CONDENSATE DRAIN...LOOK AT PHOTO

[Gene South]

I inspected a vacant house in the country, outside the area of city inspectors. The house is well built however in one bathroom I kept smelling something like smell of sewer gas. I took this photo in that bathroom. Look at the angle of the condensate drain line. Looks like the angle has created it's own "trap". I think the only way this could drain is if enough water-weight in the condensate drain coming from the attic could push the water in this "trap" into the drain. I thnk this must be where the smell is coming from. What do you guys think ?

[Markus Keller]

The hose can/will act as a trap all the way up to the hose bend. The other part is that it can also act as a siphon to suck the p-trap dry. My guess is that's why it smells.

[Jerry Peck]

First and foremost ... you are not allowed to drain condensate to a sink trap.

Second, *and if you were to do it - which is against code*, that is completely the wrong way to do it.

Being as it is against code, there is no "right way" to do it ...

But ... at least if ... the condensate drain line exited the wall above the connection to the trap, and if ... the connection to the tail piece were made with the type used for dishwashers to connect to the tail pieces ... at least then it would not be *as bad* as it is now. :eek:

But it would still be "not right". ;)

[Michael Larson]

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachments/plumbing-system-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/6205d1210772093-c-condensate-terminating-sink-drain-cc-condensatedrain.jpg

[Ted Menelly]

First and foremost ... you are not allowed to drain condensate to a sink trap.

Second, *and if you were to do it - which is against code*, that is completely the wrong way to do it.

Being as it is against code, there is no "right way" to do it ...

But ... at least if ... the condensate drain line exited the wall above the connection to the trap, and if ... the connection to the tail piece were made with the type used for dishwashers to connect to the tail pieces ... at least then it would not be *as bad* as it is now. :eek:

But it would still be "not right". ;)

Where does it say that directly Mr Jerry. I just don't see it, first and foremost???

[Gene South]

Jerry, it is connected to the sink side of the drain. I see the only problem is the incoming condensate drain is lower than the connect to the sink side of the drain. Am I missing something ? Thanks, Gene

[Jerry Peck]

Michael,

*Someone* *always* posts that drawing, taken from Code Check as though it was cast in stone and placed on the mountain with no chance of being wrong, when this question comes up. However, like other errors found in Code Check ... it *is* wrong.

We have been over this *MANY TIMES*, and, if needed, I will post the code ... again ... but ...

... I am sure there are others here who have paid attention and know exactly what code I am going to post ... so I will give them the chance before I post it.

Hint, it is in P2706 of the 2003 and 2006 IRC.

[Gene South]

Not sure what to say...I have seen hundreds of homes with condensate drains going into the sink drain and no doubt there are 10's of 1000's of homes here in the Dallas Fort Worth area with a sink connection and more being built every day since this area is growing so fast. Condensate to sink connections are a common practice here. That doesn't make it right though but it is approved as a connecton on a daily basis here. I looked in 2003 IRC and did not see the reference but maybe I missed it. I am not saying I am right. I am just wondering how so many connections are made like this if it is against code.

Thanks

Gene

[Billy Stephens]

I looked in 2003 IRC and did not see the reference but maybe I missed it.

if it is against code.

Thanks

Gene
.
IRC2003 P2706.3 Prohibited waste receptors. Plumbing fixtures that are used for domestic or culinary purposes shall not be used to receive the discharge of an indirect line.

Exceptions

1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for the use as a receptor for a dishwasher.

2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine.
.

[Michael Larson]

Jerry,

I never see this arrangement in my area.
We have basements and the AC drains to the floor drain.

That being said this configuration seems common in many areas as reported by other inspectors.

If I have missed something please explain. Always trying to learn.:)

[Jerry Peck]

Not sure what to say...I have seen hundreds of homes with condensate drains going into the sink drain and no doubt there are 10's of 1000's of homes here in the Dallas Fort Worth area with a sink connection and more being built every day since this area is growing so fast. Condensate to sink connections are a common practice here. That doesn't make it right though but it is approved as a connecton on a daily basis here. I looked in 2003 IRC and did not see the reference but maybe I missed it. I am not saying I am right. I am just wondering how so many connections are made like this if it is against code.

Thanks

Gene


Jerry,

I never see this arrangement in my area.
We have basements and the AC drains to the floor drain.

That being said this configuration seems common in many areas as reported by other inspectors.

If I have missed something please explain. Always trying to learn.:)


.
IRC2003 P.3 Prohibited waste receptors. Plumbing fixtures that are used for domestic or culinary purposes shall not be used to receive the discharge of an indirect line.

Exceptions

1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for the use as a receptor for a dishwasher.

2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine.
.

Billy did the honors.

From the 2003 IRC.
P2706.3 Prohibited waste receptors. Plumbing fixtures that are used for domestic or culinary purposes shall not be used to receive the discharge of an indirect line.
Exceptions
1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for the use as a receptor for a dishwasher.
2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine.

From the 2006 IRC.

P2706.3 Prohibited waste receptors. Plumbing fixtures that are used for domestic or culinary purposes shall not be used to receive the discharge of indirect waste piping.

Exceptions:

1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for use as a receptor for a dishwasher.
2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine.

Indirect wastes, of which a/c condensate is one, are *prohibited* from being discharged into a plumbing fixture used for domestic or culinary purposes, i.e., bathroom sinks, kitchen sinks, laundry sinks, and the like ... *except for* those two very specific exceptions:
- 1) a dishwasher into a kitchen sink trap
- 2) a clothes washer into a laundry tray

Even the two exceptions are not allowed to receive the discharge of a/c condensate.

Gene,

"That doesn't make it right though but it is approved "

It is not approved, it is either "ignored" based on ignorance of the code prohibiting same, or the code inspectors simply are not aware that prohibition exists ... ummmm ... those two things are pretty much saying the same thing, aren't they? :cool:

Kind of like the example I use frequently - people drive 80 mph on I-95 without getting stopped for speeding, happens 100's of thousands of times a day, does that mean that driving 80 mph on I-95 is "approved"? Nope, means it is still "wrong". :)

[Ted Menelly]

It is in fact an ignorant code. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Neither the kitchen sink draining or the AC condesation draining into the same line has absolutely no affect on the other. Both are trapped, both are vented.

Let me see. Because there is not an exception for this to be "OK" then it must be an absolute no, no. Even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. There is not a good argument, at all, for not allowing it.



"Exceptions:

1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for use as a receptor for a dishwasher.
2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine."

Please. These items are acceptable but a condensate drain line is not. Like I said no good argument for it.

[Rick Hurst]

Not sure what to say...I have seen hundreds of homes with condensate drains going into the sink drain and no doubt there are 10's of 1000's of homes here in the Dallas Fort Worth area with a sink connection and more being built every day since this area is growing so fast. Condensate to sink connections are a common practice here. That doesn't make it right though but it is approved as a connecton on a daily basis here. I looked in 2003 IRC and did not see the reference but maybe I missed it. I am not saying I am right. I am just wondering how so many connections are made like this if it is against code.

Thanks

Gene


Being in the Dallas area myself I see it as such too everyday but I keep consistantly writing it up as wrong and recommending repair. Not one HVAC contractor has ever called me telling me its acceptable and everyone of them has agreed to install the condensate trap at the equipment.

Those old school HVAC guys will never change their ways and are teaching the new techs that work for them the wrong methods everyday.

rick

[Jerry Peck]

It is in fact an ignorant code. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

No, the code is not ignorant, those who refuse to do as the code states are ignorant, as are inspectors who try to insist that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Based on 'Because I've done it that way for eons.' (eons usually equals "30 years")


Neither the kitchen sink draining or the AC condesation draining into the same line has absolutely no affect on the other. Both are trapped, both are vented.

Guess you've never seen the crud and bacteria laden crap which blocks and clogs up a/c condensate lines, then?


Let me see. Because there is not an exception for this to be "OK" then it must be an absolute no, no.

No, not because there is no exception for it, but because of the reason, science, and sanitation behind there being no exception to it.


Even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. There is not a good argument, at all, for not allowing it.

There goes that ignorant inspector/contractor talk again, 'I always see it done this way', and/or 'I've always done it this way'.


"Exceptions:

1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for use as a receptor for a dishwasher.
2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine."


Please. These items are acceptable but a condensate drain line is not. Like I said no good argument for it.


*YOU* may not see any good argument to keep that bacteria laden crud and crap out of *YOUR* sinks tailpiece, either in the bathroom, the kitchen or laundry room, where it can contaminate the tail pieces, traps, and water into which *you* brush *your* teeth, *you* prepare *your* food, and *you* wash *your* clothes, but please allow the rest of us to use better sanitary conditions and reasoning.

I mean, after all, why have sanitary sewers at all ... many parts of the world get along just fine without them, with sewage running down the middle of the streets and all ... sounds like that might just be your ideal place to live? :rolleyes:

[Vern Heiler]

One argument for not using waste plumbing is waste water treatment. Even though it is only a few pints of water per A/C, multiply it by several hundred thousand and it becomes significant. Waste treatment plants are already stressed.

I see them plumbed to stacks in the attic all the time and have to guess at where they go. Some I am sure go to the clothes washer drain. My plumber neighbor told me they have only recently been prohibited from using the waste plumbing to dispose of condensate in this area.

The one thing I see as a code violation is double trapping, and in the case pictured triple trap. I don't understand the reason double traps are not allowed, just know there not! Anyone know the reason?

[Ted Menelly]

No, the code is not ignorant, those who refuse to do as the code states are ignorant, as are inspectors who try to insist that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Based on 'Because I've done it that way for eons.' (eons usually equals "30 years")



Guess you've never seen the crud and bacteria laden crap which blocks and clogs up a/c condensate lines, then?



No, not because there is no exception for it, but because of the reason, science, and sanitation behind there being no exception to it.



There goes that ignorant inspector/contractor talk again, 'I always see it done this way', and/or 'I've always done it this way'.



*YOU* may not see any good argument to keep that bacteria laden crud and crap out of *YOUR* sinks tailpiece, either in the bathroom, the kitchen or laundry room, where it can contaminate the tail pieces, traps, and water into which *you* brush *your* teeth, *you* prepare *your* food, and *you* wash *your* clothes, but please allow the rest of us to use better sanitary conditions and reasoning.

I mean, after all, why have sanitary sewers at all ... many parts of the world get along just fine without them, with sewage running down the middle of the streets and all ... sounds like that might just be your ideal place to live? :rolleyes:

Now Jerry

Now you are getting to personal Jerry.

You act as if I called you ignorant. Just the code not you. But with that being said and a straight attack back directly and personally to me I guess now I have that wonderful reason to maybe include you in that remark.

That was truly ignorant on your behalf. The code book is not yours and you did not right it. "The code book says it ain't right" Where would you drain this crud Jerry???? Not to the exterior I hope.

Constant use of the kitchen sink and drain is not going to allow all that nasty stuff to build up in the drain. No more than rotten garbage from the disposal and dishwasher. Just think of all that nasty crud gathering all those germs and bacteria. I am surprised that it does not crawl right out of the kitchen sink and strangle you. Oh, sorry, you must be one of those that disinfects you sink and bath drains everyday.

Your nasty hands are leaving more disgusting germs and such just from washing/rinsing them off after using the facilities or just from being out in the outside world for a short period of time.

Jerry, if that nasty crud you are talking about is so bad do you think you could have central AC anyway. All that nasty stuff sitting in a trap and then the AHU going on and sucking some of this wonderful stuff up and blowing it around your home.

I know you live and die by the code but it does not mean it is always the best way. I wonder how many folks got sick and or died from all the nasty stuff they have been letting run into the drains for decades, and still continue to do it. I suppose some test has been done some where to give the argument to another that it has been tested and found to contribute to anything at all to do with anyones health.

OOOOps, there is that mold is gold thing. Another home test for inspectors. Just like the radon in counter tops. No conclusive tests that make it announced to be actually bad for anyone. You are going to get more bad stuff sucked into you and on you in one use of a public restroom than you are to get from a condensation water in a bathroom drain line in a year.

You made yourself sound like, "If it is written, It is good"

Yup Jerry. Most folks use some type of bleach cleaning product on there sinks weekly at least anyway. If not then you are touting your filth story to folks that just don't care about cleanliness which in that case is not going to add to there crud anyway.

[Jerry Peck]

One argument for not using waste plumbing is waste water treatment. Even though it is only a few pints of water per A/C, multiply it by several hundred thousand and it becomes significant. Waste treatment plants are already stressed.

I see them plumbed to stacks in the attic all the time and have to guess at where they go. Some I am sure go to the clothes washer drain. My plumber neighbor told me they have only recently been prohibited from using the waste plumbing to dispose of condensate in this area.

Years ago (the old Standard codes and others) allowed, and specifically stated, that the condensate could be connected to the sanitary sewer system through an indirect waster receptor (an air gap), however, connecting the condensate into the sanitary waste piping is still not the same as connecting the condensate into the fixture (on the fixture side of the trap).

Now, though (with the ICC codes), that connection is no longer an option, as your plumber neighbor pointed out.

From the 1997 Standard Mechanical Code: (underlining is mine)
- M304.8.3 CONDENSATE DISPOSAL PLACE. Condensate from all cooling coils or evaporators shall be piped from the drip pan outlet to a suitable disposal place where it will not cause a nuisance as follows:
- - 1. Units larger than 3 tons (10.6 kW) nominal capacity shall drain to a sanitary sewer drain through an indirect waste, storm sewer drain or an approved French drain.
- - 2. Units 3 tons (10.6 kW) and smaller capacity may terminate in gutter or roof drain, on a concrete pad or other location subject to approval of the mechanical official.
- - 3. Condensate drains from rooftop units may spill on rooftop providing the condensate does not drain into a street or alley, or other areas of sufficient amount to be a menace.

If the unit was larger than 3 tons, which means quite a bit of condensate is being produced, rather than chance creating a nuisance with that condensate drainage to a walkway or other area, they were allowed to drain it to the sanitary sewer.

Of course, though, as you pointed out, that put *a lot* of extra water into the water treatment plants. That is no longer allowed.


The one thing I see as a code violation is double trapping, and in the case pictured triple trap. I don't understand the reason double traps are not allowed, just know there not! Anyone know the reason?


The traps are required to be within a specified maximum distance from the fixture outlet, close enough where the water speed and flow is sufficient to go through the trap. Adding a second trap downstream from the first trap would reduce and restrict the flow of water because the water speed and flow would be (would potentially be) insufficient to properly flush the waste through the second trap.

[Vern Heiler]

Thanks Jerry. It helps to understand the reason.

[Wayne Carlisle]

This type of connection is not an indirect waste connection. The condensate lines are connected direct to the tail piece.

Indirect waste lines are those that have air gaps and drain to into another device without a direct connection.

[Wayne Carlisle]

What I am saying is that the AC condensate is to code if it attaches to a sink as posted in the diagram. This type of connection is allowed as posted in the diagram. This is not considered an indirect connection that is not allowed by the code.

It would be against the code if the drain for the AC was located so that it had an air gap where condensation could splash.

No rebuttal?

[Ted Menelly]

What I am saying is that the AC condensate is to code if it attaches to a sink as posted in the diagram. This type of connection is allowed as posted in the diagram. This is not considered an indirect connection that is not allowed by the code.

It would be against the code if the drain for the AC was located so that it had an air gap where condensation could splash.

No rebuttal?

You won't get any rebuttal from me. I think it is the best thing they ever did with the AC condensate line. Better than the indirect and better than dumping it outside or anywhere else. The bath sinks are used enough and cleaned often enough where it is not any sort of health issue as far as I am concerned. If you explain to your clients the necessity of cleaning the condensation line out regularly as well as the sinks with some kind of bleach cleaner it will never be a problem. As I said to Jerry, if folks are not cleaning their baths properly the least they have to worry about is an AC line running in above the trap. I cannot tell you the amount of homes and municipalities that I have inspected in and they have no want desire or need to takes these lines out of the bath drains or write it up in anyway.

Again. The healthiest thing they could have ever done for that drain water.

[Jerry Peck]

What I am saying is that the AC condensate is to code if it attaches to a sink as posted in the diagram.

That's is why I keep say ... *NO* that installation *IS NOT TO CODE* as shown in that diagram.


This type of connection is allowed as posted in the diagram.

And what I am saying is that this *IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE* allowed.


This is not considered an indirect connection that is not allowed by the code.

You are correct, "This is not considered an indirect connection", you are in correct in what follows though as that *is required to be connected through an indirect connection* if connected to the sanitary sewer system.


It would be against the code if the drain for the AC was located so that it had an air gap where condensation could splash.

*IT IS* "against the code" *as shown*.

Ted's reply ... not worth responding to, I've already said it all before (as to why it is not allowed and not healthy).

[mark ferrell]

I don't think Ted is Code Certified like many of us are....if so, he would understand & quit fighting the wrong that the diagram is....it's that simple. Also, he might want to "spell check" before he hits the "send" button...nothing personal...just business.

[Ted Menelly]

I don't think Ted is Code Certified like many of us are....if so, he would understand & quit fighting the wrong that the diagram is....it's that simple. Also, he might want to "spell check" before he hits the "send" button...nothing personal...just business.

Mr Mike

Just my opinion

As I stated above and in my own opinion I believe it is the best thing they ever did with the condensate drain water. I don't know how simple I can make it. As far as being code certified what would that have to do with my opinion. "it's that simple"

Just because one is a republican or a democrat it does not mean they have to vote that way now does it. One can agree or disagree with their own party just as one can agree or disagree with the codes one might read.

Questioning my code certification or my spelling and the non use sometimes of my spell check is not going to make you a better man or a better inspector. As far as that goes being code certified does not mean you are a better inspector or a better man by any means. I am not quite sure what the personal remarks have to do with the combating of ones opinion but it seams like it is the way on here from some folks.

A forum is to discuss and put forth a fact or an opinion. You do not have to agree or disagree.

Pronunciation: \ˈfȯr-əm\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural forums also for·ra http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?forum002.wav=fora')) \-ə\ Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door — more at door (http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/door) Date: 15th century 1 a: the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b: a public meeting place for open discussion c: a medium (as a newspaper or on line service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

As far as posting to some one else or other folks about me why don't you do the right thing and address me like I exist. Such as in your own post.

I don't think Ted is Code Certified like many of us are....if so, he would understand & quit fighting the wrong that the diagram is....it's that simple. Also, he might want to "spell check" before he hits the "send" button...nothing personal...just business.

As far "if so he would understand" ?????????????? Understand what exactly. I can read what a code book has to say. I can write things up all day. It does not mean I have to agree on everything I write up.

So Mikey

Do you have no opinions of your own. It seems you just stated your opinion now didn't you, but as I said to Jerry. Just a little to personal. Oh, I am sorry. You must watch a lot of God Father moves. Shoot him between the eyes. Just business. Nothing personal. Try reading your own Posts Mikey. It was personal. Not just business.

Have a nice day now.

[Rick Hurst]

Mark,

Just your 3rd. post and your already correctly someones spelling errors.

C'mon dude.

Not the best way to make a introduction. Lighten up.

We are on here to try and help each other out so it does become personal and doesn't have to be all business 24-7.

RICK

[Ron Bibler]

Im a good speller. L.O.L. Rick is always on my butt.

What was is Graigslist... L.O.L.

Best

Ron

[Billy Stephens]

]
.
I don't think Ted is Code Certified like many of us are...[/b].
.
.
:eek: He's Not ? * How many of us ? :D
.
BTW what is " Code Certified ? "
Who does it ?
How do They Do It ?
Where are They Located ?
Closed or Open Book ?
I. D. Required ?
What are Their Requirements ?
Do You Have to Take the Certification Requirements in Person ?
How Many Questions to be" Code Certified ? "
Can the Denial of Being "Code Certified" be appealed?

Can I Get My Gerbil " Code Certified" ?
.

[Rick Hurst]

Ron,

Your not a newbie though and no one would have been able to find Graigslist. :D

rick

[Jerry Peck]

Billy,

Not knowing if you are joking or not ... I will assume you are ... :D ... I am going to answer you anyway. :p

Billy: BTW what is " Code Certified ? "
Jerry: Being certified by ICC as an inspector

Billy: Who does it ?
Jerry: ICC

Billy: How do They Do It ?
Jerry: With tests

Billy: Where are They Located ?
Jerry: Where is the ICC? Or where are the testing centers located? The testing centers are located all over the country.

Billy: Closed or Open Book ?
Jerry: Open book, if you call using the code book "open book" ;)

Billy: I. D. Required ?
Jerry: Yep.

Billy: What are Their Requirements ?
Jerry: That you pass their test with a 75% score.

Billy: Do You Have to Take the Certification Requirements in Person ?
Jerry: Yes siree, you sure do.

Billy: How Many Questions to be" Code Certified ? "
Jerry: Depends on the test.

Billy: Can the Denial of Being "Code Certified" be appealed?
Jerry: Sure, you can re-take the test. :)

Billy: Can I Get My Gerbil " Code Certified" ?
Jerry: Not unless your gerbil has a proper ID and can pass the PROCTORED test. Not sure that there is a requirement that the test taker be "a human", although, that probably was never a factor to consider, being as no one from another world has tried to take the exam.

[Michael Larson]

Mr Mike


So Mikey

Do you have no opinions of your own. It seems you just stated your opinion now didn't you, but as I said to Jerry. Just a little to personal. Oh, I am sorry. You must watch a lot of God Father moves. Shoot him between the eyes. Just business. Nothing personal. Try reading your own Posts Mikey. It was personal. Not just business.

Have a nice day now.Who are you talking to?

I'm the only Mike(Michael) on this thread

And what did I do to get you so upset?

[Rick Hurst]

I think his rage was meant for Mark, but went with Mikey.

Another spelling error right, Ted.:p

[Michael Larson]

I think his rage was meant for Mark, but went with Mikey.

Another spelling error right, Ted.:pOh good,, I thought I unintentionally ticked someone off again.:confused:

[Ted Menelly]

Oh good,, I thought I unintentionally ticked someone off again.:confused:


I was being just a tad sarcastic. I meant Marky.

Let me see. I have one good eye and long thick fingers and not a care if I mispeled some thig on this site.

No Michael (my brothers name). You did nothing to tick me off. I don't get ticked off anyway. I just respond in kind. Not to many folks have ever seen me get ticked off or in a rage as Rick noted.

I never want that Irish/Cherokee Indian/Italian rage to come out. Its not nice.

[Michael Larson]

I never want that Irish/Cherokee Indian/Italian rage to come out. Its not nice.
lol....You don't want to see the cranky side of a half Swede half Norwegian either.;)

[mark ferrell]

Mr Mike

Just my opinion

As I stated above and in my own opinion I believe it is the best thing they ever did with the condensate drain water. I don't know how simple I can make it. As far as being code certified what would that have to do with my opinion. "it's that simple"

Just because one is a republican or a democrat it does not mean they have to vote that way now does it. One can agree or disagree with their own party just as one can agree or disagree with the codes one might read.

Questioning my code certification or my spelling and the non use sometimes of my spell check is not going to make you a better man or a better inspector. As far as that goes being code certified does not mean you are a better inspector or a better man by any means. I am not quite sure what the personal remarks have to do with the combating of ones opinion but it seams like it is the way on here from some folks.

A forum is to discuss and put forth a fact or an opinion. You do not have to agree or disagree.

Pronunciation: \ˈfȯr-əm\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural forums also for·ra http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?forum002.wav=fora')) \-ə\ Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door — more at door (http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/door) Date: 15th century 1 a: the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b: a public meeting place for open discussion c: a medium (as a newspaper or on line service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

As far as posting to some one else or other folks about me why don't you do the right thing and address me like I exist. Such as in your own post.

I don't think Ted is Code Certified like many of us are....if so, he would understand & quit fighting the wrong that the diagram is....it's that simple. Also, he might want to "spell check" before he hits the "send" button...nothing personal...just business.

As far "if so he would understand" ?????????????? Understand what exactly. I can read what a code book has to say. I can write things up all day. It does not mean I have to agree on everything I write up.

So Mikey

Do you have no opinions of your own. It seems you just stated your opinion now didn't you, but as I said to Jerry. Just a little to personal. Oh, I am sorry. You must watch a lot of God Father moves. Shoot him between the eyes. Just business. Nothing personal. Try reading your own Posts Mikey. It was personal. Not just business.

Have a nice day now.

Ted,

Both you & Rick need to lighten up yourselves...what I said to you was not meant to be taken personally - you chose to see it that way...In my opinion I wanted to voice to you as well that the diagram was incorrect by all accounts of the Code in force. You have the right to disagree & throw out your opinion, yes, but the powers that be (Code) who have seen this this type of design (and disagree with it) have seen a much bigger picture than the both us a long time ago....there are flaws which you choose not to accept..that is your opinion...being Code Certified does not allow for anyone to decide what they think how something will be OR should be or that "it'll still work this way" ....perhaps it's simply a "discipline" and one needs to get the mindset...again, I'm not getting personal here. I've been an Inspector for over 10 years now and I AM Code Certified by the SBCCI...when I took the test I passed the 1st time around...I heard of many contractors (25yrs+ in the building arena) who don't pass the test..because they refuse to let go over their bad habits & cutting corners... it's not an easy test to take although it's open book and/or you can bring any notes you want...don't let the open book fool you if you haven't taken the test - which I suspect you haven't (you would have said so). By the way, this is not my 3rd thread...I haven't responded in this forum for quite some time. When I made the remark about not being personal it's just business...I was referring to the Inspection part of this whole forum...a place for us all to learn. I understand what Jerry was saying to you...he was not being condescending...nor was I.

[Ted Menelly]

There you go again. You don't even know you are doing it. In case you don't realize it I will tell you. You are placing yourself above the rest. You are boastful of being able to pass a test. You believe because you passed a test that your standards are much higher than those that have not taken a test.You are also condescending even when you are trying not to be.

Also don't kid yourself. Jerry can be very condescending and he will be the first to admit it.

In case you don't realize it, most of the inspectors on here are not code certified. Many of those non certified inspectors have been in business for as many if not more years than you. In my case you can triple the inspection years when it comes to me. I have also been building, remodeling as well as inspecting for over those 30 plus, plus years. I being a 54 plus year old man

You do not stand above me and you have no greater understanding of being a home inspector because you are "SBCCI Certified" You may know the code better off the top of your head but again it does not make you better.

For your information I am going to take the magic test someday in the near future. Also for you information. I have never failed a test in my life.

And this next statement from you

"I heard of many contractors (25yrs+ in the building arena) who don't pass the test..because they refuse to let go over their bad habits & cutting corners"

You are kidding right???????? Refuse to let go of their bad habits and cutting corners??????????? Now if anyone didn't think that was directed in a personal direction I would be shocked. If not it would not have been thought or written.

Let go of what? I ask again. Are you kidding? For some very odd reason you find that "Now you have tested and know the code" that you can not have an opinion of your own about anything that has do do with the code book.

I need not say more.

Anyway, gotta get my old a$$ off to the inspection world.

Have a nice day. I hope I did not step on your edumication or hurt *your* code book. Please give the book a good rub for me and tell it I am sorry :D

Seriously Mark. You don't know me from Adam. I meant know disrespect and was not trying to be condescending. I certainly was not ticked off and was not in a rage. I just respond in kind. I am actually a real sweat heart.

Oh yeah, my opinion, great place to run that condensation water :)

[Steve Houlihan]

This whole discussion is really getting crazy. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are many places in the various codes with which I disagree. My associates and I spend hours argueing and discussing them. But in the end we go out and enforce the codes as written. We do not have a choice.

If we disagree with a code we take steps to get it changed. Until that time we continue to enforce the code as written. That is our job.

The real problem is figuring out what the code actually says. That is a topic for another discussion.

[Jerry Peck]

The real problem is figuring out what the code actually says.


In many cases, such as this condensate issue, the code is clear and concise. There is no problem figuring out what is actually says - it says 'do not do that'.

[Dan Hagman]

OK, My Turn.....

I don't talk much but one of the reasons the condensate is NOT suppose to be in the domestic water drain line is because condensate is acidic, (Acid) try dinking that some time. :)

[Mike Schulz]

I don't know of the make up of the condensate water (metallic) but I find it hard to believe it to be acidic, if it was it would eat the coil and pan if the pan is metal. Maybe it is enlighten me.........

Anybody know what is in the water?

[Jerry Peck]

if it was it would eat the coil and pan if the pan is metal.


I don't know about the water either, but *it did* rust out metal condensate pans, which is why most are now plastic (as plastic has a lot of chemical resistance) ... at least I think most are now plastic.

[Rick Hurst]

My HVAC contractor friend says that condensate is slightly acidic. You can test it easily to see it by placing a test strip from a pool supply kit.

rick

[Don Agel]

Always have wondered if this is a knowledge melting pot or a stress relieving pissing match between arrogant, know-it-all men that want to feel important by being condescending towards others. I really wonder if this is an online thing or if this is projected to your clients and business associates. There are negative aspects to draining these lines into the waste water system and they have been posted. He said, she said, code ref.............Come on guys....take your Midol pills and simmer down. 21 posts for this topic? Unreal.....................

[Michael Cantor]

OMG!

I couldn't even read through all the posts. You guys missed the point unless someone else said it. The SINK is the fixture, the drain is the drain. They don,t want you discharging the condensate over the flood rim of a sink like a washing machine to a slop sink.
The original photo arrangement is incorrect if this drain is supposed to drain by gravity. If it is from a condensate pump it might be ok. It doesn't look right because it is coming UP from the wall. Otherwise, to a tailpiece is ok.
HOWEVER, the condensate drain line should be trapped and then vented near the air handler! The double trap issue does not apply since the mechanical system is not a plumbing fixture. The trap near the air handler is to create back pressure to reduce air loss from the HVAC system. The vent is to allow atmospheric pressure to allow drainage, like a plumbing vent above a roof line. Yeah, I know the vent goes above the roof to vent sewer gases. Also, without a vent, air would be sucked down into the toilets and they would backsplash whenever water drained from some other fixture.

That's about it.

Regards,

Mike Cantor, MCI 0086

[Michael Cantor]

Hi Jerry,
You said,
"If the unit was larger than 3 tons, which means quite a bit of condensate is being produced, rather than chance creating a nuisance with that condensate drainage to a walkway or other area, they were allowed to drain it to the sanitary sewer.

Of course, though, as you pointed out, that put *a lot* of extra water into the water treatment plants. That is no longer allowed."

I have to make a comment, that the size of the unit has nothing to do with the amount of condensation formed. It is the humidity in the air that determines condensation.
I have inspected a number of homes in the desert where it is bone dry and running the A/C for hours produced NO condensation.

In addition, most jurisdictions that I know of want ALL waste water to go to the sewage treatment plants for, well,. treatment. They want the backwash from pool DE filters to go to treatment plants so it doesn't go untreated to the ocean. To digress though, condensate is clear water, not even gray water, so it doesn't matter if it goes to a treatmernt plant or to the ground water.

Mike

[Jerry Peck]

I have to make a comment, that the size of the unit has nothing to do with the amount of condensation formed. It is the humidity in the air that determines condensation.

"the size of the unit has nothing to do with the amount of condensation formed"

Let's figure this out using some logic, okay?

A 24" square coil "has nothing to do with" it being capable of producing more condensate than a 12" square coil? You have 4 times the evaporator coil area, 4 times the area transferring heat from the air to the coil, with 4 times the amount of condensate - for a given relative humidity level in the air.

Given the same humidity in the air, a 10 ton unit WILL PRODUCE A LOT MORE CONDENSATE than a 2 ton unit will

"the size of the unit has nothing to do with the amount of condensation formed" ... That IS what you said, surely you jest, right?

Mike, what does "MCI 0086" stand for?

[Ted Menelly]

"the size of the unit has nothing to do with the amount of condensation formed"

Let's figure this out using some logic, okay?

A 24" square coil "has nothing to do with" it being capable of producing more condensate than a 12" square coil? You have 4 times the evaporator coil area, 4 times the area transferring heat from the air to the coil, with 4 times the amount of condensate - for a given relative humidity level in the air.

Given the same humidity in the air, a 10 ton unit WILL PRODUCE A LOT MORE CONDENSATE than a 2 ton unit will

"the size of the unit has nothing to do with the amount of condensation formed" ... That IS what you said, surely you jest, right?

Mike, what does "MCI 0086" stand for?

What he is saying is no matter what size the coil only x amount can be formed depending on the moisture in the air it is conditioning. You are right that the larger the unit based on the same amount of moisture in the air unit for unit will determine how much water is formed.

I won't get back into the fact of what he mentioned about where to drain that water :)

[Jerry Peck]

What he is saying is no matter what size the coil only x amount can be formed depending on the moisture in the air it is conditioning.

No, that is not what he was saying.

I suspect it was what he 'meant to say', which is why I posted what I did.


You are right that the larger the unit based on the same amount of moisture in the air unit for unit will determine how much water is formed.


I won't get back into the fact of what he mentioned about where to drain that water :)

Good, because he was wrong there also. :)

[Ted Menelly]

No, that is not what he was saying.

I suspect it was what he 'meant to say', which is why I posted what I did.





Good, because he was wrong there also. :)

I guess I have to ask the question Mr Jerry

Where would you or what do you think the best disposal method of this condesate water?

Please if you don't mind. Just your opinion. No books.

[Jerry Peck]

I guess I have to ask the question Mr Jerry

Where would you or what do you think the best disposal method of this condesate water?

Please if you don't mind. Just your opinion. No books.

Mr. Ted, :)

To a suitably sized French drain or dry well.

And, before you even ask ... No, draining the condensate directly unto the ground is not the same as draining the condensate to "a suitably sized French drain or dry well".

You asked for "my opinion", that is "my opinion". :cool:

[Wayne Carlisle]

Quote:

I won't get back into the fact of what he mentioned about where to drain that water :)

Good, because he was wrong there also.


Nope! He's not wrong at all.

Go ahead and quote the code! It says indirect. When connecting to a tailpiece under the sink it is not indirect.

Sorry Jerry, you are correct on a lot of things but you are wrong on this one!

Condensate that is connected to a tailpiece under a sink is the correct way to dispose of condensation.

[Jerry Peck]

Nope! He's not wrong at all.

Go ahead and quote the code! It says indirect. When connecting to a tailpiece under the sink it is not indirect.

Sorry Jerry, you are correct on a lot of things but you are wrong on this one!

Condensate that is connected to a tailpiece under a sink is the correct way to dispose of condensation.

Wayne,

Okay dokie, I'll quote code ... again ... only this time I will change the highlighting ... THEN I think you will understand it and get it.

From the 2006 IRC.
(the first part of that code section)
- P2706.3 Prohibited waste receptors. Plumbing fixtures that are used for domestic or culinary purposes shall not be used to receive the discharge of indirect waste piping.

*YOU* say it includes *ONLY* the fixture ... *I* say it includes the fixture *AND* the fixture's trap.

Here is why:
(second part of that code section) (underlining, bold and red are mine)
- Exceptions:

- - 1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for use as a receptor for a dishwasher.
- - 2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine.

There is *ONLY ONE TRAP* excepted from the "shall not be used" specification, *ALL OTHER TRAPS* fall under that "shall not be used" specification.

The code writers SPECIFICALLY identified that one (1) single exception for traps as "A kitchen sink trap", and EVEN THEN ... there is only one (1) single exception within that exception - for a dishwasher ... NOTHING ELSE, not even in the one (1) single trap which was given an exception.

[Jerry Peck]

Wayne,

And this (further backup for what I am saying) comes from the ICC Commentary on the IRC.

P2706.3 Prohibited waste receptors. Plumbing fixtures that are used for domestic or culinary purposes shall not be used to receive the discharge of an indirect waste.

- Exceptions:
- - 1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for use as a receptor for a dishwasher.
- - 2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine.
- (Commentary)
- - For sanitary reasons, this section prohibits discharge of an indirect waste receptor into a sink used for domestic or culinary purposes. However, this provision does not apply to the indirect connection of a dishwasher to a kitchen sink, since a dishwasher essentially performs the same function as a culinary sink. By the same logic, this section also permits the discharge from a clothes washing machine into a laundry tray.


"However, this provision does not apply to the indirect connection of a dishwasher to a kitchen sink, since a dishwasher essentially performs the same function as a culinary sink."


The condensate from the a/c system *is not* from a discharge which is "essentially" "the same function" as the lavatory.

[Joshua Hardesty]

Wayne:

The connection from the condensate drain line to the tailpiece is not an "indirect connection," however, the condensate drain line is a part of "indirect waste piping" and so the domestic sink would receive the discharge of said indirect waste piping.


As for the other discussion, I really don't care who has what opinions in regards to code. Everyone can have an opinion. What I do have a problem with, though, and I'm not accusing anybody here of doing this, is changing the "code" to match their opinion. For example, and again Ted, I'm not saying you actually do this. So it's your opinion that the condensate can drain to that location. Fine. No biggie. Now, if as an inspector, you *allow* that, then I have a problem. It is your job (and by "your," I mean all of you inspector people) to enforce the code regardless of the reasoning behind it, no matter how odd the code may be. Similarly, as a plumber, it's my job to follow that code. Say it's my opinion that the 4" trap arm on a washing machine standpipe is annoying because it makes it harder to fit the trap and vent in the same space between studs, that doesn't mean I'll pass the inspection if I inform the inspector of my opinion.

You (again, all of us) took a job to enforce code, or to install things to a code. So, do that.

If you don't like the code, petition to change it. In the meantime, it's your job to enforce what's on the books.

For me, personally, I'll never be a cop, because I don't agree with all the laws. But I would at least enforce all of them if I did join.

[Jerry Peck]

You (again, all of us) took a job to enforce code, or to install things to a code. So, do that.

Joshua,

Only a few of us are also code inspectors.

Most are home inspectors only.

Even though many are certified in various codes. Which, though, does make it real tough to defend one's opinion which does not meet code when you are certified as knowing that code. That's one of the drawbacks to being a better inspector ... you get certified as a Certified Plumbing Inspector (in this case) and that means you really ought to know your plumbing codes, which is, after all, what that certification is saying. And that means understanding the reasoning behind the code, not just going by your opinion 'because that is what you THINK' ... *You are supposed to KNOW*.

[Ted Menelly]

Joshua,

Only a few of us are also code inspectors.

Most are home inspectors only.

Even though many are certified in various codes. Which, though, does make it real tough to defend one's opinion which does not meet code when you are certified as knowing that code. That's one of the drawbacks to being a better inspector ... you get certified as a Certified Plumbing Inspector (in this case) and that means you really ought to know your plumbing codes, which is, after all, what that certification is saying. And that means understanding the reasoning behind the code, not just going by your opinion 'because that is what you THINK' ... *You are supposed to KNOW*.

I said way, way back that *I* thought it was an ignorant code. *I* never said any more (no matter how much I said) than that. *I* also said it was my opinion and no matter how much *I* said, I said no more than that. All the attacks back to me because *I* thought it was an ignorant code and it was only *my* opinion lead to a bunch of I don't know what. "It doesn't matter what my opinion is you have to do this". "Your opinion is wrong because the code says this." "Some are better inspectors and that is the problem with being a better inspector". "If he were code certified he would understand"

Seriously. Are you listening to yourselves? Being politely condescending in a polite kind of way and belittling others because they may not have your particular certification. Being a better inspector because you are certified. And the rest are beneath us and cannot breath the same air.

Seriously gents. I am laughing here. I am not mad. I am not throwing the code book away. I am not condemning all to hell because they are certified.

It is time to climb off the ivory towers and remember one thing. You are just another male on the face of the planet and are really no better about anything because you read a book a little deeper and took a tough test.

I think it has been stated a thousand times by the same folks "just because an electrician, plumber, roofer framer or anyone else is licensed and certified, professional, qualified or any term you wish to use, it does not mean he is a better anything." Quote, unquote. Or do we not stand behind that thought when it comes to ourselves

I don't know any other code that has become more controversial than this one. Indirect, direct, fixture (does not mean drain but the sink itself) and further more. "Knowing how to interpret" If you have to figure out how to interpret why do you think it is controversial. They may not use that same code check picture/drawing anymore but if they meant to stop that particular draining spot for condensation water and removed the drawing then why did they not just put it in any of the new books. I know, you are going to come back with read the above or something like that.

Let me see here if I can do this. It might be kind of tough to add to the code.

It is no longer allowed to run condensation water from the evaporator coil to the tail piece of any sink. You must run it here...............................

Why would they leave it so open and controversial if they wanted it stopped all together.

Again folks. Just stating the reason for controversy. Also just stating my opinion and nothing more and nothing less.

If some of the code aficionados believe one way and some of you don't then is that not enough to know that some can believe it means one thing and others (code certified or not) believe differently. Some plane Ole dumb home inspectors believe it says one thing and others believe it to say something else.

Also what you are saying is thousands of municipal inspectors and HVAC companies and plumbers for that matter don't read it that way as well. And I mean thousands. There is not a new home that I have inspected in years where the units are in the attic including the brand new, just been finished where the HVAC company runs the line down to the bathrooms, the plumber puts the tail piece on with the fitting for the Condensation line and hooks it up and every municipal inspector going behind them is passing it. That would be about 10 years and thousands of inspection (of course not all homes were 10 years or younger). Also that makes all the plumbers, HVAC companies and all the municipal inspectors a bunch of ignorant fools for reading and interpreting the codes wrong for 10 (maybe)years now.

*I cannot remeber the first time I actually saw it like this. I am thinking 10 years, maybe a bunch more or a little less*

Need I say more

Oh yeah. It is OK to disagree and have an opinion. This is a forum for discussion. This is not a forum for *I am better because of* and it is certainly not a forum for condesention and belittling.

Oh yes. One more thing. I am infact studing the bible, I mean code books to one day in the near future to take a combination test and HOPEFULY certification :o Then I won't just be another dumb inspector who don't know nuffin. It will still not keep me from having an opinion as someone said "You can't have an opinion when it comes to code" Yeah, right!!!!!!!

Can you tell I have to much time on my hands lately????

OOOOPS almost forgot :) :) :) :)

[Wayne Carlisle]

The reason why they specifically say a kitchen sink can receive a dishwasher is because the dishwasher is an indirect waste. There is an air gap inline with the dishwasher...therefore indirect waste.

There is not an air gap or any other kind of "break" in the condensate line from an AC so the connection at the tailpiece is a direct connection.

The code says that a laundry tray is acceptable to dump a washing machine...again...indirect waste...no direct connection.

I can tell we are not going to change the others opinion because I know I am right in my interpretation and you know you are right in yours so we'll agree to disagree on this one! I'm not changing my mind...even if I am dumb!!!:o Wait a minute!! I'm not dumb.....I have a plumbing inspectors license!:D

And as Ted says the code has been interpreted by HVAC installers (licensed/certified in their field), plumbers (licensed/certified) and inspectors(who knows what they are) as allowed by code for upteen years. This thread is the first time I have even heard anyone mention that it's not code.

I guess a few of could be wrong and all the others right! Now I'll leave it up to you guys to determine if every HVAC contractor in the world, every plumber in the world and all but 2 or 3 inspectors are wrong. :)

I hope I said that the way I mean it???????????:confused:

[Jerry Peck]

Seriously. Are you listening to yourselves?


Yes, I am ... are you listening to yourself?

You have put yourself so far out in left field that when the inning changed, you never made it back in.

Oh, I forgot. :D :D :D :D

[Jerry Peck]

Wait a minute!! I'm not dumb.....I have a plumbing inspectors license!

As I do. :p


I guess a few of could be wrong and all the others right! Now I'll leave it up to you guys to determine if every HVAC contractor in the world, every plumber in the world and all but 2 or 3 inspectors are wrong.

You must be talking about the HVAC contractors who STILL do not know or understand that a secondary condensate drain line is required to be installed when the manufacturer and the code say so.

And those plumbers who STILL do not know that PVC is required to be supported every 4 feet when run horizontally, not every 10 feet.

Wayne, YOU KNOW that crap about "everyone does it this way" does not hold water here ... those are the VERY SAME contractors who keep HIs in business, because those contractors screw so much up.

HIs look at contractors like you are describing and $$$$ signs appear in their eyes, then the HI looks around the brand spanking new subdivision and says to himself 'Hot dang! I'll get a good year's worth of work out of this subdivision ... just from the plumber and the HVAC contractor. Thank you, thank you, thank you, just keep on keeping on screwing things up - keeps me busy.' :eek:

And, Wayne, just keep on keeping on approving those installation, keeps us HIs busy! :p Thank you, thank you, thank you. :cool:

[Joshua Hardesty]

Jerry:


As a home inspector, isn't it your job to ensure that the home you're inspecting is up to the current codes?


I ask that as a question, not as a disguised statement.

[Dan Hagman]

Tell me if I'm wrong because I'm new.
I'm a Home Inspector, not a code enforcer. An older home may have been up to code at the time it was built and now may not be. I am to perform a visual inspection of readily accessible areas and report what I see.

NAHI Standards of Practice:


1.5 The Standards apply to a visual inspection of the readily
accessible areas of the included items, components, and
systems to determine if, at the time of the inspection, they are
performing their intended function without regard to life
expectancy.
1.6 The purpose of the inspection is to identify visible defects
and/or conditions that, in the judgement of the inspector,
adversely affect the function and/or integrity of the items,
components, and systems.
1.7 Inspections performed under the Standards are basically
visual and rely upon the opinion, judgement, and
experience of the inspector, and are not intended to be
technically exhaustive.
1.8 Inspections shall be performed in a time period sufficient
to allow compliance with the provisions of the Standards.
1.9 Inspections performed under the Standards shall not be
construed as a compliance inspection of any code,
governmental regulation, or manufacturer’s installation
instructions or procedures. In the event a law, statute, or
ordinance prohibits a procedure recommended in the
Standards, the inspector is relieved of the obligation to
adhere to the prohibited part of the Standards.
1.10 Inspections performed under the Standards are not an
expressed or implied warranty or a guarantee of the
adequacy, performance, or useful life of any item,
component, or system in, on, or about the inspected
property.

2
STANDARDS OF PRACTICE http://www.nahi.org/web-nahi-standards-of-practice.pdf

Dan Hagman
ProSite Home Inspections

[Ted Menelly]

Tell me if I'm wrong because I'm new.
I'm a Home Inspector, not a code enforcer. An older home may have been up to code at the time it was built and now may not be. I am to perform a visual inspection of readily accessible areas and report what I see.

NAHI Standards of Practice:


1.5 The Standards apply to a visual inspection of the readily
accessible areas of the included items, components, and
systems to determine if, at the time of the inspection, they are
performing their intended function without regard to life
expectancy.
1.6 The purpose of the inspection is to identify visible defects
and/or conditions that, in the judgement of the inspector,
adversely affect the function and/or integrity of the items,
components, and systems.
1.7 Inspections performed under the Standards are basically
visual and rely upon the opinion, judgement, and
experience of the inspector, and are not intended to be
technically exhaustive.
1.8 Inspections shall be performed in a time period sufficient
to allow compliance with the provisions of the Standards.
1.9 Inspections performed under the Standards shall not be
construed as a compliance inspection of any code,
governmental regulation, or manufacturer’s installation
instructions or procedures. In the event a law, statute, or
ordinance prohibits a procedure recommended in the
Standards, the inspector is relieved of the obligation to
adhere to the prohibited part of the Standards.
1.10 Inspections performed under the Standards are not an
expressed or implied warranty or a guarantee of the
adequacy, performance, or useful life of any item,
component, or system in, on, or about the inspected
property.
2
STANDARDS OF PRACTICE http://www.nahi.org/web-nahi-standards-of-practice.pdf

Dan Hagman
ProSite Home Inspections


I am not saying anything with the exception that you are about to get it. In all actuality we inspect based on code.

[Dan Hagman]

That's OK, I can take it ! I'm new and that is why I want to know also what you all think. After all, are we not all on the same side?

[Billy Stephens]

That's OK, I can take it !

I'm New

are we not all on the same side?
.
.....
.:D

[Jerry Peck]

As a home inspector, isn't it your job to ensure that the home you're inspecting is up to the current codes?


Joshua,

"Home inspectors" do not (per se) do "code inspections", those are left to the municipalities and counties.

"Home inspectors" are (typically) inspecting homes for buyers of existing homes, with many home inspectors inspecting for buyers of new home, while under construction.

That said, *many* home inspectors have certifications as code inspectors in various trades to help them become better inspectors and know what to look for, and what they should not be finding.

However, as a "home inspector", we do not have any enforcement powers to make anyone correct anything.

Some of us also do municipal code inspections, and in those instances, and only in those instances, do we have enforcement powers, otherwise, we have no teeth in what we say and point out ... as a good friend and fellow inspector of mine says 'We have no teeth, so all we can do is gum them to death.'

[Jerry Peck]

Tell me if I'm wrong because I'm new.
I'm a Home Inspector, not a code enforcer.

As a "home inspector", you have no enforcement power, thus, you cannot be a "code enforcer".

That does not mean, however, that you should not be familiar with and know you local code.

A home inspector's job is to inspect and write up what is not right. Agreed?

How can you do that without knowing "what is right"? I.e., without knowing "how it should be done" ... "code".


NAHI Standards of Practice:


1.9 Inspections performed under the Standards shall not be construed as a compliance inspection of any code,
governmental regulation, or manufacturer’s installation
instructions or procedures.

How was the house built? Okay, wait, allow me to re-phrase that ... 'How was the house *supposed to have been* built?

To meet or exceed the minimum legally established standard, i.e., the building codes.

Thus, if it was built to code .... there I go again, making assumptions ... *IF* ... it was built to code, which is the minimum starting point, then everything should be "right". And the only way to know if things are "right" or not is to know the codes.

While a home inspector CANNOT ENFORCE the codes, all home inspectors SHOULD KNOW the codes.

[Jerry Peck]

An older home may have been up to code at the time it was built and now may not be.

In fact, most likely is not, as codes continue to change and get better.

However, and as I explained on a recent consulting inspection on a 2002 home, when the a/c condenser units are replaced, the new a/c condenser units MUST NOW meet CURRENT CODE.

I further explained:

Take a 110 year old house, install air conditioning, the air conditioning system MUST MEET CURRENT CODE, it's just that the rest of the house *does not* have to be brought up to current code.

Nonetheless, to take it even further, on that 110 year old house with that 30 year old wiring system, GFCI protection IS STILL NEEDED (which is different than "required") for all wet areas in accordance with the 2008 NEC. If the current code recognizes that is 'being unsafe', we, the home inspectors, should know that too, and tell our clients that all those wet area receptacle outlets need, and should have, GFCI protection.

We, HIs, Have no teeth, we cannot make them install GFCI protection, we can only impress on them the value of GFCI protection and that *IT SHOULD* be installed.

[Dave Hill]

Like others I see this configuration all the time, even a new build last week. I saw one again today, and went to the see how fellow inspectors comment on this. (Hell, even my house is like this with my heat pumps) I'm referring to the setup in the drawing, not the original picture - don't want to go there.

YIKES! Now my head is spinning after reading all these comments.

I really do not intend to get things stirred up again, or upset anyone, but some say you write this up all day long, others don't.

Please, just simply let me know how you write this up. It will be interesting to see the different comments.

Thanks!

[Jerry McCarthy]

For those on the left coast:CPC 2007 - 807.0 Appliances:
807.1 Appliances, devices, equipment, or other apparatus not regularly classed as plumbing fixtures, which are equipped with pumps, drips, or drainage outlets, may be drained by indirect waste pipes discharging into an approved type of open receptor.
807.2 When the condensate waste from air-conditioning coils discharges by direct connection to a lavatory tailpiece or to an approved accessible inlet on a bathtub overflow, the connection shall be located in the area controlled by the same person controlling the air-conditioned space.
807.3 When undiluted condensate waste from a fuel-burning condensing appliance is discharged into the drainage system, the material in the drainage system shall be cast iron, galvanized iron, plastic, or other materials approved for this use.
Exceptions:
(1) When the above condensate is discharged to an exposed fixture tailpiece and trap, such tailpiece and trap may be brass.
(2) Any materials approved in Section 701.0 may be used when data is provided that the condensate is adequatley diluted.

[Ted Menelly]

For those on the left coast:CPC 2007 - 807.0 Appliances:
807.1 Appliances, devices, equipment, or other apparatus not regularly classed as plumbing fixtures, which are equipped with pumps, drips, or drainage outlets, may be drained by indirect waste pipes discharging into an approved type of open receptor.
807.2 When the condensate waste from air-conditioning coils discharges by direct connection to a lavatory tailpiece or to an approved accessible inlet on a bathtub overflow, the connection shall be located in the area controlled by the same person controlling the air-conditioned space.
807.3 When undiluted condensate waste from a fuel-burning condensing appliance is discharged into the drainage system, the material in the drainage system shall be cast iron, galvanized iron, plastic, or other materials approved for this use.
Exceptions:
(1) When the above condensate is discharged to an exposed fixture tailpiece and trap, such tailpiece and trap may be brass.
(2) Any materials approved in Section 701.0 may be used when data is provided that the condensate is adequatley diluted.


Thanks Jerry

I have been looking for that to add to my inspection reports.

Can' get anymore direct than that.

[Wayne Carlisle]

Well I'll be darned!!! Looks like it's an approved method!

All you HI's that have been writting this up as a violation that have been convinced that this is a violation need to stop!

Jerry P how are you going to come back on this one? Looks like you are wrong for once in your life!:D

[Eric Shuman]

"P2706.3 Prohibited waste receptors.
Plumbing fixtures that are used for domestic or culinary purposes shall not be used to receive the discharge of an indirect waste.
Exceptions:
1. A kitchen sink trap is acceptable for use as a receptor for a dishwasher.
2. A laundry tray is acceptable for use as a receptor for a clothes washing machine."


From the IRC definitions: - bold highlights are mine

"PLUMBING FIXTURE. A receptor or device that requires both a water-supply connection and a discharge to the drainage system, such as water closets, lavatories, bathtubs and sinks. Plumbing appliances as a special class of fixture are further defined."

This definition does not identify tail pieces and traps as plumbing fixtures.

I would say that the tail piece under the bathroom sink is not a plumbing fixture by this definition as it does not require a water supply connection. It is a part of the drainage system, not a fixture like a sink or tub or toilet. I would say that it may be a fixture "accessory" but not part of the fixture itself. Just as the tail piece and trap at a primary condensation drain assembly at the a/c unit is not a "plumbing fixture" because it does not require a water supply connection, but is a drainage system.

"WATER-SUPPLY SYSTEM. The water-service pipe, the water-distributing pipes and the necessary connecting pipes, fittings, control valves and all appurtenances in or adjacent to the building or premises." Just in case someone wants to suggest that the evaporator coil producing the water is a "supply system."

Other IRC definitions relevant to P2706.3

"RECEPTOR. A fixture or device that receives the discharge from indirect waste pipes."

Is a tail piece a "receptor" under this definition in this scenario?

"WASTE. Liquid-borne waste that is free of fecal matter."

Yes, condensation fits this definition. It is "Waste" as defined but there is no definition of "indirect" waste that I can find in the IRC so how can it be implied that condensation being piped directly into the drainage system is "indirect waste".

"INDIRECT WASTE PIPE. A waste pipe that discharges into the drainage system through an air gap into a trap, fixture or receptor.

"AIR GAP, DRAINAGE SYSTEM. The unobstructed vertical distance through free atmosphere between the outlet of a waste pipe and the flood-level rim of the fixture or receptor into which it is discharging."

I can find no specific definition of "indirect waste" in the IRC so I believe "indirect waste" to be a part of "indirect waste pipe", meaning that indirect waste is "Waste" discharged through an "indirect waste pipe", meaning with an air gap. I don't believe, as I feel is being implied in some of the posts, that just becasue the condensation drain pipe is from another source routed to the tail piece that it is "indirect waste" unless it discharges "indirectly" through an air gap. In other words, condensation is just waste unless it is draining through an air gap at which point it becomes "indirect waste"

With the direct connection to the tail piece i.e., with no free atmosphere between the outlet of the condensation pipe and the tail piece, how could this be considered an air gap which is part of the definition of an indirect waste pipe.

How can it be considered indirect waste or even an indirect line/pipe if there is no air gap by these definitions. P2706.3 specifically states "shall not be used to recieve the discharge of an indirect waste". Mr Carlisle has stated this fact early on in the discussion.

It was stated earlier by Mr.Hardesty that the condensate drain line is part of "indirect waste piping". Will somebody please show me in the code where "indirect waste" is defined or where it states that a/c condensate piping is "indirect waste piping" or that the condensate itself is "indirect waste" and not just waste as previously defined?

While I can see that the wording of P2706.3 might be interpreted one way or the other, I do not think that this section of the code is clear at all in not allowing the configuration in question. Clear as mud, maybe. Show me the indirect part of this type of connection or a code definition of "indirect waste" and I might buy into the argument that it is not allowed. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with it.

And by the way, since it was brought up, I am R-5 certified for what it's worth in the context of this discussion. As that certification certainly does not mean I am a code "master" I am always willing to learn the nuances of the code.So far, based on the definitions and sections provided, I have not been convinced that the code is clear in this issue.

Fire away.

Eric

[Jerry Peck]

Well I'll be darned!!! Looks like it's an approved method!

All you HI's that have been writting this up as a violation that have been convinced that this is a violation need to stop!

Jerry P how are you going to come back on this one? Looks like you are wrong for once in your life!:D

Wayne,

I've been wrong many times before, and will be wrong many more times. :D

WC Jerry posted the California Code ... if it applies in your area, go for it. :rolleyes:

[mark ferrell]

Jerry...Ted is happy now that a code has been found to support his original opinion & claim...if he lives in Colorado & wants to use the California code then I agree...let him use it & be happy...nothing personal Ted...I know you will probably read this. Also, many new home inspections require "code certified" home inspectors...Jerry & I will do the inspection & you can drive the getaway car...nothing personal, just business! I do sincerely hope Ted that you take the "code" test...I wish you well. Now let's put the cabash on this condensate drain issue here...write up whatever you are comfortable with....and by the way, you said you were 54 yrs old...I'm a couple of years younger...what that has to do with the price of tea in China is beyond me...nothing personal.

[Ted Menelly]

Jerry...Ted is happy now that a code has been found to support his original opinion & claim...if he lives in Colorado & wants to use the California code then I agree...let him use it & be happy...nothing personal Ted...I know you will probably read this. Also, many new home inspections require "code certified" home inspectors...Jerry & I will do the inspection & you can drive the getaway car...nothing personal, just business! I do sincerely hope Ted that you take the "code" test...I wish you well. Now let's put the cabash on this condensate drain issue here...write up whatever you are comfortable with....and by the way, you said you were 54 yrs old...I'm a couple of years younger...what that has to do with the price of tea in China is beyond me...nothing personal.

Pretty funny guy Mark. Some how you and others take things personal and then respond personally. Don't know what the big deal is with this whole opinion thing. Some one has one and believes one way and someone has an other opinion and believes another way. The code is interpreted differently by vast amounts of people. Not just me.


Entire states code officials, plumbers, HVAC techs and so on believe this is OK. What is your extreme problem with that understanding.

You know I was not going to respond to this but just could not help myself. Why is it so difficult to understand that Jerry, you and others interpret the code one way and many interpret it another way. Why is is always a personal thing with you.

Your quote "Now let's put the cabash on this condensate drain issue here"

It was ended until you had to get your last personal remark in and could not let it rest.

Get it straight. The point I made was that a tremendous amount of people think a particular way. So lets see. They don't agree with you so both me and all those people are idiots. Fools for not getting it. We all just don't understand. Funny just cause I stated my point a little stronger than others that you only came back at me. Read the ridiculous amount of post and see how split it is.

That just might tell you something.

[mark ferrell]

Once again, you are misinformed...I don't take any of this personally. The Code Book is clear to me & Jerry & others in this particular condensate issue...get it? It's not a matter, in this instance, of how we see it vs how others see it...we see it quite clearly as to how it is outlined code wise...thus an "opinion" is not warranted...we concur with the code...no opinion rendered. Now I do agree that there are some code sections that could be subjected to "opinion"....for those sections, if I or anyone else wanted to pursue the matter, we could simply write the Code folks for clarification or request a change with proper documentation,etc. I don't need to follow the opinion of state officials, HVAC, plumbers, etc...when I have the Code book to follow which supercedes are those you listed...I don't work for those folks! You ever speak to state or local home inspectors? They inspect about 10 houses a day...you cannot get a quality home inspection done in a day if you're doing 10 houses.

You are the one who could not let this rest....once again, you had to respond & could not let it go...you yourself said "I couldn't help myself". I responded to clear up the "personal" issue you seem to invoke on me...which couldn't be further from the truth. End it here Ted...go ahead...end it if you can.

[Ted Menelly]

This will be the absolute last time I will respond to this thread

I am going to get personal here Mark.

You have absolutely no understanding of the situation.

You have not read what others have written, not just me, but you seem to just keep coming back on me for this.

A multitude of people are not making the decision to do things a certain way regardless of the code. They are doing things a certain way because they do not INTERPRET the code on this matter the same way you do. I and they have no reason to write into the code council because what they believe they are reading is different than what you believe you are reading.

It cannot be anymore plane and simple as that.

When it (if it ever does) change in my state and is no longer an excepted practice then regardless of my opinion I will not have a choice than to write it up. Now that cannot be an simpler to understand.

Now I do wish you a good day as a fellow inspector and fellow human being and have a wonderful day.

[Wayne Carlisle]

They inspect about 10 houses a day...you cannot get a quality home inspection done in a day if you're doing 10 houses.

I wish that were all that we are doing. Now not just homes but all kinds....remodels, sewer lines, service upgrades etc:

We average around 40 inspections per day. Do I like it? No! Can I perform an inspection as good as a HI can? Depends on how knowledgable the HI is! I perform the best inspection that I can do with the time allowed. Do I miss things? Yes. Does the HI miss things? Yes!

[Jerry Peck]

Do I miss things? Yes. Does the HI miss things? Yes!

Does EVERYONE miss things?

YES! *WE ALL* do.

[Mitchell Toelle]

To all,

Did anyone read Eric Shuman's post regarding IRC definitions for "plumbing fixtures" and other descriptions. In my opinion this leaves the P2706.3 open to interpretation, which many jurisdictions have obviously done already...interpret. Fortunately I live in WCJ's neck of the woods, and as he posted, California has already seen the need for additional defining rather than leave it to interpretation. Means we don't have to worry about the controversy here.

Mitch T.

[mark ferrell]

Ted,

I will sort of get a little personal here too...if you will. You have no idea what I read here...and I read a lot. On this particular subject matter you refuse to listen or read what has been discussed as well...the way the code is written in regards to this condensate drain is quite clear - now, listen up for the last time "my friends"....IT IS NOT FOR INTERPRETATION...IT IS WHAT IT IS. Read back over what you said previously..you say, "in my opinion"....NO TED NO TED....this is not up for opinion!!! The CODE is quite clear. Take the wrench for the last time and get a grip man!

But above all Ted....you make it a great day & go vote on Tuesday. I will not be commenting any more on this subject. If you want to feel superior and have the last word...go ahead....many are standing by with a bowl of popcorn waiting. Shall we move on to the Sprinkler System?!

[mark ferrell]

Wayne,

I won't be referring you to any of my friends when they buy a house! 40 inspections is insane...but it sounds like you inspect many services...hope business is good with you...time allotment problems? In the HI business you better allow at least 2-3 hrs minimum per house...I don't normally put a time limit on my inspections but if you can schedule 2-3 inspections per day then your customer should get a "complete" and thorough inspection without having to look at their watch to get to the next inspection. Yes, we all make mistakes but the more inspections we do the less & less mistakes are overlooked...I hope nothing major is ever overlooked!!

[Jerry Peck]

Wayne,

I won't be referring you to any of my friends when they buy a house! 40 inspections is insane...


Mark,

Wayne is referring to municipal inspections as he does that too.

Nonetheless, though, I agree with you that even with municipal inspections "40 inspections is insane..."

8 hour day
-1 hour paper work in office in morning
-1 hour paper work in office in afternoon
6 hours to do inspections
x60 minutes
360 minutes / 40 inspections = 9 minutes allowed per inspection average.

That includes drive time, getting out, locking the car, walking up to the house, finding the plans, looking at the plans, finding the permit card and signing it off, walking back to the car, unlocking the car and getting back in ready to drive off = * 9 minutes *

Did you catch what part of that I left out?

"inspecting" :eek:

[Wayne Carlisle]

I totally agree with you guys! It is insane and it's not right! But what is one to do??? Stand up and protest and demand additional help? Good! We'll fire you and hire the next guy!

When I say 40, that does include multiple inspections on the same property. Thank goodness that's not every day! It's a numbers game when you do municipal inspections.

Like a plumbing rough will count as six inspections. you have your building water, building sewer, outside water, building drain, sewer tap and water tap. Like I say...numbers game when you work for a municipality. And a lot of the inspections a man (or woman) can walk to several inspections at one time.

[Ted Menelly]

Word>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Eric Shuman]

While I can see that the wording of P2706.3 might be interpreted one way or the other, I do not think that this section of the code is clear at all in not allowing the configuration in question. Clear as mud, maybe. Show me the indirect part of this type of connection or a code definition of "indirect waste" and I might buy into the argument that it is not allowed. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with it.

And by the way, since it was brought up, I am R-5 certified for what it's worth in the context of this discussion. As that certification certainly does not mean I am a code "master" I am always willing to learn the nuances of the code.So far, based on the definitions and sections provided, I have not been convinced that the code is clear in this issue.

Fire away.

Eric

The rest of my post is above and I see only one person responded to it. Please take the time to read it again.
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but I have not seen any arguments against what I posted concerning the definitions and wording of the code requirement.

I am all for discussing the IRC to help us better understand the meanings in the code. However, I believe that for people to continue to argue that this section of the code is "clear" is a misstatement without clarifications or identifications (or the lack thereof ) of the definitions I presented. In addition, if it is "clear" then why is it such a hot topic on this board and why are more and more juridictions allowing the condensate to drain to the tail piece?

The intention of the code or spirit of the code at the time it was written may well have been to not allow a/c condensate drainage into the tail piece/trap but I cannot see how that has been clearly stated.

In my neck of the woods this type of drainage configuration is approved by the Building Departments in all new homes in the four jurisdictions that I inspect in and possibly most of the state of Texas.

I would like to see a definition (as defined by the ICC within the IRC) for "indirect waste". I'm not talking about a definition of indirect waste pipe which is defined below, or about implied definition as that is no better than an opinion or personal interpretation.

I do hold that "indirect waste pipe" is defined in IRC as "A waste pipe that discharges into the drainage system through an air gap into a trap fixture or receptor...". An air gap is not present in the connection to the tail piece for the configuration in question. I would say that makes it a direct connection which seems would be allowed. The phrase "discharge of an indirect waste" is specifically mentioned in P2706.3.

If someone can clarify or better provide the definitions through the IRC I will certainly listen and am eager to understand. (And please, without anyone getting snide or nasty as this should be a professional discussion, not a tar and feathering.)


Thanks,

Eric

[mark ferrell]

You left nothing out Jerry...insane! But in all fairness Wayne, thanks for the clarification...I've heard of 10-15 municipal inspections..but when you said 40...WHAT??!!

[Jerry Peck]

You left nothing out Jerry...insane! But in all fairness Wayne, thanks for the clarification...I've heard of 10-15 municipal inspections..but when you said 40...WHAT??!!


Mark,

In South Florida, when I was down there, the 'average' number of inspections per inspector was 38 for several years, then it was bumped up to 50.

Nonetheless, after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and for the next many years, the average in Miami-Dade County was 80 inspections per inspector per day. And some people wondered why some were 'signed off without having been inspected' ... push 20 off to the next day and you will have 100 that next day. No wonder inspections were so horribly bad for several years after Hurricane Andrew.

[Dave Hill]

The rest of my post is above and I see only one person responded to it. Please take the time to read it again.
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but I have not seen any arguments against what I posted concerning the definitions and wording of the code requirement.

I am all for discussing the IRC to help us better understand the meanings in the code. However, I believe that for people to continue to argue that this section of the code is "clear" is a misstatement without clarifications or identifications (or the lack thereof ) of the definitions I presented. In addition, if it is "clear" then why is it such a hot topic on this board and why are more and more juridictions allowing the condensate to drain to the tail piece?

The intention of the code or spirit of the code at the time it was written may well have been to not allow a/c condensate drainage into the tail piece/trap but I cannot see how that has been clearly stated.

In my neck of the woods this type of drainage configuration is approved by the Building Departments in all new homes in the four jurisdictions that I inspect in and possibly most of the state of Texas.

I would like to see a definition (as defined by the ICC within the IRC) for "indirect waste". I'm not talking about a definition of indirect waste pipe which is defined below, or about implied definition as that is no better than an opinion or personal interpretation.

I do hold that "indirect waste pipe" is defined in IRC as "A waste pipe that discharges into the drainage system through an air gap into a trap fixture or receptor...". An air gap is not present in the connection to the tail piece for the configuration in question. I would say that makes it a direct connection which seems would be allowed. The phrase "discharge of an indirect waste" is specifically mentioned in P2706.3.

If someone can clarify or better provide the definitions through the IRC I will certainly listen and am eager to understand. (And please, without anyone getting snide or nasty as this should be a professional discussion, not a tar and feathering.)


Thanks,

Eric

Thank you Eric for bringing us back to this topic, and urging professional conduct. As I'm seeing a lot of new houses with this configuration, I'd like to be sure not to write up something that is allowed. My local HVAC friend said it's clear that it is not allowed, but I'm not 100% sure.

In this tough housing market, why would several different builders deliberately go against code, (if that's the case) and why does the city continue to approve it? (besides the fact that they may be swamped)

Perhaps there are other professionals out there that can shed some light on this hot topic, constructively.

Thanks guys!
Don't forget to vote today!

[Dan Hagman]

Thanks guys!
Don't forget to vote today!

Because of the heavy turnout, the Republicans will vote today, and the Democrats will vote tomorrow!

[Jerry Peck]

Because of the heavy turnout, the Republicans will vote today, and the Democrats will vote tomorrow!

The Democrats have already voted!

All the Democrats are doing today is watching those Republicans stand in long lines because they waited until the last minute. Then, to offset the Republican vote, the few Democrats who have not already voted are going to the polls one-for-one to match the Republicans who have not yet realized it is not worth their while to go vote, that it's already too late and they have lost!

:p

[Mike Schulz]

Yeah Acorn will throw in the phony ones when needed. I demand a recount..............:D

[Ted Menelly]

The rest of my post is above and I see only one person responded to it. Please take the time to read it again.
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but I have not seen any arguments against what I posted concerning the definitions and wording of the code requirement.

I am all for discussing the IRC to help us better understand the meanings in the code. However, I believe that for people to continue to argue that this section of the code is "clear" is a misstatement without clarifications or identifications (or the lack thereof ) of the definitions I presented. In addition, if it is "clear" then why is it such a hot topic on this board and why are more and more juridictions allowing the condensate to drain to the tail piece?

The intention of the code or spirit of the code at the time it was written may well have been to not allow a/c condensate drainage into the tail piece/trap but I cannot see how that has been clearly stated.

In my neck of the woods this type of drainage configuration is approved by the Building Departments in all new homes in the four jurisdictions that I inspect in and possibly most of the state of Texas.

I would like to see a definition (as defined by the ICC within the IRC) for "indirect waste". I'm not talking about a definition of indirect waste pipe which is defined below, or about implied definition as that is no better than an opinion or personal interpretation.

I do hold that "indirect waste pipe" is defined in IRC as "A waste pipe that discharges into the drainage system through an air gap into a trap fixture or receptor...". An air gap is not present in the connection to the tail piece for the configuration in question. I would say that makes it a direct connection which seems would be allowed. The phrase "discharge of an indirect waste" is specifically mentioned in P2706.3.

If someone can clarify or better provide the definitions through the IRC I will certainly listen and am eager to understand. (And please, without anyone getting snide or nasty as this should be a professional discussion, not a tar and feathering.)


Thanks,

Eric

Eric

Just a friendly not. There are folks that think it is clear and folks that do not think it is clear that it is not allowed. I am sure if you have read all past posts it is wide ope for interpretation. Why something has to be interpreted in the code is beside me. It would be about as simple as it gets to state that it is no longer allowed to run condensate water in that matter. Entire states and then even in other states there are folks that do not read anything about not being allowed. Adament code efficienados swear that they are the only ones that have the ability to interpret what the code means. Basically they have their opinion and others believe different, including code certified. Basically as it stands if your municipalities accept it then there is nothing wrong with it. If they don't accept it then write it up.

If you have read all the past posts and still don't see where it says you cannot do that then there is no changing your mind unless you are mearly wishing for someone to change your mind. There lies the problem. Read the code, listen to what others say on both sides. Make your opinion.

[Jerry Peck]

Yeah Acorn will throw in the phony ones when needed.

And the Republican Party will challenge any voter who they suspect is going to vote the other party.


I demand a recount..............:D

Okay.

McCain 4

Obama 350

Recount:

McCain 1

Obama 353

:D

[Mike Schulz]

You where pretty close Jerry! :D