Ponyboy

I am bringing this thread back to life and need more answers. I just inspected a condominium in a 1916 apartment building which was converted to condominiums and all of the the electrical and plumbing updated as part of the conversion. The conversion was performed prior to 2010, which was the previous time I was in this building. Gas clothes dryers where installed in the full bathrooms of all units as part of the condominium conversion. The laundry closet door has louver vents for make up air as stated in the PDF which Darren shared. However the closet door is located in the full bathroom which should be prohibited based on IRC M1701.4 as Mike Lamb posted. I called is out as a safety hazard in 2010, but now after reading this thread I am not clear if this a safety hazard. Options do exist to change the combustion air/make-up air source or convert to an electric clothes dryer. Any new opinion on this matter or updated code requirements?

Good question. The AHJ was not responding anymore to my clients request for a field inspection. The builder now only wants to hear from the AHJ, which is fine with me. I knew it was not the right position to be in, but I was trying to protect my clients and their interests.

Thanks guys! These are exactly the opinions I was looking for. I did remove myself from the discussion by stating this is my opinion and not a review of the building code. New construction builders have a statement in their contract with the buyers of not fixing anything which is not a code violation. They use this statement on any item they do not want to fix or address.

It seems to be in the code of immemorial custom. I do not have a code number to quote. I am going on how I was taught to build houses and common building practices in my area. This would be the first new construction or even five year old construction which a moisture break is not installed under the posts. I have observed capillary water damage to many floor posts which do not have a moisture break. I did send it back to the AHJ after receiving their statement but they now are not responding and will not send out an inspector. The buyer and builder are now looking to me to be judge and jury.

In an older house I would agree, but this is new construction and very expensive new construction. IMO the builder should correct the problem.

That style of connector is common practice with new construction in my area. I rarely see the metal base plates used.

I am have a discussion (argument) with the builder of a new construction I just inspected in Kirkland WA. What I said in my report - "Support posts are sitting directly on the concrete pier footings in the crawl space. The posts should rest in metal brackets above concrete piers or should be separated from the concrete below by impervious membranes such as composition shingle scraps. Even if the posts are made of treated wood, the cut ends may not have been field-treated, leaving little or no preservative at the post center." What the City of Kirkland building department said about this concern "As per permit code, the post must have a metal bracket or shingle, regardless of it being pressure treated or not." The builder still is arguing that it does not violate the code and will not repair this concern. He wants to have a conference call with me, the buyer and the RE agent to discuss it. Looking for advise on how to proceed to get the builder to perform this repair. Click to Enlarge 12.99 KB

I don't recall if it is hard wired or cord plugged. Does it make a difference?

In WA the water pressure is not supposed to be over 80 psi, per the plumbing code. A pressure regulator should be installed for any service pressures higher then 80 psi. The state inspection standards do not require home inspectors to check and report on water pressure. Check or not check is the question?

How many inspectors check and report on high water pressure?

Question, does a furnace in the crawl space require GFCI protection? Does it require surge protection? The house was built in 1982 and the furnace is five years old.

I emailed my picture and findings to DuraVent and spoke with technical support services at DuraVent. The installation does not conform with the manufactures instructions for installation of this vent system. Two options exist to repair this defect as stated by DuraVent technical support; 1) Replace the Ameri-Vent telescoping section with a DuraVent telescoping section or, 2) Install DuraVent male and female adapters to the Ameri-Vent section as Phillip had mentioned. Technical support recommends installing the DuraVent part for the best results. Now that I have proven my position we shall see what the seller does for repairs. This issue was not huge, but once I reported it I needed to back up my findings when challenged.

I should have investigated the listing of the telescoping vent section better. Thanks Mike! That is the section I thought was single wall. So the error with this vent is not using the same manufacturer through-out the vent assembly.

The furnace is located in a garage. B-vent exists above and below the single wall adapter.

I have a vent question. The gas vent on the pictured furnace starts with a DuraVent (B-vent), then a different single wall vent piece is installed and then back to DuraVent. The single wall piece is loose. I reported that the single wall vent should be replaced with a DuraVent piece. My understanding is you can not mix and match vent manufacturers parts. The furnace installation was inspected and approved by the local jurisdiction, (Bellevue WA). The seller will only change it if I can come up with a written document or a code saying it is an incorrect installation. Am I right or do I have egg on my face? Brad Click to Enlarge 74.64 KB