LPG pipes what constitutes an uneccesary joint

[reg]

I  intent to remove my old ALDE gas boiler as I never use it but this would leave a potentially 'uneccesary' joint in the pipe work where I (for I read Corgi man) will remove the T joint and make a straight connection. Will this constitute an uneccesary joint? 

 

[MtB]

Yes. It would not be unreasonable to deem the two lengths of pipe you have joined should be installed as one unbroken length.

If however, you used a test point coupling to join them, you could point out there are no rules banning having two test points. 

[nicknorman]

I don't know the answer, but perhaps it would be best left as a T with the branch capped off, then it is clearly a legacy thing not an unnecessary joint put in at installation.

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Yes. It would not be unreasonable to deem the two lengths of pipe you have joined should be installed as one unbroken length.

If however, you used a test point coupling to join them, you could point out there are no rules banning having two test points. 

Or how about an isolation valve?

[MtB]

The rule in the first place is there to prevent installations being cobbled up out of dozens of short lengths of scrap copper tube. It would be a right jobsworth of an examiner who insisted on this rule being applied in the case of one extraneous coupling used when an appliance was removed. IMO.

 

 

Speeling edit.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[system 4-50]

BSS 7.8.5 Are all unused appliance spurs properly capped or plugged?

Identify any unused appliance spurs and check they are closed with a ‘tools-to-remove’ proprietary plug or cap.

All unused appliance spurs must be closed with a ‘tools-to-remove’ proprietary plug or cap.

[bizzard]

An Andy Capp.

[reg]

Many thanks for all of the replies. I did have a read through of the BSS Check list but did not notice the wording of 

BSS 7.8.5 Are all unused appliance spurs properly capped or plugged?

Which appears to cover the situation. 

Many thanks to system 4-50 for pointing it out. 

 

Out of interest I've never come across the term 'tools-to-remove', is that  trade term? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

8 hours ago, reg said:

 

Out of interest I've never come across the term 'tools-to-remove', is that  trade term? 

 

 

No but it crops up from time to time in regulations. A system (any system) is usually designed usually for use by the layman. These days it is considered that anything the layman can do to the system in normal use using just their hands needs to be safe, and the layman is entitled to expect this. 

Once the layman crosses this line and employs tools, then s/he steps outwith the conditions of normal use and can no longer expect to be protected from personal harm by the system design. 

Two notable exceptions to this which I expect will be corrected soon are control knobs on gas cookers, which can be turned and left ON without the gas ever being lit (except in boats and flats) and old format standard light bulbs which can be removed from the bulb holder thereby exposing a pair of mains voltage pins to touch should the light switch be ON.

[mark99]

A good example is a screwed cap on a lever valve.

 

A child could open the valve creating a gas escape but if it was capped, not a big issue.

Edited May 20, 2017 by mark99

[MtB]

1 hour ago, mark99 said:

A good example is a screwed cap on a lever valve.

 

A child could open the valve creating a gas escape but if it was capped, not a big issue.

 

Yes this is a good example.

An uncapped lever valve terminating a live gas pipe is a hanging offence (classed as Immediately Dangerous) for a gas bod to leave. I'm not sure why this is so much more dangerous than a gas cooker ring with no flame supervision which is classed as safe. An uncontrolled gas escape can result from either. Or both.

[nicknorman]

34 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes this is a good example.

An uncapped lever valve terminating a live gas pipe is a hanging offence (classed as Immediately Dangerous) for a gas bod to leave. I'm not sure why this is so much more dangerous than a gas cooker ring with no flame supervision which is classed as safe. An uncontrolled gas escape can result from either. Or both.

Although, a much faster gas escape from an open pipe than from a burner jet.

[Chewbacka]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes this is a good example.

An uncapped lever valve terminating a live gas pipe is a hanging offence (classed as Immediately Dangerous) for a gas bod to leave. I'm not sure why this is so much more dangerous than a gas cooker ring with no flame supervision which is classed as safe. An uncontrolled gas escape can result from either. Or both.

but if a person smells gas, just about every adult knows how to turn the cooker off, but when it comes to butterfly valves etc a lot of people get very confused about which handle direction is off. 

[reg]

Many thanks for the explanations of the use of this term, was just curious as I had not come across the term before. All makes perfect sense. Thanks for the examples also. 

I (again for I read Corgi man) will now remove the boiler, add a straight connector and also add a bubble tester. 

Slightly frustrating as I have all the tools, connectors and bubble testers to hand but not the certificate to use them. However will conceded that with heavier than air lpg inside a sealed metal shell where I live  it's perhaps best to follow all regulations. 

Will be seeking a Corgi engineer soon. 

 

 

[mark99]

Gas Safe replaced Corgi.

[reg]

MTB

" a gas cooker ring with no flame supervision which is classed as safe. "(must point out to  those joining the thread part way through that you are not advocating this but are quoting it) 

It is my understanding that for the BSS gas cooker rings MUST  have flame supervision. Am I correct in this understanding? 

 

 

 

[Detling]

Remember the school science lab, all those Bunsen burner points, I don't recall anyone dying as a consequence of misuse, we were trusted to be responsible.

[reg]

17 minutes ago, mark99 said:

Gas Safe replaced Corgi.

Thanks for that info, blink and you miss something. Is there still a requirement for a gas safe engineer to have an lpg certificate? 

14 minutes ago, Detling said:

Remember the school science lab, all those Bunsen burner points, I don't recall anyone dying as a consequence of misuse, we were trusted to be responsible.

But they were not in a sealed metal container I. E a narrowboat shell where there is no escape for the lpg. 

A pertinent anecdote

Whilst I was fitting out my shell I had the use of an old caravan which had an equally old cooker I woke up one night to a hissing sound and the smell of lpg found that almost a complete cylinder of gas had leaked out from the cooker. On investigation found that the gas feed was help CLOSED by a spring valve (which I believe is a complete no no nowadays), the spring had failed and hence the gas was allowed to escape into the caravan. Fortunately the caravan was so old it had holes in the floor so all gas could escap IF this had happened within a narrowboat shell then there is a strong possibility that you would not be hearing this anecdote. Maybe, sometimes, H&S does make sense. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by reg
Add anecdote

[mark99]

9 minutes ago, reg said:

Thanks for that info, blink and you miss something. Is there still a requirement for a gas safe engineer to have an lpg certificate? 

But they were not in a sealed metal container I. E a narrowboat shell where there is no escape for the lpg

Yes - the Gas Safe card only registers the individual/co. You need to dig a little deeper and ensure that the fitter has the correct ACS module codes (certs) on the back of his Gas Safe card for the task he is doing.

It's complicated for the layman and there are loads of ACS modules/certs.

 

https://www.citb.co.uk/documents/awards/centres/acs_gas-guidance_to_acs_gas_safety_assessment_framework_version_9.pdf

 

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by mark99

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, reg said:

MTB

" a gas cooker ring with no flame supervision which is classed as safe. "(must point out to  those joining the thread part way through that you are not advocating this but are quoting it) 

It is my understanding that for the BSS gas cooker rings MUST  have flame supervision. Am I correct in this understanding?

There is an exemption for hobs and cookers first installed before a certain date, (some time around 2000, IIRC, bu would need to check).

Otherwise for anything installed since, including replacement hobs, all rings must have FFDs.

[dor]

1 hour ago, Detling said:

Remember the school science lab, all those Bunsen burner points, I don't recall anyone dying as a consequence of misuse, we were trusted to be responsible.

And if when we were not responsible, we were trusted not to get caught.

[reg]

8 minutes ago, dor said:

And if when we were not responsible, we were trusted not to get caught.

Lol NO teacher ever trusted a pupil to be responsible with a Bunsen burner 

Best game was to nick as much magnesium strip as you could, best played with a supply teacher

[David Mack]

On 5/20/2017 at 12:06, Detling said:

Remember the school science lab, all those Bunsen burner points, I don't recall anyone dying as a consequence of misuse, we were trusted to be responsible.

But lighting the gas tap itself was an easy way to burn the books of the chap sat next to you.

[MtB]

On 20/05/2017 at 12:05, reg said:

MTB

" a gas cooker ring with no flame supervision which is classed as safe. "(must point out to  those joining the thread part way through that you are not advocating this but are quoting it) 

It is my understanding that for the BSS gas cooker rings MUST  have flame supervision. Am I correct in this understanding? 

 

 

 

 

Yes in a boat. No in a house.

Bear in mind the BSS is a Noddy, trivial examination. Plenty of BSS-compliant installations out there do not comply with BS54823, the British Standard for gas installations in boats.