Thread: What would you say about these water pipes?

Originally Posted by Phil Brody

What building code should have is a brief explanation of intent in plain English so everybody doesn't have to become a lawyer. Do the pipes pose a reasonable danger as configured. Let's see what the inspector says.

PB: The engineers who concoct the model codes are not real people, but merely theoretical constructs taking up valuable space. This does not allow for the interjection of that fleeting concept we call common sense.

Originally Posted by Phil Brody

Do the pipes pose a reasonable danger as configured.

"reasonable danger"?

No. But they pose an UNreasonable danger and an obstruction, which is not allowed.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

"reasonable danger"?

No. But they pose an UNreasonable danger and an obstruction, which is not allowed.

And where is this stated? Is it just what the HI determines?

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

And where is this stated?

It's stated in the codes.

That is the reason for the codes.

And the clearances required at plumbing fixtures.

OK

A little bitty kid (male, female, does not matter, is standing there when mum just got finished running her bath. Plenty of scalding hot water to get the crud off (for those redneck wifes ). The little kid falls face first on the scalding pipe and gets his, her, arms tangled in the pipes and mommy hesitates for a second before catching on what just happened.......................................... ............


Wayne. As an inspector for the city I certainly hope you do right it up. You certainly have the right and it is the right thing to do. That little kid goes to the hospital to get the burned flesh taken care of (of course mom can come also) the Doc can only do so much. The beautiful little girl or handsome young man has a facial scar for life because Wayne did not write up an obvious safety item.

Pretty much the end of discussion on this thread.

I am done now.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

I am done now.

.

Well It's About Time.
*do you Pinkey Promise?
.

Ted, yes I would write it up but I don't know what code I would site for this being a violation.

If someone called your hand on it.....as a municipal inspector, what section of the code does this violate?

wayne,
check out post#65 for several citations. also cite section 407.6 upc that requires 15" from the center of the toilet to a sidewall or obstruction. i would definately consider the piping arrangement as an obstruction.

Yeah

What Brian said

Yeah but look at post 66 where I answered. The sections stated were in the UPC or IPC. These two codes are for commercial installations. This does not appear to be a commercial installation.

Is it a poor installation and create a hazard? Yes!

However, show me in the 2006 IRC where this violates code.

Section 307 deals with "fixture" clearances. It appears the original picture has the fixture clearance.

P2603.2.1 Protection from Physical Damage talks about pipes in concealed locations.

P2603.3 Breakage and Corrosion talks about pipes passing through or under walls, Pipes passing through concrete or cinder walls and floors, cold-formed steel framing or other corrosive material being protected.

From what I am reading, no one has posted a section of the IRC where this is a violation.

wayne,
in caleefornia we don't use the irc so the upc (cpc) would apply to residential and commercial. i guess the irc does not have similar language to upc 407.6?

I'll buy that!

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

However, show me in the 2006 IRC where this violates code.

See post #40 above.

The UPC is not limited to commercial installations where it is adopted as the plumbing code in certain states. Many States have adopted the IRC without adopting its plumbing section (which is IPC based) and instead utilize UPC (which is tougher) or their own plumbing code.

I haven't checked lately, but at one point only 24 states had adopted the IPC and/or the IRC (where it derives its plumbing section from the IPC) with out deleting its plumbing section and substituting the UPC or its own plumbing code which was not IPC based.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

See post #40 above.

That's the IPC!

HG, Texas has adopted the IRC.

It has shut off valves at the floor. I say drill a line of small holes along the pipe and use it as a baday.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

That's the IPC!

HG, Texas has adopted the IRC.

Okay, so you SAY, but what is your POINT and why you addressing ME with that "information" or "opinion" and tongue sticking out symbol?!?


Hmmm. Title 16 is sunset in Texas. So there went a statewide standard for workmanship/quality/warranty. TRCC (Texas Residential Construction Commission) kaput now, Yes? (hey I'm retired and no longer any base in TX; one would think you would/should know what changed Aug 31 & Sept 15, 2009, I don't have to know). Clickable link to News release posted on TRCC site: August 20, 2009 . With Title 16 (and its Chapter 430, have you read it?) expired. However when in effect it stated clearly in Sec. 430.001(d):

Originally Posted by Sec. 430.001(d) of Title 16

--(d) The International Residential Code for One and Two Family Dwellings that applies to nonelectrical aspects of residential construction for the purposes of the limited statutory warranties and building and performance standards adopted under this section is:

---(1) for residential construction located in a municipality or the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality, the version of the International Residential Code applicable to nonelectrical aspects of residential construction in the municipality under 214.212, Local Government Code;

---(2) for residential construction located in an unincorporated area not in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality, the version of the International Residential Code applicable to the non electrical aspects of residential construction in the municipality that is the county seat of the county in which the construction is located; and

---(3) for residential construction located in an unincorporated area in a county that does not contain an incorporated area, the version of the International Residential Code (minus electrical provisions) that existed on May 1, 2001 (2000 ed) & 1999 NEC.

Title 16, Texas Residential Construction Commission Act (clickable link to pdf document): http://www.trcc.state.tx.us/policy/r...7_Title_16.pdf

Which IIRC was consistant regarding the status of the IRC in TX - meaning local ammendments, different versions and no overall consistant state-wide version of anything regarding the IRC it depends on the jurisdiction/extrajurisdictional (local) authority except by default should there be no local adoption - and that's 2000 IRC minus electrical plus 99 NEC Local Government Code, Chapter 214, as ammended by the addition of SubChapter G, by 77(R) SB 365. Has that been changed or ammended recently? You'd have to tell me.

Home rule. IIRC some counties and cities Authorities Having Jurisdiction aren't even using a 2006 edition based version of their own code adoptions. Default was whatever was adopted at the time in 2001 (which was the 2000 edition of the IRC minus all electrical references plus the NEC version published on or before May 1, 2001 - 1999 NEC) so the code edition basis could be older. Frankly I don't remember or recall and don't have access to my library of 2000 IRC and have no intention of reviewing every County Seat City and individual city in TX for ammendments to guess what you seem to demand of others. A citation for the IPC was provided deal with it.

Cities and county seat cities can adopt and ammend codes depends on who has jurisdiction or extra-jurisdictional area. You are unknown location "Texas". Try reading your local authorities adoption and amendments. Start by reading their version of R102.4. IIRC Dallas (City) its either ordance chapter 54 or 57 is their version of IRC. What do you think the IPC is? or the P chapters of the unammended IRC come from (IPC based unless not adopted or ammended by local authority)?

Then you check it out and find a cross referenced section citation.

Okay got it yet (where the plumbing (IPC) mechanical (IMC) and electrical (NEC - NFPA 70 or 70A) sections of the IRC original edition come from before ammended/partially or fully adopted)? Of course many cities and counties have their own rehab code too.

In conclusion Wayne Carlile, TX doesn't have any authority over either Minnesota (UPC based plumbing code) or Wisconsin (IPC based IIRC). The supposed original topic location. The UPC(Uniform Plumbing Code) and the IPC (International Plumbing Code) are not limited in application to commercial occupancies. Despite your prior assertion. In practice I do my best to address responses applicable to the question and the questioner, this includes referencing the code reference for the jurisdiction of the subject.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

That's the IPC!

While the wording is different in the IRC, the intent is the same.

HG, the tongue sticking out was aimed at Jerry Peck. That's why the quote was posted above my comment and then I specifically addressed your comment. If you thought I was sticking my tongue out at you...I'll suck it back in until Jerry reads it...and apparently he did because he threw the same thing back at me!

HG, you made a comment about the UPC and I was just stating that Texas was under the IRC for plumbing so the UPC does not come into play with my question about a residential inspection. "Show me in the IRC".

Saint Paul Minnesota is under the 2006 IRC So I think the discussion has everything to do with my comments. Besides discussions like this is how we learn...or should I say let our feelings be known about our interpretations.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

While the wording is different in the IRC, the intent is the same.

The intent? The intent is not the same or the wording would have been in there. Besides intent is only interpretation.

As I said before I would write it up but there is not specific wording in the code that addresses this type of installation. Maybe in intent is supposed to be there, but the wording is not specific.

If a contractor wanted to argue the installation he would have a good argument. Would he wuin? No! Because the AHJ has the final word.

I inititally quoted Minnesota code. Thats when KR claimed he was inspecting in WI (without required license).

Few locales adopt any code edition without some ammendments. Your own state when making IRC the default (2000 edition) at the time it still used its own electrical code - specifically did not adopt any portion of the IRC that had to do with anything electrical and substituted the NEC - because that earlier edition was using its own "electrical code". Many that adopt the IRC do not adopt the plumbing chapters or mechanical chapters, inititally and especially those that were UBC based, they often retain UPC and UMC.

You check the citation from the IRC I gave you, See if it refers to the IPC or UPC as adopted in your city or county seat city whichever is applicable. The UPC is toughter than the IPC.

It doesn't really matter anymore. The AHJ approved it.

WTF

I told you guys. Nothing in black and white to prevent this!

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

It doesn't really matter anymore. The AHJ approved it.

I don't believe you. Esp. since you later claimed you inspected and this was in Wisconsin. It is inconsistant with the WISCONSIN PLUMBING CODE, Uniform Dwelling Code (Ch. 20-25). Which by the way also (like MINNESOTA) requires 24 (twenty-four) inches in front of the bowl and clearance 15 inches from center side to side.

Additional citations from the Wisconsin Administrative Code prohibit what you pictured as approvable. Including cleaning fixture and floor area, bending radius, approved materials, and other issues previously indicated before you claimed you were inspecting in WI (without a license).

Only the department has ultimate authority and the few cities with authority do NOT have the authority to approve something inconsistant with the Department. There are rulings as well.

See Wisconsin Administrative Code Ch. 84, Comm 84.20 (5) PLUMBING FIXTURES AND PLUMBING APPLIANCES (o) Water Closets. 4. A water closet may not be located closer than 15 inches from its center to any side wall, partition, vanity, or other obstruction, nor closer than 30 inches cetner to center, between water closets. There shall be at least 24 inches clearance in front of a water closet to any wall, fixture or door. Note: See Appendix for further explanatory material.

See Appendix to Comm 84, A-84.20(5) SPACING OF PLUMBING FIXTURES, specifically figures A-87.20-1 and A-84.20-3. They are the further explanatory material regarding the above quotation.

You might also bother to review Ch. 82, subchapter I Intent and Basic Requirements Comm 82.10 (1) INTENT (h) All plumbing fixtures shall be installed so as to provide adequate spacing and accessibility for the intended use and cleaning. then read on and review (2) BASIC REQUIREMENTS. Few more subchapters 82-21 Testing and Inspection (1) TESTING (c) Inspection of one-and 2-family dwellings shall be in accordance with ss. Comm 20.08 to 20.11. Back over to Ch. 20 Administration and enforcement will direct you to Ch. 25 Plumbing which will take you back to yep, you guessed it, The Wisconsin Plumbing Code (Ch. 81 definitions) Chs. 82 to 87 and Ch. 91. Don't assume, don't have to the language and definitions are clear. Threads, compressions, for the tub must be out of the sprinkle zone otherwise a high hazard. The toilet and urinal spacing from center are "Black water" use cleaning zones.

There are at least four other reasons and citations why as pictured are not passable and your story not plausable according to the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Including 82.40 (7)(h) 1. a.; 84.20(4)(b) 1. and 82.03 (1), (2) and especially (3).
82.03 (3) "A department interpretation of the requirements in this chapter shall supersede any differing interpretation by a lower level jurisdiction. A department decision on the application of the requirements in this chapter shall supersede any differing decision by a lower level jurisdiction."

Wayne Carlisle, yes it IS in "black and white" and diagrams from appendixes from both Minnesota Plumbing Code and Wisconsin Plumbing Code. They are both VERY CLEAR.

You are apparently intentionally ignorant of how either of these states adopted/ammend/ wrote their codes it has been spelled out twice now, and you've been pointed to IRC reference as well. you should know better if you are what you say you are just south of Ft. Worth, TX.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Saint Paul Minnesota is under the 2006 IRC

Minnesota Plumbing Code applies to plumbing matters in Minnesota. However, as I pointed out to you, and as KR has claimed, despite his profile location, he "claimed" this inspection situation and property was encountered in Wisconsin (where he is not authorized to inspect).

So I think the discussion has everything to do with my comments. Besides discussions like this is how we learn...or should I say let our feelings be known about our interpretations.

No it doesn't. Besides, the INTENT of the plumbing codes in MN and WI are clearly defined, as is WHO shall MAKE INTERPRETATIONS.

The intent? The intent is not the same or the wording would have been in there. Besides intent is only interpretation.

Nope. The intent is defined and spelled out in the Code. In the Wisconsin Plumbing Code it is also clearly spelled out WHO has the authority to make any futher interpertation. Intent and Interpretation are NOT THE SAME THING. One understand WHAT the INTENT is, and WHAT has been STATED AS THE INTENT, and the construction of guidelines on determining the correct INterpretation before one endeavors to do so. The Interpretation Authority in WI is the Department, not the local Inspector of the limited cities that try to do so.

As I said before I would write it up but there is not specific wording in the code that addresses this type of installation. Maybe in intent is supposed to be there, but the wording is not specific.

Yes there is specific wording in the code that addresses this. The intent is stated in the code, and the wording is specific. One does need to know what it means.

If a contractor wanted to argue the installation he would have a good argument. Would he wuin? No! Because the AHJ has the final word.

No he wouldn't; don't know what wuin means; No the local inspector does not have the final word, that's not how it works in Wisc. and it is not code compliant even as an existing or previous installation since work was done and a permit was pulled (according to the original poster's continuing back-story).

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

The intent? The intent is not the same or the wording would have been in there. Besides intent is only interpretation.

Wayne,

From the IPC Commentary:
"A minimum space is necessary around a water closet, urinal, lavatory and bidet to use and clean the fixture properly."

From the IRC Commentary:
"Plumbing fixtures require space around them for use and cleaning purposes."

Seems to be the same intent to me.

It really doesn't matter if you believe me or not H.G.since your not an inspector. If you're so worried about me being licensed or not your welcome to try to do something about it. More than whining on the internet anyways.

I spoke with the agent today who informed me that the plumbing permit was closed with no repairs mandated, even though I did call out those pipes on my report.

My guess is the Code Enforcement Officer never went in the house.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

I spoke with the agent today who informed me that the plumbing permit was closed with no repairs mandated, even though I did call out those pipes on my report.

My guess is the Code Enforcement Officer never went in the house.

We hear that a lot. And when something is discovered later, the inspector says they didn't inspect that room or space. During the Orlando boom, they only visited 1 in 25 approved houses... many lawsuits later they are reinspecting as issues arise. Most of the builders are gone or belly up. So if you buy tract property, a permit might be worthless depending on if the inspector actually did their job. --And we know how builders love cut corners.

Ken did it right, called it out and let it take it's course.