Orangeburg (fibe pipe) question...

[steveray]

Under any UPC .....or from say 1954 to mid to late 60's was orangeburg ever allowed inside a dwelling for sanitary drainage piping? Where's UB when you need him?....

Thanks!

 

[Keystone]

May not answer your direct question but Orangeburg was given ASTM approval, so it likely was allowed in the UPC.

 

[Keystone]

Correction, not an ASTM approval but a Federal and Commercial standard.

 

[Gregg Harris]

Under any UPC .....or from say 1954 to mid to late 60's was orangeburg ever allowed inside a dwelling for sanitary drainage piping? Where's UB when you need him?.... Thanks!

Approved for underground external to buildings only. "Building Sewer"

 

[conarb]

Steve:

I'm older than Uncle Bob, during the years 1954 through the late 60s I was first a carpenter then a contractor here in the San Francisco Bay Area, Orangeburg was used neither in homes nor for sanitary sewers outside of homes, code prohibited it's use in homes and sewer district regulations prohibited it's use for sanitary sewers.

Spaced 12" lengths of terra cotta tile pipe were used for foundation drainage and solid 5' lengths of terra cotta pipe was used to conduct the drain water to the curb from the end of the drain tile, cast iron was used in better buildings for sanitary sewers, or sometimes when tree roots got into terra cotta pipe it was replaced with cast iron. Orangeburg showed up here as a better alternative to the spaced terra cotta tile pipe sometime in the early 50s, both as solid drain pipe and as perforated drainage pipe, but never was installed as drain pipe in or under homes.

 

[steveray]

"but never was installed as drain pipe in or under homes."..........Maybe never "approved" to be installed.....we found a 64 code here that allowed it for sewer outside of a building....Building drain repair here, they cut up the floor and found not only tar fiber pipe, but perforated tar fiber pipe....they would like to leave a 4' or so section under the footing because "it is still good" (only, it never was)......If it was ever approveable, I would have a hard time forcing them to remove it (which is my boss's policy and I agree is the correct thing to do) It just seems terribly foolish to recut the floor and go through all of that again in X # of years.......,,Ohhhh yeah....the house is for sale.......damn lack of ethics!

 

[Gregg Harris]

steveray as you stated it would be foolish to leave it as is, another four feet is nothing to replace.The other thought there is no approved way to connect it. It can not be that hard to do it right.

 

[globe trekker]

steveray,

You could require that a pressure test on the DWV & building sewer lines

be performed, to see if it holds (RE: P2503.4 & P2503.5 in the 2006 IRC).

Require the plumber to hook everything up and perform the test. If it

doesn't hold, then you can require replacement.

As Gregg Harris has mentioned, the connection points on that existing

4 ft. length could be problematic.

.

 

[Keystone]

Agree with others, have material removed.

See link http://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=1870