Updated Field Survey form

Mark Eatherton

See attached. Comments are still welcome as this is an ongoing process. Thanks to all who have contributed to date.

MikeyB

Field Survey

Hey Mark, I have a couple of questions regarding the Survey, on the first page 6th line down it has a line for Outside Ambient Co: _________Air Free CO PPM, would you write down both readings?, it also has the same for the Inside Ambient CO, Should it just be the reading you get for the Ambient? And on the 2nd page for Ambient CO in the immediate vicinity:__________ CO ppm air free? What do we fill in the blank with? Great idea in adding the Floor Drain Seal by the way, thanks Mark

Mark Eatherton

Mikey...

You caught a typo on my part. Air Free CO is applicable only to flue gas stream testing. All other ambient CO's are read in regular CO readings.



Attached please find take 2.1



Thanks for the catch and proof reading.



Also, to anyone reading this, if you would like a copy in WORD that can be modified with your company name and address, drop an email to markeatherton@mac.com and I will bounce back the word document.



ME

MikeyB

Survey

Mark, can you add a space for the BTU input of the appliance (if a gas appliance) and maybe fuel oil pressure for an oil fired system, Also what do you mean by "Combustion Air Zone Test"?  does this mean if there is enough combustion air in the mech room? For an oil fired system can you have a space for a smoke spot test? Under the Emergency Disconnect: there is a space for CO, Im not sure what you mean by this one? thanks again Mark, sorry for the laundry list

Mark Eatherton

No problem Mikey...

I value your and anyones input and will change the form to accommodate. This is what it's all about. Community involvement. I will attach the amended form to this post. What I know about oil, you could stick under the corner of your eye, and not blink... What I am trying to create is a check list that is applicable to all "fired" appliance, in all parts of the country, in fact WORLD for that part. Tough to cover all the bases when you've never been completely around all the bases if you know what I mean.



CAZ test is where you try and create the worse case combustion air zone depressurization. For example, leave the door (if there is one) to the boiler room open, and then go through out the building, turning ON every piece of equipment that can create a negative pressure within the building. Exhaust fans, whole house fans, Gen-Aire grills, exhaust ventilator hoods etc. Make certain that if there is a door between the appliance and the negative pressure generator that the door is kept open to the appliances atmosphere. For example, the door at the top of the stairs leading to the basement where the appliance is located. If it is normally closed, keep it open during the test so the appliance zone can "SEE" the negative pressures being produced.



Then you return to the appliance and fire it up under these abnormally, but realistically potential, negative air pressure conditions to make certain that the appliance can establish and maintain good draft conditions once it is fired.



The BPI standards do not allow ANY spillage to occur, which I think is kind of over kill. The ANSI standards use allow an appliance to spill for up to 5 minutes without concern. Someone please correct me if this has changed. Sometimes, it takes a bit of energy input to get a chimney to draft, and when it takes off with the thermal, it is enhanced with the atmospheric pressure differential.



The reason for the CO near the disconnect is because one certain state (Mass.) requires a CO detector that is interfaced into the fired equipment.



Thanks for your interest and input Mikey. I don't understand why others are not putting anything in to this process. I guess they will put themselves on the mercy of the court system and plead ignorance if they ever find themselves in a bad CO situation.



In the legal system, there is a function called "Standard of Care". and these are standards of care, and if you don't exercise them, you are leaving yourself open to a lot of negative energy...



If you touched it last, you own it. If you think otherwise, wait until an attorney turns you inside out and upside down, then maybe you will see the light.



HTH



ME

MikeyB

Survey Form

Great explanitions Mark, thats exactly what I was looking for. This is a great addition to this web site, keep up the good work

Tim McElwain

Just to add to Marks

statement



"In the legal system, there is a function called "Standard of Care". and these are standards of care, and if you don't exercise them, you are leaving yourself open to a lot of negative energy..."



"If you touched it last, you own it. If you think otherwise, wait until an attorney turns you inside out and upside down, then maybe you will see the light."



As an expert witness in court cases I have seen business owners break down in tears as they see their business going under due to negligence on the part of themselves or their employees. One of the most frequent statements I hear is this " I did not think it was my responsibility to do that or check that."



A quick example was the gas stove making CO from the oven and the oil man on a check for CO detector going off only checked the oil boiler. Two days later two people died from CO poisoning

Tim McElwain

Mark I downloaded the revision

I will take a look at it from the oil mans perspective and I may have George Lanthier (Firedragon Enterprises) give it a look.



By the way send me that Microsoft Word copy.

Mark Eatherton

Thanks Tim..

Tell George to feel free to post it on his site as well.



ME

Mark Eatherton

Version 3.0

Many Thanks to George Lanthier for his input into the form.



ME

MikeyB

Survey

Mark do you want the CO result  labled in percent or in ppm? e.g "Outside Ambient CO%PPM = _______ CO %PPM"   Thanks again for the updated form.

Mark Eatherton

Parts per million.

Industry standard is to list it in parts per million (PPM).





ME

Bob Harper

field forms

Mark, the concept of this form is noble but it has some "baggage" to consider. I'm not condemning the form outright but just provoking thought.

First of all, anytime you use a checklist form that a client is asked to sign and receive a copy of as proof of notification of hazards, warnings and consequences for failure to act, you leave yourself open. Every box or blank must have an entry and you limit your entry to a check mark where more info. may be required.

There are many standards out there that can apply so you have to be careful this form is harmonized across them all. The most glaring example is NFPA 211 Chapter 14 on inspection of chimneys, vents and solid fuel-burning appliances. This std. details the scope, level of accesscircumstances and indications for a Level I, II or II inspection and what that inspection encompasses. This requires training to fully comprehend and apply. Recently, the State of De. ruled a chimney sweep must perform a level I on a routine sweeping. The State Fire Marshal has adopted 211 even though it has not been adopted into State Code. This presents many challenges as you try to decipher what requirements and obligations you have in the course of your job.

An inspection is a snapshot in time. If you are to write an inspection report, it must be comprehensive including the conditions present at the time of inspection. It must include disclaimers to limit the scope of the inspection. It must include disclaimers for impediments to access. 

Understand conducting "tests" is not considered part of an inspection but either a "service" or "investigation". You have to be very careful how you represent what you are doing. If your "tests" reveal the installation is Within Normal Limits then a condition changes resulting in an injury, you will be defending yourself. This is a complex issue.

The language you use now must incorporate certain ANSI stds. such as the alert words you choose. For instance, *caution* means something might go wrong and if it does, there may be damage; *warning* means something is likely to go wrong and when it does, there will be significant damage and/ or personal injury; *danger* means something will go wrong resulting in fire, major damage and major personal injury or death. See the escalation of probability and damage? BTW, a TOLO is indicated only at *danger* level threats.

There needs to be training to apply a form such as this. You need training in where to sample and why on the various types of combustion appliances. Most HVAC techs know about testing in vents and some combustion analysis but not in the CAZ and home. For instance, if you hold the tip of your analyzer too close to a source, you can entrain flue gases resulting in a false positive, whereas failure to test in other areas may result in a false negative and all that under what test conditions such as Worst Case?



I'm not trying to kill this project but introduce a level of caution as it currently is an open door to litigation as I see it. I am developing a training course with regards to this so I will decline further input on this form but I do applaud anyone testing and inspectiing for CO related issues and raising awareness. I think the CO problem is grossly understated as the reporting mechanisms in this country are a joke. How many people die of *natural causes* that never are investigated for CoHb?

Warmest regards,

Tim McElwain

Bob as always thanks for

your expert input.



The form I believe is simply a tool to assist a technician in doing their job as it relates to determining CO awareness and perhaps other unsafe conditions. On the part of the customer to help them and as a guideline to assist them in making decisions as to their systems need for service or repair. There are two many things to be tested and if a tech had to do them all he would be in the customers house all day. I can tell you I have been involved in testing all phases of a customers home as I am sure you have been also and it was an all day job.



This form is as complete as Mark and others who contributed can make it without getting cumbersome. I made some suggestions to mark which he took some but chose to not use others I understand this again as trying to keep the form as simple as he could.



As for liability it is my opinion the worst case of liability is when you do nothing. I have always said if me doing my job incurs a liability then bring it on. I have picked up the warranties on over 3,500 boilers and furnaces I have converted from coal or oil to gas. It was just easier to do that. Interesting I have never had to cover one of those warranties.

Mark Eatherton

Thanks for the input Bob.

As Tim has so eloquently stated, this form is not intended to be a fit all do all as much as it is a due diligence guide line to further awareness and possibly find situations that exist that can be considered deadly and or dangerous. Much of it is based on existing Building Performance Institute standards currently being applied in the field, with some modifications from folks in the industry.



I don't think there is an expert witness alive who knows that anything can be disassembled and made to look deficient or bad, but again, as Tim said, doing nothing when you could/should be doing something will more than likely end up costing someone their business. Remember, there is a jury potentially involved in this process as well, and they can employ common sense in making their decision.



Until the day that CO training is mandatory with required certification, this is really an effort of education, and no one is going to deny that education, of contractors and consumers is a good thing.



Let's face it Bob, we leave ourselves open to litigation every time we step foot into the consumers buildings. The people who frequent this board expose themselves and their customers to fire, gas/oil explosions, CO, water damage, electrocution and more on a daily basis, and the only constant is change itself. My feeling is that by doing NOTHING, as it pertains to looking for potential problems with CO, a person is definitely exposing themselves to open litigation than someone who is making an effort towards mitigating loss of property or human lives.



No one form is going to be "perfect and completely free of litigation". There are a lot of very sharp law individuals out there that can take anything apart and put it back together again to look bad. We're just trying to save lives here.



I appreciate your input, and will modify the form as it pertains to the ANSI standards of warnings.



Keep us posted as to when you will be presenting your class. I know I'd like to attend one.



ME