Results 1 to 14 of 14
02-29-2012, 01:48 PM #1
Inspection today and saw a plumbing vent in attic that was only 1 1/2 in in attic but flares out to 3 in above roof. Is this ok? Also, what is the minimum height that the plumbing stack should be above the roof? Thanks guys.
02-29-2012, 02:42 PM #2
Re: VentingScott Patterson, ACI
Spring Hill, TN
02-29-2012, 03:11 PM #3
Thanks for quick reply Scott. For kit sink and the coupler is about 18 inches below the sheathing.
02-29-2012, 03:11 PM #4
I look for a four inch diameter as the vent passes through the roof. Even at that size I've seen frost block them up.
Eric Barker, ACI
Lake Barrington, IL
02-29-2012, 05:26 PM #5
Auxilliary vents should be increased at least 2 trade sizes or to a minimum of 3" inside the structure and well before penetrating the roof. Illinois Plumbing Code specifically addresses this. You can review it for free via links at the Illinois Department of health directing you to the general assembly's web site.
Protection from freezing.
By the way, same addresses your "unions" question you posted earlier.
For those that don't know, Illinois uses their own authored plumbing code (although in many ways UPC based, it is specifically and uniquely Illinois's own) which is the minimum required for all areas of the state excepting the city limits of Chicago, which has its own Code as well.
02-29-2012, 05:36 PM #6
Thanks guys your all the best
02-29-2012, 05:47 PM #7
TITLE 77: PUBLIC HEALTH
CHAPTER I: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
SUBCHAPTER r: WATER AND SEWAGE
PART 890 ILLINOIS PLUMBING CODE
And Scott is incorrect regarding vent above the roof height, it is 12" minimum, and may be required to be higher.
Section 890.1430 Vent Terminals
a) Roof Extensions. Extensions of vent pipes through a roof shall be terminated at least 12 inches above such roof unless a roof is to be used for any purpose other than weather protection. If a roof is to be used for any purpose other than weather protection, the vent shall be extended at least seven (7) feet above the roof. (See Appendix K: Illustration D.)
b) Flashings. Each vent terminal shall be made water-tight with the roof by proper flashing.
c) Location of Vent Terminal. No vent terminal from a drainage system shall be directly beneath a door, window, overhang or other ventilating intake opening of the building, nor shall any such vent terminals be within 12 feet horizontally of such an opening unless it is at least two (2) feet above the top of such opening. (See Appendix K: Illustration E.)
d) Extensions Outside Building. No soil, waste or vent pipe extension (except for vent terminals as provided in (a) and (c) above) shall be located on the outside of a wall of any building, but shall be installed inside the building. Vents located within an exterior wall or in a wall adjacent to an unheated space shall be protected from freezing.
e) Flag poles. Vent terminals shall not be used for the purpose of supporting flag poles, television aerials, or similar purposes.
Section 890.1440 Vent Terminal Size
a) Vent Terminal Size. Each vent extension through the roof shall be a minimum of three (3) inches in diameter and no smaller than the vent which it terminates. Vent terminals shall not be screened.
b) Increasers. Changes in size or diameter of vent terminals shall be made by the installation of a long increaser commencing at least one (1) foot below the roof.
03-01-2012, 08:33 AM #8
03-01-2012, 09:47 AM #9
What? There are some parts of IL beyond the suburbs of Chicago?
Eric, you are right we are a world to our own in the engine that drives the State and slurps a majority of its' resources.
"The Code is not a ceiling to reach but a floor to work up from"
03-01-2012, 06:05 PM #10
I think your fee is right on when you consider the expenses of doing business in Chicago. With the proposed new spy-cams, one could easily rack up $1000 a day just driving around. And that's for the new ones. The existing red-light cams with shortened yellow lights almost ensure daily tickets.
Don't forget about the parking meters that charge some crazy amount like a buck-a-minute that happen to be owned by a private company that essentially have enforcement powers (as it pertains to the meters) on the very street your taxes paid for and that you technically own.
And, of course, there is always a chance of getting towed or ticketed when you are legally parked.
I have no idea what the fine is on the privately owned toll of the Skyway.
What if you screw up an book an inspection by Wriggly when the Cubs are home. Good luck finding parking. Better off just parking in Evanston and walking. Hauling the ladder might be bit of a problem.
Of course you could catch up on some books (books on tape) when you spend an hour on the 290 to go 10 miles or the nightmare that is the Kennedy if you don't time it just right. Your whole day can be shot just dealing with that mess.
I'm happy not going south of Peterson or east of Ashland. I'll take the burbs any day!
I think I share your love for the doing biz in the city.
03-21-2012, 03:31 AM #11
Re: VentingMichael Thomas
Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
03-21-2012, 03:44 AM #12
The "school zone" speed cams are going to be a different issue, however
I have a friend who is a programmer at Cobra Electronics ("radar alarms") and he says the speed calculations which will be performed by the red light cams in Chicago are done by optical imaging: no way to "detect" them, and range of 2-3 blocks.
Only effective "counter-measure" is a GPS equipped device which is aware of the extent of the enforcement zones and the times they are enforced, with a several block margin of error - these are in the works, but do not yet exist, and will require frequent data base upgrades to be effective.
Having to drive the speed limit on streets like Western Ave. is *really* going to increase my travel times.
Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
03-21-2012, 03:37 PM #13
Most red-light camera tickets in Florida are being beaten by the attorneys.
They request *ALL*, yes *ALL*, paperwork related to the red-light camera from its manufacturing date, shipping, storing, installation, calibration, certifications for the installers, certifications for the calibrators, everything they can imagine, and when *ANY* of that paperwork is not present at court, the judge has no recourse other than to dismiss the charge.
The cities apparently do not want to be bothered by bringing reams and reams of paperwork to court for each and every ticket, and the paperwork cannot be used for more than one ticket as that is part of the evidence and it cannot be taken away to be used for another ticket, which means the cities must provide reams and reams of paperwork for each ticket ... and they are reluctant to do that.
As a result, many cities in Florida have turned their cameras off, are going to be turning their cameras off, are not going to even turn the newly installed cameras on, and those cameras not yet installed may not ever be installed.
Besides, those cameras are used to charge the owners of the cars, not the drivers, and the traffic violations are against the drivers, not against the cars or the owners.
03-23-2012, 05:47 AM #14