Thread: Cross contamination laundry sink.

A sink in a laundry room has an "extendable flexible hose" which can dip below the water line. Is this considered an infraction? Similar faucets are used in kitchen sinks.

Similar Threads:

• unsealed kitchen sink
• American Red Cross Stresses Pool Safety - WSIL TV
• Loud gurlging noises - sink/tub drainage
• Acceptable under kitchen sink???
• Plumbing under kitchen sink....

Originally Posted by Danny O'Donovan

A sink in a laundry room has an "extendable flexible hose" which can dip below the water line. Is this considered an infraction? Similar faucets are used in kitchen sinks.

I hope not ... I have one at our laundry sink and kitchen sink.

No, is the answer.

Thanks Jerry. I appreciate your prompt answer.Danny

What is the difference with that situation and a water hose being left in a chlorinated pool.?

Is it not true that if the flexible hose was to be submerged into something as soapy water or say flea dip, and I opened a faucet in another location that it isn't possible for that to back siphon into the drinking water from the faucet? Would that not be a cross connection as he is asking about?

rick

Most "newer" pull-out faucets and hand-held sprayers have built-in check valves for back flow prevention.

I agree with both Dom and Rick, but you still have the chance for backsiphonage.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

What is the difference with that situation and a water hose being left in a chlorinated pool.?

The hose being left in the pool has (is required to have) an atmospheric vacuum break on the hose bibb between the hose and the hose bibb.

Those vacuum breaks stop that.

With these sprayer hoses, they have automatic off valves which shut off when the handle is no longer being squeezed by the hand.

Is it not true that if the flexible hose was to be submerged into something as soapy water or say flea dip, and I opened a faucet in another location that it isn't possible for that to back siphon into the drinking water from the faucet?

No, not with that being closed.

Would that not be a cross connection as he is asking about?

Only with a Darwin Award Candidate using the hand held sprayer and holding it open while the sprayer is submerged, then, yes, "possible", no to "likely" as there would be pressure on the water supply to the structure and no pressure (other than atmospheric pressure) on the water in the basin.

Regardless, remember, code does not, can not, address stupidity or common sense. The code would be unusable if the code tried to cover each and every possible or potential stupid human thing, you would need the Library of Congress in which to house the volumes for *just one edition*, and then what, in 3 years you replace them all?

Who could afford that?

Who could afford to cut down that many trees every three years just so the code could be printed - ONE copy.

Jerry,

I understand that one must squeeze the sprayer as your talking of but what about the tub shower head on a hose which could lay in the bottom of a tub filled with water and it is running. There is no handle to squeeze on those.

Another example I can think of is in the hair salon we used to own, all of the stylists had sinks that had the shampoo sprayer hose at the sink. None of those sinks back then were equipped with any anti-siphon or atmospheric breakers. I know this for a fact because once I opened up a sink in the bathroom located next to these sink stations and visibly saw haircolor come out of the faucet. Why couldn't this happen at the laundry sink or at a tub also?

rick

Here's an interesting article I found on this subject.

Many of you have probably seen the portable shower hoses connected to tub spouts or to shower heads.

If they are not retractable at the upper shower head they risk being in contact with the tub water and there is where you lose your "air-gap" and risk cross contamination.

The same would go for a hose connected to the laundry sink as previously questioned. Many of these do not have the anti-siphon valve as installed on the newer models.

rick


HOME IMPROVEMENT : Plumbing : Shower Shortcut Falls Short of Ideal ... Psi Problems : DIY Network

Unfortunately I ran accross this thread and am forced to disagree with EC Jerry regarding a hose attachment onto a laundry sink faucet not being a classic example os a cross-connection. Unless there is a spray attachment with built-in back-flow protection you have a potable water supply defect.
The photos below are from an old presentation of mine I did many moons ago.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

With these sprayer hoses, they have automatic off valves which shut off when the handle is no longer being squeezed by the hand.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Unfortunately I ran accross this thread and am forced to disagree with EC Jerry regarding a hose attachment onto a laundry sink faucet not being a classic example os a cross-connection. Unless there is a spray attachment with built-in back-flow protection you have a potable water supply defect.

WC Jerry,

Those (see my above quote from my post above) are the ones I am referring to.

Agree or disagree on those types?

EC Jerry, sink hose-spray attachments equipped with shut-off valves (they all have that) without backflow prevention devices don't cut it in my opinion. However, I could be wrong?

In my opinion, if those shut off such that they can hold back 80 psi (the maximum allowed pressure in a dwelling, they actually hold back greater pressures when present), they can hold back a what little pressure there is in siphoning.

If that does not cut it, why would you trust the packing around the main water shut off valve underground, or the water meter connections underground?

I would call it wrong. Even though health codes are not part of our inspection I am still certified in sanitation and any hose even with a back flow would be a violation in the eyes of the heath inspector.

Originally Posted by Rick Sabatino

I would call it wrong.

Then why do they all have approvals and are allowed to be installed?

Ever seen how water meters are connected (at least in many areas)?

The meter is threaded at both ends, one end presses up against the sealing rubber washer and the other end has a nut which, when tightened, simply pushes the water meter tight to the other seal.

No nut around it, no sealing tape, no sealing compound, just simply brass butting against rubber under wrench tight pressure from that other fitting.

You think that is safer than those spray hoses?

The faucets in WC Jerry's photos are *obviously* wrong, spout below tub rim, etc.

You know those "bottle traps" you see on those custom fixtures, like WC Jerry showed in the other thread? Not allowed.

From the 2006 IRC. (underlining is mine)

P3201.1 Design of traps.

Traps shall be of standard design,
shall have smooth uniform internal waterways, shall be
self-cleaning and shall not have interior partitions except
where integral with the fixture. Traps shall be constructed of
lead, cast iron, cast or drawn brass or approved plastic. Tubular
brass traps shall be not less than No. 20 gage (0.8 mm) thickness.
Solid connections, slip joints and couplings are permitted
to be used on the trap inlet, trap outlet, or within the trap seal.

Slip joints shall be accessible.

Then go to:

P3201.7 Size of fixture traps.

Fixture trap size shall be sufficient
to drain the fixture rapidly and not less than the size indicated
in Table P3201.7. A trap shall not be larger than the

drainage pipe into which the trap discharges.

Table P3201.7 Lavatory 1-1/4" minimum diameter.