New TREC SOP Commentary

[Michael R. Boyett]

The TREC Inspectors Committee has been promising to develop a Commentary to further explain their rationale behind many of the new SOP line items. Here is a 1st pass, very rough draft of that Commentary. It's long, it's dry, it's boring and it's bound to be controversial. Share your thoughts.

TREC New SOP Commentary (you can click 'Download Original' on right side of that page if desired)

[Bruce Thompson]

I take a look. Why controversial?

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by bthompson1

I take a look. Why controversial?

Here's another respected, knowledgeable inspector's comment on the Commentary...."Its insane wording. A plaintiff lawyers orgasm. It will make experts rich putting discount inspectors out of business.". I haven't dissected it yet so I do not have a personal opinion but I suspect it proposes that Texas inspectors overstep their technical boundaries, maybe encroach into engineering land, things of that nature.

[Barry Adair]

Michael,

thanx, i think...ad nauseam

but keep 'em coming

[Chuck Evans]

Thanks for posting.

It's really going to get interesting with stuff like this:

"Commentary -- Some types of flashing are used almost exclusively in some areas of the State even though the type of flashing used violates the requirements of the model building codes and the shingle manufacturer‟s installation instructions. These flashing materials are often said to have been approved by the “building official”. Often the “building official” quoted is an inspector or engineer generally employed by builders. The model building codes describe under what conditions a building official may approve alternate methods and materials. Often these alternate flashing systems do not meet the requirements of the code for approval as an alternate method and the code states that manufacturer requirements supersede the requirements of the building code. In any event, if the inspector is required to defend his opinion, the inspector should be aware of published, non-biased publications or the requirements of the manufacturer to help defend his opinion."

My guess is that they are referring to the use of solid flashings vs step flashings at side walls???

This is going to be an interesting read. Here's another excerpt:

"The compatibility of the overcurrent devices with the requirements of the equipment and the conductors is very important. For 240 volt appliances, the requirements for the maximum overcurrent protective device and the minimum conductor size are listed on the appliance label or are shown as the kW (kilowatt) rating of the appliance. The minimum circuit ampacity listed on the label is the minimum size of the conductor, according to the amperage rating, provided that the appliance is located at the panel board or fuse box. If the appliance is far away from the panel board or the fuse box, the voltage drop caused by the length of the circuit may cause such an increase in the amperage required to force the voltage over the length of the circuit that the conductor may not be adequate. A larger conductor may need to be installed to diffuse the heat generated by the increased amperage. As mandated by the National Electric Code, voltage is regulated at 120 or 240 for the purposes of calculation only. Actual voltage in a circuit varies constantly. As noted, watts are volts multiplied by Amps. If, for example, an electric oven was rated at 3.4 kW, the amperage would be determined by dividing 3,400 watts (3.4 kW) by 240 volts. This would give us 14.167 Amps. That would mean that the oven could be connected to #14 copper conductors protected by 15 Amp, 240 volt breakers, if the oven was located at the panel board. If the oven was not located at the panel board, the conductors would likely have to be increased in size but the breakers would remain 15 Amp, 240 volt breakers. If the breakers were increased to 20 Amp breakers, then the code would have been violated as well the requirements of Underwriters Laboratory, Inc. Underwriters Laboratory, Inc. certifies that an appliance will operate safely if it is installed according to the labeling instructions of the manufacturer."

[John Cahill]

Some history.

Mr. Willcox was Standards Chairman for many years (10+?). His goal was to write a Commentary that aided in SoP interpretation. His tour ended before it got done.

I assumed the Chair. A concise SoP was proposed with the intention of using Mr. Willcox's idea to write a Commentary that provided similar guidance.

TREC General Counsel told the Commissioners that a Commentary would not work because it would not be adopted into Rule and therefore was unenforceable. It was the principle argument that eliminated my Committees SoP work.

My term expired. Mr. Willcox was reappointed. His sub-committee wrote a somewhat prescriptive SoP that satisfied General Counsel. Now Mr. Willcox is writing a Commentary to interpret the SoP he wrote. This time the same General Counsel seems to be approving the idea.

I can accept the idea of a Commentary however if we follow the recommendations of General Counsel we must ask the Commissioners to adopt prescriptive aspects of the Commentary into SoP Rule in order to make it enforceable. Requirements adopted into Rule protect the public and aid consistency.


PrismRCA plans to present the questions of its membership to TREC. Please forward your ideas and PrismRCA will be glad to present the question and update inspectors.

For example:

• Is a FPE panel deficient?
• Is a 220 plug and cord on a water heater deficient?
• Is a dog door in a fire door located between a home and attached garage deficient?
• Is an attached garage that has firewall but no mud and tape deficient?

The Commentary is a bit rough but can be improved. Keep the questions simple and PrismRCA will argue to have the answers adopted into Rule. It will complement both Mr. Willcox and General Counsels objectives.

Shows me as non member. Having trouble logging in. Will resolve in a day or so.

[Nick Gromicko]

Thanks John.

Actually you are not logged into the message board as a member. Log in at the top right using your InterNACHI username and password and you'll show up as a member.

[Jack R. Robnett]

As mandated by the National Electric Code, voltage is regulated at 120 or 240 for the purposes of calculation only. Actual voltage in a circuit varies constantly. As noted, watts are volts multiplied by Amps. If, for example, an electric oven was rated at 3.4 kW, the amperage would be determined by dividing 3,400 watts (3.4 kW) by 240 volts. This would give us 14.167 Amps. That would mean that the oven could be connected to #14 copper conductors protected by 15 Amp, 240 volt breakers, if the oven was located at the panel board.


Not true. The circuit has to be derated 20%. The max load on a 15 amp breaker and 14 ga wire is 12 amps.

[rstrahan]

Originally Posted by cevans

[Quoting the Commentary]...the length of the circuit may cause such an increase in the amperage required to force the voltage over the length of the circuit...