Is the write up for a overflow pan and overflow line
terminate in the pan?
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x296/dawlita/Lapuente078.jpg
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x296/dawlita/Lapuente080.jpg
I would say it needs a pan for sure. Some areas allow discharge into the pan. The pipe needs to be 6" above the pan. I would also question that strapping.
Any place that an overflow can cause damage ,needs a pan.
Since the enclosure is on the inside of the home a pan is definitely needed.
You should recommend a pan and flexible water-line connectors on the tank. In CA, the TPR cannot discharge into a pan, and will be required to terminate at the exterior upon replacement of the water heater.
In addition, the straps are improper by CA standards. They must be located in the upper and lower thirds of the tank.
Thanks everybody…
2009 IRC allows discharge of the TPR into the pan.
CA does not follow the IRC.
Joe,
We in Calif are not under the IRC.
David,
If the water heater is located where if it leaks it can cause damage the manufacturers requie a pan. The TP is not allowed to discharge into the pan, needs to go outside. If the TP cannot discharge outside then a Watts 210 valve and a Pressure relief valve need to be installed.
The straps top third and bottom third of the tank UNDER the insulation blanket NOT over it. And as Jeff said flexible water connectors with insulation also with proper clearance to the flue.
Chuck
**
**
What’s is going to take?
What’s it going to take for everyone so STOP being on the Building Code bandwagon?
Will it take a lawsuit from the Seller?
A home inspection is NOT a Code inspection. When you quote the code, for WHATEVER reason, one needs to be damned sure that 1) it is covered in the Code, 2) the Code Enforcer in the area APPLIES your interpretation of the Code, and 3) the violation deals with SAFETY (IMO).
One can bring up an alternate as to what they have observed, but should refrain from stating that anything is a Code violation.
This discussion is a prime example of what I am saying. Codes are obviously not “one size fits all”
This particular home inspector is also a licensed general contractor and was specifically hired to check the house for code compliance and structural integrity. What’s wrong with that? I bet you’d like to make half what this guy makes working the Charlotte area.
I agree, however one code says this is ok and the State we live in and work in says it is NOT ok.
The building boom of 2000 through 2005 saw many structures built…quickly and cheaply…to meet the demand of the seller’s market.
The perfect storm has almost fully developed…as these shoddy homes are beginning to crumble, are no longer increasing in value on an annual basis, are harder to sell to buyers who are struggling to qualify through tougher lenders, and banks are acquiring buildings they paid millions to finance and are settling for less to unload.
Sellers and AHJs, alike, are finding themselves being held accountable to an unprecedented degree by those who are stuck with these deteriorating structures.
You don’t want to involve yourself in this cluster***** of confusion, interpretation and anger.
The role of a home inspector is to report the present condition of the property…not its compliance with a particular code or standard. If it is unsafe or can create property damage it is to be reported…even if the code at the time it was built, or as interpreted by the particular AHJ who sped by the property fifteen years ago…says it’s okay.
Report it and move on…or go ahead and link the future of your business and your assets to the outcome of something you are neither qualified or required to do – for a mere couple of hundred bucks.
Absolutely. We might not quote code in our reports, but it is the basis for what we put in them.
We don’t have to report that we follow the IRC, or UPC, or any other standard.
But the fact remains, the rules are different in various locales whether we like it or not.
So, what would you have us do Mr Farsetta? Say that it’s OK to allow the TPR to terminate into a pan? We here in CA should abide by the code that applies **here **for our reporting, not the standard in NY.
When Jeff said CA doesn’t follow the IRC, but the UPC, then that means we must say that the TPR cannot terminate in a drip pan. Period.
If that’s OK where you live, fine. But we don’t have to say the word **code **in order to apply it in our reports.
Mr Hugenroth:
Joe is right. No codes should ever be mentioned in your report. The standards of safety for today. Or according to standards today.
Just because a code in your town allows you to put the TPR into the pan does not mean it is safe and acceptable. Just like some jurisdictions allow a vent exhaust termination closer to door ways and windows. This does not mean we need to tell people they need to change it. Codes are designed for minimum conditions allowed anything less is criminal.
The entire codes are based on safety.
Everything you write has something to do directly or indirectly with code unless you are nothing but a driveby, realtor worshiping type of inspector.
I have inspected approx 5k homes and probably have a code quote in most of them. The only reason to be afraid of the code is when you don’t know it. If a local ahj does not enforce some items in the code, then they just do not have any regard for the safety of their citizens that are paying them - especially when it involves their personal safety or destruction of their personal property.
As for the posted picture - I do not see access to exterior combustion air.
Is that a self closing, weather stripped door? It definitely should have a pan w/a drain from the pan to the extterior or to a waste receptor.
Didn’t I just say that? :roll:
I’m certainly not going to say “code” in my report, but it is included in the the **BASIS **for our reporting, along with other things such as manufacturer’s recommendations, etc.
If something is not allowed by local jurisdiction, it’s not allowed, period.
TPR drain lines are NOT ALLOWED to terminate in a drain pan here in CA.
If they are allowed where you are, great.
I’m not going to write “the code says” in my report, but I will inform my clients that it is not an acceptable installation.
I think the most retarded and negligent use of code books by home inspectors is evident each time someone asks “What year was such and such required by code?”
What difference does it make…other than to a real estate agent wanting a soft report?
If a GFCI next to the kitchen sink would make your client safer…for crying out loud, it needs to be in the report. So what if the house was built at a time when people didn’t know any better…or the builders were successful in lobbying to keep their costs down by keeping things out of the code? Who cares? They are not buying it in 1940…they are buying it, today.
Code officials do 15 minute drive-bys to get their 25 inspections done, today. If they could be counted on for reliable inspections and enforcement…your client wouldn’t need to hire you. Why limit yourself to the same minimum standards that a code official is stuck with?
And…in the end…every code book with every citation as to what is required will defer to (1) a manufacturer’s requirement and (2) the on-site judgment of the AHJ who has probably been dead for 25 years by the time you look at it.
Keep that crap out of your reports since…with the code book in your hand as you cite it…you can still be technically wrong.
Thanks James:
I could not say it any better.:roll: