October 25, 1999
Comments from Jerry Frisch:
I agree with all of Norberts comments to Walters Dispute Report of Oct. 21, 1999.
On Walters comment "so whats the conflict?":
Also, like Rod I believe that I have installed as many Kagelugns (Swedish heaters) as anyone in North America. I have never seen clearances less than 5 or 6 inches with a heat shield, in other words, 10" to 12" to combustibles. I cannot see any code body allowing us, the manufacturers, to set our own rules.
I believe that we should leave IBC as is and be prepared to defend it as is. On IRC, we should file it without the offending clause by Nov. 1. Then, if there is an extension, a second party or association could file a revised version if need be.
On the seismic issue, I would leave it out of the November version, but if our reports dont pass review, then include the seismic statements. The main issue with the seismic is the definition of anchor. Do we mean rebar and grount, angle iron, clips and bolts, tapcons on each brick, or a simple mortar bond? My recollection is that the WSPCA report allowed a safety factor of 1.5, and none of the 5 site-built heaters needed anchoring. Dead load is adequate.
Finally, the argument that UL 127 and 1482 were designed for metal products is true. However, several units have passed one or the other, including Royal Crown, Tulikivi, Biofire, Isokern, Bellfires, Firecrest, Tess, etc., just to name a few.
At this point I feel that we need to channel our efforts in modifying ASTM 1602 to the benefit of the whole industry, ie a UL standard that includes masonry product of all kinds. Without a method to list to UL we remain vulnerable to the actions of code bodies and NFPA 211, which often reflect a knee jerk reaction to poor construction practices.
Jerry Frisch
Lopez Quarries Masonry Heaters
Everett ,WA
frischro@premier1.net