Thread: Any thoughts

Good afternoon guys any thoughts on this situation thanks in advance Dom sorry about quality of shot hope I can find may way back first time on new site?

Similar Threads:

• Your thoughts on this service equipment panel.
• Thoughts...
• Thoughts?
• Thoughts on this
• Second thoughts

Dom, I can't tell much about what that is in your picture. Any hints?

Jim the thing that was throwing me out here is the white pvc tubing commonly seen under sink instalation not sure if its good in crawl?

Hard to tell from the photo, but last I heard, white PVC is OK to use under the house. In fact, here in backwards TN, that's about all we see.
JF

Schedule 40 pvc drain can be used almost anywhere to my understanding.

That white piece looks like a Polyethylene tailpeice extension, not PVC.
I believe slip joints need to be accessible as well.

Looks like the wrong parts for the job.

Dom.

From the IRC.
- SECTION P3201

- - FIXTURE TRAPS

- - - 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.

I would not consider that as meeting "Slip joints shall be accessible."

That's a strange piece of pipe to be coming through a floor. You got any above the floor pictures of the installation?

Originally Posted by dick whitfield

That's a strange piece of pipe to be coming through a floor. You got any above the floor pictures of the installation?

Dick,

That just a brass tail piece from the tub foot, over flow and drain.

It then goes into a plastic (type unknown) tail piece extension with a slip joint.

Which goes into another fitting with a slip joint.

Jerry If he got a clean photo as that, would it not be accessible?

It appears to be in a wall. A tub is normally a foot or so from a wall. Also by the size it looks like a sink tailpiece. Hard to tell by the picture but this is what I got from what I saw...

Originally Posted by Chip O'Brian

Jerry If he got a clean photo as that, would it not be accessible?

No.

ACCESSIBLE.

Signifies access that requires the removal of an access panel or similar removable obstruction.

Does not say anything about having to crawl into a crawlspace.

Accessible means having to remove that panel at the tub to get to it.

Readily accessible means you do not even have to remove that panel.

Chip,

Again, I think it's a matter of different lawyers writing the actual plumbing codes versus other codes and practice regulations. For example, from the TREC SOP, you are correct and these fittings would be considered accessible.

(3) Inaccessible--Not having access without the use of special tools, equipment, or instruments, or removing doors, walls, stored items or similar obstructions, or by causing damage to a structure, finish or component, equipment or system, or by virtue of inadequate clearance, walkways, passageways, or hazardous condition.

However, from a pracical standpoint, would you consider this accessible in the same manor as say a standard P trap under a sink? So when another group of lawyers catches something like this they come up with even more hair splitting terms like "readily accessible". This particular thing looks like if you're 5'10" and 170, it's accessible. If you're 5'10" and 240, it's not.

Thom,

"(3) Inaccessible--Not having access without the use of special tools, equipment, or instruments, or removing doors, walls, stored items or similar obstructions, or by causing damage to a structure, finish or component, equipment or system, or by virtue of inadequate clearance, walkways, passageways, or hazardous condition." (bold is mine)

You think that crawling through a crawlspace does not meet the above definition of "inaccessible"?

Was there "adequate clearance"?

Was there an "adequate walkway"?

Was there an "adequate passageway"?

Was that not a "hazardous condition"?

I'm confused?

Is the orientation of the picture correct and if so we are looking at a wall cavity or is the picture turned sideways and we are looking at the bottom of a crawl space.

I see what appears to be a "P" trap so I would *assume* that that is in a crawl space but I could most definetaly be wrong.

OK,

Just answered my own question by re-reading the whole thread.

Dominic stated in his second post that it was a crawl.

Sorry, the picture was miss leading.

Jerry,
Okay, let me put it another way. To some mouthpiece who has never crawled under anything but covers, it might be interpreted as accessible. To those of us who have actually crawled under a house; yes, it may be accessible in the literal sense, but it certainly is not accessible in the practical sense.

The quote I gave from the Texas SOP came from the general provisions, not a specific provision. Using your logic, nothing under the house would be accessible.

So I stick by original answer to Chip. Is it accessible according to the requirements of the TX SOP? Yes. Is it a location where a slip joint should be used? No, because the INTENT of the plumbing code for "accessible" was not the same as the fubar definition of the TX SOP.

Originally Posted by Thom Walker

The quote I gave from the Texas SOP came from the general provisions, not a specific provision. Using your logic, nothing under the house would be accessible.

"Using your logic, nothing under the house would be accessible."

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that nothing under the house would be *considered* accessible.

So I stick by original answer to Chip. Is it accessible according to the requirements of the TX SOP? Yes.

And I stick with my original question of your answer - It would be "inaccessible" by the TREC definition.

Is it a location where a slip joint should be used? No, because the INTENT of the plumbing code for "accessible" was not the same as the fubar definition of the TX SOP.

On that we very much agree.