• 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.

Question on Cleanouts for 115 ft. run of 4 inch Schedule 40 connecting to sewer main.

Joe.B said:
Maybe I missed this somewhere along the way, but have you definitely ruled out a greywater system? Maybe some local ordinance that rules it out? CA may be very restrictive, but it's also very water conscious. The CA Plumbing Code has provisions for gray water systems and I've never seen anything in any state code that outright denies the use of greywater systems. In my opinion you're 100% correct with the statement that it would be cheaper and would benefit your yard, assuming you use grey-water friendly soaps and shampoo.
Click to expand...

Joe,

I looked into this and in CA and for an outdoor shower with hot and cold you have to tie into the sewer line. Only if you just have cold water, your shower is considered a "rinse off" unit and you can use french drain or drain into your yard.

Truth be told, I only discovered this after I had started building the structure, but there is no going back. Had I known this prior to starting, I may have had the shower on the side of the house which would have been a closer run to the front.

But the wife was intent on locating the shower front and center at the back of the house right beside the porch, so that you could walk out of the pool on the stepping stones, onto the porch and then turn to the left and go right into the shower. When it is all said and done it is going to be great, but yeah, having to run 100" plus of 4" pipe around the house is not cheap, and the 4.5k project is a 9k project.

If you had a chance to look at my proposed cleanouts, does that look good? Does the first 4" cleanout after the 2 90's need to be a 2 way, or are the turns covered by the 2" cleanout that is right upstream at the shower unit?

Many Thanks~Robert
 
Sifu said:
2018 IPC commentary...may not help in CA but it does address one of the questions

A frequent question is whether two eighthbend
pattern fittings can be connected by a short
length of pipe and not be considered duplicating a single-
pattern fitting (and not requiring a cleanout for that
change in direction). One example would be making a
90-degree (1.57 rad) change in direction using two
eighth-bend fittings (hubs on both ends) connected by
a “makeup” length of pipe (such that the hub end of
each fitting touches the other). The code allows 45-
degree (0.79 rad) changes in direction and does not
state how far apart those changes are required to be.
The logical conclusion is that the length of pipe
between the two fittings could be minimal and the
made-up fitting still be in compliance such that a cleanout
would not be required. This might not necessarily
be the same conclusion arrived at by the local code
official.
Click to expand...
Sifu, interesting input. It sounds like there is an ongoing debate on this?
 
If an installer Ian placing two 45* bends with any size intermediate piping this is not the same as using a 90* bend.
Sifu said:
2018 IPC commentary...may not help in CA but it does address one of the questions

A frequent question is whether two eighthbend
pattern fittings can be connected by a short
length of pipe and not be considered duplicating a single-
pattern fitting (and not requiring a cleanout for that
change in direction). One example would be making a
90-degree (1.57 rad) change in direction using two
eighth-bend fittings (hubs on both ends) connected by
a “makeup” length of pipe (such that the hub end of
each fitting touches the other). The code allows 45-
degree (0.79 rad) changes in direction and does not
state how far apart those changes are required to be.
The logical conclusion is that the length of pipe
between the two fittings could be minimal and the
made-up fitting still be in compliance such that a cleanout
would not be required. This might not necessarily
be the same conclusion arrived at by the local code
official.
Click to expand...

They make 90* bends, sweep 90* bends and then 45* bends. Agree with the commentary 100% on this. Hub to hub with an intermediate section, does it equal 90* yes, is it a a preformed 90* bend, no.
 
hardroadz said:
Sifu, interesting input. It sounds like there is an ongoing debate on this?
Click to expand...
Maybe not a debate, but I have faced this issue several times. A literal reading of the code would allow the segmented 90° turn. But the question always comes up as to how long the segment must be between the 45° fittings. Most want to do it with a piece short enough so that the hubs touch, but I view that a single change in direction. Somehow we landed on an exposed piece of pipe in between equal to the pipe size. so for a 4" pipe, there would be 4" of visible pipe between the fittings. I think we came up with that based on similar determination between a p-trap and an s-trap. I think others I have talked to about this had come up with some other min. length based on whatever logic they had come up with. But everyone that had thought about it came to the same conclusion that a straight length of pipe between fittings turned a single change in direction into two changes in direction. Never really had anyone fight too hard about this. We have a state plumbing board, but I'm not sure what they would say. Now I'm curious enough to go find out.
 
hardroadz said:
I looked into this and in CA and for an outdoor shower with hot and cold you have to tie into the sewer line. Only if you just have cold water, your shower is considered a "rinse off" unit and you can use french drain or drain into your yard.
Click to expand...
That's one I haven't heard before now. Any graywater system is required to include a diverter valve that sends water to the building sewer. A rinse off shower is not mentioned except in a footnote to table 4-4.

I have encountered just one graywater system in my career and that was many years ago. As I recall, a plumbing permit was not required and I didn't inspect it. There were rules as to what could drain and where....how large a space was required but not much more than that and no enforcement. They didn't gain in popularity here in the concrete jungle.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not sure there any state requirements that would prohibit grey water with hot water, but maybe there's something local.

To your question I tried to answer already but I guess I need to say it more clearly. from any cleanout point traveling in a direction you can't exceed 135 degrees in turns in aggregate. What that means is that if you're following your line downhill from a clean out and take a 45 degree turn, then another 45, then another 45, that's an aggregate of 135 degrees. once you hit that maximum you can no longer make any more turns without another cleanout. So when you say "take two 90 degree turns between cleanouts" I'm saying that's a code violation. Will your inspector catch that, I don't know.

To the conversation about a double 45, or a long sweep 90, it was explained to me by a great plumber that it comes down to moving the solids down the pipe. When you're at that 1/4" slope water gets enough speed going to keep solids moving. when that motion hits a hard 90 it creates turbulence and the water loses momentum, encouraging blockages. The long sweep 90 gives the movement enough of a gradual change that it won't lose momentum, two 45's (coupled directly together) also accomplishes this.
 
Just for the fun of it I figured you might like to see an inspector's understanding of when a cleanout is required. These are all from the same inspector.

IMG_1980.JPG


IMG_4183.JPG


IMG_4044.JPG

IMG_0724.JPG
 
Looks like I need to get the latest edition of the "urban code of legend" from this guy. Unbelievable.

Also frustrating when we give good advice here and people blatantly ignore anything they don't want to hear. Oh well...
 
ICE said:
Just for the fun of it I figured you might like to see an inspector's understanding of when a cleanout is required. These are all from the same inspector.

View attachment 9245


View attachment 9246


View attachment 9247

View attachment 9248
Click to expand...

Joe.B said:
Looks like I need to get the latest edition of the "urban code of legend" from this guy. Unbelievable.

Also frustrating when we give good advice here and people blatantly ignore anything they don't want to hear. Oh well...
Click to expand...

Joe B: Can you cite one quote from me, where I disagreed with Ice on cleanouts???

The sole issue that I disagreed with Ice on was the validity of a statement in this document. Shower pan minimum slope in Placer County

Get your facts straight before you start making false accusations.
 
You asked:
hardroadz said:
If you had a chance to look at my proposed cleanouts, does that look good? Does the first 4" cleanout after the 2 90's need to be a 2 way, or are the turns covered by the 2" cleanout that is right upstream at the shower unit?
Click to expand...
I responded:
Joe.B said:
To your question I tried to answer already but I guess I need to say it more clearly. From any cleanout point traveling in a direction you can't exceed 135 degrees in turns in aggregate. What that means is that if you're following your line downhill from a clean out and take a 45 degree turn, then another 45, then another 45, that's an aggregate of 135 degrees. once you hit that maximum you can no longer make any more turns without another cleanout. So when you say "take two 90 degree turns between cleanouts" I'm saying that's a code violation. Will your inspector catch that, I don't know.
Click to expand...
 
And I'm not making accusations, I'm just trying to help. Codes are not always easy, clear, or concise. I thought you came with really good questions and I am trying to support your endeavor to learn and do it "right".

Everything's all good.
 
Oh no! This guy came in with strange questions and goofy ideas.
 
Last edited:
In the 2015 IPC, section 708.1.5, cleanouts must be the same size as the pipe (up to 4" pipes.) If CA's plumbing code is the same, I would say you need a 4" cleanout at the beginning of the 4" pipe section.
 
Mech said:
In the 2015 IPC, section 708.1.5, cleanouts must be the same size as the pipe (up to 4" pipes.) If CA's plumbing code is the same, I would say you need a 4" cleanout at the beginning of the 4" pipe section.
Click to expand...
His sisters cousin said his way is acceptable.
 
This caught my eye today, I don't think I have ever seen it spelled out on a plan before. Just thought it interesting based on the conversation.
1661443244038.png

1661443264746.png
 
Sifu said:
This caught my eye today, I don't think I have ever seen it spelled out on a plan before. Just thought it interesting based on the conversation.
View attachment 9351

View attachment 9352
Click to expand...

California code has the following:
"An additional cleanout shall be provided in a drainage line for each aggregate horizontal change of direction exceeding 135°"

I see an aggregate totaling 90°. I am confused as to why a cleanout was required. So often I stumble because California Code does not match with much of the rest of the planet.
 
If the 90° was installed it would require a cleanout at that point per IPC 708.1.4 because it exceeds 45°. There is an additional issue, that maybe they are trying to avoid. Or not, if I am wrong here. This drain leads from the interior trench drain to an SOI. Is that drain considered a building drain? And then, is the point 30" from the building considered a building sewer? If so, then a cleanout would be required at that transition. But if not, no cleanout at that point, and no cleanout at the change of direction. By definition, I think it is a building drain, and since building sewer is defined as the connection to a building drain, then a cleanout is required.
 
Well then, starting with, “I don’t know what SOI stands for“ ending with the IPC is too foreign to me….I am bowing out of the discussion but thanks for putting up with me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top