I’ve read through numerous discussion threads and understand the differences between “drip legs” and “sediment traps”. I also realize that some jurisdictions have different rules regarding these. So when you’re in a jurisdiction that requires sediment traps in gas lines, is it considered a SAFETY HAZARD if it is missing, or simply a defect that that is recommended for correction?
^^^^^^^^^^This, IMHO.
3 Likes
The answer is it depends, it could be… but so could be many other things we wouldn’t normally call out as “safety hazard”. In my opinion, the chance of it being a safety hazard is so small that I wouldn’t label it as such. You could mention it as potential safety concern under rare circumstances, but I wouldn’t make a stink about it.
1 Like
Morning, Robert.
Hope this post finds you well.
Getting out of bed is a safety hazards, no pun intended.
1: Basically, we are not AHJ, unless you wish to ad needless liability.
2: A sediment trap acts preventatively. One does not predict future failure.
As you know, sediment traps are installed to collect sediment, rust, or debris in a gas piping systems. Sediments can clog gas appliance burners and cause a malfunction.
Personally, I would not classify the lack of a sediment trap as a safety hazard but rather a missing component on the gas line serving the appliance.
An immediate safety hazard would be, because we do not predict failure, elevated CO2 levels, leaking NG is non-toxic (non-poisonous), but can cause death by suffocation.
Just my two cents.
Hope that helps.
Robert
2 Likes
Hi Robert,
I’ve been researching the topic of missing sediment traps on furnaces and water heaters. Lately, I’ve seen equipment gas lines installed both ways—with and without traps.
When I asked an experienced inspector about this, he mentioned he only reports a missing trap if there isn’t one installed at the meter. Textbook-wise, that logic doesn’t hold up. The piping between the meter and the appliance can easily contribute its own sediment.
I’m trying to balance the various opinions I’ve gathered from different forums. Consider this parallel example: an air return lacks an AC filter. Do we write it up simply because filters are standard? We all know the evaporator coils will eventually clog, but as inspectors, we shouldn’t predict future failure.
I’m trying to develop a consistent thought process that limits liability while properly informing the customer. There is a real art to understanding the code, reporting on the standard of care, and yet not explicitly citing code in the report.
Take another example: how are we supposed to know if GFCIs are required on an older home if home inspectors aren’t code enforcement officers?
As a compromise, could I categorize these types of findings in my report as an “Improvement,” or does that terminology just open the door to unnecessary liability?
Thank you!
Lack of a sediment trap isn’t going to be that big a problem but you should write it up to show you’re doing your job. GFCIs are safety devices so we just point out all the places they should be to satisfy “modern safety standards.” That is the phrase you should use to avoid all that code nonsense.
Just update the following page as you see fit:
GFCI.pdf (71.2 KB)
2 Likes
No one ever enforced them in California until recently.
12 years ago, when I was training, my mentors said never call then out if missing, it’s only an East Coast thing.
But in the last year or two, our local gas company started enforcing their presence, so now we report on them.
But certainly not a safety issues.
It really does not matter if the AHJ does not require it. Read the installation manual of the water heater or furnace that the gas line is going to. They require it.
7 Likes
IMO, this is a misinterpretation of what we do. While we’re not required to predict future failures, things that will directly contribute to a failure are well within what’s expected of us. I’m not even sure if this is exactly spelled out in various SOPs but certainly falls under “standard of care.” Basically, you will be on an island by yourself trying to defend not calling out things that are widely accepted as contributing to future problems/failures.
As for the sediment trap, anything “could” be a safety concern but, to me, it doesn’t come close. I generally write it up as potential damage to equipment. When I’m running down my verbal summary with the buyers I rarely mention it as I just don’t see it as that important. These traps have been standard in my area for years so when they are missing it’s more of a trigger for me to look closer for DIY installations - it’s super common for weekend warriors to think it’s handy tap-in point that was left for them to put in a gas range.
3 Likes
I agree. At a minimum, it’s worth noting because nearly every major equipment manufacturer(that utilizes a control valve) explicitly mandates a sediment trap in their installation manuals. Considering that internal gas valve diaphragms rely on microscopic bleed ports (some as small as 0.005"), a $5 sediment trap is incredibly cheap insurance to protect a $300 control valve from pipe scale and debris."
1 Like
I would like to know the safety concerns about not having a trap versus equipment manufacturers requiring them because it could cause equipment malfunction which is not covered by their equipment warranties.
Equipment manufacturers do not dictate code. Also, code enforcement does not address engineering requirements. They can adapt anything they want to and if you want to move into your house, it must comply to their requirement even if it is rented stupidity.
You could get in a car accident driving to pickup the new water heater? That’s the closest I can come 
1 Like