Thread: CONDENSATE DRAIN...LOOK AT PHOTO

Originally Posted by Dan Hagman

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.

Originally Posted by Dan Hagman

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.

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!

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks Jerry

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

Can' get anymore direct than that.

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!

"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

Originally Posted by 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!

Wayne,

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mark ferrell

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!

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

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

Does EVERYONE miss things?

YES! *WE ALL* do.

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.

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?!

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!!

Originally Posted by mark ferrell

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"

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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

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??!!

Originally Posted by 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??!!

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.

Originally Posted by Eric Shuman

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!

Originally Posted by Dave Hill

Thanks guys!
Don't forget to vote today!

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

Originally Posted by Dan Hagman

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!

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

Originally Posted by Eric Shuman

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.

Originally Posted by Mike Schulz

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..............

Okay.

McCain 4

Obama 350

Recount:

McCain 1

Obama 353

You where pretty close Jerry!