Condensate switch

[ICE]

We do not allow an electromechanical device on the secondary condensate if a gravity method is possible. I see it done this way so often that I suspect that it is accepted in other jurisdictions. How about the rest of you?

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Majority have the sensor in the overflow pan. In early summer mud daubers plug the secondary drain openings; may explain why there's a sensor in the pan with the aux. drain. So the one that's shown would work.

UL listed to comply with UL 508 and most applicable building codes.

M1411.3.1 4. A water level detection device conforming to UL 508shall be provided that will shut off the equipment served in the event that the primary drain is blocked. The device shall be installed in the primary drain line, the overflow drain line or the equipment-supplied drain pan, located at a point higher than the primary drain line connection and below the overflow rim of such pan.

 

[Daddy-0-]

We see float switches here all the time. Sometimes you have to have them in a crawl space if you cannot get the secondary to a conspicuous location by gravity. Do you have a local amendment that prohibits them?

 

[ICE]

Majority have the sensor in the overflow pan. In early summer mud daubers plug the secondary drain openings; may explain why there's a sensor in the pan with the aux. drain. So the one that's shown would work.UL listed to comply with UL 508 and most applicable building codes.

M1411.3.1 4. A water level detection device conforming to UL 508shall be provided that will shut off the equipment served in the event that the primary drain is blocked. The device shall be installed in the primary drain line, the overflow drain line or the equipment-supplied drain pan, located at a point higher than the primary drain line connection and below the overflow rim of such pan.

The section # looks like it came from the IRC. California didn't adopt the mechanical portion of the IRC. Should the word primary be "secondary" instead?

 

[ICE]

We see float switches here all the time. Sometimes you have to have them in a crawl space if you cannot get the secondary to a conspicuous location by gravity. Do you have a local amendment that prohibits them?

No, we have a Chief Mechanical Engineer that prohibits them unless there is is no way to get to the exterior. It is the same with condensate pumps.

 

[Daddy-0-]

Prohibits them on what basis? Is it in whatever mechanical code you have in cali? Seems fishy to me. I love float switches because a $7 part can fix so many logistical nightmares. What problem does your mech. eng. have with them? Curious now.

 

[klarenbeek]

Nothing in the code prohibits this setup. We see it all the time here. the code does allow it to be in either the primary or overflow (secondary) drain. If I ever told a contractor they couldn't do something and they thought they could, I'd be getting asked pretty quick "show me where it says I can't"

 

[ICE]

Prohibits them on what basis? Is it in whatever mechanical code you have in cali? Seems fishy to me. I love float switches because a $7 part can fix so many logistical nightmares. What problem does your mech. eng. have with them? Curious now.

Gravity has never failed whereas an electromechanical device has.

Klarenbeek asked for code. It has been a while since I last talked with the Chief and I don't recall asking for a code purist's answer, i.e., how do I get there with the code? Knowing the Chief, he has it down.

Contractors love the switch and for good reason. It is less expensive and no labor compared to a gravity drain. I'd like them too if the Chief would say OK.

Francis mentioned bugs. I've heard that before and have never heard of a failure of a gravity secondary drain. That means squat, but just saying.....

This is a common set-up that passes. The bases are covered.

 

[north star]

& & & &

Where's the purple primer on the pvc joints?.....From Section P2904.9.1.3

in the `06 IRC.



& & & &

 

[mtlogcabin]

Knowing the Chief, he has it down

I believe the Chief is correct if you are still using the "UMC" 2006 version, However if the manufactures installation instructions includes a float switch he could allow it in lieu of Section 310 under Section 105 Alternate Materials and Methods.

 

[texasbo]

I believe the Chief is correct if you are still using the "UMC" 2006 version, However if the manufactures installation instructions includes a float switch he could allow it in lieu of Section 310 under Section 105 Alternate Materials and Methods.

'06 allowed it too. Short of a local amendment, chief is making up his own codes. Someone should call him on it, and if in fact he is enforcing "I want", instead of "the code requires", disciplinary action should be taken. This is exactly the kind of thing that gives our profession a bad name.

 

[mtlogcabin]

texasbo do you have a code section. I read UMC 310 and there was no mention of float switches just secondary drains so I can see how someone would prohibit them.

 

[texasbo]

Mt - 307.2.3

 

[ICE]

'06 allowed it too. Short of a local amendment, chief is making up his own codes. Someone should call him on it, and if in fact he is enforcing "I want", instead of "the code requires", disciplinary action should be taken. This is exactly the kind of thing that gives our profession a bad name.

Should I form a tribunal?

 

[texasbo]

Should I form a tribunal?

Why would you? Apparently, if Chief says it, it's ok, even though you say it's not allowed, but yet you can't tell us why:

"Klarenbeek asked for code. It has been a while since I last talked with the Chief and I don't recall asking for a code purist's answer, i.e., how do I get there with the code? Knowing the Chief, he has it down.".

Maybe you guys have an amendment or something that you aren't aware of, and Chief is spot on. You tell us.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Mt - 307.2.3

That's the IMC I was refering to The Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) which I thought the California Mechanical code is based upon

 

[peach]

the float switch is instead of the secondary drain... when the unit isn't working, the resident usually calls someone for service. I like them, actually... assuming they are installed to actually work. (And I've never seen one for $7 - a good one is considerably more)

 

[Daddy-0-]

Peach

They are still less than running a bunch of PVC around the house in most cases.

ICE

My chief said they are ok in Virginia so I will continue to approve them.

 

[ICE]

Secondary condensate drains have two purposes. One is to convey condensate and the other is to warn the occupant that the primary has ceased to function. In order of importance, the secondary trumps the primary in that the secondary is the last chance to prevent an inadvertent release of condensate, where it will cause damage.

Gravity if available, is trustworthy. A switch or pump is not trustworthy. Gravity doesn't wear out or get stuck but switches and pumps do. A switch or pump that has never operated, located in a dusty hot attic for 14 years might not work. That has been borne out in my jurisdiction. Rats and/or failed components played a role. Therefor if gravity is available, it shall be gravity.

When we build on the Moon, switches and pumps will be approved. The Code will come from the Intergalactic Code Council. The ICC won't even need new stationary.

Code states that condensate shall drain to an "Approved" location. Approved by whom? Here, it is a mechanical engineer. Where you are, it might be you. Make up your own mind and do as you see fit.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Will someone explain since the primary trap is supposed to be sealed (per manufacturers design); but will allow the secondary to be opened to outside air and if the secondary is sealed with the switch (as shown in the OP) would there be enough negative pressure to draw the condensation back out of the trap?

Would not be surprised if this outlet is to be the next item the IECC will eliminate in the Mech/Gas as it was done with the combustion air through the return.

 

[texasbo]

Secondary condensate drains have two purposes. One is to convey condensate and the other is to warn the occupant that the primary has ceased to function. In order of importance, the secondary trumps the primary in that the secondary is the last chance to prevent an inadvertent release of condensate, where it will cause damage. Gravity if available, is trustworthy. A switch or pump is not trustworthy. Gravity doesn't wear out or get stuck but switches and pumps do. A switch or pump that has never operated, located in a dusty hot attic for 14 years might not work. That has been borne out in my jurisdiction. Rats and/or failed components played a role. Therefor if gravity is available, it shall be gravity.

When we build on the Moon, switches and pumps will be approved. The Code will come from the Intergalactic Code Council. The ICC won't even need new stationary.

Code states that condensate shall drain to an "Approved" location. Approved by whom? Here, it is a mechanical engineer. Where you are, it might be you. Make up your own mind and do as you see fit.

We don't know what the code says, because you still haven't told us which code you're using, and if you have amendments regarding these devices. So we are left to guess, because you gave us a photograph, a statement that you don't allow it, but you can't tell us why.

So the fact remains, that if your code DOES allow it, and your "Chief" doesn't allow it, just because he has made up some reason that makes him warm and fuzzy, you guys should have a new "Chief'.

You said:

"and I don't recall asking for a code purist's answer, i.e., how do I get there with the code?"

And I don't think it's too much of a stretch, nor a "purist's" issue to question how to get there with the code, since we're kinda on, you know, a code forum...

 

[texasbo]

That's the IMC I was refering to The Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) which I thought the California Mechanical code is based upon

Yep, you're right. As I said before, without any real information, other than "we'll allow it on the moon", or some other such nonsense, we're left to guess.

I'm going to tell myself they have an amendment, just because I can't believe a building official (or the other employees) would stand for such reckless behavior.

 

[ICE]

'06 allowed it too. Short of a local amendment, chief is making up his own codes. Someone should call him on it, and if in fact he is enforcing "I want", instead of "the code requires", disciplinary action should be taken. This is exactly the kind of thing that gives our profession a bad name.

If only you had a clue as to the man you are speaking about. He has earned his position, he deserves his position. His stature dwarfs all but a few and here you are ready to give him a spanking. Now that's funny!

An amendment for every code decision is what you recommend. We amend the code plenty. There is no need for an amendment for such a code decision and if there were, well that's just stupid.

Without an amendment, the CME is making his own code. Look at what I said about your amendment requirement.

Someone should call him on it! How about a respectful discussion. One does not approach authority announcing that they are being "called out." I would lose respect in a flash.

I want as opposed to code requires? I explained that in a post above.

Disciplinary action should be taken ....... Who in the Hell are you.?

This is exactly the kind of thing that gives our profession a bad name.

Print a copy of your post, put that sentence under it and get it framed.

 

[ICE]

We don't know what the code says, because you still haven't told us which code you're using, and if you have amendments regarding these devices. So we are left to guess, because you gave us a photograph, a statement that you don't allow it, but you can't tell us why.So the fact remains, that if your code DOES allow it, and your "Chief" doesn't allow it, just because he has made up some reason that makes him warm and fuzzy, you guys should have a new "Chief'.

You said:

"and I don't recall asking for a code purist's answer, i.e., how do I get there with the code?"

And I don't think it's too much of a stretch, nor a "purist's" issue to question how to get there with the code, since we're kinda on, you know, a code forum...

Sophomoric remarks make me wonder if you are worth a reply. The remarks you've made in a previous post clinch it for me. I'll stay out of your way, you stay out of mine.