Electrician upset with inspection

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minuteman said:
The yellow jacket to be completely under the fitting, Hope you failed this install Pierre.

Michael
I do not inspect the gas piping, I am an electrical inspector.
I try not to step on any of the BO's toes (hey that rhymes :smile: ), they get a little ansy when an electrical inspector tells them something, although they are never concerned about trying to step on our toes. They will always let us know who our "boss" is. Actually they are not all like that, just most of them.
 
Don
Here is the label of the manufacturered piece for appliances in my previous picture, that I blew up. I will try this size first and if it is too big, I will make it smaller.
As you can see in this larger picture, it is not actually CSST, it is CSSC11-48. It looks like it is designed for attachment to appliances.
I believe you may be correct that CSST is not permitted for direct attachment to appliances, but I am not 100% sure.
(I tell my students that when they are not 100% sure, that means they really do not know...guess what - I do not really know:wink: )


CSSTfitting4.jpg


CSSC - Coated Stainless Steel Connector
 
Last edited:

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
Pierre C Belarge said:
Bob
Don't get too crazy over the securing, it is only gas :wink:


I do not know what size the bonding conductor is. I was in the building inspecting for low voltage, a different inspection company was inspecting the power. That's right, ECs can use different inspection companies.


There are six different manufacturers of CSST and I believe that they basically have six different installation instructions.


How do you like the rust on the gas pipe? Makes for a good conductor :rolleyes:

How can they get to pick inspectors without a conflict of intrest.So they dont pick you because you are toucher on violations.That simply isnt allowed here.Its done by county inspectors and he is paid by the hour so no reason to pass or fail other than is it to code.
 

wbalsam1

Senior Member
Location
Upper Jay, NY
I was asked to assist in crafting the language for an emergency rule with regard to CSST being used in NYS, and I've finished my part. Now it will go to the Governor's and the Senate and House of Representatives and we in NY will have much better control over the bonding requirements. I am not at too much liberty to reveal the language, but I can say that we will prohibit fastening a saddle clamp to a brass compression fitting and will require that a piece of black iron pipe at least 3 inches long be used where a multi-port manifold is not present. I'll share the exact language when the Executive Order comes out. So at least we're making strides in NYS. :smile:
 

wbalsam1

Senior Member
Location
Upper Jay, NY
wbalsam1 said:
I was asked to assist in crafting the language for an emergency rule with regard to CSST being used in NYS, and I've finished my part. Now it will go to the Governor's and the Senate and House of Representatives and we in NY will have much better control over the bonding requirements. I am not at too much liberty to reveal the language, but I can say that we will prohibit fastening a saddle clamp to a brass compression fitting and will require that a piece of black iron pipe at least 3 inches long be used where a multi-port manifold is not present. I'll share the exact language when the Executive Order comes out. So at least we're making strides in NYS. :smile:
p.s. I know Pierre was involved in this endeavor, too. Thanks, Pierre.:smile:
 
Ya know, it never ceases to amaze me how many things I learn here. I just had a repipe done at my house and I'm pretty certain they didn't bond the 25 feet of CSST they ran under my house. Looks like it's time to get dirty and check...
 

wbalsam1

Senior Member
Location
Upper Jay, NY
Pierre C Belarge said:
Fred
Were you involved in the conference calls?

Those conference calls are tough, especially when it is so hard to tell who is in the conversation when they do not identify themselves.

No, Pierre. That would have been too simple and too cost effective. I had to drive 272 miles round trip to meet in person with people from Code Development. I am not really complaining, though. :smile: I enjoyed the day, the drive, the lunch at Jack's, surrounded by Senators, and the company of my good friends at Department of State.
 
lpelectric said:
in the sense of "unfinished", 210.8(A)(5)
for a better understanding I always point out the exceptions as a way to clarify the intent of the rule. :smile:

....explanatory in the handbook read at 210.8(A)(5):

'...freezer and laundry receptacles do mnot require GFCI protection, in accordance with 210.8(A)(5) Exception 2.
 

wbalsam1

Senior Member
Location
Upper Jay, NY
weressl said:
....explanatory in the handbook read at 210.8(A)(5):

'...freezer and laundry receptacles do mnot require GFCI protection, in accordance with 210.8(A)(5) Exception 2.

That duplex receptacle your referring to is shared by one appliance, the 120-volt gas-igntion dryer and another appliance, the 120-volt clothes washing machine. In that example, both receptacles of the duplex are dedicated to an appliance. In my example at the original post, one receptacle of the duplex was readily available for any general purpose. :smile:
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Pierre C Belarge said:
.....I believe you may be correct that CSST is not permitted for direct attachment to appliances, but I am not 100% sure.
(I tell my students that when they are not 100% sure, that means they really do not know...guess what - I do not really know:wink: )

from TracPipe


TracPipe
gas piping can be run directly
to the shut off valves of most fixed appliances
without installing an appliance
connector. For moveable appliances
such as ranges or dryers, the use of an
approved flexible appliance connector is
required in most jurisdictions. TracPipe

cannot be substituted as a connector for
this use when the appliance is free to
move for cleaning, etc.

 
wbalsam1 said:
That duplex receptacle your referring to is shared by one appliance, the 120-volt gas-igntion dryer and another appliance, the 120-volt clothes washing machine. In that example, both receptacles of the duplex are dedicated to an appliance. In my example at the original post, one receptacle of the duplex was readily available for any general purpose. :smile:

Exclusion labeling can take care of that, the label indicating the approved appliances that the receptacle can supply. (Nothing prevent the Owner in the future - day after the inspection - to move the washer to another location and use the receptacle for another purpose. In fact the Owner is not required to be familiar with the Code and inadvertently can do it so. This is an other sgortcoming of the Code.)
Another potential scenario can be if one of the duplex is supplied by an emergency generator where the receptacle can only have one source at a time and the Owner would need to manually switch from one receptacle to the other.
 
Last edited:

wbalsam1

Senior Member
Location
Upper Jay, NY
weressl said:
Exclusion labeling can take care of that, the label indicating the approved appliances that the receptacle can supply. (Nothing prevent the Owner in the future - day after the inspection - to move the washer to another location and use the receptacle for another purpose. In fact the Owner is not required to be familiar with the Code and inadvertently can do it so. .....

Exclusionary labeling is not mentioned within the language provided at 210.8(A)(5)exception(2). Where are you finding that it is permissible to not GFCI protect a duplex receptacle (having a washine machine plugged in to the bottom receptacle and the top receptacle wide open and available for use) on an unfinished concrete floor in an unfinished basement?
I"ve never heard of being able to "label" your way out of code requirements. :smile:
 
Last edited:
wbalsam1 said:
Exclusionary labeling is not mentioned within the language provided at 210.8(A)(5)exception(2). Where are you finding that it is permissible to not GFCI protect a duplex receptacle (having a washine machine plugged in to the bottom receptacle and the top receptacle wide open and available for use) on an unfinished concrete floor in an unfinished basement?
I"ve never heard of being able to "label" your way out of code requirements. :smile:

Is everything spelled out exactly in the Code?

Then what are we doing here......?

The main questions are; how do we comply with the Code and how do we meet the intent of the Code when it is ambigous to the case.

What is the intent of the Code with these paragraph and its exclusions? How do you prevent the Owner from moving the washing amchine in the first place. If there is labeling, indicating the restrictive use of the receptacle, wouldn't it provide a more comprehensive protection of the Owner? What is the ultimate goal? To pass the inspection or to provide protection to the Owner? If the washer dryer or refrigerator is not in place, but the receptacle is designated on the drawing, then what would the inspector do?
 

bhsrnd

Senior Member
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Pierre C Belarge said:
...... but I am sure that NY has their attorneys on it.
:D "The nine most terrifying words in the english language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Regan
 
Last edited:

wbalsam1

Senior Member
Location
Upper Jay, NY
weressl said:
Is everything spelled out exactly in the Code?
No. "Everything" would make too big a code book to carry around. :grin:

weressl said:
Then what are we doing here......?
Generating wisdom, concern, even perhaps a grassroot effort to make timely changes to the NEC and to clarify the intent of code provisions we struggle with...:smile:

weressl said:
The main questions are; how do we comply with the Code and how do we meet the intent of the Code when it is ambigous to the case.
By following the rules and when in doubt asking questions to determine the intent of the code provision.

weressl said:
What is the intent of the Code with these paragraph and its exclusions?
To minimize the hazards associated with the use of electricity while utilizing an appliance on a concrete floor.

weressl said:
How do you prevent the Owner from moving the washing machine in the first place.
No real way to follow up on this.
weressl said:
If there is labeling, indicating the restrictive use of the receptacle, wouldn't it provide a more comprehensive protection of the Owner?
Yes, it would. Perhaps you could place a proposal in the NEC. ?
weressl said:
What is the ultimate goal? To pass the inspection or to provide protection to the Owner?
It's got to be both, doesn't it? This is the best way to provide a service to our valued customer and minimize the potential for harm and also liability.
weressl said:
If the washer dryer or refrigerator is not in place, but the receptacle is designated on the drawing, then what would the inspector do?
I would follow up on it prior to issuing the C of O. Simply observing the washer dryer hookup would tell me a lot. :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top