Gypsum Industry Holds Own In Code Challenges
As a rule, drywall contractors need to be aware of what the competition is up to, whether the competition is another drywall contractor or a competing trade. It only stands to reason that if a contractor fails to keep up with the competition, a competitor could very easily cut into his market share and, possibly, drive him out of business.
However, the competition isn't necessarily the only adversary contractors must be wary of. In some instances, a drywall contractor's livelihood can be adversely affected by the actions of local code bodies. If a local code jurisdiction acts to limit or disallow a particular type of building construction, a contractor could very well wake up one day to discover his livelihood has been taken away.
Granted, it is extremely unlikely than any code body would disallow an entire class of construction, particularly one as established as the drywall trades. However, it's not uncommon for individual code bodies to attempt to limit specific building assemblies. When such a threat occurs, it's imperative that drywall contractors utilize the industry resources that are available to protect their interests.
Within the drywall trades, gypsum area separation walls are periodically called to question within local code jurisdictions. More often than not, the impetus for such actions can be traced to competing building interests, such as a masonry contractor or block manufacturer hoping to gain an advantage in a particular market. The majority of these requests are usually dismissed out of hand, but on occasion, enough doubts may be raised among local code officials to prompt a review of gypsum area separation walls.
"It does come up periodically," explained Bob Wessel, assistant executive director of the Gypsum Association. "The biggest problem is trying to keep track of it. Frequently, we don't hear about these things until it's too late to do anything about it. And when you do hear about them, you often don't have much time.
"It's often an attempt by one industry to tilt the playing field in their favor," he continued. "It's a well know fact in the code end of the business that the code change process is heavily influenced by representatives of specific products. It's those kind of things that we see in the code books all the time."
When the Gypsum Association learns of any threat to previously-approved gypsum construction, a representative of the association will present the industry's case before the representative code body. With few exceptions, the association has been successful in defending attacks against gypsum area separation walls.
"We respond to them as if they were a threat to the whole industry, because you just don't know," said Wessel. "Fortunately, we don't see a lot of it. It comes up only two or three times a year, usually on a small scale level."
Only last month, the association responded to such an issue in Plano, Texas, where the city's Building Standards Commission was considering to limit area separation walls to masonry construction. Unlike similar code proposals in other jurisdictions, the issue was not prompted by representatives of the competing building material.
"What originally started the issue was the city council was under pressure by a homeowners group to eliminate multifamily housing," said John Airhart, co-owner of Hepfner, Smith, Airhart & Day, Inc., an owner and developer of multifamily and commercial properties in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan area. "What I think a lot of people failed to realize is that it would affect office buildings as well," he said.
While there was no code action on the basis of the homeowners' complaint, a review of local construction by the city's building and fire departments brought to light concerns about post-construction through-penetrations in fire walls due to cable, phone and other service installations. Building officials reasoned that if separation walls were limited to masonry construction, there would be fewer through-penetrations in fire walls.
"We did have a bit to overcome," said Airhart. "As a group they felt masonry was the preferred type of construction."
On July 18, the BSC conducted a public hearing to determine a whether to restrict area separation walls to masonry construction. The preexisting code language, which had been modeled after the International Conference of Building Officials' Uniform Building Code, allowed both gypsum area separation walls and wood frame cavity walls.
"The fact that this came from with local government was extremely troublesome to us," said Carl Houser, director of code and technical service for the Gypsum Association. "It is that much more serious and unusual when it does not appear to be generated by market interests."
Houser represented the Gypsum Association at the hearing, offering technical evidence supporting the continued acceptance of gypsum area separation walls. As Houser explained to the commission, gypsum board can cost-effectively deliver up to a 3-hour rating in accordance with ASTM E-119 testing. Additionally, all three national code bodies recognize gypsum board construction as satisfying their respective area separation, party or fire wall requirements.
"There was a very well-balanced presentation on the part of trade associations, architects and developers," said Houser. "And the Building Standards Commission was very receptive. They asked some very key questions to try to get the facts."
After weighing all the testimony, the BSC directed code staff to develop a new proposal that required area separation walls to be constructed of noncombustible materials as opposed to just masonry. As Houser noted, the performance-based requirement satisfies the life safety concerns of the city fire and building departments without arbitrarily restricting a particular building material.
"That was a key element and one I think the gypsum industry and the masonry industry can live with. This is also in line with other national codes," Houser said.
The decision was also welcomed by Airhart, who had initially informed the Gypsum Association about the code hearing. "We were successful, that's the main thing," said Airhart. "We are really grateful that people from the gypsum industry showed up."
The Gypsum Association staff was mutually grateful for Airhart's role in the defense of industry. As both Houser and Wessel emphasized, the association can't defend the interests of drywall contractors unless they learn of such code actions in advance.
"The Gypsum Association and member companies try to respond whenever these unfair and unreasonable code proposals are found out. Every one is serious to our industry, and we stand ready to defend our industry," said Houser. "We applaud the contractors for keeping us informed. They are our most beneficial eyes and ears."
"Contractors are in the position to keep an eye on the agenda of the local building code body," added Wessel. "Any issue that can affect the ability of a drywall contractor to install drywall, these are the kinds of things we need to know about, too."
User Comments:
No comments added
Add your comment
Fill out the fields below:
|
