# No mud ... not taped



## darcar (Dec 27, 2011)

We have a guy that rehabed a house after flood damage.

Its shorter to list the items he has done, rather that what he doesnt...

Smoke detectors are in place... handrails... windows and exterior and bathroom doors...light fixtures and switches (with coverplates)...toilet and bathing facilities

Drywall is up but not mudded or taped. Is there a section in the code that requires drywall to be mud and taped? No garage attached.

He wants to occupy the dwelling permenantly!

Thanks


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 27, 2011)

I would start in R314, 315 & 316 of the 2006 IRC.  314.4 is for thermal barrier and has a requirement for drywall or other approved finish material, installed in such a manner that it will remain in place for 15 minutes.  There are exceptions.  315 covers the flame and smoke spread, and assemblies shall be installed per ASTM E 84.  316 covers insulation and defaults to the ASTM E 84 again.

R110.4 authorizes the BO to issue a temporary occupancy permit until completion of required work.  A permanent CO shall not be issued while violations of the building code exist.

Not sure if this is helpful, but good luck.


----------



## north star (Dec 27, 2011)

*& & & &*

darcar,

You might use Section N1102.4 - Air leakage.

Building thermal envelope. 

The building thermal envelope shall be durably sealed to limit

infiltration........The sealing methods between dissimilar materials

shall allow for differential expansion and contraction.........The

following shall be caulked, gasketed, weatherstripped or

otherwise sealed with an air barrier material, suitable film

or solid material.

1. All joints, seams and penetrations.

2. Site-built windows, doors and skylights.

3. Openings between window and door assemblies and their

respective jambs and framing.

4. Utility penetrations.

5. Dropped ceilings or chases adjacent to the thermal envelope.

6. Knee walls.

7. Walls and ceilings separating the garage from conditioned spaces.

8. Behind tubs and showers on exterior walls.

9. Common walls between dwelling units.

10. Other sources of infiltration.

*& & & &*


----------



## Kearney.200 (Dec 27, 2011)

Might check manufacturers installation requirements


----------



## pwood (Dec 27, 2011)

i don't see any issue.


----------



## steveray (Dec 27, 2011)

Drywall is not required that I am aware of....so why tape?...What if he used boards(wood)?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 27, 2011)

On board with pwood and steveray; not required even in the garage.

Francis


----------



## High Desert (Dec 27, 2011)

I wouldn't spend too much time on the issue, I'm with Francis and the others. I don't think wall coverings are even required except if used for lateral shear or to protect electrical wiring.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 27, 2011)

High Desert said:
			
		

> I wouldn't spend too much time on the issue, I'm with Francis and the others. I don't think wall coverings are even required except if used for lateral shear or to protect electrical wiring.


I agree with Steve that tape and mud may not be required (depending on the spacing at the joints).  In addition, not using wall coverings, may kick you into a whole other realm if rough-ins are not protected correctly.  This may include, as you stated, electrical wiring, plumbing piping, insulation, and foam-products.  I suppose there could be a way to do the whole interior without insulation and foam to get around the flame and smoke spread requirements, but how would you treat through penetrations?  Vapor barrier?  Are protection plates even required at that point?  I mean who is going to drive a nail into a stud with a water line for that newly framed must-hang family re-union photo when you can see the water line?      You got the wheel spinning, but at 5 o'clock, I am not sure the hamster is still awake.


----------



## darcar (Dec 28, 2011)

coincidentally enough our current codes include the 2006 IRC and the 2009 IPMC...having said that...

R102.7 Existing structures

This section references the IPMC and IFC, or as deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupant and public

R102.7.1 Additions, alterations and repairs

in part references  "shall not cause an existing structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building

with that in mind am I able to reference 2009 IPMC section 305.3 Interior Surfaces, that states, "all interior surfaces...shall be maintained in good, clean and sanitary condition" etc.

could it be argued that sheetrock connot be cleaned due to its raw surface (unfinished or painted)?

Thanks


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 28, 2011)

darcar said:
			
		

> with that in mind am I able to reference 2009 IPMC section 305.3 Interior Surfaces, that states, "all interior surfaces...shall be maintained in good, clean and sanitary condition" etc.could it be argued that sheetrock connot be cleaned due to its raw surface (unfinished or painted)?
> 
> Thanks


I would say yes, especially for kitchens and bathrooms.  The IPMC gives the BO a lot of lateral freedom, and if you plan on being consistent with this interpretation, then I would consider making it a departmental policy.  We have considered adopting the IPMC as well, but have had political resistance to "adding/enforcing another code."  I guess it is a King of your own demain philosophy, which to a degree I understand.  I still have my doubts about the flame and smoke spread requirements in the IRC, if the joints are gapped in anyway.


----------



## codeworks (Dec 28, 2011)

i've always been told that we don't inspect on quality of "finish" unless it is in a commercial kitchen, restaurant or other place where food is prepared for the public, or it's a public restroom and wea re looking at surrouinding walls and partitions. . can you really force someone to tape their drywall through a "code section enforcement position"   , if they don't want to?  i've not heard of such a position, you might be out on the proverbial limb here


----------



## pwood (Dec 28, 2011)

darcar,

  did this person do something negative to your wheaties?:mrgreen:


----------



## Frank (Dec 28, 2011)

darcar said:
			
		

> coincidentally enough our current codes include the 2006 IRC and the 2009 IPMC...having said that...R102.7 Existing structures
> 
> This section references the IPMC and IFC, or as deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupant and public
> 
> ...


What about other common unwashable finishes such as acoustical ceiling tiles, fancy wallpaper?

Mud and tape are in general not required, the same as baseboard crown molding etc.


----------



## darcar (Dec 28, 2011)

I'm a Captain Crunch guy (living in the town with the worlds largest cereal manufacturer Quaker Oats) but no, absolutely not.

I'm just have a hard time wrapping my brain around why the IPMC regulates that an interior wall finish be able to be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and nopt for new construction

We have decided to close it and not require to mud tape paint etc


----------



## fatboy (Dec 28, 2011)

"We have decided to close it and not require to mud tape paint etc"

I would say that's a better position.......


----------



## pwood (Dec 28, 2011)

captain crunch rocks! good decision, but try not to let too many people know that you can be reasonable, bad for the job


----------



## peach (Jan 4, 2012)

if interior finish is the biggest problem you have.. you live a blessed life!


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 5, 2012)

Do they still manufacture paneling? If you apply paneling over the insulated (assumed) walls do you need to install batten material to cover the seams? 1x2? lattice?

There is that slight recessed area where the rock meets that would'nt look good!

I'd make sure he's got a door on the potty room next to the kitchen and let the rock tape'n go?

pc1


----------



## Daddy-0- (Jan 13, 2012)

We require that the separation walls in the garage be mudded and taped. Past that I agree with Peach. It sounds like Francis does not require this. Any other opinions?? I will have to review the code section for garage separation.

Similarly, do you require that steel beams in a garage be covered with drywall if they support finished space above? We do. Ducking now!


----------



## brudgers (Jan 14, 2012)

No Mud, No Tape is a Level 0 finish according to the Gypsum Association.

  GA 600 - 2009 Requires at least a level one finish (taped joints, fastener heads treated).

http://www.gypsum.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/GA-600-09_Print_7_Megs_part1.html

http://www.gypsum.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/GA-214-10e-webversion.pdf


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 14, 2012)

The IRC for the garage/dwelling prescribes to a fire separation table not to be confused with the GA scoping for an ASTM or UL listed fire-resistance assemblies.


----------



## ICE (Jan 14, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> The IRC for the garage/dwelling prescribes to a fire separation table not to be confused with the GA scoping for an ASTM or UL listed fire-resistance assemblies.


That is table R302.6 and I just noticed an odd thing about that table.  In the past, the support for a separation had to be equal to or better than the actual separation.  That's not the case anymore.  The lid requirement for habitable space above a garage is 5/8" type X but the walls supporting the lid can be 1/2" gypsum.

This is a good example of the value of this forum.  I've been getting it wrong since we adopted the IRC and might not have known if I hadn't become curious about the table that Francis mentioned.  So I have been getting it wrong and I will continue to be wrong but at least I know it now.

I may have known this already and forgotten it already and found it again.  That seems to happen with me.  So there's another benefit of this forum.  Coming here is one way to exercise the muscle.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 15, 2012)

OP mentioned no garage attached. If a garage is attached with steel I-beams being used, post, beams and ceiling if rooms are above would need to be protected and fire tape required.

pc1


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 17, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> That is table R302.6 and I just noticed an odd thing about that table.  In the past, the support for a separation had to be equal to or better than the actual separation.  That's not the case anymore.  The lid requirement for habitable space above a garage is 5/8" type X but the walls supporting the lid can be 1/2" gypsum.This is a good example of the value of this forum.  I've been getting it wrong since we adopted the IRC and might not have known if I hadn't become curious about the table that Francis mentioned.  So I have been getting it wrong and I will continue to be wrong but at least I know it now.
> 
> I may have known this already and forgotten it already and found it again.  That seems to happen with me.  So there's another benefit of this forum.  Coming here is one way to exercise the muscle.


We deleted the table and made the amendment that "the garage shall be separated by 5/8" fire code gypsum board, type X".


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 17, 2012)

ICE

FYI this requirement for fastening gypsum ceilings is also missed at times.

TABLE R702.3.5

MINIMUM THICKNESS AND APPLICATION OF GYPSUM BOARD

e. Type X gypsum board for garage ceilings beneath habitable rooms shall be installed perpendicular to the ceiling framing and shall be fastened at maximum 6 inches o.c. by minimum 17/8 inches 6d coated nails or equivalent drywall screws.


----------

