Thread: another condensate question

This house was built in 03. AC coil is in the attic without a pan. I called it out and the HVAC contractor said it wasn't required in 03 and the pan is built into the coil so it did not need an additional safety pan. I recommended a safety shut off switch on the secondary line since both drain into the same location. Plus I said BS to the subs response. Have you heard of the pan being built into the unit and when were pans required? I have not heard of that but it would not be the first time I have been wrong.

Thanks

Similar Threads:

• Condensate leak at furnace exhaust
• condensate pump drainage
• Condensate?
• condensate drain routing
• condensate drain connection

There is a pan built into every unit, But when that pan gets all crudded up as they do, they overflow. That's why the need for the safety pan came in.
A pan is recommended in an older home and required in a new one. You are both right. Odds are if there is no pan they will be replaceing the air handler shortly and can add a pan at that time right?

Oops, I think the pan was required in 03, I didn't read it all, That unit looks pretty good. You would have to call the local BDept for the 03 thing.
Simple install anyway.

From the 2003 IRC, and not new requirements, meaning they were in the 2000 IRC also. (underlining is mine)

M1411.3 Condensate disposal.

Condensate from all cooling
coils or evaporators shall be conveyed from the drain pan outlet
to an approved place of disposal. Condensate shall not dis-
charge into a street, alley or other areas so as to cause a nui-
sance.

M1411.3.1 Auxiliary and secondary drain systems.

In
addition to the requirements of Section M1411.3, a secon-
dary drain or auxiliary drain pan shall be required for each
cooling or evaporator coil where damage to any building
components will occur as a result of overflow from the
equipment drain pan or stoppage in the condensate drain pip-
ing. Drain piping shall be a minimum of 3/4-inch (19.1 mm)
nominal pipe size. One of the following methods shall be
used:
1. An auxiliary drain pan with a separate drain shall be
provided under the coils on which condensation will
occur. The auxiliary pan drain shall discharge to a
conspicuous point of disposal to alert occupants in the
event of a stoppage of the primary drain. The pan shall
have a minimum depth of 1.5 inches (38 mm), shall
not be less than 3 inches (76 mm) larger than the unit
or the coil dimensions in width and length and shall be
constructed of corrosion resistant material. Metallic
pans shall have a minimum thickness of not less than
0.0276-inch (0.7 mm) galvanized sheet metal. Non-
metallic pans shall have a minimum thickness of not
less than 0.0625 inch (1.6 mm).
2. A separate overflow drain line shall be connected to
the drain pan provided with the equipment. Such
overflow drain shall discharge to a conspicuous point
of disposal to alert occupants in the event of a stop-
page of the primary drain. The overflow drain line
shall connect to the drain pan at a higher level than the
primary drain connection.
3. An auxiliary drain pan without a separate drain line
shall be provided under the coils on which condensate
will occur. Such pan shall be equipped with a water
level detection device that will shut off the equipment
served prior to overflow of the pan. The auxiliary
drain pan shall be constructed in accordance with Item

1 of this section.

Looks like they may have met 2., but not correctly.

Regardless that the code allows (it does) the use of a secondary drain line in place of an auxiliary pan, it STILL NEEDS (not "requires", but "needs") an auxiliary drain pan.

The a/c contractor can complain all he wants, but *it needs* the auxiliary drain pan. "Required" may be different, but "needs" is 100% correct.

Thanks for all the help.

Mat

Today

Pan yes, and under furnace too if 90+ Plus I like the no trap,cleanout,vent on the A/C drain.

The contractor can use some 45 to make a trap after putting in a pan

I rarely use the 'required' word unless it's a life safety issue. It cuts down on a lot of BS phone calls or discussion from the Seller's side. I don't have time or patience for it.
I usually state, it is/would be better; works better, safer/last longer, blah, blah etc. People tend to argue about that direction less. Probably because it's usually pretty obvious.

Good point. It's not a life safety issue, just need to write it down and if somebody wants to fix it so be it.

The best inspection lists break it down into what the banks really needs to have fixed to loan money on the house. Most of the other items are just between the buyer and seller.

Originally Posted by Craig Ervin

Good point. It's not a life safety issue, just need to write it down and if somebody wants to fix it so be it.

The best inspection lists break it down into what the banks really needs to have fixed to loan money on the house. Most of the other items are just between the buyer and seller.

The best inspection lists EVERYTHING which is not right with the house and says why it is not right and they says to FIX IT.

The attitude of "just need to write it down and if somebody wants to fix it so be it" is not helpful to this profession, much less to your client.

Make sence Jerry, good point. I guess what I should have said is the seller or buyer need to work out who's fixing what as concession are made.