Which is the final call, the stove mfg. or the pipe mfg and NFPA211?

[snowtime]

It seems obvious to me that when there are multiple codes or "rules you just always go with the more restrictive. Thats if you want INS. coverage. I do not care what the INS. broker says on the phone if your house burns down from a wood appliance they are not going to cover you if they fine any safety violations.

 

[jtp10181]

READ THIS

BeGreen, make sure you fully read a manual to get all the info.

(broken link removed to http://www.quadrafire.com/downloads/installManuals/man_3100_acc.pdf)

Page 11

NOTE: All "A" , "C" and "F" Dimensions are to the inside diameter of the flue collar.

To the Flue Collar. Not the pipe. Its just a measuring reference point.

Then letter H has a * by it

* SEE PIPE MANUFACTURERS CLEARANCES - NOT TESTED

This just brought up something else I thought of. Why the heck do they have different clearances for Single Wall vs. Double Wall, when the pipe clearances don't really come into play? I have no clue

 

[fossil]

Well, the single wall typically has a lip around the circumference that effectively puts the surface of the pipe at the outside of the flue collar, anyway. So it's 3/16" or 1/4" even closer to the wall, using that logic. Dimension "H" refers to the vertical spacing between a horizontal run of pipe and the combustible ceiling above...that's not even what we're talking about here, so those *'s mean nothing. We're talking about dimension "A". Quadrafire sez 15.25" flat top, 12" step top...from flue collar (inside, outside, who cares...it's ~1/4") to combustible wall behind the stove...no *'s. Pipe manufactureers say 18". OK, so where do I put my stove...where Quadrafire says it can be, or where the pipe manufacturer says it has to be? Then they go on to give different clearances for double wall pipe...and those don't seem to correspond with the pipe manufacturer's CTC's either. It's confusing, even to folks who've been dealing with the subject for some time. Dunno what the fix is. Maybe more *'s will clear it all up. Rick

 

[keydiver]

My work is not in the same field. But it when it comes to NFPA often times it comes down to local authority having jurisdiction. What PITA!

 

[tfdchief]

when it comes to NFPA often times it comes down to local authority having jurisdiction. What PITA!

I don't understand. Why a PITA?

 

[webbie]

He is saying that the inspector can interpret or pretty much make up their own rules. That is AHJ (Authority having jurisdiction).
In most places this is only done when the original specs are murky or not covered at all. But some inspectors do make up their own rules.

If one gets caught in this net, there is usually an appeal process....a board that you can submit your proof to. I've done this an won...they laughed the inspector out of the courtroom and told him not to stop at a bar on the way home....not sure it's as fair everywhere.

 

[tfdchief]

He is saying that the inspector can interpret or pretty much make up their own rules. That is AHJ (Authority having jurisdiction).
In most places this is only done when the original specs are murky or not covered at all. But some inspectors do make up their own rules.

If one gets caught in this net, there is usually an appeal process....a board that you can submit your proof to. I've done this an won...they laughed the inspector out of the courtroom and told him not to stop at a bar on the way home....not sure it's as fair everywhere.

Well, being an inspector who tries real hard not to make things up, unfortunately we do have to interpret codes and standards that are less than clear sometimes. I do know that some inspectors do make up their own rules sometimes. For them, I apologize. That is not our job. However, as you said, that is why there is an appeal process. And if the inspector was not within his authority, you will win. To bad you have to go through that. We have an important job of safe-guarding the public and their property. As in anything, some are good and some not so good. :smirk:

 

[webbie]

Human nature being what it is, we all tend to misunderstand and make things up........


I think that these days an inspector is assumed to be able to know everything....yet the knowledge is too vast for any single person to get their head around. It would be like expecting one doctor to know everything - instead of specialists.

As you say, I have found most of the inspectors easy to work with. But once in a while we met a real winner....we had a guy in NJ who did everything from try to strangle citizens at a town meeting (they spoke out against him, and he attacked)...the same dude was very racist and they even had recorded tapes of him telling a "towel head" that he wasn't going to approve his project because he didn't like his type! That's only the tip of the iceberg! But in NJ there was a political process in place where you pretty much could not get rid of such a guy...no matter what. Heck, he's probably still there.

On the other side of the coin, my local inspector would call us (the stove shop) for general advice on stove and fireplace related matters...he wanted to learn more! I once asked him to look at a building we bought so we could know what to do with it, and he took one look and said "you can make this the Issod Hotel if you like" - meaning it pretty much could be anything we wanted.

So much of this stuff is common sense. The whole idea of all these codes and labels is to keep the percentages low - that is, keep things as safe as humanly possible. As long as the manufacturer, customer, installer and inspector keep that end game in mind, all is well.

 

[thechimneysweep]

I agree with those who've posted that NFPA 211 is a general guideline, intended for stoves that have no confilicting testing data. This is one of the main reasons manufacturers submit their models for testing: to verify that a particular model can be safely installed closer to combustibles than the NFPA generic spec.

Back in 1980, we sold a stove that allowed 8" rear clearance to a combustible backwall. When the stove was installed to this clearance, the flue collar (and surface of the connector pipe) were only 15" from that wall. Pipe clearance was not addressed in the manual, although the top-down diagram of the stove showed 15" from the backwall to the flue collar. Our local code inspector wanted 18" pipe clearance per NFPA, or a ventilated shield all the way up the wall behind the pipe (this was before the invention of double-wall connector pipe), so we wrote to the manufacturer for clarification. In response, we received a letter from OMNI test labs documenting that the 15" pipe clearance had been found to be sufficient for that model during testing. Had that not been the case, OMNI wouldn't have allowed the reduced stove clearance without requiring wall shielding for the pipe.

We have encountered the same thing in the installation manuals of nearly every stove we've sold since. Wherever single-wall pipe clearance is not specifically noted in the manual, our code inspectors will go by the clearance to the flue collar shown in the stove clearance diagram. Now that double-wall connector pipe (6" clearance) is available, the convention is to show two sketches, one with single-wall, and another, showing closer clearances, with double-wall. Essentially, the test lab is saying that the stove itself is safe at the closer position, but not the single-wall pipe.

To be continued...

 

[begreen]

So much of this stuff is common sense. The whole idea of all these codes and labels is to keep the percentages low - that is, keep things as safe as humanly possible. As long as the manufacturer, customer, installer and inspector keep that end game in mind, all is well.

Exactly, but that is also the crux of the problem. As we see here many times, a whole lot of installations are not done by dealers or pro-installers. Instead, the majority appear to be done by homeowners balking at high installation costs or often by seasonal installation crews that may have never burned a wood fire in their lives. I'm not kidding here. Experience and training has shown me the value of 3 screws per pipe joint, yet our pipe was installed without them. I had to point this out to the installer and insist they be put in. And they worked for a large local Stove and Spa store (and a Jotul dealer). Based on my experiences with this crew I'd have to say that common sense and experience was lacking. (They also cracked the ceiling sheetrock by hammering instead of screwing in the side braces for the support box.)

Although I agree that common sense really helps a lot, good documentation is what appears to be lacking. This is a simple matter of informing the stove owner and the inspector of what is permissible for a safe installation. Here is an example of what I am talking about. Two simple statements clarify, that the chart has minimum tested dimensions, not installation dimensions.

 

[thechimneysweep]

BeGreen, the original manual page you posted is unusual in several respects. The connector pipe clearances shown in the various diagrams are for single-wall pipe, and there's no diagram showing double-wall pipe at all. Clearly, the test lab wouldn't require 18" clearance to double-wall, as it is UL listed at 6" clearance.

The numbers shown in the table are just wrong (typo?) specifically in columns B and C. If the test lab is calling for 18" clearance to the single-wall pipe, as shown in the diagrams, there's no way I can see that dimension C in the single-wall table (backwall to exhaust collar) could be 13", unless the stove was standing in front of a combustible stub-wall that didn't extend above the stovetop (not likely).

Further, did anyone notice that the clearance requirements in columns B and C call for INCREASED clearance when heat shields and double-wall pipe are used? Doesn't make any sense. Meanwhile, the corner clearances shown in columns D and E seem to show logical clearances for the stove and flue collar when the single-wall pipe is at 18" clearance, and a logical reduction for shielding and double-wall pipe.

In the single-wall row, dimension B should be about 15", and C should be 18". In the double-wall row, I would expect to see these numbers reduced by about the same percentage as the corner clearances shown in columns D and E.

This manufacturer needs to fire his proof-reader, and reprint his manual.

 

[begreen]

Further, did anyone notice that the clearance requirements in columns B and C call for INCREASED clearance when heat shields and double-wall pipe are used? Doesn’t make any sense. Meanwhile, the corner clearances shown in columns D and E seem to show logical clearances for the stove and flue collar when the single-wall pipe is at 18” clearance, and a logical reduction for shielding and double-wall pipe.

This was noted in another thread a while back.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/19685/

 

[tfdchief]

This entire thread is an example of what I often go through dealing with permits and inspections. I love my job and always hope that I have made the correct decision, in the best interest of everyones pocket book and safety. When it goes bad, I have to respond with the big red trucks and I would really rather not have to do that. Property can be replaced but lives cannot. I am sure that this forum has saved countless lives and property damage. In areas where there is no permitting process, adopted codes, and inspections, it may be all people have.

 

[thechimneysweep]

Thanks, BG. Had missed that thread. So, was that a page from an Englander manual in your post above? If not, does the Englander manual allow for reduced corner clearances with shields and double-wall pipe while requiring increased clearances for flat backwall installations? That seeming anomoly was what got my radar blipping.

 

[begreen]

Yes, it is for the Englander 13-NC. To be fair, there is a clause on the preceding page that does explain the pipe clearances, but not the tested chart clearances:

"The black connector pipe should be 24 gauge steel and eighteen inches (18”) from a combustible wall or ceiling. This clearance can be reduced to six inches (6”) if you are using a double wall or shielded pipe."

I'm not trying to fault any particular company. What I'd like to see from all stove makers docs are two simple statements on the clearances page:

1) Tested minimum clearances are not necessarily what may be required for the actual stove installation. The connector pipe may determine the actual minimum clearance from combustibles.

2) Clearances can be reduced for single-wall pipe by using approved pipe shields

 

[jtp10181]

BeGreen your post with the picture made me realize something about the Quad manuals. The clearances they list are for the STOVE as I already pointed out. Seems silly for single wall the stove can be closer than the pipe would allow? But I forget about using pipe shields with single wall pipe.

From what I can gather Quadrafire (and probably most stove mfg's) are only testing the stove itself with brand X of pipe. Since the stoves are not specifying any specific pipe, but a "type" of pipe, they cannot really specify the clearances for that pipe, only to follow the pipe mfg instructions.

So for the original thread question. For Quadrafire stoves (and possibly others). We follow the stove instructions for the stove clearances, and the pipe mfg instructions for the pipe clearances. We can also toss in NFPA 211 to use their clearance reducing methods (but not the generic "unlisted" stove clearances).

While it is clear to me that the instructions are giving you reference points to measure off of (one being the flue collar). It is easily mistaken as a pipe clearance measurement. I seem to recall my install crew asking me about this at one time or another (they have been in the biz for 15+ years). There should be a large bolded warning stating "These clearances are for the STOVE BODY ONLY, please follow the pipe manufactures instructions for pipe clearances"

If you bring this up in ther summer when I have nothing to do I can bring it up to Quadrafire. Too much goinjg on right now to worry about it though.

 

[Pagey]

BeGreen your post with the picture made me realize something about the Quad manuals. The clearances they list are for the STOVE as I already pointed out. Seems silly for single wall the stove can be closer than the pipe would allow? But I forget about using pipe shields with single wall pipe.

From what I can gather Quadrafire (and probably most stove mfg's) are only testing the stove itself with brand X of pipe. Since the stoves are not specifying any specific pipe, but a "type" of pipe, they cannot really specify the clearances for that pipe, only to follow the pipe mfg instructions.

So for the original thread question. For Quadrafire stoves (and possibly others). We follow the stove instructions for the stove clearances, and the pipe mfg instructions for the pipe clearances. We can also toss in NFPA 211 to use their clearance reducing methods (but not the generic "unlisted" stove clearances).

While it is clear to me that the instructions are giving you reference points to measure off of (one being the flue collar). It is easily mistaken as a pipe clearance measurement. I seem to recall my install crew asking me about this at one time or another (they have been in the biz for 15+ years). There should be a large bolded warning stating "These clearances are for the STOVE BODY ONLY, please follow the pipe manufactures instructions for pipe clearances"

If you bring this up in ther summer when I have nothing to do I can bring it up to Quadrafire. Too much goinjg on right now to worry about it though.

That's a good point, but from a home owner's perspective it's confusing as hell. I mean, what's the point in saying "our stove has really tight CTCs" as a selling point if you can't use those due to the type of pipe. I mean, in order to test the stove body CTCs, they've got to vent it SOMEHOW. What are they using for venting in these tests? If it is anything other than retail single or double wall, then that's just deception on the part of the manufacturer in my humble opinion.

 

[jtp10181]

The single wall clearances could be met by having one of the 33% clearance reducing wall protections on the wall, or using a heat shield on the single wall pipe. I don't think any of thier clearances bring the stove closer than what would be safe for double wall pipe, since you can't really reduce double wall any more.

 

[firefighterjake]

BeGreen,
You bring up an excellent point. If doing an install do you A, observe the stove builders requirements. B, the pipe manufacturers. Or C, accommodate both because if you do have a fire, I'm sure the suit dummy from the insurance company will be out to measure everything up after the smoke settles, and looking for that one reason to not pay you out. I think I would lean towards the pipe manufacturers requirements. They can build cars that do 160mph but the Man posts a limit and fines you in excess.

Actually I suspect that the insurance company would be taking a long, hard look at the stove company, the pipe company and the installer . . . and then figuring out who is most culpable for the fire, who has the deepest pockets, etc. Our Inspector was a former Insurance Investigator . . . his job was to go in, investigate the cause of the fire and then determine, who or what company might be responsible for the fire . . . and then the insurance company would attempt to get some money from that person or company.

 

[firefighterjake]

I wouldn't be surprised if less than 50% of all stoves installed are inspected. That would be an interesting number to find out.

Personally I agree with exceeding the minimums, especially in the case of a stove posting close clearances with single-wall pipe. There are too many stoves heading out of big-box stores with owners preconceived notions of the hell with inspections. This seems like an area where folks could get in serious trouble, especially if they are pushing a small stove too hot.

I agree . . . both with the belief that there are no doubt a lot of woodstoves that have been installed without inspections (and I would go a step further and guess that there are a lot of stoves installed where folks were no where near as careful or conscious about the specific floor protection needed, clearances, etc.) and with the belief that it is usually better to exceed the minimum (as our Inspector points out, 211 standards and other fire code standards are the basic, minimum suggestions . . . you can always go beyond those minimums.)

 

[firefighterjake]

He is saying that the inspector can interpret or pretty much make up their own rules. That is AHJ (Authority having jurisdiction).
In most places this is only done when the original specs are murky or not covered at all. But some inspectors do make up their own rules.

If one gets caught in this net, there is usually an appeal process....a board that you can submit your proof to. I've done this an won...they laughed the inspector out of the courtroom and told him not to stop at a bar on the way home....not sure it's as fair everywhere.

I've seen the same . . . good inspectors who try to do the right thing . . . some inspectors who are just waiting for retirement (i.e. one inspector who approved a gasoline station even though their extinguishing system had not been checked for 5 years -- he just signed off on the license, another inspector took a cursory look at my brother's house and when he learned that I was working at Bangor said he was all set since clearly my brother would follow all fire codes, etc.) . . . and some inspectors who believe their job gives them a license to make up whatever crazy rule they want to enforce as they like the power.

I like our Inspector in Bangor . . . he really doesn't give a BS answer if he doesn't know the answer to a question and will take the time to find the answer in the code or by going to trusted experts in the field. He does have one potentially questionable code stipulation . . . he requires listed floor protection for all woodstoves and even pelletstoves (even if the manuals only require ember protection). When questioned he told me he can sleep a lot better at night knowing that for $10 worth of Durock is providing better floor protection than a single sheet of tin.

 

[begreen]

Our inspector came to look at the heating system install and signed off on the house final and woodstove without looking at either. Otherwise he would have noticed the porch stairs were missing and there was a 7ft drop! :ahhh:

 

[jtp10181]

Half the time when I call in for inspections they don't even have a clue. Some of the HVAC inspectors are like "are you sure you need an HVAC inspection, maybe you should call the building inspector". I tell them, your office gave me an HVAC permit and your name and phone number is on it! They just want their money for the permit around here and don't seem to know much about fireplaces at all.

 

[wendell]

This is an interesting thread. I'm considering reinstalling my 3450 upstairs and the clearance requirement for the pipe is listed at only 14.5". Man, that seems a little close.