High Boiler CO service or replace?

GLL

I work with energy auditors. When auditing a home they have to test any combustion appliances for draft, spillage and high CO. My question is about the recomendations I see when boilers have high CO in the flue without a high ambient CO. If a boiler that has not seen service in many years is producing say 1250 ppm CO is service to clean and tune or repair worthwhile or should the recomendation be to simply replace? if the answer is replace at what level CO would you think servicing is worth a try?

Thanks for your thoughts  

Tim McElwain

Any level of

Carbon Monoxide is able to be cleaned not replaced. If however in the process of taking equipment apart you find internal damage which may be the cause of the CO then age of the equipment and availability of replacement parts is the determining factor. CO is never a reason to just replace as more research is always required.



Hopefully those doing energy audits are highly training combustion experts and CAZ testers to determine causes of poor combustion.

GLL

High Boiler CO service or replace?

Thanks for the reply

Auditors are well trained for CAZ issues but they are not furnace or boiler mechanics. Both fields require specialized knowledge. I wouldnt expect a good boiler tech to know all about building science nor would I expect an auditor to be a combustion expert. Thats really why I am looking for general best practice information.

 I have always felt that you look to repair before replacing but I am seeing a lot of auditors simply recommend replacement. I think it should be evaluated by a qualified mechanic. If there is a CO level or situation that is obviously beyond repair I'd like to get a handle on that so we dont waste time/money trying to repair an appliance that is irreparable. Is there an age you would avoid tearing down to evaluate? 

Greg

meplumber

No blanket statement.

I see way too many mechanical systems "condemned" by the home inspector/energy auditor. Upon call for a second opinion, we find that a simple repair or adjustment is all that is needed. Only a properly trained and licensed technician can properly condemn equipment.



I recently looked at an LP furnace that the was condemned for age by the energy auditor. It turned out to be a 6 yr old York that was burning just fine. The auditor made an error in judgment that was amplified by his combustion equipment that had not been calibrated since he bought it. Hey we all make mistakes. But the guy was using equipment that he didn't realize had to be regularly calibrated.



My suggestion is that energy auditors and home inspectors simply make comments in their reports that there is a concern about the boiler/furnace/air handlers and that they should have a professional follow up.



To be very blunt. Energy auditors and home inspectors are not qualified to condemn equipment under any circumstances. In the state of Maine they are only allowed to take combustion readings if provisions are already in place to take the sample.



I don't mean to pee in your cherrios. I am just concerned at some of the gloom and doom these guys are peddling.

Tim McElwain

As someone who

started in this business at the age of nine I am now looking at 72 this November I take each boiler an furnace at its face value and determine when it needs replaced. In my own home I have a 60 year old forced warm air gas furnace that works great as long as it is maintained every year.



The quality of care is an important factor and I have seen boilers from as far back as pre WW 1 still working and providing pretty efficient operation. As far as I am concerned there is no general best practice.



I also feel that good boiler and furnace techs need to understand building science and I teach it to them in my training classes at my training center. They must understand venting, air for combustion, IAQ, make up air, ERV's Hrv's, building pressurization, mold remediation, volatile organic compounds, heat loss, square feet of radiation, lineal feet of baseboard, insulation characteristics etc. They need to be able to do a complete heat loss on a building. Go over into the Carbon Monoxide section of Heating Help and read Mark Eathertons comments on this subject.



You will find many who do not agree with what I just posted but that is because they feel that going to higher efficiency equipment is the way to go. In some cases the opportunity to make money by selling something is the only motivation. This is also an issue with some of the gas utilities pushing high end equipment. Repair if you can but do not just replace because it may need cleaned or tuned up or some minor repairs. I wish I could help you with a more definitive answer but that is the way it is. We just had an interesting go around here on this site about flooded equipment that should be replaced as both FEMA and the appliance manufacturers state that. In that case replace do not repair.

GLL

High Boiler CO service or replace?

It sound like we agree expensive appliances should be given a thorough evaluation. Often the techs would prefer to replace. I think the auditors take there que from that. What I am doing here is preparing my argument to push back. All the comments here bolster my thinking.

I also agree auditor's, HVAC techs and plumbers should have a good understanding of all the systems in a home. The more information the better, I just dont expect one to be an expert in the others field.

I knew there wouldnt be a hard as fast rule that fit every appliance and every home. I was hoping to find a reasonable guideline that would help cut to the chase. Something that would help my BS dectector. In a way I got it; boilers need to be evaluated not guessed at or condemed by high CO alone.  

JStar

CO

I used to be involved with energy audits, and CAZ testing. We would go in for a tune-up after the initial company found high CO readings on an appliance.Sometimes my first readings were off the charts - 3000+ CO. An hour later, with just a manometer, a brush, and combustion analyzer, I would regularly bring gas appliances down to 0 ppm, or at least below 100.