Special offer

Dear Home Inspector - Dryer Vent Clarification

By
Home Inspector with SafeHome Inspections

Gary,

My sister-in-law's sister is buying a home and the dryer vent blows into the garage.  My brother (who builds some too and been in and around construction all of his life) said that the dryer vent at the home discharged into the garage and he believe this was against code. Can you tell me if this is the case?

Lisa

__________________________________

Lisa,

Your request for clarification introduces somewhat of a dilemma that home inspectors find themselves in from time to time. Allow me to attempt to explain some of the parameters and boundaries that are in place with respect to code violations and the home inspection. I believe for the most part this question involves interpretation.

First and foremost we (licensed inspectors) in the state of Mississippi are not "Code" inspectors. We have no jurisdictional authority or ability under State law to enforce code. Code enforcement responsibilities are held by the building official in the county or city in which the building construction permit is issued.

Mississippi does not have a uniform building code. Each community governs this process independently. In some locations (since there is no state policy) use the 2003 International Residential Code (IRC) and some use the 2006 IRC. Some use a much earlier version. Some locals don't have a permit office at all and a builder (or individual, since any one can build a home) does not have to apply for a permit or have his/her work monitored in any way at all.

As a licensed home builder for over 24 years, I have seen codes evolve, change, die, be introduced and enforced by the building official in many ways. As part of my responsibilities as a contractor I try and build by code rules. In order to build by code I have, over the years, owned several different versions of the IRC code book. The latest is the 2006 IRC.

With reference to the 2006 IRC Code for One and Two Family Dwellings:

Chapter One

Part 1-Administrative

DUTIES AND PROWERS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL

                SECTION R104 General. (in part)

"The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions."

This code section goes on to explain the process of application for construction, how and when they inspect, how and when their records of inspection are kept, and rules of how their actions are protected when they enforce or carry out their duties for the state. In the sections of how and when they inspect, with respect to finalizing the process and allowing a family to live there, after the last inspection is finished the building department (with approval from the building official) a certificate of occupancy is issued. With this document in hand, the builder (as far as he/she is concerned) is officially finished with the home.

Specifically, with respect to dryer vents, the 2006 IRC Mechanical Code reads:

Chapter 15

EXHAUST SYSTEMS

SECTION M1501 General.

Outdoor Discharge.

"The air removed by every mechanical exhaust system shall be discharged to the outdoors. Air shall not be exhausted into an attic, soffit, ridge vent or crawl space."

SECTION M1502  CLOTHES DRYER EXHAUST

M1502.1 General.

"Dryer exhaust systems shall be independent of all other systems, and shall convey the moisture to the outdoors."

So...based on the code book the building official (in my opinion) allowed the vent to be discharged into the garage in his attempt to define "outdoors"? I am very cautious in my attempt to decipher his/her reasoning.

Yes, you could make a case that you personally don't want the dryer vent to terminate in the garage. As a suggestion, put it on a punch list and ask the builder to change it. But, since the house has all the necessary utility hookups I am of the impression that the building official has already issued a certificate of occupancy. Most likely he/she will explain to you that the home is finished. Maybe he will work with you and change it? As a builder if this were my client, I would attempt to resolve the issue.

Gary Smith - Mid MS Inspections

Posted by

Central MS Home Inspection Company

SafeHome Inspections

601-691-1496

http://www.garynsmith.net

Comments (15)

Marlene Bridges
Village Real Estate Services, Inc. - Laguna Hills, CA
Laguna Homes|Laguna Condos|Laguna Real Estate

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the clarification.  I was most surprised to read that Mississippi does not have a uniform building code.  This puts a lot of responsibility on you as an inspector and on agents to know how to assist their clients!

Apr 22, 2007 03:10 AM
Teri Eckholm
Boardman Realty - White Bear Lake, MN
REALTOR Serving Mpls/St Paul North & East Metro
Good and thoughtful explanation. This is a situation that I see when showing homes in Minnesota as well. Each community has its own code and Truth-in-housing inspections are not required by all communities. Thank you for the information.
Apr 22, 2007 03:13 AM
Steven L. Smith
King of the House Home Inspection, Inc. - Bellingham, WA
Bellingham WA Home Inspector

Hi,

 

I am in Washington State, so will tell you how that would be handled here, by me at least. As Gary said, inspectors are not code inspectors and do not call codes. However, most of us know a number of them and have codes in the back of our minds. In other words, when we call bad steps or unsafe handrails, we are likely thinking of codes when we make the decision to state they are unsafe. Without some established reference, one is blowing into the wind. If an inspector was continually calling as problems things that met codes, he would have trouble justfying many of those calls. There are times, however, when an inspector believes something should be upgraded, even though it meets minimum code.

As for the dryer vent, I would absolutlely call that as a problem. First, in our state, most of us legally doing home inspections are also licensed structural pest inspectors. And a dryer vented into the garage is a conducive condition for the garage. That is, it leads to too much moisture accumulating and that will lead to attracting wood destroying organisms such as rot or even major conducive conditions such as mold.  That applies to a gas or electric dryer. However, if it is a gas dryer, there is a more significant safety issue. Think about gas dryers, unlike water heaters or furnaces, they do not have a B-vent. The combustion gases that are produced vent out the dryer vent. Some of these are poisonous. You do not want those collecting in the garage.

 So my view is, this is not a code concern at all, although it might violate codes, it is common sense and safety. Get the vent ducted outdoors.

Apr 22, 2007 03:27 AM
Gary Smith
SafeHome Inspections - Ridgeland, MS

Steven,

I believe you are right with the use of common sense and safety. In this case the question was formatted and presented to me as a code case. I tried to respond accordingly and frankly enjoy this kind of question for it presents a fine example of the issue home inspectors meet in order to form our opinions.

No, I don't feel it's "smart" to introduce moisture and lent into an area that is used to store personal items we use in our life everyday. Lent, mold, mildew, carbon monoxide, and moisture on concrete floors present a unsafe walking condition...wet floors in colder climates can turn into ice on the garage floor. 

Where I am presented with other code calls, no hand rail for example, I often times relate the issue to common sense. "Would you want your grandparent to atempt to travel these steps without a hand rail?"

Often times the inspector is asked why "some inspectors call code and some don't".

I personally try to avoid code language (or any language for that manor) that I personally don't have the expertise or the background to defend. Each of us, inspectors and non-inspectors, have specific strenths and weaknesses. If I am presented with a "code call" and I feel I have extensive knowledge in that particular field, I don't hesitate to include appropriate language for the situation. It's a personal call.

I have found that the home inspection business is sometimes very specific and not all reporting language or decision will fit every situation. What we (inspectors) know and how we present our experience will either enrich our reputation or will hinder it.

In the mean time...we have a duty to our client to call it like we see it. That's why we're hired...

Gary Smith - Mid MS Inspections 

 

 

Apr 22, 2007 06:23 AM
Steven L. Smith
King of the House Home Inspection, Inc. - Bellingham, WA
Bellingham WA Home Inspector

Gary,

 I understand why you answered as you did, no problem or argument at all.

In our area, far as I know, almost all inspectors are trained to avoid calling codes or at least writing things as code issues in the report. That is also a policy we teach at the state college home inspection training program. The stated theory is that when we cite "code", even a simple one, we arguably establish that we are in part code inspectors and are including code violations in the report. If it all ends up in court, and let us hope not, by calling some codes we become less able to defend our position if we missed some other code issue. For example, if I correctly cited an electrical code problem I see all the time but missed something in a more hazy area, like ventilation, HVAC, etc.  So, by citing a single code in writing, I have diluted my argument that I am not a code inspector. 

Now, in practice, if a client or a realtor asks me if something is a code violation, then I will say: "As you know a home inspector is not citing codes, and is doing a common sense and safety inspection, but in this case yes, I am sure the city would not allow a two inch difference in the height of the risers at the steps." In the written report, I will refer to it as a safety problem that does not meet good construction standards. I know different states have different levels of litigation and here in WA it is pretty litigious. Obviously, any inspector, as you say, can do as he or she sees fit, but that just gives some background on why I said what I did.

Thanks.

Steve

Apr 22, 2007 07:41 AM
Mike (Inspector Mike) Parks
Inspector Mike - Circleville, OH
Inspector Mike

Marlene

You may be also suprised that Ohio did not have a Residential Code until 27 May 2006.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/80196/Residential-Code-of-Ohio

And did not license specialty contractors until Sep. 17, 2001.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/63563/Electricians-Plumbers-ETC

Apr 22, 2007 10:51 AM
Scott Patterson, ACI
Trace Inspections, LLC - Spring Hill, TN
Home Inspector, Middle TN
I have found that if you follow the requirements by the dryer manufacturers you can't go wrong.  All conventional dryers have about the same venting requirements.  Manufacturer requirements trump the Codes.
Apr 23, 2007 02:30 AM
Jimmy Breazeale
Sherlock Home Inspections - Coldwater, MS
Good post, Gary.  Things do get a bit problematic for us inspectors, especially in those jurisdictions that have no requirements.  How does one 'call out' something if the local authority gives a builder or remodeler carte blanc by simply having no standards?  It's tricky.  Right here in N. Mississippi, there are three counties that have no enforcement at all.  There are more, but the three I have in mind are in high or moderate growth areas, and one would think that there would be a concern for standards.  Thus, there is a lot of 'code passing' going on.  Still, the consumer needs to be made aware.  Generally, I solve this problem by stating somewhere in a comment language such as "though local authorites do not require this.." etc.  Even then it's tricky.  Builders get miffed if, on a warranty inspection for instance, you might use such language in calling out simple things like the lack of drip edge along rakes and eaves, or the dreaded "no weep system" issue.  Basicly, in such situations, I take the stance that, if it's in the plans, and nobody signed off on a change, then it ought to be there.  That will generally hold up, and puts the ball back in the right court.
Apr 23, 2007 04:43 AM
Donald Sutherland
Marathon Constructors Inspection Services - Seward, AK
Inspector-Seward, Alaska

Once again, good communication skills are a major part of being a PROFESSIONAL Inspector.

Alaska Don

Apr 24, 2007 09:12 AM
Bob Elliott
Elliott Home Inspection - Chicago, IL
Chicago Property Inspection

Simple answer is not good practice,(recommend correction).

 This is not a big dealbreaker problem to over come.

Apr 25, 2007 03:51 AM
XXXXXXXXXX XCXCX
KJHGF - Arviat, YN

I would have used the proper verbiage (I'm not a code official) but I would have definitely said it was an improper thing to do and mention how much moisture would be exhausted into the garage and the possibility of mold growth etc. I recently had this same thing on an inspection.

Apr 27, 2007 03:09 AM
Bob Elliott
Elliott Home Inspection - Chicago, IL
Chicago Property Inspection

Thank you for your comment James,however I was not discussing verbiage.wordage,code,or inspector speak and am sorry if I confused you.

I was simply referring to the fact that this is a simple fix.

I spent six years installing appliances for Sears and found this to be a common problem that can be corrected at minimal time and expense.

Put simply I was adding to the thread with a comment and not attempting an alternative script.

Oh by the way if you would like the proper term I would never call anything mold without testing,so please remember to call it (conditions conducive to organic growth)

 

Apr 27, 2007 04:36 AM
Mike (Inspector Mike) Parks
Inspector Mike - Circleville, OH
Inspector Mike

Scott

"Manufacturer requirements trump the Codes."

Not always true.

Example Square D allows two wires under one lug. NEC allows only one grounded conductor per lug.

Apr 29, 2007 01:12 AM
Jim Watzlawick
Watz Home Inspections - Algonquin, IL
Watz Home Inspections
Gas dryer or Electric dryer? Some areas permit electric dryer not to be vented to the exterior
May 13, 2007 05:41 AM
Donald Sutherland
Marathon Constructors Inspection Services - Seward, AK
Inspector-Seward, Alaska

Jim,

The old uniform codes required dryer venting to the exterior. Since 2000 when the new "I" codes were published, dryer venting still goes to the exterior. Not all regions have adopted these codes. Many regions that adopted, have ammended the codes. I have to agree with Scott, manufacturers recommendations can trump the codes, if the local jurisdiction will allow it. I find it difficult to believe that any building official would allow dryer venting into an enclosed area.

Alaska Don

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May 13, 2007 07:01 AM