# CO Detectors



## conarb (Jan 12, 2016)

A California appraiser in another forum posted this question: "If there are all electric appliances including heat and hot water with no fireplace or attached garage are CO detectors required?" I'd say they are still required, does anyone know without looking it up?  According to R315.2.3 - R315.2.3.2 they are apparently not required.


----------



## ICE (Jan 12, 2016)

I'd say that they are not.

Fireplaces do not count as a fuel burning appliance.


----------



## JBI (Jan 13, 2016)

conarb - If there are no CO sources, then the CO alarms (or detectors?) are not required.

ICE - In what reality would a fireplace that burns solid/liquid/gaseous fuel NOT be a CO source??? Is that a California thing?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 13, 2016)

> conarb - If there are no CO sources, then the CO alarms (or detectors?) are not required.ICE - In what reality would a fireplace that burns solid/liquid/gaseous fuel NOT be a CO source??? Is that a California thing?


In the reality of California it is a CO source

An approved carbon monoxide alarm shall be installed in existing dwellings having a fossil fuel-burning heater or appliance, *fireplace *or an attached garage. (2013 CRC R315.2.3.1)

If the All Electric home had a detached garage and no fireplace, CO alarms, not needed


----------



## tmurray (Jan 13, 2016)

> A California appraiser in another forum posted this question: "If there are all electric appliances including heat and hot water with no fireplace or attached garage are CO detectors required?" I'd say they are still required' date=' does anyone know without looking it up? According to R315.2.3 - R315.2.3.2 they are apparently not required.[/quote']Not required here. Only if there is a fuel burning appliance and/or attached garage


----------



## ICE (Jan 13, 2016)

> R315.1 Carbon monoxide alarms *in new construction*. Fornew construction, an approved carbon monoxide alarm shall
> 
> be installed in dwelling units and in sleeping units within
> 
> ...


So there is a difference of a fireplace between new and existing


----------



## ICE (Jan 13, 2016)

> conarb - If there are no CO sources, then the CO alarms (or detectors?) are not required.ICE - In what reality would a fireplace that burns solid/liquid/gaseous fuel NOT be a CO source??? Is that a California thing?





> Fireplaces do not count as a fuel burning appliance.


Well John it's not an appliance. Put in a log lighter and there's an appliance. Was it a typo that left out fireplaces in section R315.1? It must be.


----------



## JBI (Jan 14, 2016)

Well ICE, by definition a 'fireplace' IS an 'appliance'. It is manufactured and designed to utilize energy, and the Code provides specific requirements for them. That the word 'fireplace' was not included in the new construction section does not negate that it is a fuel fired appliance.

*APPLIANCE. *A device or apparatus that is manufactured and designed to utilize energy and for which this code provides specific requirements.


----------



## ICE (Jan 14, 2016)

I didn't find the definition that you provided in any code that we enforce. I did find a definition of appliance in the Electrical and Mechanical codes. The Building and Residential codes do not provide a definition. The fact that R315.2.3 lists appliances and fireplaces as separate items indicates that the code would not classify a fireplace as an appliance.

While I most certainly agree with you as to a need for CO alarms when a fireplace is present, the code differs for new construction.



> CEC
> 
> Appliance. Utilization equipment, generally other than
> 
> ...


----------



## JBI (Jan 14, 2016)

The definition I provided was copy/paste from 2012 IRC... 2015 IRC has the same definition, as does the 2009 and 2006 IRC.

Is it safe to say that either your jurisdiction does not enforce the IRC or that your jurisdiction has deleted that definition?

I'm glad you agree on substance, but I disagree on the plain language of the IRC. That the new construction provision does not specifically list 'fireplace' while the existing dwelling rule does, does not indicate that a 'fireplace' would be an exemption for a new dwelling. There are plenty of poorly written Code sections in every Code ever written.


----------



## JBI (Jan 14, 2016)

From the California Residential Code...

*SECTION R315 CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS*

*R315.1 Carbon monoxide alarms.* For new construction, an approved carbon monoxide alarm shall be installed in_ dwelling_ _units_ _and in sleeping units_ within which fuel-_burning_ _appliances_ are installed and in dwelling units that have attached garages.

*R315.1.1 Power supply.* _For new construction required carbon monoxide alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring where such wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery back-up. Alarm wiring shall be directly connected to the permanent building wiring without a disconnecting switch other than as required for overcurrent protection._

*Exceptions:* _1._ _In dwelling units where there is no commercial power supply the carbon monoxide alarm may be solely battery operated._ _2._ _In existing dwelling units a carbon monoxide alarm is permitted to be solely battery operated where repairs or alterations do not result in the removal of wall and ceiling finishes or there is no access by means of attic, basement or crawl space._ *R315.1.2 Interconnection.* _Where more than one carbon monoxide alarm is required to be installed within the dwelling unit or within a sleeping unit the alarm shall be interconnected in a manner that activation of one alarm shall activate all of the alarms in the individual unit._

*Exception:* _1._ _Interconnection is not required in existing dwelling units where repairs do not result in the removal of wall and ceiling finishes, there is no access by means of attic, basement or crawl space, and no previous method for interconnection existed._ *R315.2 Where required in existing dwellings.* Where a permit _is required for alterations, repairs or additions exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000)_, existing dwellings _or sleeping units_ that have attached garages or fuel-_burning_ appliances shall be provided _with a carbon monoxide alarm_ in accordance with Section R315.1. _Carbon monoxide alarms shall only be required in the specific dwelling unit or sleeping unit for which the permit was obtained._

NO mention of 'fireplace' in YOUR Code for new or existing....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 14, 2016)

Not required as JBI posted.

What do CA appraisers have to do with questing if a home requires CO alarms? Getting a bit big for their britches Id say!


----------



## conarb (Jan 14, 2016)

> Not required as JBI posted.What do CA appraisers have to do with questing if a home requires CO alarms? Getting a bit big for their britches Id say!


Pc:

I agree, but apparently some lenders are requiring some code aspects be addressed in the appraisals.  Even worse are the home inspectors addressing code violations, if they address one code section some can assume they are experts and have covered all code requirements.  You guys are different, you have sovereign immunity along with the misfeasance/malfeasance dichotomy to protect you, they don't.


----------



## JBI (Jan 14, 2016)

conarb,

Valid points/concerns. I know a few Home Inspectors that are excellent and actually have Code training. I know many, many more who do not.

Fortunately (for me) NYS draws clear lines between Codes and Home Inspections.

One of my oldest and closest friends is an Attorney in SoCal, so I have heard a few horror stories. One thing that was particularly interesting was that Home Inspections in California have been deemed an element of 'due diligence' for Real Estate people (court decisions apparently).

Introducing 'Code' based information would be an interesting twist though, and potentially problematic.


----------



## conarb (Jan 14, 2016)

\ said:
			
		

> One of my oldest and closest friends is an Attorney in SoCal, so I have heard a few horror stories. One thing that was particularly interesting was that Home Inspections in California have been deemed an element of 'due diligence' for Real Estate people (court decisions apparently).


Where home inspection came from was realtors were being sued by buyers claiming that they were professionals and should have known about defects, to combat this the realtors lobby created home inspection to stand as legal protection between the buyers and other affected parties, like buyers and lenders.  The state still doesn't know what to do with them, the legislature set up a section in the Business and Professions Code that governs contractors but it sits there as an empty section waiting for the legislature to do something.*Edit:  *  After writing the above I decided to check, they have added §§7195- 7199, not much but something, it appears directed at energy efficiency.Jeff:Composing this post I got the Invalid Server Response 5 times, fortunately I didn't lose my post and have to start over:
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 2177


View attachment 2177


/monthly_2016_01/invalid.jpg.7d1763cb1cd58f53592cf3670ec7b1e7.jpg


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 14, 2016)

Outside interference's:

My real estate friend calls the Home inspector the "Deal Killer!" .

And to add to this conversation I believe it was NJ that got the insurance companies to reject houses with FPE panels, so some insurance companies will not insure the house unless the FPE panels are removed.

I get some heated :mad-new: conversations with electricians telling me that I should not allow an FPE panel to remain in a house. IMO, if it was legally installed and still working it can remain.


----------



## JBI (Jan 14, 2016)

During my (brief) stint doing Home Inspections I was rarely accused of killing deals. I did explain (often) to Real Estate folks that a Home Inspection (done properly) only points out obvious defects/maintenance issues and that it is usually the home itself that kills the deal... NOT the Inspector. I also never (never EVER) used the words 'Code' or 'violation' in my reports.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 14, 2016)

> I also never (never EVER) used the words 'Code' or 'violation' in my reports.


That's one of the main problems that we are facing now. Home inspectors saying things that don't even fall under the jurisdiction of the building code as "code violations" just because it sounds better. i recently spent 30 minutes on the phone arguing with a home inspector about what was required by code between a house and detached garage. In Canada, there is no passive fire protection required in this area as long as the garage is for less than 5 cars. The best thing is at the end of the conversation, he says; "well, you say it's not required and I say it is, so who makes the final call?" given that I'm the building inspector, me. I'm the one who makes the call. If you disagree with it, take me to court. Needless to say, I did not make a new friend that day.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 14, 2016)

The home inspector does create an issue if he inspects to the latest code. My house was built in 1992 using the 1987 UBC, that code did not require the bedrooms to have interconnected smokes.

The HI wrote it up and had a few other issues on the report. I wanted to sell my house, so I had detectors installed and by the way while your at it install a radon fan. The problem with the radon fan is that my family and I lived there for 25 years without it and someone else now benefits from a radon fan.


----------



## JBI (Jan 14, 2016)

I feel your pain guys... I was a Code Official for several years before getting into Home Inspections, so the reports I wrote were (shall we say) different than many other Home Inspectors in my area (many of whom do not have construction experience, let alone Code experience). I actually threatened to report one to the State if he didn't stop trying to 'steal' buyers for his home County ("You should come see homes in XXX County, we don't build them like this in XXX County. We build them to Code"). Way outside the scope of ethical behavior.


----------



## ICE (Jan 14, 2016)

Years ago a beautiful woman came to the counter to ask questions about a house she wanted to purchase. A home inspector had noted that there was no "firewall" between the house and attached garage. She was extra special in every way and she listened intently as I explained what the wall would entail if it were built then as opposed to 1958.

She asked me what such a wall would cost to build. I told her that $400 to $1000 should be in the ballpark depending on the contractor.

She had been completely professional up to that point. Then she said, "Well I'm going to tell Mr. Smith that he will drop the price $1000 or he can kiss my azz". Needless to say, that caught me by surprise so I said, "Ya know, I don't think that's gonna work out for you". She said,"What do you me..." Half way through the word "mean" she stopped, smiled, said thank you and left the building.

Oh what a Betty she was....only blond.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 14, 2016)

ICE, your quite the charmer!!


----------



## combo7 (Jan 14, 2016)

No but in pittsburgh we require them with any new occupancy.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------

