# What constitutes a "non-absorbent" material around a water closet or urinal?



## jar546 (Apr 2, 2012)

Well, what say thee.

Me never approve drywall.


----------



## Architect1281 (Apr 2, 2012)

Plywood subfloor with lot's n lot's of polyurethane - and a sign that say's don't miss......


----------



## JMORRISON (Apr 2, 2012)

Bayer; not just for headaches

http://www.bayercoatings.com/bms/db-rsc/bms_rsc_cas.nsf/files/_Austausch_Broschueren_01-2012/$file/Brochure-BahydrolA-korr-01-12-E.pdf


----------



## codeworks (Apr 2, 2012)

frp, tile, plywood with,  like above, lots of urethane. not drywall, don't even care if it's painted, its not "non absorbent", metal surrounds with a good painted surface (toilet partitions) brcik or block painted with block filler then a good paint. must have block filler first. there are a tone of "exceptions to the rule", i may not agree with them


----------



## fatboy (Apr 2, 2012)

I'm with codeworks.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 2, 2012)

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8032-Residential-Urinals&highlight=Urinals

been batted around a few times this year...this was a good thread.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 2, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Well, what say thee.  Me never approve drywall.


 Drywall can be substrate. You no follow Milton's rule.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 2, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Drywall can be substrate. You no follow Milton's rule.


Me only allow drywall one time with a 3 part epoxy paint.

What about vinyl backed wallpaper?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 2, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Me only allow drywall one time with a 3 part epoxy paint.What about vinyl backed wallpaper?


You mean like ty-vek?  does that pass the boat test?


----------



## north star (Apr 2, 2012)

*= =*



"Boat test"?......Please share!  ....possibly, aiming of the Water Cannon?

[ bodda bing, ...bodda boom ]!

*= =*


----------



## mark handler (Apr 2, 2012)

FRP (Fiberglass Reinforced Panel), stainless steel, ceramic tile or other approved


----------



## Sanfords (Apr 2, 2012)

responses very

you are right


----------



## Examiner (Apr 3, 2012)

The finish has to be non-absorbant not the substrate to which the finish is attached.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 3, 2012)

:agree     .


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 3, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *= =*
> 
> "Boat test"?......Please share!  ....possibly, aiming of the Water Cannon?
> 
> ...


There is the Boat Test (or as brudgers might call it, a Duck Test) where you see if it floats, and then there is thee Boat Test (ASTM D 779 and ASTM D 226) which deals with how much bulk water can pass through it.

Water Resistance - ASTM D 779 “Boat Test” Specimen Approximately 5 in. (127 mm) diameter One side of test specimen in contact with water, while the dry side contains a dry indicator powder. Examine time for water to pass through specimen Report water absorption in minutes 10 minutes minimum, no water passage.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 3, 2012)

Examiner said:
			
		

> The finish has to be non-absorbant not the substrate to which the finish is attached.





> shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface,


It also has to be hard and paint ain't


----------



## brudgers (Apr 3, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> There is the Boat Test (or as brudgers might call it, a Duck Test)


  Witch test are you talking about?


----------



## Big Mac (Apr 3, 2012)

But the substrate needs to be a type of material not adversely affected by moisture  such as water resistant gwb, concrete board, etc.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 3, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Witch test are you talking about?


Yes, that one.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 3, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> But the substrate needs to be a type of material not adversely affected by moisture such as water resistant gwb, concrete board, etc.


I always believed it was more of a sanitation/health (germs) issue then the material being adversely affected.


----------



## north star (Apr 3, 2012)

*= = =*

mtlogcabin,

I believe that it is both!........Initially yes, I agree with your perception as

well, that the requirement was born out of sanitation issues, but as we all

know, that if a surface won't hold up to a "wet environment", it won't

remain long enough to have the sanitation issues as well.

*= = =*


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 3, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Witch test are you talking about?


You're shed remembers being a duck.


----------



## Architect1281 (Apr 3, 2012)

Then there is this if effectivly applied to window screen https://www.getflexseal.com/?tag=im|sm|go|gn&a_aid=011&a_bid=a4cc8494


----------



## Architect1281 (Apr 3, 2012)

Didn't Ron Popiel used to sell the same stuff for thinning hair


----------



## Big Mac (Apr 4, 2012)

Mtlogcabin - What Northstar said.  Sanitationis niot only skin deep.


----------



## benny (Apr 4, 2012)

We usually see plastic laminate or epoxy paint over drywall; however, I had a recent project where the epoxy paint was not allowed due to LEED certification.


----------

