We nearly finished up our Fire and Life Safety Group. It was a fascinating day. Much watching different insulation types battle for inclusion in the IBC. Not sure why there was so much emphasis on waterproofing, insulation and weather barriers. I think that since dome of these issues were more about fire-resistance than waterproofing and insulating the ICC decided to throw them all to Fire and Life Safety to sort it all out,

We reviewed 67 Change Proposals (6.7 per hour): 23 received full approval to advance, 6 got 90%, 1 was barely approved and one withdrawn. 21 were completely rejected, 19 got about 10% vote (rejection) and 1 almost made it (all can be revisited this Fall in Long Beach – except the one that was withdrawn).
I learned that a denial lets you reintroduce in Long Beach if you can get a 2/3 vote but a withdrawal means you are OUT.

Many of the rejected items were told that the proposal looks good but needs to be worked on more and then should be resubmitted in Long Beach.

There was a lot of tug-and-pull between radiant barrier/reflective insulation manufacturers and thermal mass manufacturers – something that we have pretty much resolved in California.

The other interesting (and long) discussion about something that has been in the California Green Code for years was a discussion about wood framing needed to be dry (to 19%) before closing in. Everyone was convinced that this was an impossible thing to achieve or enforce (at least the opponents acted “confused and dazed”)

At the end of the day those of us with Occupied Roof proposals caucused to plan strategy for tomorrow.

That’s all for today.

– Jay