• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Legislation to protect consumers, help energy efficiency sent to governor

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,678
Location
So. CA
Legislation to protect consumers, help energy efficiency sent to governor

Posted: 08/26/16, 5:56 PM PDT | Updated: 3 days ago

0 Comments

The State Senate voted Thursday to send Gov. Jerry Brown Senate Bill 1414 by State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Solano, legislation to protect energy consumers, and help California meet its energy efficiency goals.

“Ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs are critical to the state’s energy and environmental policies,” Wolk said. “SB 1414 will help the state meet its energy efficiency goals and ensure customers receive the full benefits of the energy efficiency upgrades they purchase.”

Unfortunately, research shows that code compliance in residential heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) replacements is low, meaning many of these projects do not capture their full potential energy efficiency savings.

Energy efficiency programs funded by the ratepayers of California’s three investor-owned utilities do not currently require program participants to demonstrate proof of compliance with the California Building Standards Code to be eligible for ratepayer incentives.

SB 1414 requires recipients of energy efficiency rebates or incentives for HVAC installations and retrofits to provide proof of permit closure and certification that the improvement or installation complies with the California Building Standards Code.

Wolk’s SB 1414 also addresses a prevalent problem with contractors, often unlicensed, who make HVAC improvements without attaining the proper permits. The California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) estimates that legally-required permits are obtained for less than 10 percent of HVAC system installations, and that up to 50 percent are not properly installed.

The bill directs the Energy Commission, in consultation with the Contractors’ State License Board, local building officials, and other stakeholders, to approve a plan that will promote the installation of central air conditioning and heat pumps in compliance with the state’s building code and energy efficiency regulations.

“I urge the governor to sign this measure into law to ensure that ratepayer funds are being spent on projects that meet the health, safety, and energy efficiency-related requirements of the state’s building code,” Wolk said.
 
The scope of work is a new furnace, evaporator coil and condenser. The ducting was not replaced. A duct leakage test was not performed because there is asbestos present.
The CF2R-MCH-01-E, J-03 form states that the duct is insulated or sealed with asbestos and that is an exemption from duct leakage testing.
Here is the duct in question.
1


2


3


4


Here is the asbestos.
5


My reaction was to challenge the result of this installation. I wondered how a new system could be allowed to have such deteriorated ducting. I contacted the HERS Rater and he explained that if one square inch of asbestos is found anywhere on a duct system the entire system is exempt from leakage testing due to the possibility of spreading asbestos throughout the building. He stated that there might be a void in the duct that exposes asbestos to the air stream and 24 pascals of pressure would pick up the asbestos. I think this is not reliable information. I can't find any mention of one square inch of asbestos at any Cal. Energy Commission documents.

In picture five I scraped a bit of the white stuff that is supposed to be asbestos. It is about 1/32" thick and is only on the outside of the boot. In my opinion the duct is not constructed of, insulated or sealed by asbestos. I am not sure why the asbestos (if in fact it is asbestos) is there but it is not exposed to the air stream.

The duct did have to play a part in the CF3R-MCH-23-H Space Conditioning Systems Air Flow Rate. The system is 3 ton and the minimum air flow should be 900cfm. 715cfm was the best that could be accomplished.

This is what the Commission requires when the minimum can't be met:

D. Alternate Minimum System Airflow Verification
The installer shall attempt to correct non-compliant system airflow by performing the following remedial Per
RA3.2.2.7.3

Action Required

Indicate whether the action was completed successfully or was not completed successfully.

1 Determine that the air filter media is clean. If the air filter media is dirty, then replace it with clean filter media.

2 Open all registers and dampers and remove any obstructions.

3 Replace/Repair all accessible crushed, blocked, restricted, remove excess length, and sharp bends in ducts.
Supported every 4 ft max. with a max. 2 in sag.
4 Clean the evaporator coil and ensure the coil is not obstructed.

5 Air handler fan speed set to high and blower wheel is clean.

6 Replace the return duct with a larger one and/or add a second return duct.

7 Replace the return filter with a larger area and/or add a second return filter.

8 If any of the above were not completed list the Action Required and a description of why the action could not

be completed:

Picture 4 shows the duct was taped and it is obvious that there was/is a wide gap from one duct to the next. This was done to facilitate an increase in air flow. The other steps as outlined by the Commission were not followed completely. The result is a duct system that is 20.6% below the minimum air flow and if the tape fails will cease to function at all.

According to the HERS rater since the duct was not replaced the insulation is not an issue.

If anyone has information regarding the "1 sq.in" exemption I would appreciate hearing about it.
 
Tiger said:
In picture five I scraped a bit of the white stuff that is supposed to be asbestos. It is about 1/32" thick and is only on the outside of the boot. In my opinion the duct is not constructed of, insulated or sealed by asbestos. I am not sure why the asbestos (if in fact it is asbestos) is there but it is not exposed to the air stream.
Click to expand...

You young guys again, yes that is asbestos, our HVAC guys bought it in thin rolls, laid it in water and wrapped it around the duct work, it wasn't there for insulation but for sealing the ducts with fireproof material. I built lots of homes with it and watched my HVAC guys install it.

Back to the original article:

Sealing up buildings to save money or save the planet can be far more dangerous than either asbestos or lead. All caulking is laden with chemicals and is a far worse problem. All caulking made before 1978 is full of PCBs:

Cashins said:
What are the responsibilities of construction contractors?

If caulking is present on a jobsite but it will not be impacted by your work then you have no responsibility to determine if the caulking contains PCBs. It is the Owner’s responsibility to determine if PCBs are present or not. However, legally he has no obligation to test for PCBs.

If caulking (or other products that may contain PCBs) is present and will be impacted by your work, then the Owner should do testing to determine if PCBs are present. The contractor should be informed of the presence of PCBs so the workers can be informed (hazard communication) and procedures implemented to prevent worker exposure, clothing contamination and work area contamination. Proper industrial hygiene protocols and an exposure assessment must be performed prior to work commencing (JHA\Risk Assessment). If the contractor is responsible for disposal of the caulking or building materials that may have come in contact with the caulking then it is vital that the EPA PCB regulations are clearly understood.

The caulking material, if it is ≥50 ppm is considered by EPA to be a PCB bulk product waste and must be properly disposed of.

If PCBs leached from the caulking into adjacent building materials then the contaminated portions of the building materials is considered to be a PCB remediation waste.¹
Click to expand...

Okay, so we are closing down schools nationwide and stripping the caulking out of them, but what about the new caulking? It's as bad if not worse, it's full of formaldehyde and/or stoddard solvents, California's famous Prop 65 forbids most chemicals in caulking, but do the inspectors do anything about it? As of a couple of years ago we were the only state to make them take the formaldehyde out of plywood and OSB, but now mold is growing in the new formaldehyde-free materials.

Sealed-up buildings are deadly, I have a statement I have my architects place prominently on the first page of my plans stating that this is to be a chemical-free house, and listing about a dozen chemicals that are banned, so far every inspector has allowed me to get by without sealing, if nothing else they know if they make me seal it up and anybody gets cancer in the house they are going to get sued.


¹ http://blog.cashins.com/blog-0/bid/...-Requirements-and-Industrial-Hygiene-Concerns
 
conarb,
The asbestos isn't used to seal the duct. The only place it is found is where you see it in the picture. It doesn't appear to be field applied.
 
ICE said:
conarb,
The asbestos isn't used to seal the duct. The only place it is found is where you see it in the picture. It doesn't appear to be field applied.
Click to expand...
Tiger, blowing your picture up:

asbestos.jpg


It's hard to tell from a picture but if that white is wrapped around a duct it sure looks like asbestos to me.
 
I will concede that it is asbestos. It came off easily and is smooth to the touch. The issue for me is that it is only found on the outside of the register boot. It is too thin to be considered insulation and I don't think a register boot needs to be coated in asbestos to seal it. So perhaps I am wrong and the asbestos is there to seal the boot....what difference could that make to a duct leakage test. The inside of the boots were all shiny metal with no sign of damage. The joints are lapped.
The duct test places positive pressure in the duct at 25 pascals. 25 pascals is equal to 0.52 pounds per square foot which is negligible. The owner paid $12,000 for new equipment with this crap duct-work because of a loophole.
 
Last edited:
Tiger said:
So perhaps I am wrong and the asbestos is there to seal the boot....what difference could that make to a duct leakage test.
Click to expand...

That's just the way we did it up until sometime in the 60s, strictly for sealing, nobody gave a damn about insulation in those days.
 
steveray said:
Your fruit and nut state requires a leak test on old ductwork?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm having a hard time with. How is that enforced with any kind of regularity?

I'm lucky, very lucky, if I can get the HVAC guys to come in and get a permit for their systems even in my little town - most of the time I catch them already started and then they come get a permit. I can't imagine a jurisdiction much bigger than mine catching every install.
 
You Cali guys are my heroes - I don't know how any of you stay even halfway sane trying to enforce all the BS your state has you saddled with.
 
JCraver said:
You Cali guys are my heroes - I don't know how any of you stay even halfway sane trying to enforce all the BS your state has you saddled with.
Click to expand...
And it's all based upon the global warming fraud, perpetuated by our corrupt educational system and fraudulent science, as these scientists retire some are coming out with the truth, from the lead scientist and the Livermore Laboratories the other day.

East Bay Times said:
Hypothesis about CO2 has
failed scientific measurement

The hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming rests on three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions that have now been subject to actual measurement for the last 37 years.

1. A greenhouse hotspot ringing the Earth in the Troposphere about 4 to 6 miles above the Equator. Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called tropical hotspot relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant simply does not exist in the real world.

2. Climate model predictions: 73 models, on average, produce a surface trend in the tropics that is almost twice too warm since 1979 observed temperature measurements. The average climate model predicted accumulating heat in the upper atmosphere at a rate three times faster than observed reality.

3. Unusual global warming. Current warming is not unusual compared to past warmings. Temperatures are well below those in the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago.

The CO2 hypothesis has totally failed confirmation by scientific measurement.

Donald G Eagling
Retired Director of Facilities
and Senior Staff Scientist
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Danville ¹
Click to expand...


The profit the state makes off carbon taxes our Governor Moonbeam has allocated to the poor and his train to nowhere. Giving money to the poor doesn't solve anything, they just consume more beer, pot, and rock music creating more CO2, and the stupid train is part of the United Nations agenda to take the average person out of cars and planes so everybody in the world is equal.

¹ http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/03/oct-4-letters-to-the-editor-5/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top