Thread: Drip Pan Under Condensing Furnace in Attic

An attic furnace installation. High-efficiency, condensing furnace, no air conditioner. Condensate drain goes into the foundation crawlspace area. Ok, that's wrong.

However, there is no drip pan in the attic under the furnace. IRC has a requirement for a drip pan under a condensing furnace (2404.10). My problem is that CA does not use the plumbing, mechanical and electrical parts of the IRC, but has instead chosen to use the NEC, UMC and UPC. I can find no requirement in the UMC or UPC for an auxiliary drain pan. Does anyone know of one?

Thanks

Similar Threads:

• Condensing furnace - intake vent
• No attic drip pan
• Looking for info on condensing furnace.
• condensing furnace draft fan
• condensing furnace

Gunnar,

The only thing I see in the CA UMC is that the condensate drain lines "shall be sized as required by the manufacturer's installation instructions." - 312.4

So, if the manufacturer requires an auxiliary drain pan and condensate line, etc., then it would be required.

Otherwise ... it sure looks like they missed on that one.

Thanks Jerry,

I don't have installation instructions available. I was surprised myself.

Gunner, I would still write smithing like this; A condensate pan should be installed under the condensing furnace in the attic to protect the area below from an unexpected condensate leak. Although this is not required by the building codes in CA, it is required is almost every other state in the nation.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Gunner, I would still write smithing like this; A condensate pan should be installed under the condensing furnace in the attic to protect the area below from an unexpected condensate leak. Although this is not required by the building codes in CA, it is required is almost every other state in the nation.

I would make some minor changes to what Scott wrote: (I do like Scott's word smithing though - Presentation Coaching & Writing Services - Wordsmithing by Foster, Appleton, WI Wordsmithing is NOT a Word! | Square Jaw Media )

A condensate pan should be installed under the condensing furnace in the attic to protect the areas below from a condensate leak. Although this may not be required by the building codes in CA, it is required is almost every other state in the nation - remember: all building codes are minimum requirements, which does not necessarily make anything safe, efficient, adequate, or suitable for the use ... code is just the minimum starting point.

"unexpected" condensate leak? One never expects a "leak", just prepares for one in case it happens.

I always try to make sure that if someone (such as an agent or contractor) throws the word "code" back at me that I have already set it up so that all reading the discussion understand that "code" is "minimum", not necessarily 'safe, efficient, adequate, or suitable for use' - just "minimum" ... thus anyone throwing the word "code" back as a defense for work done is thereby stating that they have chosen to meet the "minimum" requirements, but not necessarily providing something which is 'safe, efficient, adequate or suitable for the use' ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I would make some minor changes to what Scott wrote: (I do like Scott's word smithing though - Presentation Coaching & Writing Services - Wordsmithing by Foster, Appleton, WI Wordsmithing is NOT a Word! | Square Jaw Media )

A condensate pan should be installed under the condensing furnace in the attic to protect the areas below from a condensate leak. Although this may not be required by the building codes in CA, it is required is almost every other state in the nation - remember: all building codes are minimum requirements, which does not necessarily make anything safe, efficient, adequate, or suitable for the use ... code is just the minimum starting point.

"unexpected" condensate leak? One never expects a "leak", just prepares for one in case it happens.

I always try to make sure that if someone (such as an agent or contractor) throws the word "code" back at me that I have already set it up so that all reading the discussion understand that "code" is "minimum", not necessarily 'safe, efficient, adequate, or suitable for use' - just "minimum" ... thus anyone throwing the word "code" back as a defense for work done is thereby stating that they have chosen to meet the "minimum" requirements, but not necessarily providing something which is 'safe, efficient, adequate or suitable for the use' ...

Works for me!!