Ruling No. 02-36-891 Application No. 2002-35

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentences 9.25.2.3.(1), 9.33.1.1.(1), 6.2.4.3.(10), 9.25.3.1.(1), 9.25.3.2.(1), 9.25.3.3.(1), 9.25.4.1.(1), 5.4.1.1.(2) and 5.5.1.1.(2) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the “Ontario Building Code”). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Martin Bruggeman, LA Lutte Holdings Ltd., for the resolution of a dispute with Rocky Cerminara, Chief Building Official, City of London, to determine whether the insulation used to wrap the attic duct work provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 9.25.2.3.(1), 9.33.1.1.(1) and 6.2.4.3.(1) and whether the as-constructed wall assembly complies with the air barrier and vapour barrier requirements of Sentence 9.25.3.1.(1), 9.25.3.2.(1), 9.25.3.3.(1) and 9.25.4.1.(1) when considering Sentences 5.4.1.1.(2) and 5.5.1.1.(2) of the Ontario Building Code at 7 McAlpine Avenue, London, Ontario. APPLICANT

Martin Bruggeman LA Lutte Holdings Ltd. London, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Rocky Cerminara Chief Building Official City of London

PANEL

Len King, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse Gary Burtch

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

November 7, 2002

DATE OF RULING

November 7, 2002

APPEARANCES

Martin Bruggeman LA Lutte Holdings Ltd. London, Ontario The Applicant Owen Clarke Manager of Inspections City of London Designate for the Respondent

-2-

RULING 1.

The Applicant

Martin Bruggeman, LA Lutte Holdings Ltd., has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and has constructed a residential dwelling at 7 McAlpine Avenue, London, Ontario. 2.

Description of Construction

The Applicant has constructed a Group C residential dwelling. The structure has a building area of 80.26 m2 and a building height of one storey. It is comprised of combustible construction and will be used as the personal residence of the Applicant. There are two items of construction in dispute. The first dispute involves the type of insulation applied to the duct work in the unheated attic. In this regard, the ducts have been wrapped with Reflectix, which is a reflective insulating product using aluminum foil as a reflector of heat energy, resulting in a thermal resistance of RSI 1 (R 5.6). The second item in dispute involves the plywood sheathing used in the wall assembly and whether the joints and seams must be sealed in such a way as to provide a continuous air barrier. Presently, the sheathing has been installed as a vapour barrier and no air barrier system is being provided. 3.

Dispute

The issues in dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the insulation provided around the duct work in the attic provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 9.25.2.3.(1), 9.33.1.1.(1) and 6.2.4.3.(10) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) and whether the vapour barrier/air barrier systems provide comply with Sentences 9.25.3.1.(1), 9.25.3.2.(1), 9.25.3.3.(1), and 9.25.4.1.(1) when considering Sentences 5.4.1.1.(2) and 5.5.1.1.(2) of the OBC. Sentence (1) of Article 9.25.2.3. states that insulation shall conform to one of the listed CAN/CGSB Standards. Further, Sentence 9.33.1.1.(1) requires the design and installation of central heating systems, including the requirements of combustion air, to conform with the provisions of Part 6. In this regard, Article 6.2.4.3. governs the construction and installation of ducts and plenums. Sentence 6.2.4.3.(10) specifies that, where supply or return ducts are not protected by an insulated exterior wall or are exposed to unheated space, they must be insulated to provide a thermal resistance of at least RSI 2.1 (R12). Based on the information provided to the BCC, it does not appear that the Reflectix radiant heat reflector which has been utilized to insulate the duct work in the attic of the subject dwelling has been approved under one of the listed standards outlined in Sentence 9.23.2.3.(1). However, an evaluation has been undertaken by the National Research Council of Canada to determine whether the product could be used as part of an insulating system in a wall cavity. It has not, however, been certified for use around duct work. Further, the Reflectix radiant heat reflector which provides an “R” value of R5.6 when installed to wrap heating or air conditioning ducts with a 3/4 inch airspace falls short of the R12 thermal resistance required by the Code.

-3In respect to the Code requirements set out in Subsection 9.25.3. for the provision of an air barrier, Sentence 9.25.3.1.(1) mandates that thermally insulated wall, ceiling and floor assemblies be constructed to include an air barrier which will provide a continuous barrier to air leakage. An “air barrier” is defined in Sentence 1.1.3.2.(1) to mean the assembly installed to provide a continuous barrier to the movement of air. Sentence 9.25.3.2.(1) provides that sheet and panel type materials may be used to provide this function if they meet the specified requirements for air-tightness. Moreover, Sentence 9.25.3.3.(1) requires that where the air barrier consists of air-impermeable panel-type materials that all joints are to be sealed to prevent air leakage. Sentence 9.25.4.1.(1) also requires that thermally insulated wall, ceiling and floor assemblies be constructed with a vapour barrier which will prevent condensation in the wall spaces, floor spaces or attic and roof spaces. For the purposes of applying the code requirements it should be noted that the vapour barrier may also be installed to act as the air barrier. Where this occurs, the vapour barrier must also meet the requirements for continuity of an air barrier. To achieve this, the assembly must be free of openings where leakage could occur, sealed at all penetrations at the building envelope and installed sufficiently close to the warm side of the insulation to prevent condensation. As part of the wall assembly subject to this dispute, plywood sheathing has been used. A distinct air barrier has not been included in the construction and the joints, seams and penetrations, of the vapour barrier have not been caulked or sealed in such as way at provide a continuous, air-tight assembly which would allow the vapour barrier to act as the air barrier. In this regard, the Applicant refers to Sentences 5.4.1.1.(2) and 5.5.1.1.(2) of the Code which provide that neither an air barrier nor a vapour barrier is required where it can be shown that uncontrolled air leakage and vapour diffusion will have no adverse affect on either the health and safety of the building users, the intended use of the building or the operation of the building services. No further information has been offered in this regard. 4.

Provisions of the Ontario Building Code

9.25.2.3. (1)

9.33.1.1. (1)

Insulation Materials Except as required in Sentence (2), thermal insulation shall conform to the requirements of (a) CAN/CGSB-51.20-M, “Thermal Insulation, Polystyrene, Boards and Pipe Covering”, (b) CGSB 51-GP-21M, “Thermal Insulation, Urethane and Isocyanrate, Unfaced”, (c) CAN/CGSB-51.23, “Spray Applied Rigid Polyurethane Cellular Plastic Thermal Insulation”, (d) CAN/CGSB-51.25-M, “Thermal Insulation, Pheonolic, Faced”, (e) CAN/CGSB-51.26-M, “Thermal Insulation, Urethane and Isocyanurate, Board, Faced”, (f) CGSB 51-GP-60M, “Cellulose Fibre Loose Fill Thermal Insulation”, (g) CSA A101, Thermal Insulation, Mineral Fibre, for Buildings”, or (h) CAN/CSA-A247-M, “Insulating Fibreboard”. Design and Installation Requirements The design and installation of central heating systems including requirements for combustion air, shall conform to the requirements in Part 6 and to this Section.

-46.2.4.3. (10)

9.25.3.1. (1)

9.25.3.2. (1)

9.25.3.3. (1)

9.25.4.1. (1)

5.4.1.1.

Construction and Installation of Ducts and Plenums Where a supply or return duct is not protected by an insulated exterior wall or where the duct is exposed to an unheated space it shall be insulated to provide a thermal resistance of not less than RSI 2.1 (R12). Required Barrier to Air Leakage Thermally insulated wall, ceiling and floor assemblies shall be constructed so as to include an air barrier system which will provide a continuous barrier to air leakage (a) from the interior of the building into wall, floor, attic or roof spaces sufficient to prevent excessive moisture condensation in such spaces during the winter, and (b) from the exterior inward sufficient to prevent moisture condensation on the room side during winter. Air Barrier System Properties Sheet and panel type materials intended to provide the principal resistance to air leakage shall have an air leakage characteristic not greater than 0.02 L/(s•m2) (0.004 cfm/ft2) measured at an air pressure differential of 75 Pa (0.011 psi). Continuity of the Air Barrier System Where the air barrier system consists of an air-impermeable panel-type material, all joints shall be sealed to prevent air leakage. Required Barrier to Vapour Diffusion Thermally insulated wall, ceiling and floor assemblies shall be constructed with a vapour barrier sufficient to prevent condensation in the wall spaces, floor spaces or attic or roof spaces. Required Resistance to Air Leakage (See Appendix A.)

(2)

5.5.1.1.

An air barrier system is not required where it can be shown that uncontrolled air leakage will not adversely affect any of (a) the health or safety of building users, (b) the intended use of the building, or (c) the operation of building services. Required Vapour Barrier

(3)

A vapour barrier is not required where it can be shown that uncontrolled vapour diffusion will not adversely affect any of (a) the health or safety of building users, (b) the intended use of the building, or (c) the operation of building services.

-55.

Applicant’s Position

The Applicant advised that the municipality provided him with a list of building code deficiencies with respect to the residential dwelling that is being constructed. He submitted that many of the items identified on this list were not mandated by the Building Code as requirements for construction. In his opinion, the building department, therefore, had no basis for their suggestion that the joints in the ceiling vapour barrier perpendicular to the trusses be taped and sealed or for penetrations of electrical wiring through the studs to be calked, etc. The Applicant submitted that, in his experience as a builder, caulking of the wiring does not make sense. He stated that any wind penetrating the wall assembly would be directed to the attic. In his opinion, more ventilation in this respect would be favourable and to allow air to move horizontally through the wiring penetrations would be preferable. In any event, he advised that the building officials were acting inappropriately by requesting work to be done which was not set out in the Code. The Applicant advised the Commission that, in the past, he had been asked for an engineering report for a slab on grade. He was subsequently asked for a second report after inspection even though it had been constructed as originally deigned. This, he submitted was excessive and should not have occurred. He argued that the items subject to this dispute were just further examples of the building officials exceeding their mandate. The Applicant stated that in his reading of the Code, Sections 5.5. and 5.4. would exempt him from the requirements for the provision of a vapour barrier. He did not believe that there would be any health hazard associated with the omission of these barrier systems. Further, he stated that the plans submitted to the municipality did not illustrate an air barrier system and he was not advised that there was any issue in this regard. Now that construction was almost completed the municipality should not be able to raise new issues, particularly when not governed by the OBC. With respect to the insulation provided around the duct work in the attic, the Applicant submitted that a CCMC report had suggested that the bubble wrap insulation used was sufficient for wall assemblies. He did not believe that to use the same product around the duct work would be a significant problem. He stated that when the attic was to be finished he would ensure that a thermal resistance of R12 was provided. In summation, the Applicant reiterated his position that the municipal officials were pursuing standards of construction which lay beyond the parameters of the Building Code. He felt that he was being treated unreasonably and had, in the past, requested the involvement of a different building official in hopes of coming to a solution to these outstanding problems. He advised the Commission that he had been denied this request and continued to maintain that there was a bias against him in the application of the Code. 6.

Respondent’s Position

The Designate for the Respondent submitted that Subsections 9.25.3. and 9.25.4. outline the requirements for the provision of air barrier and vapour barrier systems. At the time the building was inspected several deficiencies in this regard had been noted, particularly with respect to the continuity of the air barrier. The Designate submitted that in this situation the vapour barrier is also acting as an air barrier and, in this regard, must be adequately sealed to prevent air and moisture penetration. In the municipality’s list of deficiencies provided to the Applicant, they made suggestions as to how this could accomplished, namely, by caulking the joints and penetrations. He did not believe this to be an unreasonable request and stated that the requirements certainly fell within the parameters of the Ontario Building Code.

-6In respect to the insulation that has been installed around the duct work in the attic, the Designate advised that the R value did not meet the Code requirements for R12 thermal resistance. He further stated that the product had not been approved for the use to which it has been employed and, despite the Applicant’s offer to properly insulate at the time the attic was finished, he expressed concern with allowing the foil sided bubble wrap to remain in place around the heating ducts. In summation, the Designate submitted that all of the deficiencies listed by the municipality as requiring attention were governed by the requirements of the Building Code. In respect to the Applicant’s request for consideration under Sections 5.4. and 5.5. for the omission of the air and vapour barriers, the Designate submitted that Part 9 of the Code is applicable to the subject building. Furthermore, the onus would be on the Applicant to provide documentation to illustrate how the prerequisites for omission outlined in the Code would be met. 7.

Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the insulation used to wrap the attic duct work does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 9.25.2.3.(1), 9.33.1.1.(1) and 6.2.4.3.(1) and further, the as-constructed wall assembly of the 80.3 m2 residential dwelling does not comply with the, air barrier and vapour barrier requirements of Sentence 9.25.3.1.(1), 9.25.3.2.(1), 9.25.3.3.(1) and 9.25.4.1.(1) when considering Sentences 5.4.1.1.(2) and 5.5.1.1.(2) of the Ontario Building Code at 7 McAlpine Avenue, London, Ontario. 8.

Reasons

i)

The insulation provided around the duct work in the attic is not listed as an approved insulating material under Article 9.25.2.3. and provides a thermal resistance of only RSI 1 (R 5.6). It does not, therefore, provide sufficiency of compliance with the insulation requirements of the Code.

ii)

The vapour barrier which is also being used as an air barrier in this building is not currently a continuous element. The barrier must have all joints sealed in accordance with the requirements of 9.25.3.3.

iii)

Part 5 of the Building Code cannot be considered in respect to the omission of the required building systems as this part of the Code is not applicable to the subject construction. Furthermore, evidence would be required to ensure that there would be no adverse impacts as a result of the omission of these systems. No such evidence was provided.

-7Dated at Toronto this 7th day in the month of November in the year 2002 for application number 2002-32.

Len King, Vice-Chair

_______ Fred Barkhouse

______ Gary Burtch