RE: Two appliances in one flue . . . Maine legislation

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.
firefighterjake

firefighterjake

Minister of Fire
Jul 22, 2008
19,588
Unity/Bangor, Maine
Seems to me that the law in the link says only that such dual-use flue installations which have been in use since February 2, 1998 (or before) and haven't any problems with construction or operation are "grandfathered", and may be kept in service. I don't see anything in the wording of this particular law which addresses what's permissible (or not) in a new installation today. In fact, that they felt compelled to write this into the law makes me think that maybe they're not allowed by current law. Dunno. This is most certainly not everything the state has to say on the subject, I'm sure. Rick
 
Typo. Fixed it. Thanks. So, if the system is at least 11 years old, then nobody can tell you you can't keep using it. Rick
 
pendulum said:
kinda schizo it seems. coverass operation but still progressive & I STILL WANNA HEAR OBJECTIONS FROM SCIENCE?
Click to expand...

Most of your posts are good evidence of what can happen burning two appliances into one flue Pook. :lol:
 
fossil said:
Typo. Fixed it. Thanks. So, if the system is at least 11 years old, then nobody can tell you you can't keep using it. Rick
Click to expand...

Well . . . not 100% true. While no one in the State could put the kibosh on such an arrangement, technically a local Fire Inspector in a municipality or the insurance company for the home owner could veto such an install . . . but realistically local AHJs tend to follow the state's lead and in truth last year at least one insurance carrier was allowing this type of install (and in fact even had ads running say they would cover you with such an install . . . even though at the time it would technically violate NFPA codes which the State had adopted . . . and so while technically there are some parties that could nix such an install, realistically I don't think anyone would do so.
 
pendulum said:
firefighterjake said:
Thought this might peak some interest . . . personally I have mixed views on this issue.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/chapters/PUBLIC250.asp

Since it was adopted in late May I imagine this will go into effect some time in August.
Click to expand...
i wanna hear your cons, intelligently expressed,denoted,annoted
Click to expand...

Actually my only con is the way this was done . . . legislators superceding fire codes that have been adopted after a long process involving many involved parties on a committee and then approved by an even larger body (i.e. the NFPA method of formulating and adopting and modifying fire codes) isn't always a good precedent.

In my own opinion, a better way to make a change would be to fix the code . . . if there are no true reasons for the two-flue rule (i.e. good science showing the danger vs. junk science or a commonly held belief) then the code should be altered and the majority of the membership should be able to see the reasoning behind the change. Having legislators vote to change code for convenience sake isn't always a good idea . . .

That said . . . I honestly don't know if there is a true, valid reason for the two-flue rule or not . . . in fact our Fire Inspector isn't quite sure . . . and even a contact in the State Fire Marshal's Office has made some inquiries and isn't quite sure if the alleged reasons for the rule are truly valid or not. In my opinion, if the science doesn't reflect a potential problem the rule should be nixed . . . but if the science shows a problem the rule should stay . . . but in either case I would validate the opinions of a bunch of professionals in industry, fire safety, etc. (i.e. the NFPA committee that covers this set of codes) vs. a bunch of politicians who want to keep their constituents happy.
 
When two appliances are connected to the same flue, then the possibility exists, under the right conditions, for the exhaust gases from one operating appliance to enter the occupied space through the idle appliance. For that reason alone, I wouldn't live in a structure with such an arrangement.

In any case, this little piece of legislation just looks to me to have come about perhaps as a response to one or more constituents who sought relief from their lawmakers because they had older systems with shared flues that somebody told them they couldn't have anymore. So far as I can tell, that's all this thing does...grandfather the old systems so that they don't have to be brought into compliance with current code (whatever that current code may be). Rick
 
I believe Maine accepts N.F.P.A. as their heating code.
N.F.P.A. 211 say's in part that it is "not"code to install a liquid and solid fuel into the same flue unless both fuels are burned in the same appliance and that the appliance is tested and listed to operate as such.

I know that States can make the code tougher ,but it can not make it weaker??? At least so I thought.
The International Fuel Gas code also says the same thing....however it looks as though they are just saying if you got it and it works well your ok to keep it.

Yet if Maine says it's alright and if someone who has never had an issue arise all of a sudden has a problem is Maine liable for allowing as per code an unsafe install?
 
CrappieKeith said:
I believe Maine accepts N.F.P.A. as their heating code.
N.F.P.A. 211 say's in part that it is "not"code to install a liquid and solid fuel into the same flue unless both fuels are burned in the same appliance and that the appliance is tested and listed to operate as such.

I know that States can make the code tougher ,but it can not make it weaker??? At least so I thought.
The International Fuel Gas code also says the same thing....however it looks as though they are just saying if you got it and it works well your ok to keep it.

Yet if Maine says it's alright and if someone who has never had an issue arise all of a sudden has a problem is Maine liable for allowing as per code an unsafe install?
Click to expand...

Maine does some funny things sometimes . . . and yes, Maine does follow NFPA 211, but in this case they have legislated an exemption that by-passes the code for some older installs.

It's funny you mention liability . . . we've run into another situation here in the big city where the natural gas company has been retro-fitting oil boilers to natural gas boilers by pulling off the oil burner and replacing it with a NG burner. The City's policy was that unless the boiler is listed for use as both an oil boiler and NG boiler that doing so may not be a good idea . . . but the State ended up allowing the conversion. We in the city, are not experts when it comes to rating and listing boilers and firing units -- these conversions could be perfectly safe, but nevertheless there is a potential liability issue here so now we're following the State's lead and allowing conversions . . . but sending a letter to home owners and businesses advising them that there is the possiblity that the conversion violates their boiler's warrantee and there could be some liability issues if there are any problems in the future.
 
This legislation has me thinking that maybe this has something to do with mortgage foreclosures. Think about it, someone has the misfortune to lose their house and it's now bank property. The bank then goes and tries to sell that house, only to find out that it is in violation of fire code, and therefore can not complete the sale. That leaves the bank with the need to then hold on to the house even longer, and now sink possibly thousands of extra $$ back into that house, just to turn around and sell it at a further loss. This ruling may be some sort of concession from the state, to make home sales a bit easier for both banks, and folks that need to get out of their homes...

Just a thought..
 
firefighterjake said:
pendulum said:
firefighterjake said:
Thought this might peak some interest . . . personally I have mixed views on this issue.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/chapters/PUBLIC250.asp

Since it was adopted in late May I imagine this will go into effect some time in August.
Click to expand...
i wanna hear your cons, intelligently expressed,denoted,annoted
Click to expand...

Actually my only con is the way this was done . . . legislators superceding fire codes that have been adopted after a long process involving many involved parties on a committee and then approved by an even larger body (i.e. the NFPA method of formulating and adopting and modifying fire codes) isn't always a good precedent.

In my own opinion, a better way to make a change would be to fix the code . . . if there are no true reasons for the two-flue rule (i.e. good science showing the danger vs. junk science or a commonly held belief) then the code should be altered and the majority of the membership should be able to see the reasoning behind the change. Having legislators vote to change code for convenience sake isn't always a good idea . . .

That said . . . I honestly don't know if there is a true, valid reason for the two-flue rule or not . . . in fact our Fire Inspector isn't quite sure . . . and even a contact in the State Fire Marshal's Office has made some inquiries and isn't quite sure if the alleged reasons for the rule are truly valid or not. In my opinion, if the science doesn't reflect a potential problem the rule should be nixed . . . but if the science shows a problem the rule should stay . . . but in either case I would validate the opinions of a bunch of professionals in industry, fire safety, etc. (i.e. the NFPA committee that covers this set of codes) vs. a bunch of politicians who want to keep their constituents happy.
Click to expand...


Outstanding summation Jake!!!
I could not have said it better myself!
 
Adam_MA said:
This legislation has me thinking that maybe this has something to do with mortgage foreclosures. Think about it, someone has the misfortune to lose their house and it's now bank property. The bank then goes and tries to sell that house, only to find out that it is in violation of fire code, and therefore can not complete the sale. That leaves the bank with the need to then hold on to the house even longer, and now sink possibly thousands of extra $$ back into that house, just to turn around and sell it at a further loss. This ruling may be some sort of concession from the state, to make home sales a bit easier for both banks, and folks that need to get out of their homes...

Just a thought..
Click to expand...

Perhaps . . . although the whole mortgage bust thing hasn't been as pronounced up here (not to say that there aren't more foreclosures, but it just hasn't been as bad.)

I think this legislation originally sprang up from last Fall when oil prices were going through the roof and folks who had not heated with wood in years began to reconnect their woodstoves or buy new woodstoves in an effort to save money by burning less oil . . . and then found out from their oil company, stove installer, local fire inspector, etc. that they were in violation of the law . . . even though they had been using the two appliances in one flue for years . . . well for years back in the 1970s or 80s.
 
cycloptic pendulum said:
Wood Heat Stoves said:
regardless of nfpa 211, what if any modern manufacturers allow multiple units on one flue??
Click to expand...
dunno but is "single" specified or are the flue specs?i think gas allows for multiple units but cross sectional flue areas have to be considered
Click to expand...
yes, every hearth appliance i sell says specifically it cant be vented with another appliance
 
if you look at the underlined it says as long as proper draft allows. there is were your technicality is. they will have to prove with meters that there is enough draft. no if the woodstove requires a 8 inch chimney and the boiler needs a 6 inch chimney what are they going to say. you are going to have to have a 14 inch chimney in case both units are running at the same time. that sentence has loaded the insurance companies gun to say, i know that you have been running this set up for 25 years but it doesn't provide enough draft for both units so we are not going to cover your loss
 
fbelec said:
if you look at the underlined it says as long as proper draft allows. there is were your technicality is. they will have to prove with meters that there is enough draft. no if the woodstove requires a 8 inch chimney and the boiler needs a 6 inch chimney what are they going to say. you are going to have to have a 14 inch chimney in case both units are running at the same time. that sentence has loaded the insurance companies gun to say, i know that you have been running this set up for 25 years but it doesn't provide enough draft for both units so we are not going to cover your loss
Click to expand...

You would only need a 10" chimney.
 
Kenn said:
fbelec said:
if you look at the underlined it says as long as proper draft allows. there is were your technicality is. they will have to prove with meters that there is enough draft. no if the woodstove requires a 8 inch chimney and the boiler needs a 6 inch chimney what are they going to say. you are going to have to have a 14 inch chimney in case both units are running at the same time. that sentence has loaded the insurance companies gun to say, i know that you have been running this set up for 25 years but it doesn't provide enough draft for both units so we are not going to cover your loss
Click to expand...

You would only need a 10" chimney.
Click to expand...

you get my point thou. and i don't mean the one on my head :)

i grew up in a house that had a 12 square chimney. unlined just brick. it had two coal burners and two gas stoves hooked up to that chimney. didn't matter what time of year it always had a strong draft. then the coal burners had oil burners installed, still the same. that's my experience with multi appliances into one chimney. i would hate to see a chimney fire in that one thou. lots of them the same way in and around the suburbs of boston. i've seen the same size chimney in a three family houses that had 3 boilers and three water heaters all on the same chimney. the deference was the kitchen stoves had their own chimney.
 
fbelec said:
Kenn said:
fbelec said:
if you look at the underlined it says as long as proper draft allows. there is were your technicality is. they will have to prove with meters that there is enough draft. no if the woodstove requires a 8 inch chimney and the boiler needs a 6 inch chimney what are they going to say. you are going to have to have a 14 inch chimney in case both units are running at the same time. that sentence has loaded the insurance companies gun to say, i know that you have been running this set up for 25 years but it doesn't provide enough draft for both units so we are not going to cover your loss
Click to expand...

You would only need a 10" chimney.
Click to expand...

you get my point thou. and i don't mean the one on my head :)

i grew up in a house that had a 12 square chimney. unlined just brick. it had two coal burners and two gas stoves hooked up to that chimney. didn't matter what time of year it always had a strong draft. then the coal burners had oil burners installed, still the same. that's my experience with multi appliances into one chimney. i would hate to see a chimney fire in that one thou. lots of them the same way in and around the suburbs of boston. i've seen the same size chimney in a three family houses that had 3 boilers and three water heaters all on the same chimney. the deference was the kitchen stoves had their own chimney.
Click to expand...

I was just saying you can't add the diameters you must add the areas. An 8" pipe (50.24 in2) is almost double the size of a 6"pipe (28.26 in2). Your old chimney was 144 in2, almost double the size of the 6 and 8 inch pipes combined. So, it was no doubt big enough.

I don't think the issue is draft, but safety issues such as carbon monoxide poisoning.
 
Here is why I think the law was enacted, I have witnessed this happen. Your low income and you need a new oil tank or burner, the burner tech shows up and says I'm not fixing anything until the wood stove is removed because the installation is out of code. The price of heating oil is barely affordable but you need the dam thing for hot water and the woodstove has been there for 20 years keeping you from freezing to death. Now getting insurance is another issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Chimney Fires White Paper - Read This!
Replies
14
Views
2K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
M
Two Woodstoves on One Flue... Can We Remove One and Put in Electric or Gas Insert?
Replies
2
Views
825
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
Nevins MHP
Nevins MHP
Max W
Minisplits and wood
Replies
4
Views
903
The Inglenook
EbS-P
EbS-P
A
Renovating a century old house - main heating appliance - stove or zero clearance fireplace?
Replies
16
Views
2K
SBI: Century,Drolet,Osburn,Valcourt,Englander
alexno
A
G
How do I like my Vermont Castings Dauntless? An early on review.
Replies
78
Views
11K
Vermont Castings
GrumpyDad
G
Top Bottom
Back