Originally Posted By: bschwartz This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If a cold air plennum is drawing air from the same room as the water heater is in, without a cold air feed from the outside, should I have been aware that this would cause problems? It does have a cold air return entering the room but it is not hooked up to the cold air plennum. During the testing I was checking for CO and there was no evidence of CO in the house when the water heater and furnace was on.
This is a 1998 heater.
According to an HVAC specialist, it is not up to code, should I have been aware of the code violation?
It was installed in the home this way and now the client (I did the inspection in June) is saying it is my fault and I need to pay for the updates to the ductwork ,etc.
Originally Posted By: rcooke This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bschwartz wrote:
If a cold air plennum is drawing air from the same room as the water heater is in, without a cold air feed from the outside, should I have been aware that this would cause problems? It does have a cold air return entering the room but it is not hooked up to the cold air plennum. During the testing I was checking for CO and there was no evidence of CO in the house when the water heater and furnace was on.
This is a 1998 heater.
According to an HVAC specialist, it is not up to code, should I have been aware of the code violation?
It was installed in the home this way and now the client (I did the inspection in June) is saying it is my fault and I need to pay for the updates to the ductwork ,etc.
Brad Schwartz
I don't know about you but I do not do code inspections .
There is no way a home inspectors can know all codes every where my Opinion
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Had you conducted your inspection in accordance with the NACHI SOP, you would have been protected, IMO.
The problem that I see is that you exceeded the scope of the SOP by performing a check on CO conditions and reported on them, missing the fact that the placement of the air intake created negative pressure in the room where CO should be venting from. Since your report included this information you would, IMO, be accountable for its accuracy.
Originally Posted By: bschwartz This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
<<The problem that I see is that you exceeded the scope of the SOP by performing a check on CO conditions and reported on them, missing the fact that the placement of the air intake created negative pressure in the room where CO should be venting from. Since your report included this information you would, IMO, be accountable for its accuracy.>>
Hi, I didn't include the information in the report. I only report if CO is detected.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
2.4. Heating
I. The inspector shall inspect:
A. The heating system and describe the energy source and heating method using normal operating controls.
B. And report as in need of repair electric furnaces which do not operate.
C. And report if inspector deemed the furnace inaccessible.
II. The inspector is not required to:
A. Inspect or evaluate interiors of flues or chimneys, fire chambers, the heat exchanger, the humidifier or dehumidifier, the electronic air filter, solar heating systems or fuel tanks.
B. Inspect underground fuel tanks.
C. Determine the uniformity, temperature, flow, balance, distribution, size, capacity, BTU, or supply adequacy of the heating system.
D. Light pilot flames.
E. Activate heating, heat pump systems, or other heating systems when ambient temperatures or other circumstances are not conducive to safe operation or may damage the equipment.
F. Operate electronic thermostats.
G. Evaluate fuel quality.
Show this to your lawyer and follow his advice. If you are insured, be sure to report this to your insurance company, as well, IMO.
Originally Posted By: dspencer This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jbushart wrote:
Brad,
In that case, good news:
Quote:
2.4. Heating
I. The inspector shall inspect:
A. The heating system and describe the energy source and heating method using normal operating controls.
B. And report as in need of repair electric furnaces which do not operate.
C. And report if inspector deemed the furnace inaccessible.
II. The inspector is not required to:
A. Inspect or evaluate interiors of flues or chimneys, fire chambers, the heat exchanger, the humidifier or dehumidifier, the electronic air filter, solar heating systems or fuel tanks.
B. Inspect underground fuel tanks.
C. Determine the uniformity, temperature, flow, balance, distribution, size, capacity, BTU, or supply adequacy of the heating system.
D. Light pilot flames.
E. Activate heating, heat pump systems, or other heating systems when ambient temperatures or other circumstances are not conducive to safe operation or may damage the equipment.
F. Operate electronic thermostats.
G. Evaluate fuel quality.
Show this to your lawyer and follow his advice. If you are insured, be sure to report this to your insurance company, as well, IMO.
Only good if he included these standards in his contract.
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bschwartz wrote:
If a cold air plennum is drawing air from the same room as the water heater is in, without a cold air feed from the outside, should I have been aware that this would cause problems?
If the intake is within 10 feet of the water heater, you should have made mention of it.
If the intake is more than ten feet from the water heater, no problem.
IRC M1602.2
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: jhagarty This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jbushart wrote:
jhagarty wrote:
Jim is incorrect in his assertion that testing for CO would set aside the limitations of the Inspection imposed contractually.
I made no such assertion. Re-read my post, Joe.
jbushart wrote:
Had you conducted your inspection in accordance with the NACHI SOP, you would have been protected, IMO.
The problem that I see is that you exceeded the scope of the SOP by performing a check on CO conditions and reported on them, missing the fact that the placement of the air intake created negative pressure in the room where CO should be venting from. Since your report included this information you would, IMO, be accountable for its accuracy.
I reread your post Jim. Thanks for the suggestion.
Originally Posted By: dandersen This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
It does have a cold air return entering the room but it is not hooked up to the cold air plennum.
Please explain this further.
If you are going to play the building code game, you need to contact your municipal code inspector and find out if it was a requirement in 1998.
There are a lot of houses out there that do not have fresh air makeup. There are a lot of new houses out there that do not have fresh air makeup. It is a good idea to note it in your report if there is no fresh air makeup when mechanical equipment is located in a condition space within the house. Some communities also require makeup air ventilators in garages (even though the drives door leaks like a sieve).
You're not required to reengineer houses to existing standards.
If you used a pre-inspection agreement, your other option is to pay for the repair or refund the amount of the inspection. Whichever is less.
Quote:
you exceeded the scope of the SOP by performing a check on CO conditions and reported on them, missing the fact that the placement of the air intake created negative pressure in the room where CO should be venting from.
This is a common conception. We may be dragging a little more into it than a real-life scenario. However, this is not saying it will never happen.
I can see doing CO testing without having to be responsible for all potential sources of CO. The fact that you did CO testing (and if conducted correctly) is proof that the HVAC contractor has no basis other than a code violation (which may or may not exist, and if it is, it's outside the scope of your inspection). The use of a fresh air makeup is to prevent negative pressure and back drafting of the mechanical equipment resulting in CO poisoning. The fact is, that the equipment can run without back drafting due to the particular circumstances of this particular structure. So, as for your legal liability or should I say "negligence ", which you can be sued for regardless of code, standard, law, SOP etc. it is possible your client has no legal basis.
Originally Posted By: bschwartz This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
<
If you are going to play the building code game, you need to contact your municipal code inspector and find out if it was a requirement in 1998.>>
That was my point to the client. I am not a code inspector. He had called in a plumber because his air conditioner wasn't working properly and the plumber said "this is not up to code" The client then called me and asked how I could have missed this. Since I'm not a code inspector and have never come across this set up before, I didn't feel I had done anything wrong. The client wants me to pay $1500.00 to add additional duct work, etc. The furnace itself didn't even have a place for an outside fresh air intake. I might also add that the owner had replaced the water heater after my inspection.
Thanks everyone for your input. I feel better about this situation now. I've never had a call back about an inspection before.
Originally Posted By: rwand1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If you tested and can verify the results of the CO test great.
Make up air may not be a problem and that may depend on how tight the room is were the return air and water heater are located.
Do you have any training in use of CO detector by manufacture?
-- Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (OAHI)
http://www.raymondwand.ca
Originally Posted By: rwand1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
David
Very good question! I would be asking that question too. Seems someone (not the inspector) is playing the "Blame Game."
-- Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (OAHI)
http://www.raymondwand.ca
Originally Posted By: pbolliger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If this is a safety issue then code was not met period at some point. I work it as a safety issue not a code issue. I walk in a house with my CO detector ON. Why should I chance the fact that a house (of which I have been in some that are borderline dangerous). My local gas company training is telling me not to just glance over gas appliance installs. The primary key is safety so if the house was “code” at the time and updates were made after the fact I.E. plumber , homeowner then code will be in question but safety first.
Room size, appliance type, and appearance are the key here. Do you see a return air vent in a tight enclosed basement with natural draft appliances with in ten feet? Dumb to begin with! I sure am going to check out the installs and recommend further evals or I will call my contact at the gas company and have those guys come out and verify my "opinion" so they can either tell the home owner / buyer that your gas is going to be "shut off " until it is fixed... 
CO Deaths are the reason Chicago imposed the mandatory CO detector ordinance.
Originally Posted By: jmerritt1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
We do not do code inspections, The other problem I see is how new was the heater? was it an 80+ or 90+ unit, or older unit, when HVAC guys strat up grading equipment they very seldom take into consideration make up and combustion air requirements, and placement of grills,
I run into this all the time in Chicago, Built out basements,
What did your contract say? are sops included with it?
when people ask me about code I tell them this is not a code inspection if they want one I will bring in a team from each profession and it will cost XXXX.