• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

An average day

Hunh.....Finally something where IPC is tighter than UPC/ CPC....

P3008.1 Sewage backflow. Where the flood level rims of
plumbing fixtures are below the elevation of the manhole
cover of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer, the
fixtures shall be protected by a backwater valve installed in
the building drain, branch of the building drain or horizontal
branch serving such fixtures. Plumbing fixtures having flood
level rims above the elevation of the manhole cover of the
next upstream manhole in the public sewer shall not discharge
through a backwater valve.

Unless you are just saying it is a flat area and that is why it is not required?
 
Does anyone have a diagram of this requirement to show the novice the reason its required?

The flaw in this requirement is that the contractor typically does not install these unless required by the inspector which is the case here.

Yes they are to be accessible and we typically see them inside the foundation.

Outside the foundation they have to provide a larger pipe cyinder and a way to pull the flapper devise out. The one in the photo, I'm not sure how you access it?
 
On a gravity sewer system arn't you always going to have an upstream and down stream MH? A back up is going to cause sewage damage if there is no devise in place to prevent it. A MH that is above the house connection shouldn't be an issue if its a gravity system.

What is this code trying to do?

ICE said:
Not only not required but also not allowed due to the topography.
Click to expand...
Going down hill with no way to back-up?
 
I always interpreted that section as a whole. In other words, if you're in a situation where you're going to need a ejector/lift pump, is also needs backflow protection. It says "located below the next upstream manhole OR below the main sewer level." If you have that condition then all the following applies. That's my take anyhow...
 
Joe.B said:
I always interpreted that section as a whole. In other words, if you're in a situation where you're going to need a ejector/lift pump, is also needs backflow protection. It says "located below the next upstream manhole OR below the main sewer level." If you have that condition then all the following applies. That's my take anyhow...
Click to expand...
I believe the intent is it comes out of the manhole before the flood level rim of the fixture.....Has nothing to do with pump systems...?
 
steveray said:
I believe the intent is it comes out of the manhole before the flood level rim of the fixture.....Has nothing to do with pump systems...?
Click to expand...
710.2 identifies pumps used when the system is below the crown level of the main sewer.

IMG_3763.JPG



IMG_3762.JPG
 
Does it then go on to say you need a check and full open valve on the discharge side of the sump? And then what is "better".. A check or a backwater?

P3007.2 Valves required. A check valve and a full open
valve located on the discharge side of the check valve shall be
installed in the pump or ejector discharge piping between the
pump or ejector and the gravity drainage system
 
We don't have P3007.2, we have section 710 and as a whole it covers "below the next upstream manhole or below the main sewer level."
 
steveray said:
Does it then go on to say you need a check and full open valve on the discharge side of the sump? And then what is "better".. A check or a backwater?

P3007.2 Valves required. A check valve and a full open
valve located on the discharge side of the check valve shall be
installed in the pump or ejector discharge piping between the
pump or ejector and the gravity drainage system
Click to expand...
CPC mentions the backwater and check valve as an either or. I assume that a backwater valve on a discharge line from an ejector or pump would be more robust than the ABS valve in the picture. I have dealt with a few that were part of the ejector assembly.


IMG_3764.JPG
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
CPC mentions the backwater and check valve as an either or. I assume that a backwater valve on a discharge line from an ejector or pump would be more robust than the ABS valve in the picture. I have dealt with a few that were part of the ejector assembly.


View attachment 8966
Click to expand...
Interesting that yours says "pressure rated"...Does that rule out all plastic or just the foam core?
 
I didn't know the answer so I Googled the question. The internet says that plastic is okay except for the foam core. One plumbing forum member had this, which he claimed came from Charlotte Pipe:

40665-4c27b72c0eb2d3ff892cff6b3ade7c6a.png

PVC is used on swimming pool systems and there is nominal pressure with those. The grinder/ejectors that I have inspected were installed for bathrooms at the far end of warehouses and as I recall copper, was used.
 
Last edited:
The inspector was there for a footing/slab inspection. The under-slab plumbing has been approved by another inspector.


Resized_20220517_104009.jpeg
 
I was shown this by a good friend. What you see is plywood backing for equipment in a studio. The hurricane clips are screwed to the stud, (front and one side) and screwed to the plywood. This leaves a wide space behind the plywood for plumbing and electrical. The method is bullet proof for strength, ease of installation and consistency.

I sent the pictures and the description to Simpson Strong-Tie with the hope that they would reward my friend for a stellar idea. I sent several emails and spoke to one of the engineers, but I did not get a response...not even a confirmation that they saw the emails.

KIMG0015_01_BURST1000015_COVER003.JPG


KIMG0020_01_BURST1000020_COVER001.JPG


KIMG0022_01_BURST1000022_COVER001 2.JPG


KIMG0022_01_BURST1000022_COVER001.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mtlogcabin said:
You will see them in a future catalog soon after they patent it
Click to expand...
They already have a patent on the hardware. It will work on wood studs, 1.5" and 1.25" metal studs. Backing in ceilings. All Simpson needs is a picture for the catalog. I wasn't expecting them to send him a big check....but a small one would have been nice. Of course, the engineer that I was dealing with didn't know what backing is or why they need it. You'd think that they make anything other than construction hardware.
 
Last edited:
Good idea but probably too expensive to be competitive...Guessing this is cheaper...Danbak makes blocking strips....In FRTW for those of you that may be requiring what the code does not...

1654863998245.png
 
steveray said:
Good idea but probably too expensive to be competitive...Guessing this is cheaper...Danbak makes blocking strips....In FRTW for those of you that may be requiring what the code does not...

View attachment 9048
Click to expand...
A 700 lb. pallet of 250-48" long strips that are 16" on center is $3000 before shipping. I only found it for sale in lots of 250. That works out to $4 or $8 if you need two in the stud bay. And that is still before shipping. For that you get 5" wide coverage each. With Simpson hurricane clips at 98 cents plus scrap plywood the Danback is much more costly. The metal on the Danback is not described but it is cut with snips so it is thin compared to the hurricane clip. The Danback will not work on wood framing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top