Vent Under Cabinet Missing Duct

[tmurray]

It's not similar, but could it be argued that it is noncombustible?

Noncombustible is a very specific thing in Canada and has to meet certain testing requirements. The testing standard involves heating a test specimen to a very high temperature and observing if it catches flame, starts smoking, etc. To give you an example of how stringent the testing is, no wood product has been able to successfully pass this test.

In your situation looking at the photos the following elements are likely non-combustible:
The metal duct
The screws

The following elements are likely combustible
The plastic ABS plumbing pipe.
The composite cabinet material.
The sub-floor material
The scrap piece of wood product they have mounted the duct to (more composite cabinet material?)

If I were the building official in this situation, this would be my starting position. If the builder wants to claim that the materials are non-combustible, I would require they submit the results from the ULC-S135 test that demonstrates that these products are non-combustible. Otherwise, the violation remains.

 

[Tom T]

Noncombustible is a very specific thing in Canada and has to meet certain testing requirements. The testing standard involves heating a test specimen to a very high temperature and observing if it catches flame, starts smoking, etc. To give you an example of how stringent the testing is, no wood product has been able to successfully pass this test.

In your situation looking at the photos the following elements are likely non-combustible:
The metal duct
The screws

The following elements are likely combustible
The plastic ABS plumbing pipe.
The composite cabinet material.
The sub-floor material
The scrap piece of wood product they have mounted the duct to (more composite cabinet material?)

If I were the building official in this situation, this would be my starting position. If the builder wants to claim that the materials are non-combustible, I would require they submit the results from the ULC-S135 test that demonstrates that these products are non-combustible. Otherwise, the violation remains.

Thank you very much.


This is excellent information and I truly appreciate your input!

 

[Tom T]

6) Except as provided in Sentences 9.33.6.13.(2) and (3), ducts that are part of a
return-air duct system and that are contained entirely within a dwelling unit need not
comply with the requirements of Sentences (1) to (4).

In your opinion, given what is stated in #6, the way they left it under the cabinets then gets a pass?

 

[Tom T]

In your opinion, given what is stated in #6, the way they left it under the cabinets then gets a pass?

 

[tmurray]

It sounds like a supply duct (why your pods are melting), not a return duct.

Supply ducts bring hot air from the space heating appliance and distributed it all over the house. Return air ducts sucks air out of the house and sends it to the space heating appliance to be heated up again.

 

[Tom T]

It sounds like a supply duct (why your pods are melting), not a return duct.

Supply ducts bring hot air from the space heating appliance and distributed it all over the house. Return air ducts sucks air out of the house and sends it to the space heating appliance to be heated up again.

Yes, it is a supply duct.

Sorry about that.

 

[Tom T]

It sounds like a supply duct (why your pods are melting), not a return duct.

Supply ducts bring hot air from the space heating appliance and distributed it all over the house. Return air ducts sucks air out of the house and sends it to the space heating appliance to be heated up again.

Now a very important critical question; do you think this is something that needs to be addressed? I have seen other posts about this very issue and it sounds like it is a common practice. The fix for this would be difficult (not sure) and would require, in my opinion, cutting open the cabinet base behind the cabinet doors to access the area. Three locations, two bathrooms and the kitchen. The basement bathroom supply is on the ceiling.

This is a one year old house.

 

[redeyedfly]

In your opinion, given what is stated in #6, the way they left it under the cabinets then gets a pass?

The duct under the cabinet is not return air, it is supply air.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Is your heating source a heat pump or a furnace?

 

[Tom T]

Is your heating source a heat pump or a furnace?

Furnace.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I think Canada needs to update this code. "(d) are not used in air duct systems in which the air temperature may exceed 120°C."

Most furnaces put out 140 degree F air. 120 degrees C = 248 degrees C.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Actually, the home inspector told me that the issues he is pointing out do not necessarily have anything to do with what the building code states, they were just issues that needed to be dealt with. Most of the issues he pointed out needed to be dealt with and have been dealt with.


If it wasn't for my home inspector, I would never have realized that there was damage on our roof. He was right and it was dealt with.

Your home inspector is not representative of what I have seen from home inspectors around here. I've reviewed any number of home inspection reports that specifically said (ir very alarming terms) that X and Y and Z were code violations requiring IMMEDIATE correction ... but they never said what code section was violated.

Also, if they do accidentally cite a code section they're notorious for using the current building code. They forget that if something was allowed under the code in effect at the time of construction, it's not a violation.

I hate home inspectors. I shouldn't -- as an architect, I've made a lot of money investigating alleged "defects" and "code violations" cited in home inspection reports, and more than 90 percent of the time there was nothing either to be concerned about or that constituted a code violation. They just write stuff to justify their existence.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I hate home inspectors. I shouldn't -- as an architect, I've made a lot of money investigating alleged "defects" and "code violations" cited in home inspection reports, and more than 90 percent of the time there was nothing either to be concerned about or that constituted a code violation. They just write stuff to justify their existence.

Very early in my building inspection career, I remember having a chat with a new homeowner - who had purchased a fairly old house. I looked at the roof, and casually mentioned something I noticed that was a clear and obvious problem. Apparently, in so doing, I identified an issue that a $1000 per report "home inspector" had not noticed. The client was on the hook for $10k in roofing repairs in a very bad roof the "home inspector" hadn't noticed.

I've been on several renovation sites of buildings where obvious structural faults that should have been picked up by anyone with any understanding of construction were, in fact, totally ignored.

<cynic>
Here's the thing folks need to realize about the industry: Home inspectors are recommended by Realtors.
Do you think home inspectors who are diligent, find flaws, and write reports that cause sales to fall through are recommended by Realtors?
</cynic>

 

[tmurray]

I think Canada needs to update this code. "(d) are not used in air duct systems in which the air temperature may exceed 120°C."

Most furnaces put out 140 degree F air. 120 degrees C = 248 degrees C.

This is why that exception is rarely applied.

 

[tmurray]

Now a very important critical question; do you think this is something that needs to be addressed? I have seen other posts about this very issue and it sounds like it is a common practice. The fix for this would be difficult (not sure) and would require, in my opinion, cutting open the cabinet base behind the cabinet doors to access the area. Three locations, two bathrooms and the kitchen. The basement bathroom supply is on the ceiling.

This is a one year old house.

Assuming you would like to see this resolved...

I would bring up the issue with the local building official. They are not obligated to catch every single issue and may or may not be interested in helping you resolve the issue, but it is always the first step.

The next step would be to bring up the issue with the builder. They may just come out and repair it. If they refuse, you likely have a home warranty (I'm assuming this is why you are having an inspection at the one-year mark). you can inquire with them if the home warranty would cover this type of issue. The final step would be to have the work completed and file a suit in small claims court. To be successful, you would need a report from someone qualified to indicate that it is a code violation (usually an engineer, architect, or very experienced contractor). They you hire a contractor (usually a different one than who did the report) to do the repair. Generally, you will follow these steps in that order. If you try to go out of order you can run into some issues.

Small claims are set up to avoid needing to use a lawyer, but consulting one on what you should do is always an excellent idea, even if you can't afford for the to represent you fully.