# is it ethical



## ICE (May 29, 2013)

to use a 60 year old valve for a new wall furnace?


----------



## north star (May 29, 2013)

*= = =*

From *Section R104.9.1, `06 IRC - Used materials and equipment:*

"Used materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused

unless approved by the building official."



*= = =*


----------



## Pcinspector1 (May 29, 2013)

Spit on it and see if it bubbles!

pc1


----------



## Darren Emery (May 29, 2013)

If it was there before the change out, and it doesn't leak - absolutely.  If it came from another project... dont' think so!


----------



## Mark K (May 29, 2013)

From the  building departments ethics are not a consideration as to what is required.  The focus is on compliance with the adopted regulations.


----------



## north star (May 29, 2013)

*= = =*

In looking at the submitted pic.,  ...if it was not

disconnected when the new flex connector was

installed, then IMO,  ...it is still an approved

valve for use......It does not appear to have

been disconnected !

*= = =*


----------



## Yikes (May 29, 2013)

I understand the quote from R104.9.1 above; the key word is "reused", meaning that it was used once before; it stopped being used; then it started being used again for a second time.  However, if it was never removed from the pipe that it was attached to 60 years ago, then "reused" is the wrong term. It is still continuing in its first use, NOT starting a second "re-use".

If it still works, and doesn't leak, why not keep it?  I'll bet that old valve hasn't been used more than twice a year.  Not long ago, keeping a perfectly good valve might've been called "cheap"; now it's lauded as "sustainable" green construction practice.

I'll tell you what I think IS unethical: those copper re-piping ads on the radio that claim you will now have fresh, clean water when you get rid of your "old rusty iron pipes"... and yet the copper re-pipe goes out to the street where it connects to the city's same old rusty ductile iron pipes.


----------



## BSSTG (May 29, 2013)

Greetings,

Here in Tx most of us go by the adage, if it was legal when it was installed and it's still safe, then it's ok. So it's kind of a grey area. A fellow that covers for me when I'm not here retired from the Tx. Plumbing Board and he has guided me along that path. It also helps as he is an older gentleman that has a lot of historical reference too and knows what was legal and when. When you get into reusing (as in reinstalling) parts I think all bets are off.

BSSTG


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 29, 2013)

I wonder if todays valves will last 60 years?


----------



## fatboy (May 29, 2013)

Probably not........  

And I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but not much you can do unless you can display the valve was removed prior to a reuse.


----------



## Uncle Bob (May 30, 2013)

Of course it is not "reused"; or you would have to replace all the piping in the house back to the meter every time you replaced a furnace.  Oh, crap; some nutcase from ICC will see this and make a code change to require replacing all the gas piping when there is a change out.


----------



## Fort (May 30, 2013)

Require it to be replaced with new valve.

I am sure the new furnace manufacturer would void their UL listing if attaching to that old valve.

It is a basic measure of life and safety.


----------



## Darren Emery (May 30, 2013)

If that valve is working, and in decent condition, I can't see any reason to replace it.  Can't say that I've ever read an installation manual that said "use of old valve voids the listing of this appliance".


----------



## Pcinspector1 (May 30, 2013)

Gas test enforcement?

pc1


----------



## ICE (May 30, 2013)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Gas test enforcement?pc1


No test required.

Here's something on tests that I recently became aware of.



> 1316.1.5 A piping system shall be tested as a complete unit or in sections. *Under no circumstances shall a valve in a line be used as a bulkhead* between gas in one (1) section of the piping system and test medium in an adjacent section *unless* two (2) valves are installed in series with a valved "tell tale" located between these valves. A valve shall not be subjected to the test pressure unless it can be determined that the valve, including the valve closing mechanism, is designed to safely withstand the pressure. [NFPA 54:8.1.1.5]


I have seen a ball valve that is good for ??? pressure separating a live section from the test section many times.  Especially when a floor furnace is removed and an attic unit is installed.  I always have a discussion about them leaving a valve where it is concealed.  I get the argument that it isn't concealed....it's exposed in the crawlspace.  I don't buy that and I make them remove it.

So now I know that the practice is illegal.  Not much I can do about that.

Back to the old gas valve.



> 1309.5.1.2 Used Materials. Pipe, fittings, valves, or other materials shall not be used again unless they are free of foreign materials and have been *ascertained to be adequate* for the service intended. [NFPA 54:5.6.1.2]


The only thing that can be ascertained as to the adequacy of the old valve is that it was listed........in a Sears catalog.

It is a valve that has operated a few times in 60 years.  It has a possibility that it relies on packing or lubricant for a positive seal.  That's probably a good enough reason to replace the valve.


----------



## Uncle Bob (May 30, 2013)

If you are requiring a new shutoff valve when an appliance is changed out; your making up your own code.  There is no requirement in the code to replace a valve when changing out an appliance.  When you start making up your own personal rules and regulations; because you don't like something and can find no code section to back up your decision; you are part of the problem and not the solution.  The biggest complaint contractors have is inspectors making up their own code requirements; and that ain't ethical.  Uncle Bob


----------



## ICE (May 31, 2013)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> *If* you are requiring a new shutoff valve when an appliance is changed out; your making up your own code.  There is no requirement in the code to replace a valve when changing out an appliance.  When you start making up your own personal rules and regulations; because you don't like something and can find no code section to back up your decision; you are part of the problem and not the solution.  The biggest complaint contractors have is inspectors making up their own code requirements; and that ain't ethical.  Uncle Bob


That's a big if you got there, Bob.

Other people here have little ifs.  "If the valve was removed it can't be reinstalled."  "If the valve came from somewhere else, it can't be used." Where's any of that in a code?

How about if the valve was the type that requires a wrench to operate.  Ya that's the ticket.  A 60year old valve with no handle.  We've all seen them.  Shirley I make them replace those.  And why?  Well because the code says that a tool can't be required to operate a valve.  What's up with that?  The valve was legal when it was installed.  Would you insist that the valve is still legal?  If not, how can I invoke a code for a handle but I am barred from using the rest of the code?

I gave you the code.  That code is all that I need to require a new valve.

If that is, I get a mind to do so.

Come to think of it, I could compromise and let them keep that 60 year old valve.  That's a sign of a seasoned inspector.  You keep the valve and I keep the furnace.  When you give me the new valve, I'll give you the new furnace.  We both win.  What could be more fair than that?  Talk about being a part of the solution....Hell I did all of the heavy thinking for them too.


----------



## fatboy (May 31, 2013)

opcorn......................................


----------



## Mac (May 31, 2013)

"Approved - Acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction"


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 31, 2013)

If there was no requirement for a listed valve 60 years ago then you can't require it to meet today's listing requirements. personally I would just require a soap or sniff test on it in the open and closed positions and that it freely operated by hand.  However if you want to require a new one I believe the IFGC gives you that authority under      _102.9 Requirements not covered by code._

_Requirements necessary for the strength, stability or proper operation of an existing or proposed installation, or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this code, shall be determined by the code official  ._


----------



## Pcinspector1 (May 31, 2013)

ICE, its your call, sniff, soap, spit it's all the same!

But, no duct tape allowed!

pc1


----------



## Frank (May 31, 2013)

As long as the valve is good and does not leak it is an existing part of the sysstem and can remain in service.  The whole purpose of a valve at the appliance is to allow you to shut the gas off to repair or replace the appliance without having to shut down the gas to the whole building.


----------



## ICE (May 31, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> opcorn......................................


Why is it always about food with you....oh ya it's ......


----------



## High Desert (May 31, 2013)

ICE, you asked for input and you don't like what you got from UB? Then don't ask what other people think. No need for a tirade, now.


----------



## ICE (May 31, 2013)

> 1313.4 Appliance Shutoff Valves and Connections. Appliances connected to a piping system shall have an accessible, *approved* manual shutoff valve.......


There is a mechanical permit to install an appliance. (wall furnace)  Therefor an approved shutoff valve is required.  Well we haven't reached a point where the old valve shall be replaced because it was *approved* 60 years ago.

There is this section that lends itself to abuse:



> 107.3.2 The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall have the authority to require tests to be made or repeated if, at any time,
> 
> there is reason to believe that any material or device no longer conforms to the requirements on which its approval was based.


But take a look at the requirements for a valve beyond an AHJ approval.



> 1309.10 Shutoff Valves. Shutoff valves shall be approved and shall be selected giving consideration to pressure drop, service involved, emergency use,
> 
> and reliability of operation. Shutoff valves of size 1 inch National Pipe Thread and smaller *shall be listed*. [NFPA 54:5.12]


Shutoff valves of size 1 inch National Pipe Thread and smaller *shall be listed*

It could be that the old valve had a listing 60 years ago.

Or perhaps the concept of "listed" wasn't born yet.

The old valves listing status is not important.

The listing for the valve that will serve the new appliance is the listing that's required.

That Listing won't be 60 years old.

Why do you suppose a valve larger than 1" NPT isn't required to be listed?

One thing that I didn't find is the requirement that a shutoff valve not require the use of a tool.  Appendix?  Anybody know where that is now?

Backing up to the OP.  I didn't ask if the use of a 60 year old valve was a code violation.  I asked if it was ethical.  Ethical was lost to code violation.  I also didn't stipulate how I apply the pencil regarding old valves.

I don't know why there was so much confusion...it's right there in the code.


----------



## ICE (May 31, 2013)

High Desert said:
			
		

> ICE, you asked for input and you don't like what you got from UB? Then don't ask what other people think. No need for a tirade, now.


Tirade?

You Shirley are a sensitive one.

So if I ask what other people think ....

proper decorum dictates that I like what they have to say?

You didn't say anything about the topic of a valve so now I'm left wondering if I have to like what you said or not.  Gosh this can be tougher than I thought.


----------



## High Desert (May 31, 2013)

I suppose it wouldn't be ethical if someone who knew it was old and didn't work kept it there. I don't think you said if it worked or not. On the other hand, if the responsible party didn't know any better and truly thought it was okay, then there would be no ethical issue IMHO. And you're right, you don't have to like what I say...a lot of people don't.


----------



## ICE (May 31, 2013)

High Desert said:
			
		

> And you're right, you don't have to like what I say...a lot of people don't.


I didn't say that I didn't.  I said that I didn't know if I'm required to.


----------



## ICE (May 31, 2013)

High Desert said:
			
		

> I suppose it wouldn't be ethical if someone who knew it was old and didn't work kept it there. I don't think you said if it worked or not. On the other hand, if the responsible party didn't know any better and truly thought it was okay, then there would be no ethical issue IMHO.


I don't know if it works or not.

Your hypothetical example has a faulty valve and a clueless contractor who didn't know any better and moreover, truly thought it was okay.  That's not no harm, no foul.  That's a gas leak.  But in as much as the workman is too dense to know any better he/she has not committed an ethical breach.  What about messing with gas appliances to begin with?  Oh but if he doesn't realize his mistake.....Did you know that Indians wouldn't screw with crazy people?


----------

