obvious.

Gooserider

 

[elkimmeg]

I have a plan Since UL has a large facility in Norwood MA ( about 10 miles away from me north on RT 1) I'm going to see if I can get a tour. They have had tours for building inspectors in the past.

Time to see who I know works there. Hopefully I can get an explanation and background into UL procedures

There is so much more info referenced outside our code books, that in order to inspect liners one should know the standard to which they are tested for.

Another question we had was ,when obtaining UL 1777 did one need to inspect for compliance of the listed termination cap?

I think Metal brought out it was part of the certified listed system. IT was my contention that once the liner Class a chimney exited the building and clearance to combustibles had been met,

that alternative caps could be substituted. Caps that enhance draft like Vacu-stack or Extenda flue caps. We even discussed if the fire screen can be removed or modified.

This issue came up because termination cap screens were clogging up. the finer the screen the more chance they clogged up. Some regions of our country require spark arrestors, Other districts don't