water heater

[Jeff Remas]

I really need to disagree with many of you.

The 18" Rule is for appliances that have an "ignition source"

An electric hot water heater is not an ignition source. This rule is primarily designed for fuel burning appliances and electrical switch gear where arcing/sparking is part of its design.

My interpretation does not match yours and we are all entitled to our opinions.

Since any electrical device has the potential to arc and spark then you may have a case but then why does the NEC not address this when installing receptacles and switches in garages?

There has been an industry standard of placing receptacles 18" above the floor but there is still not an NEC requirement to do so.

It is impracticle to place a switch less than 18" above floor level but that would only be covered under the mechanical code.

I do not call out electrical water heater height in garages, only fuel burning appliances.

[Mike Lamb]

IRC definition:

IGNITION SOURCE.

A flame spark or hot surface capable of igniting flammable vapors or fumes. Such sources include appliance burners, burner ignitors and electrical switching devices.

Unless things have changed from the 2000 IRC,

G2408 (305.2) covers the elevation of any appliance and not just gas fired ones. So an electric water heater should be raised from the floor.

[Jeremy]

I thought the industry standard for receptacle height was top of the hammer handle. Works good for me.(As long as you use the same hammer throughout the whole project.)[:-spin]

[Richard Stanley]

The only units not subject to the 18" rule is FVIR types. It is not just garages, - its flammable storage areas.

'06 code indicates that water heater installation in un-heated attics, garages, other unconditioned space is a no-no. This conversation ongoing at IN also.

[Jeff Remas]

Originally posted by Mike Lamb

IRC definition:

IGNITION SOURCE.

A flame spark or hot surface capable of igniting flammable vapors or fumes. Such sources include appliance burners, burner ignitors and electrical switching devices.

Unless things have changed from the 2000 IRC,

G2408 (305.2) covers the elevation of any appliance and not just gas fired ones. So an electric water heater should be raised from the floor.

Yes, I am fully aware of the definition but I still do not believe that it applies at all. The 2 thermostats on most hot water heaters are set up with the top thermostate being the 7 connection type that also controls when the bottom thermostat kicks on.

These thermostats are bi-metallic discs that are enclosed in sealed plastic housings with welded construction for greater electrical integrity/safety.

Please stand in front of a hot water heater in the dark with the bottom cover off and tell me that you can even remotely see any type of spark or flash when the thermostat is engaged.

This is just taking the code too far in my opinion and away from it's intention of protecting against fuel burning appliances.

If that is how it is done in your area and in your opinion then you are right.

[Jeff Remas]

BTW

G2408 is the Fuel Gas Code and has nothing to do with electrical appliances

[Les]

Good discussion.

Chad,

Walter is right on this one. I have been around several t&p devices that have operated as intended. It ain't drip drip drip - more like instantly fill room with steam and shake your molars.

[kurt]

I've only seen the drip-drip-drip failure. Never seen the big time blow.

What conditions would be present that would make them blow like that? A semi-failed/stuck TPR that finally let loose?

[Mike Lamb]

Originally posted by Jeff Remas

BTW

G2408 is the Fuel Gas Code and has nothing to do with electrical appliances

You are right. That is from the gas section of the IRC. I am considering the spark potential from an electrical connection or switch.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen an electric water heater in a garage. There’s not many elec water heaters at all in my area. I am trying to justify how I would write it up for my client. I would recommend raising it.

From UPC 2000:

510.1 Water heaters generating a glow, spark or flame capable of igniting flammable vapors may be installed in a garage, provided the pilots, burners or heating elements and switches are at least eighteen (18) inches (457 mm) above floor level.

[Jeremy]

I'm sure there was no TPR on this one.

[Jeremy]

This is an old article, but since we're on the subject.

4 injured

Authorities said a plumber had been in the building the day before the blast, and they were trying to determine whether the electric hot-water heater had been worked on.

"I've never seen 18 guys' butts come out of their chairs so fast," Lynn said.

[hausdok]

Hi,

Nobody here is arguing that a clogged/capped TPR isn't dangerous; we've had that discussion here dozens of times and have linked many articles - even this one, I think. The argument that Rich is making is that a little bit of water trapped in a little bend in the pipe just doesn't constitute a real hazard from his point of view. Well, though I see his point, whether it does or not is beside the point, if the code says that the setup must drain than any potential to trap water in that pipe doesn't allow it to drain and is just wrong and should be written up and there aren't any ifs, ands, or buts about it. Things that are that cut and dried just aren't, at least in my book, worth expending the mental energy on; write 'em up and move on.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Chad Fabry]

Chad,

Walter is right on this one. I have been around several t&p devices that have operated as intended. It ain't drip drip drip - more like instantly fill room with steam and shake your molars.

I'll certainly buy the possibility of a writhing steam gushing TPRV discharge, but as Kurt said something else had to be wrong.

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Jeff Remas

I really need to disagree with many of you.

The 18" Rule is for appliances that have an "ignition source"

An electric hot water heater is not an ignition source. This rule is primarily designed for fuel burning appliances and electrical switch gear where arcing/sparking is part of its design.

My interpretation does not match yours and we are all entitled to our opinions.

Since any electrical device has the potential to arc and spark then you may have a case but then why does the NEC not address this when installing receptacles and switches in garages?

There has been an industry standard of placing receptacles 18" above the floor but there is still not an NEC requirement to do so.

It is impracticle to place a switch less than 18" above floor level but that would only be covered under the mechanical code.

I do not call out electrical water heater height in garages, only fuel burning appliances.

Hi Jeff,

I guess I just don't get it. You said in a previous post that besides doing home inspections you are also an AHJ. Well, as an AHJ, how to you justify blowing off a rule that you're supposed to enforce and what kind of example does that set for other AHJ's? It sounds like, since you're the AHJ, that you're going to back up anyone that challenges a home inspector who writes that issue up in your jurisdication. I think if you did that, you'd be wrongly intentionally undermining the credibility of those other inspectors.

If the municipality that you work for chooses to officially not enforce the requirement to elevate an electric water heater, I can understand where you might be compelled to disregard it in that jurisdication but I don't understand how you could not comment on it and write it up in other jurisdictions when you're a home inspector. That's like a cop deciding unilaterally that a law is unjust and that when he's off-duty and sees it happening he's not going to enforce it.

Would you approve if a local cop decided that having a legal age restriction on sex was illegal and chose to completely disregard it when hearing that some 19-year old seduced a 10-year old? You might argue that they aren't the same thing, but they are; public officials charged with enforcing rules don't have the luxury of re-writing laws they are charged with enforcing. If you think it's a dumb rule and don't think it should be enforced, then make a case to the code panel to change the rule, don't simply ignore the rules; that's why they hold code panels every 3 years.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[kurt]

Originally posted by Jeremy

I'm sure there was no TPR on this one.

That was a Mythbusters Top Fiver.

I saw it the night it aired, and honestly, I had tears in my eyes. It was possibly the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

[Bain]

Originally posted by Chad Fabry

That depends on the definition of a carport I guess. What the heck is a carport anyway?

A carport is simply a roof structure--oftentimes supported by tacky wrought-iron or wood piers--that you park your car beneath to keep the snow off it and yourself while you walk inside your house.

There are often utility buildings at the far end of the driveway to store mowers and chain saws. I assume this is the set-up Phillip's photo is depicting.

Not to be a prick, but if you really want to spice up the debate, what if the gas or electrical water heater is in the utility building? Does the 18" code requirement still apply? And you have to understand, these utility buildings are typically filled to the gills with gasoline, oil, paint, and all sorts of other flammables.

Edit: I snagged this photo from Google. Clearly the white utility building would have to be beside the house to contain a water heater.

Image Insert:

46.32 KB

[Jeremy]

Originally posted by kurt

Originally posted by Jeremy

I'm sure there was no TPR on this one.

That was a Mythbusters Top Fiver.

I saw it the night it aired, and honestly, I had tears in my eyes. It was possibly the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

Yeah.. A beauty...

[hausdok]

Hi,

Lots of times, they're part of the house and more substantial than that shown above and essentially just a garage without doors. This picture isn't a very good one but it's of a carport on a home here. The roof is framed with the same trusses as the house and the back wall has a utility locker across it's entire breadth. The wall on the left was only recently - within the past couple of years - closed in.

Image Insert:

106.77 KB

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Richard Moore]

Originally posted by hausdok

Hi,

Nobody here is arguing that a clogged/capped TPR isn't dangerous; we've had that discussion here dozens of times and have linked many articles - even this one, I think. The argument that Rich is making is that a little bit of water trapped in a little bend in the pipe just doesn't constitute a real hazard from his point of view. Well, though I see his point, whether it does or not is beside the point, if the code says that the setup must drain than any potential to trap water in that pipe doesn't allow it to drain and is just wrong and should be written up and there aren't any ifs, ands, or buts about it. Things that are that cut and dried just aren't, at least in my book, worth expending the mental energy on; write 'em up and move on.

(my bold)

Mike, I agree with that last sentence as far as reporting it. No problem. Actually, I thought I'd made that clear(?). But, you seem to be suggesting that this forum isn't the place to be trotting out the gray matter for a little exercise on the physics and reasoning behind codes. I sure hope that wasn't your intent. I already spend enough time in a mindless stupor!

[hausdok]

Hi Rich,

No, I'm not trying to stop anyone from exercising the gray matter but I think we do have to be careful about how we go about that. When the initator of a post asks, "What comment would you make from this photo and why?" and then we point out the issues but then begin talking about how the rule that our findings based on is not that big a deal because it doesn't make sense to us, or we can't see any danger in not calling it, don't we confuse any new inspectors trying to understand the whole thread? Wouldn't it be better to have another thread where we ask those questions?

Once again I guess I've failed to communicate very well. Sorry.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Jeff Remas]

Hi Jeff,

I guess I just don't get it. You said in a previous post that besides doing home inspections you are also an AHJ. Well, as an AHJ, how to you justify blowing off a rule that you're supposed to enforce and what kind of example does that set for other AHJ's? It sounds like, since you're the AHJ, that you're going to back up anyone that challenges a home inspector who writes that issue up in your jurisdication. I think if you did that, you'd be wrongly intentionally undermining the credibility of those other inspectors.

If the municipality that you work for chooses to officially not enforce the requirement to elevate an electric water heater, I can understand where you might be compelled to disregard it in that jurisdication but I don't understand how you could not comment on it and write it up in other jurisdictions when you're a home inspector. That's like a cop deciding unilaterally that a law is unjust and that when he's off-duty and sees it happening he's not going to enforce it.

Would you approve if a local cop decided that having a legal age restriction on sex was illegal and chose to completely disregard it when hearing that some 19-year old seduced a 10-year old? You might argue that they aren't the same thing, but they are; public officials charged with enforcing rules don't have the luxury of re-writing laws they are charged with enforcing. If you think it's a dumb rule and don't think it should be enforced, then make a case to the code panel to change the rule, don't simply ignore the rules; that's why they hold code panels every 3 years.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Mike,

I have never written up an electric hot water heater in a garage for not being 18" off the floor as a home inspector or as a code inspector so I don't know where you are getting off kilter with your post.

I simply do not interpret the IRC section that way and IF I come across a situation where a HI writes it up and I have to give an opinion then my opinion will be that an electric hot water heater does not have to comply with the 18" rule.

I know what it reads and what the definition is but it still does not apply. There are several models that are controlled by the top and the bottom element does not have a thermostat controller down that low.

There are plenty of other more important issues that need to be addressed during a home inspection than that.

[Richard Moore]

"Once again I guess I've failed to communicate very well. Sorry."

No, not at all! In fact, with Phillip's trap being at a carport closet, it could be subject to freezing (Alabama?) and potentially the same as having no TPR at all.

Perhaps I was just thinking out loud, but related drift is, well, related. So, no, I don't see the need to start a new thread everytime.

[Jim Katen]

Been away for a while, but I'll offer some observations about Phillip's picture.

The TPR discharge tube is wrong. It's trapped and the flex section has a smaller diameter than the outlet of the TPR valve. My reference is the manufacturer's yellow tag and the IRC in section P2803.6.

If Phillip's area is under the IRC, then the TPR discharge is also wrong because it doesn't drain via an air gap in the same room as the water heater. (Same code section.)

I'm not aware of any rule in any code that would require this water heater to be elevated when installed in a carport or in a shed attached to a carport. If someone's aware of such a rule, please post the reference.

If the water heater were installed in a garage (not a carport), then I'd cite P2801.6 as a reason why it'd have to be elevated. It says:

P2801.6 Water heaters installed in garages. Water heaters having an ignition source shall be elevated such that the source of ignition is not less than 18 inches above the garage floor. There's an exception to this rule in P2498.2. It says that FVIR water heaters can be on the floor of the garage. In Oregon, the muni inspectors enforce these rules. That puts us in the ironic position of requiring our electric water heaters to be elevated while our gas water heaters can sit on the floor.

Oddly, as Jeff pointed out, the NEC allows switches and receptacles to be mounted on garage walls below 18". Even more strange, there's no rule against placing clothes washers and dryers with their sparky little motors right down near the floor of a garage, to say nothing of the dryer's heating elements or gas flames. And what about refrigerators & freezers? They have relays that probably produce sparks; are the relays located high or low? Does their location vary by brand and model? Should they be elevated when they're located in a garage?

Personally, I call out the electric water heater only because the munis do.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Phillip]

Here is a photo of the front of the house. The carport is to the left. I did not get the left side of the carport in the photo; but it is open on the left side.

Image Insert:

118.06 KB

Here is a photo of a carport that open on three sides.

Image Insert:

162.88 KB

I like to see the TPR piping run to a place where it can be seen if it starts leaking.

[Jeff Remas]

Last time I checked, a person could ask IRC for a finding on a specific codes issue.

You can call the ICC if you are a member and get an "opinion" from someone who works there. It is not an official interpretation.

Does anyone have a copy of the IRC Commentary to look this up? Many municipalities adopt the Commentaries therefore making their interpretation official.

Please realize that the codes are full of gray areas, poorly written areas and some areas just are not covered in detail. You will find a difference of opinion amongst the code officials on more subjects than you think.

The same goes for home inspectors. Ten of us can inspect the exact same house and generate ten different reports.