WETT Inspection Troubles

[crickert]

I had a gentleman come out last week to inspect our woodstove for WETT certification. Paid up-front, $300. Everything was fine but the chimney is apparently too short for the roof (it's a masonry chimney with a clay liner, and a flexible liner inserted the whole length with rain cap installed).

The gentleman told me that I could order the parts from their shop, install them myself, send them pictures of the install, and they would give me the certification for insurance.

I was up on the roof and measured the height of the termination (the rain cap extends a little above, see link at bottom) to be 68" tall. The roof is a 4-12 slope, so am I not correct that the chimney height needs to be 64" tall based on the WETT manual?

I asked him this over email and he said the measurement is from the chimney crown to the peak of the roof. I see 2 problems with this:
- Would their extension kit also not be sufficient since it is not extending the masonry higher?
- The peak is 13' away, so am I not correct in assuming the 2' offset is from the highest point 10' away?

Are there any experts in here who can weigh in?

(broken link removed to https://myfireplaceproducts.com/ca_en/6-o-x-25-vortex-stainless-flex-liner-kit-for-inserts-volki-625?gclid=CjwKCAjwqJSaBhBUEiwAg5W9pzRXqy3eBNFecfbXBHcw7lvMBozA7PuMZq4ri5rHBXVqQAAm3jMWbxoCfpUQAvD_BwE)

 

[begreen]

Yes, the extension would be sufficient. What needs to be determined is the extension length and what it is made of.

The distance to the peak in this case is not what counts. It is the distance on a level plane to the nearest roofline. The extension needs to raise the top of the flue system two feet above the roofline 10 feet away.

 

[crickert]

Yes, the extension would be sufficient. What needs to be determined is the extension length and what it is made of.

The distance to the peak in this case is not what counts. It is the distance on a level plane to the nearest roofline. The extension needs to raise the top of the flue system two feet above the roofline 10 feet away.

View attachment 300343

Thanks begreen,

So you're saying that my existing chimney height of 68" is sufficient?

 

[EbS-P]

I get you need 64” as well. Measured to the termination of the liner? Probably not the top of the cap.

Quick formula for minimum height. For a single pitch. Make your pitch a fraction less than one, times by ten add 2’.

4/12 times 10 plus 2’

 

[crickert]

I get you need 64” as well. Measured to the termination of the liner? Probably not the top of the cap.

Quick formula for minimum height. For a single pitch. Make your pitch a fraction less than one, times by ten add 2’.

4/12 times 10 plus 2’

That's right, termination of the liner. This is measured on the high side of the masonry, so add 1.5" or so

 

[begreen]

Sounds correct. Maybe the inspector was thinking it's a 6/12 pitched roof?

 

[EbS-P]

Would adding a coupler be sufficient?

 

[crickert]

Sounds correct. Maybe the inspector was thinking it's a 6/12 pitched roof?

The representative and I agree it is a 4/12 roof. The disagreement is where the measurement is from. He is adamant that the top of chimney is the crown, negating the effect that the clay tile and liner topper have. But if I was to install the ICC products he supplied, then the measurement would be from the top of the extension.

More or less, I'm just confused why the termination of the "chimney" is measured from different places in the existing vs. replaced scenario.

 

[vbu]

The representative and I agree it is a 4/12 roof. The disagreement is where the measurement is from. He is adamant that the top of chimney is the crown, negating the effect that the clay tile and liner topper have. But if I was to install the ICC products he supplied, then the measurement would be from the top of the extension.

More or less, I'm just confused why the termination of the "chimney" is measured from different places in the existing vs. replaced scenario.

That makes no sense. If the top of the chimney is the crown now, then with their theory, an extension should not change the height of the chimney. I agree with you that the top of the chimney is where the top of the liner is.

 

[EbS-P]

How much money was his extension solution?

 

[crickert]

How much money was his extension solution?

$675, after a $300 pay before service WETT inspection.

Went to another inspector, and they have no issue with it. This feels like extortion via sunk cost fallacy....

 

[EbS-P]

$675, after a $300 pay before service WETT inspection.

Went to another inspector, and they have no issue with it. This feels like extortion via sunk cost fallacy....

My dad had a tape measure that the hook end broke off. He cut two inches off and rivited the hook back on. I would have offered the inspector to use that tape measure

 

[begreen]

It's from the top of the liner. Let the guy know that he needs to pass your setup or risk being reported for a padded inspection.

 

[crickert]

It's from the top of the liner. Let the guy know that he needs to pass your setup or risk being reported for a padded inspection.

So after some back and forth, he's changed his tune because now the height is not the issue, it's that the proper chimney is not extending 2' above the highest point within 10 feet. He want's class A chimney pipe all the way to the termination, from the crown. Now I'm no thermodynamics wiz, but I don't think the top 1 foot of a 25' chimney being uninsulated is going to make a difference in the draft. Besides, the height requirement is for combustibles, so I would relate that to the opening.

I guess this could be chalked up to a difference of opinion. But with the other inspector saying he wouldn't think twice about passing it, and the first guy's motivation for more profits, I don't think it has merit. What avenue would you go through to report a padded inspection?

 

[crickert]

My dad had a tape measure that the hook end broke off. He cut two inches off and rivited the hook back on. I would have offered the inspector to use that tape measure

That has more than one intended purpose I'm sure haha

 

[Split]

So after some back and forth, he's changed his tune because now the height is not the issue, it's that the proper chimney is not extending 2' above the highest point within 10 feet. He want's class A chimney pipe all the way to the termination, from the crown. Now I'm no thermodynamics wiz, but I don't think the top 1 foot of a 25' chimney being uninsulated is going to make a difference in the draft. Besides, the height requirement is for combustibles, so I would relate that to the opening.

I guess this could be chalked up to a difference of opinion. But with the other inspector saying he wouldn't think twice about passing it, and the first guy's motivation for more profits, I don't think it has merit. What avenue would you go through to report a padded inspection?

Not to be that guy but, first, you have no proof he's 'out for profit'. Secondly, is the chimney extending 2' above the highest point within 10 feet? If yes then he's wrong and you can get WETT certifiedby someone else. If it isnt then you gotta raise it for WETT certification. It doesn't sound like it is.

 

[bholler]

Not to be that guy but, first, you have no proof he's 'out for profit'. Secondly, is the chimney extending 2' above the highest point within 10 feet? If yes then he's wrong and you can get WETT certifiedby someone else. If it isnt then you gotta raise it for WETT certification. It doesn't sound like it is.

But he charged them $300 for the inspection. Then failed it for an invalid reason. And then offered to fix the nonexistent problem for a ridiculous price.

 

[crickert]

Not to be that guy but, first, you have no proof he's 'out for profit'. Secondly, is the chimney extending 2' above the highest point within 10 feet? If yes then he's wrong and you can get WETT certifiedby someone else. If it isnt then you gotta raise it for WETT certification. It doesn't sound like it is.

No solid proof, but as bholler said, the series of events indicated that. First, he said the height was to clear the roof peak. Once I measured and said the termination was 2' above the highest point within 10', then insisted that the last foot of height be insulated Class A pipe. As it sits now, the last foot is clay tile and a clamp/cap. Pair that with paying before the inspection, it seems like there was significant motivation to drive profits.

It's all moot now though, got a certification for $75 from someone else. Much less money, did not have to pay up front, and did not try to push product after.