Gas flex connector to furnace

[Michael R. Boyett]

John...ain't that the truth! I too lean towards supporting an ASTM SoP if properly structured and written. Anyway, back to your original post. I think I see the preliminary details of what you are referring to or working on. It seems TREC found an inspector "negligent and incompetent" because he "failed to report as in need of repair a gas line to the furnace made of improper material, in violation of 22 TAC §535.229(t)(6) of the Rules of the Texas Real Estate Commission".

Now that rule says (in part):
(t) Heating systems. The inspector shall:

(6) report as in need of repair gas units that use improper materials for the gas branch line and the connection to the appliance;

I would contend that the gas line material and connection met requirements when the home was constructed and, unless specifically called out in TAC 535.229, then this cannot be held against an inspector since we do not inspect to codes. Now, again, I have to make an assumption here that the gas line in question was of the proper material and installed to mfg requirements and simply did not include the black pipe extension.

I would say TREC was wrong in this interpretation and I see a much larger issue at hand. Hasn't TREC and specifically TREC counsel gone on record as stating HI's are not expected to inspect to code? Isn't a very basic premise of our business operation that if the home and its components met code requirements at the time of construction and deemed to be compliant by the AHJ (i.e. a CO) then we may but are not obligated to recommend upgrades or improvements if we so choose? That is, unless TREC has written specifics into the SoP? That would seem to be the case here wouldn't it?

[rdawes]

FWIW, last week I inspected a home that had been de-winterized and the gas company had come out to turn on the gas and light the pilots. He left a form with the furnace checked as needing repair. His comment was that the flex line needed a rubber grommet where it entered the furnace cabinet. So to one gas company in N. Texas, a rubber grommet is acceptable.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by rdawes

FWIW, last week I inspected a home that had been de-winterized and the gas company had come out to turn on the gas and light the pilots. He left a form with the furnace checked as needing repair. His comment was that the flex line needed a rubber grommet where it entered the furnace cabinet. So to one gas company in N. Texas, a rubber grommet is acceptable.

And a grommet seems to conflict with code. The connector is still routed through the wall. I love the ones I see that are insulated with a wad of pipe insulation.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mboyett

I think I see the preliminary details of what you are referring to or working on. It seems TREC found an inspector "negligent and incompetent" because he "failed to report as in need of repair a gas line to the furnace made of improper material, in violation of 22 TAC §535.229(t)(6) of the Rules of the Texas Real Estate Commission".

I paid $150 for the last 3 judgments via open records (600 pages; a lot of it redundant stuff). TREC has a very difficult job interpretting these complaints; I would have a hard time responding to a complaint in which I could not visit the property. They are at the mercy of listening to "experts" who often are wrong. My conclusion on the complaints is:

1) TREC is wrong or kinda wrong on much of their "facts". Unfortunately their "facts" establish precedent for the new E&O.
2) TREC uses code to make decisions.
3) The inspection reports are not well written making it tough for TREC to figure out what is going on.
4) The "other" inspectors who provided opinion on inspection requirements are wrong themselves and TREC is relying on them.

What a mess. I am going to have a seminar with the three cases. Objective is not to bash TREC or the inspector but to teach inspectors what TREC expects and how they might defer some liability. I doubt TREC will approve the course for CEU.

When I was Chairman I asked for a show of hands to this question: "Raise your hand if you think there is something you missed on the majority of homes you inspect". All 9 hands were raised. That says the SoP cannot be complied with as expected by Enforcement. It would be interesting to see that vote formalized in the August meeting (the last meeting of the current system). That presents an interesting question. "If the entire Inspector Committee thinks they cannot meet the SoP to Enforcements expectations then is the entire committee negligent and incompetent or is the law voided because it cannot be complied with? Does law have to capable of being complied with? Poor ol inspector is in a "have you stopped beating your spouse" scenario.

[kweiss]

Sign me up, John.

Please give me a call or email when you get this together.

Your example shows the catch 22 we are constantly playing with in the TREC regulation and standards as they are today.

Please let me know if I can be of assistance in your research and work along these lines.

[Jae Williams]

Originally Posted by jcahill

In the past many furnace gas valves were connected directly to the flexible gas line connector. Recently installers have been extending black pipe from the gas valve to the exterior of the furnace cabinet.

The manufacturer of flex line simply says "protect from damage".

I cannot find specific requirement for black pipe extensions in IRC or UMC.

The City of San Antonio has amended the code with an ordinance that states:

Section 304 INSTALLATION of the International Mechanical Code is amended by adding Section 304.12 as follows:
304.12 Installation at gas valve. Black Iron Pipe shall be installed at the gas valve and extended a minimum of two inches outside the gas furnace and gas rooftop unit's casing and shall be connected to an approved listed flexible gas connector.


It seems the practice of extending black pipe is AHJ specific and that a flex line routed through a furnace casing to the gas valve may actually be acceptable unless otherwise amended.



See photos. Comments please. I am looking for something in code that is as specific as San Antonio ordinance.



I am researching this because an inspector was disciplined for not requiring the black pipe. The expert against the inspector justified his opinion by simply saying it was improper.

Actually, everything is "AHJ specific". Codes are merely a guideline for the AHJ--they are not an enforceable law. If the AHJ wants to, he could approve clear plastic tubing though the appliance casing. But he probably would be chastized thoroughly by his superiors.
(TREC and some other jurisdictions, on the other hand, is law applying the code--but the code itself is not the law.)

We should only concern ourselves with what we believe, based on our experience and knowledge, to unsafe or hazardous. We can refer to the fact that "the code" also considers certain issues to be unsafe, supporting out opinion.

[lfoster]

Ok, please enlighten me. On pic's in post #8, is it wrong because the flexible connector is reducing the flow, to 1/2"?

Thanks,
Linda

[Michael W. Gault]

I see them wrong everyday... today was no different.

[Michael W. Gault]

Forgot, the Duct Tape will keep it safe!

[thirst]

I have not read all the posts here so excuse me if I say something that has already been said. Here in Washington it is not allowed under any circumstances to have a flex line extend into the case of the hvac unit. While I have not ran into this yet I am sure there are plenty of "self installed" units out there that are done that way.

[Michael W. Gault]

Originally Posted by mgault

I see them wrong everyday... today was no different.

Today was different, it was done correctly !!!