• 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

ICE said:
You naysayers don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t inspect plumbing but you’ll tell me how to do it? Somehow I’m making you look bad? It’s good that you don’t inspect plumbing.

Plumbing systems have failed because the pipe was not reamed. It’s not a huge deal to cut out a fitting. It is a huge deal if the pipes develop pinholes. I have seen it happen. An apartment complex had so many failures that the owner repiped the entire complex.

I’ve heard old plumbers say “I haven’t had to do this for many years......the younger inspectors don’t know any better.”

And by the way, this isn’t new....I posted the same thing years ago......it was a Mosque and a bunch of plumbing.
Click to expand...


You might be right. I don't inspect plumbing (except for every residential job because the State guys are too busy and can't get here, but I'm not supposed to talk about that... Don't tell anyone.). But I'm pretty firmly in the camp that says asking a plumber to disassemble his completed work is a crappy thing to do. It doesn't bother you, so you keep doin' it how you do it. I'm pretty ok with agreeing to disagree.
 
ICE, yesterday I shared your deburring story with a local plumber. (He deburrs the copper.) And he agreed that it is very important to deburr the copper pipe. He then shared his own personal story of having had to replace a section of 3/4" pipe that had failed due to the high volume and high pressure of the water thru a single section of pipe that had caused a vortex action and "drilled thru" the next 90 degree elbow.
But this plumber also agreed that not one inspector in his 30+ year career has ever asked him to take apart his work to show that the pipes ends were deburred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
Do you make the HVAC guys open up their hydronic systems since it is a re-circulation system which will have water running 24/7 and fuel oil pipe systems and verify they have reamed the cut pipe ends as required by the IMC?
I am not saying you are wrong in verifying compliance. However it is usually better to observe the worker and educate them as to the reason for a code requirement than to punish them with a correction.

Copper
  • Pinhole leaks are small leaks that come about from the process of "pitting corrosion" on the inside of the pipe; this is one of the most common causes of leaks in copper pipes. While the exact causes can be difficult to pin down, they're often related to water chemistry. The corrosion can be a result of well water, acidic water (pH <7), hard water, excessively soft water, and even chemicals added by the water provider. Once a leak actually appears (usually in a horizontal run of pipe), it's likely there's already plenty more interior corrosion to be found.
  • Standing water in a copper line can not only begin to corrode the pipe (if the water is particularly aggressive, or contains microorganisms), but in a new pipe it can inhibit the formation of the protective oxide layer mentioned above. The remaining "bare" areas of the pipe's interior are left vulnerable to corrosive water once it starts to flow. This phenomenon has been observed with new homes and apartment complexes whose water was turned on, but were left uninhabited for some time.
  • Debris isn't good to have in any pipe (or stuck in screens/aerators), but it poses a particular threat inside copper. Like the standing water mentioned above, things like debris from installation/repair, iron deposits from a rusting water heater, and sediment in the supply can prevent uniform formation of the oxide layer inside the pipe, making those areas more vulnerable to corrosion.
  • Joining copper requires the use of flux and solder: the former for cleaning and priming, the latter for the actual joining. With older systems, when too much flux was applied to the pipe, it could run down the interior. Because acids are a key component of flux, this could lead to corrosion in those areas. Code now requires the use of water-soluble flux to prevent this from occurring.
  • Before it's ever soldered, pipe has to be cut. A bad cut, failure to ream (deburr) the pipe afterward, or too much solder (which can remain inside the pipe) will lead to excessive turbulence in the area - think of a boulder in a rushing stream - that ends in a process called "erosion corrosion". If you've ever seen horseshoe-looking pits inside a corroded pipe, this was the cause. The increase in the water's velocity inside the pipe can also lead to water hammer.
  • Some older homes have their electrical system grounded to their copper plumbing system. When this is done incorrectly, stray current can run through copper pipe, hastening external corrosion. It's also possible for DC current from an outside source (like some mass-transit systems) to find its way to a residential copper system; the resulting electrolysis will likewise eat at the copper. Luckily, such electrical-related issues are rare.
  • Soil quality can promote exterior corrosion in buried copper pipes. Soil that's high in sulfates, chlorides and other chemicals can attack copper in the right circumstances, as can soil having a low pH. External corrosion that can't be traced to electrical issues may be the result of such soils.
IMC
1203.2 Preparation of pipe ends.
Pipe shall be cut square, reamed and chamfered, and shall be free of burrs and obstructions. Pipe ends shall have full-bore openings and shall not be undercut.
1303.2 Preparation of pipe ends.
All pipe shall be cut square, reamed and chamfered and be free of all burrs and obstructions. Pipe ends shall have full-bore openings and shall not be undercut.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Do you make the HVAC guys open up their hydronic systems since it is a re-circulation system which will have water running 24/7 and fuel oil pipe systems and verify they have reamed the cut pipe ends as required by the IMC?
I am not saying you are wrong in verifying compliance. However it is usually better to observe the worker and educate them as to the reason for a code requirement than to punish them with a correction.
Click to expand...

The only hydronic system that I have inspected was for heating a warehouse slab as the warehouse was a freezer. Fuel oil pipe has never crossed my path.

For sure catching the mistake as it is being made is superior to after the fact....I have done that...... but even with red hands a bunch of plumbing is usually done over.

I have never felt like I am meeting out punishment. I take no pleasure in writing corrections. I admit to being pleased that I didn't miss that which I caught but I generally wish that it had not happened at all. When I wrote this latest plumber's nightmare I understood that the cost would be large. The material came to $3,000. I was with the plumbing and general superintendents....The look on their face was sad to see. Mistakes like these can cost people their job. I left there thinking, "Dammit, why didn't they ream the pipe."

As to this practice of cutting out a few fittings being too much to bear; what about the fact that the pipe was not reamed and I found that out? I can't really use, "It was too much to ask for" as an excuse if the pipe fails.

What to do....what to do. Damned if I do and damned if I don't. Keeping in mind that this has occurred a dozen times....better to have contractors hating me than a ruined building with my name on the permit.
 
Last edited:
# ~ # ~ # ~ #

FWIW, ...from the `15 IPC, Section 605.13.3 - Solder joints:
"Solder joints shall be made in accordance with ASTM B 828....Cut
tube end shall be reamed to the full inside diameter of the tube
end".

Also, pvc piping is not an approved type of piping for water
distribution inside a building.........To a building, ...Yes !.......Inside a
building , ...No !

& - & - & - & - &
 
Ty J. said:
I agree....

This is means and methods. Yes, the contractor is req'd and should be aware that this is necessary, but where in the IPC/UPC does it support destructive examination. Seeing it ongoing and requiring demonstration is one thing I suppose, but regularly requiring destructive examination seems extremely excessive.
Click to expand...

If you want to go down that road...Where in the IPC does it say that the inspector needs to witness the test that we all require?

[A] 107.2 Required inspections and testing. The code official,
upon notification from the permit holder or the permit
holder’s agent, shall make the following inspections and such
other inspections as necessary, and shall either release that
portion of the construction or shall notify the permit holder or
an agent of any violations that must be corrected. The holder
of the permit shall be responsible for the scheduling of such
inspections.
1. Underground inspection shall be made after trenches or
ditches are excavated and bedded, piping installed, and
before any backfill is put in place.
2. Rough-in inspection shall be made after the roof, framing,
fireblocking, firestopping, draftstopping and bracing
is in place and all sanitary, storm and water
distribution piping is roughed-in, and prior to the installation
of wall or ceiling membranes.
3. Final inspection shall be made after the building is
complete, all plumbing fixtures are in place and properly
connected, and the structure is ready for occupancy.

While I agree that it is not the norm, I would think that once word got around, there would be some really good plumbing in ICE's area....I would love to be able to do this, but the local/State push-back would be huge. I don't think that taking apart one joint is excessive, "as necessary" supports requiring witness to the test and the exposing of one joints....IMO....Education is expensive and they learn alot from ICE...
 
The job is an enclosed patio cover. It has an ICC ESR#. The question I have has to do with drainage. The concrete slab was existing and has some slope to drain to the street. Now the enclosure will be in the way of that. The concrete slopes to the enclosure on all three sides.
I find that to be a problem. The argument that has been presented is that this is just a patio cover and as such there is no requirement to drain away from the structure. There is caulk between the bottom track and the concrete.

I am interested in opinions.

48809876456_aea4b243dd_b.jpg

48809870781_dab1058c48_b.jpg

In the last picture there is a stain that might indicate were water flows. The slab slopes towards the track but the picture makes it look steeper than it actually is.

48810016027_a688205228_b.jpg
 
Although it just doesn't seem right, without a specific code section to cite I'm not sure there is anything you could do other than suggest that the Owner consider how to drain it when it DOES get water in it (or they want to wash it out).
 
California Residential Code:
PATIO COVER. A structure with open or glazed walls that is used for recreational, outdoor living purposes associated with a dwelling unit.
 
Are any of the materials used in construction of the patio cover susceptible to water damage?

If aluminum and galvanized tek screws, what's the concern?
 
R403.1.7.3 Foundation elevation. On graded sites, the
top of any exterior foundation shall extend above the
elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the
inlet of an approved drainage device a minimum of 12
inches (305 mm) plus 2 percent. Alternate elevations
are permitted subject to the approval of the building
official, provided it can be demonstrated that required
drainage to the point of discharge and away from the
structure is provided at all locations on the site.
 
The job is a replacement furnace and A/C with an electric service upgrade. The original service was located where the wall is patched. I don't know what the prior service equipment was. The new service was placed over a hole in the wall where the original service panel was located. That is not allowed and the new service was under four feet away from the pool. I wrote a correction to relocate the service and not over a hole in the wall.



There is a 4"x4" box in the wall.



It was moved around a corner......over a hole in the wall.





The contractor is upset because "I am the only inspector that writes corrections on their work." He said that he is considering refusing work in my area. He thinks that it would matter because he does a lot of Sears installations. I remember when Sears had a good reputation.
 
Last edited:
Service calls are going to be expensive on that roof to unit.

re: relocating the service ... whats the issue with locating the panel over a hole? Why is that not allowed?
 
e hilton said:
Service calls are going to be expensive on that roof to unit.

re: relocating the service ... whats the issue with locating the panel over a hole? Why is that not allowed?
Click to expand...
CEC 312.2
CRC R703.1

I am at work and can't copy and paste the code language….
 
ICE,
Pic #3619 does that set-up have a main disconnect below the meter socket?

We don't have those here, just curious. I'll look the panel up if I don't here from someone.
 
steveray said:
R403.1.7.3 Foundation elevation. On graded sites, the
top of any exterior foundation shall extend above the
elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the
inlet of an approved drainage device a minimum of 12
inches (305 mm) plus 2 percent. Alternate elevations
are permitted subject to the approval of the building
official, provided it can be demonstrated that required
drainage to the point of discharge and away from the
structure is provided at all locations on the site.
Click to expand...

Only applies to "permanent" structures or patio covers too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top