# Sometimes I over think things



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

I just failed an inspection.

I may have just been over thinking things, but I always try to do the best job I can.

In a nutshell, I did a partial stack replacement for a new customer. Their previous stack was PVC, but about half the joints were put together at angles that prevented the fittings from going completely home. Some of the drain arms had back fall. Some of the joints even had caulk topically applied after the fact. I should have taken a picture of the before.

Any way, the home had a 3" sanitary cross connecting two toilets. I, trying to be "a smart guy" decided to convert this to a double wye as per some of the new guidelines from toilet manufacturers.

I don't know if anybody else has witnessed this, but I have seen two newer toilets installed into an existing home where there was a 3" sanitary cross connecting them. I watched the water level rise, and then fall lower than its original height as the other toilet was flushed.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOO, of course I piped it up the way I saw best, and my inspector said, "FAIL". I don't mind correcting it, if it comes to that. However, I was going to appeal to the plumbing board for clarification about this design for DWV systems going forward. It seems to be a real problem.

We use the UPC 2009 here with some amendments. My code book is at my desk at work (I am at home now), so I will have to start pouring through that to build my case tomorrow.

In the mean time, I am going to solicit advice from the hive mind and take your "constructive criticisms" about my two pictures of the installation.

Let er' rip, boys!

--Will


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

The pics:


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Pic 2


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

It will work beautifully forever, but it is against code in most places.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

More food for thought.

***EDIT***

A link to Toto's recommended drain design.

http://imgur.com/20Gzu


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

I think it would fly in many jurisdictions if you had lowered the wyes and used 45's to drop into them.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Protech said:


> It will work beautifully forever, but it is against code in most places.


What part of working beautifully does the code not jive with.

Also, the code has provisions to default to manufacturer's instructions and guidelines.

Granted, there aren't two Toto's upstairs...yet....

***puts on salesmen hat****


----------



## TX MECH PLUMBER (May 27, 2011)

How are you gonna fix it ? You could stack two San tees on one another. That woul pass and solve the water rising in the bowl rite ?


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

I don't have access above to make two separate stacks (with proper vents) to serve each toilet.

I am pretty sure stacking sanitary tees for toilets is a no no around here, but for some reason they are good with sanitary crosses.

In our code amendments, there are actually pictures of things we can do that aren't technically right any more, but so many installations are in existence here that are functional and not easily corrected that as long as your piping matches the picture you are good to go.

I will scan a few pics of the book tomorrow and show em off to you guys (or at least by the weekend).

What is really funny is that whoever they got to draw the pictures actually has drawn the pictures of sanitary crosses to look more like double combination wyes...

Seriously.


----------



## TX MECH PLUMBER (May 27, 2011)

Yes you may be rite that would be a wet vent hu?? I think it would pass here tho. Wet vents are ok if they are on the same floor and a minor has to be dumped over the major. But I'm not shur if ther are two majors So he failed it cuz you didn't use a San tee ??


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

TX MECH PLUMBER said:


> How are you gonna fix it ? You could stack two San tees on one another. That woul pass and solve the water rising in the bowl rite ?


The inspector who failed me suggested using a 4" sanitary cross with 4" x 3" 90 degree elbows with the 3" looking up into the closet collars. This might actually be a reasonable solution that would be allowed around here.

I guess the reasoning is that by initially limiting the flow from the toilet, it can't flood the larger diameter pipe sufficiently to create the positive to negative pressure swing that is sucking water from the adjacent toilet's trap.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

TX MECH PLUMBER said:


> Yes you may be rite that would be a wet vent hu?? I think it would pass here tho. Wet vents are ok if they are on the same floor and a minor has to be dumped over the major. But I'm not shur if ther are two majors So he failed it cuz you didn't use a San tee ??


He failed me because I used a double wye instead of a double tee (aka a sanitary cross).


----------



## TX MECH PLUMBER (May 27, 2011)

That would never fly here. It's an obstruction. But I see the reason for it. Funny how codes differ


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

woberkrom said:


> What part of working beautifully does the code not jive with.
> 
> Also, the code has provisions to default to manufacturer's instructions and guidelines.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you realize that the laws of physics and construction codes aren't exactly congruent all the time.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Protech said:


> I'm sure you realize that the laws of physics and construction codes aren't exactly congruent all the time.


Oh yeah.

:yes:


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

At some point acceptance will be forced because of consumers not wanting to receive a wet butt when someone using the other toilet flushes... :laughing:

I've seen it that bad.... :yes:


----------



## gitnerdun (Nov 5, 2008)

They would call that a pair of "s" traps here. Why not a 4" cross and 4" up thru floor, then cut flush with finished floor and insert a 4x3 flange. More air in the pipe to displace the water=less slosh. We all know it would be fine with what you have, but you gotta please them. Toto's drawing stops short and doesn't show a vent between the double wye and the closet bend, where it would need to be for their fitting to work right.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

The way I was "learned up" a toilet can enter a vertical stack via a wye instead of a tee....:whistling2:

Tees are often used to save space and prevent soffits having to be installed. Also, it makes it easier to install the piping as it keeps things moving at right angles (more or less).

Toilets work by siphon (well maybe not the new ones). To the best of my knowledge, the vent for a toilet is to allow for the displaced air in front of the discharge to go some where (instead of causing positive pressure and blowing out trap seals). Unlike lavatory drains (for example) where a tee has to be used so air pressure can equalize back to the trap and break the siphon. In toilets, siphoning is a good thing. A close examination of the profile of a toilet will reveal it to be nothing more than a big s-trap.

Toilet = code allowed s-trap


----------



## LEAD INGOT (Jul 15, 2009)

By my code it is illegal. Using a double wye breaks the vent. If I want to use a 3" san cross the toilet branch has to be at least 30" and no more than 6'. Or use a 4" cross. That will allow the big blast of water at flushing to lose momentum before dropping into the stack.


----------



## SlickRick (Sep 3, 2009)

Toilets have been designed to replenish the trap seal when flushed. A combi in the vert. position, used to pick up a trap arm is considered a "S" trap by most codes.


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

woberkrom said:


> The pics:


Hydraulic gradient is broken at the vent.

At least that's the reasoning behind the prohibition under the UPC.

Ironically, they will accept a Partition Cross, which essentially causes the same hydraulic gradient issue.

BTW, where is the primer on those fittings?


----------



## TX MECH PLUMBER (May 27, 2011)

Widdershins said:


> Hydraulic gradient is broken at the vent.
> 
> At least that's the reasoning behind the prohibition under the UPC.
> 
> ...


Hydraulic gradient is a new term to me. Can you explain it. ??? Is mean that instead of venting properly like a san tee that the wye won't allow it to vent at all ??


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

TX MECH PLUMBER said:


> Hydraulic gradient is a new term to me. Can you explain it. ??? Is mean that instead of venting properly like a san tee that the wye won't allow it to vent at all ??


 Take a look at this -- I think it does a better job explaining the principle than I could.


----------



## user2090 (Sep 26, 2009)

Widdershins said:


> Take a look at this -- I think it does a better job explaining the principle than I could.



That makes a lot of sense and actually explains a problem I corrected this morning. Thanks Widdershins. At times we forget that we are in fact plumbers, and not engineers or scientist. What we "Think" happens, and what actually happens are two totally different things. 

Just like when some plumbers want to compare themselves with others professions as if there is a level playing field. :laughing:


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

In the context of venting, hydraulic gradient refers to the horizontal line running from the trap were to the highest point of the vent connection. The highest point of the vent connection can never be lower than the trap were. The idea being that you cannot initiate a siphon so long as that "hydrualic gradient" is never broken.












TX MECH PLUMBER said:


> Hydraulic gradient is a new term to me. Can you explain it. ??? Is mean that instead of venting properly like a san tee that the wye won't allow it to vent at all ??


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

The part where it gets dicey is, what do you call the "vent connection". Each code may define it differently.

For instance in Florida, we can bring a 3" riser up for a kitchen and put a 3"x1.5" santee and cap the top leg of the santee. Install a trap on the 1.5" middle leg and that is legal. The reason being is that the 3" riser is a vent due to it being oversized. It is known as "combination waste/vent". The pipe is large enough for the attached DFU that only a small portion of the pipe is water. The rest is left for air exchange.


----------



## TX MECH PLUMBER (May 27, 2011)

Protech said:


> In the context of venting, hydraulic gradient refers to the horizontal line running from the trap were to the highest point of the vent connection. The highest point of the vent connection can never be lower than the trap were. The idea being that you cannot initiate a siphon so long as that "hydrualic gradient" is never broken.


Thanks guys. I knew that but didn't know the term for it.


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

As far as the OP's work is concerned on a physics level, the venting is irrelevant. A 1.6gpf toilet on a 4" pipe needs no local vent of any kind. The entire drain is combination waste vent as far as the real world physics are concerned.

The trouble is the bureaucracy of the codes.


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

A related thread on venting: http://www.plumbingzone.com/f6/imyourdamntourguide-about-your-code-133/


----------



## Bayside500 (May 16, 2009)

Protech said:


> The part where it gets dicey is, what do you call the "vent connection". Each code may define it differently.
> 
> For instance in Florida, we can bring a 3" riser up for a kitchen and put a 3"x1.5" santee and cap the top leg of the santee. Install a trap on the 1.5" middle leg and that is legal. The reason being is that the 3" riser is a vent due to it being oversized. It is known as "combination waste/vent". The pipe is large enough for the attached DFU that only a small portion of the pipe is water. The rest is left for air exchange.


we did that here for many years, but now they want a AAV on top so we just stub up 2" instead.


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

3" combination waste vent is still legal. 



Bayside500 said:


> we did that here for many years, but now they want a AAV on top so we just stub up 2" instead.


----------



## 6th Density (Nov 29, 2010)

From Florida Plumbing 2004

706.3 Installation of fittings

Exceptions
Back-to-back water closet connections to double sanitary tees shall be permitted where the horizontal developed length between the outlet of the water closet and the connection to the double sanitary tee pattern is 18 inches or greater.


----------



## revenge (Jun 30, 2011)

would a double y and two 45 worked there better than a san cross


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

revenge said:


> would a double y and two 45 worked there better than a san cross


 That was covered already way at the tippie-top of this thread.


----------



## revenge (Jun 30, 2011)

oops my bad ill go back and read


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

revenge said:


> oops my bad ill go back and read


 No worries -- We got both of your backs. Beast.:laughing:


----------



## revenge (Jun 30, 2011)

what i gathered is it would be wrong and a san cross would be the best install but wouldnt that cause a blockage. We did i high story high rise and we installed san cross for back to back sinks and red tagged all of them we had to install dbl combys w st 90 to be in wall and then they passed


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

revenge said:


> what i gathered is it would be wrong and a san cross would be the best install but wouldnt that cause a blockage. We did i high story high rise and we installed san cross for back to back sinks and red tagged all of them we had to install dbl combys w st 90 to be in wall and then they passed


 That is so wrong on so many levels.

Still, you got 'em signed off.


----------



## revenge (Jun 30, 2011)

tell me about it sometimes you have to go against what you belive or what you were taught because of a f in inspector. In our code book it states inspector has final word go figure exspecially when they to dam lazy to do any thing. I did a camera job for this school the dumb hack plumbers had wat a call a backwords level the flow was backwords, and a bunches of standing water in alot of the pipes go figure the inspector a 350 plus man was to fat to get in the trench he passed them any ways it was a big issue lawsuits and every thing


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

Happens here frequently.



revenge said:


> tell me about it sometimes you have to go against what you belive or what you were taught because of a f in inspector. In our code book it states inspector has final word go figure exspecially when they to dam lazy to do any thing. I did a camera job for this school the dumb hack plumbers had wat a call a backwords level the flow was backwords, and a bunches of standing water in alot of the pipes go figure the inspector a 350 plus man was to fat to get in the trench he passed them any ways it was a big issue lawsuits and every thing


----------



## revenge (Jun 30, 2011)

man i hate it i installed a water heater it failed cause of no insulation i was like this house is fifty years old none of the pipes have insulation he said by code all new home a remodels need to have insulation


----------



## Tommy plumber (Feb 19, 2010)

Protech said:


> 3" combination waste vent is still legal.


 




Agreed, but where in the code do you read that the top of the vent can be capped? Cite the code section please. As far as I knew, combination waste and vent had to terminate to the atmosphere, like a combination waste and vent in a high-rise bldg.


----------



## plumber666 (Sep 19, 2010)

Widdershins said:


> Take a look at this -- I think it does a better job explaining the principle than I could.[/QUOTEVery interesting, thanks for that!


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

it vents through the combination waste vent all the way back to a vent else where in the system. Can be a dry vent or a wet vent.



Tommy plumber said:


> Agreed, but where in the code do you read that the top of the vent can be capped? Cite the code section please. As far as I knew, combination waste and vent had to terminate to the atmosphere, like a combination waste and vent in a high-rise bldg.


----------



## NYC Plumber (May 4, 2011)

Protech said:


> The part where it gets dicey is, what do you call the "vent connection". Each code may define it differently.
> 
> For instance in Florida, we can bring a 3" riser up for a kitchen and put a 3"x1.5" santee and cap the top leg of the santee. Install a trap on the 1.5" middle leg and that is legal. The reason being is that the 3" riser is a vent due to it being oversized. It is known as "combination waste/vent". The pipe is large enough for the attached DFU that only a small portion of the pipe is water. The rest is left for air exchange.


Hello everyone, i'm a new man and not gonna let things get out of hand anymore. Sorry if i gave any of you a bad impression of myself i'm really not a bad guy. Just sometimes i get home from work a little cranky and read some stuff that was setting me off.

Just want to give my opinion... I dont think that is a combination waste and vent system. Its just not vented with an oversized drain.
An example of a combination waste and vent system would be this, say you had a three story apt house with a kitchen stack. If you oversized it, and didn't individual vent each kitchen sink or have a vent stack, then at the top of the stack the highest sink would be stack vented and then that vent would tie into the vent system and eventually go through the roof. 
Also i know what you guys mean with hydraulic gradient, but i dont buy that with a water closet. That is for fixtures with p-traps where you dont want a syphon. I would have used a cross san tee, but i really dont see anything wrong with the cross wye, because they are wc's. Inspector breakin balls a little in my opinion.

Please don't have nasty rssponse, im really just giving my opinion. If you don't agree or think i am wrong fine.


----------



## TX MECH PLUMBER (May 27, 2011)

NYC Plumber said:


> Hello everyone, i'm a new man and not gonna let things get out of hand anymore. Sorry if i gave any of you a bad impression of myself i'm really not a bad guy. Just sometimes i get home from work a little cranky and read some stuff that was setting me off.
> 
> Just want to give my opinion... I dont think that is a combination waste and vent system. Its just not vented with an oversized drain.
> An example of a combination waste and vent system would be this, say you had a three story apt house with a kitchen stack. If you oversized it, and didn't individual vent each kitchen sink or have a vent stack, then at the top of the stack the highest sink would be stack vented and then that vent would tie into the vent system and eventually go through the roof.
> ...


I agree. Good to see you online NYC !!!!


----------



## NYC Plumber (May 4, 2011)

TX MECH PLUMBER said:


> I agree. Good to see you online NYC !!!!


Thanks good to be back !


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Widdershins said:


> BTW, where is the primer on those fittings?



We can/do use clear primer here. I am not a big fan of the purple.

:no:


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

woberkrom said:


> We can/do use clear primer here. I am not a big fan of the purple.
> 
> :no:



I thought you Plumbed to UPC guidelines.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Widdershins said:


> I thought you Plumbed to UPC guidelines.


Maybe they allow it by amendment. I never thought to question it, and have never had it turned down.

*** harnesses the power of google***

http://ww5.stlouisco.com/pubworks/Plumb-2009-UF.pdf


301.1.2.4.2 Primer shall not be purple.


----------



## Plumberman (Jul 7, 2008)

Set up would fly here, done it and had inspected several times...but it's different codes as usual.

NYC, I agree with the "busting balls" by the inspector.

Clean slate bro.

Peace?


----------



## NYC Plumber (May 4, 2011)

Plumberman said:


> Set up would fly here, done it and had inspected several times...
> 
> NYC, I agree with the "busting balls" by the inspector.
> 
> ...


Peace, all in the past.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

I didn't think this was online. The link to it is buried in the county site map.

This is Appendix M for the Saint Louis County Plumbing Amendments.

Contained herein are pictures of acceptable installations.

Enjoy.

Also, notice how all the sanitary crosses look like double wyes...

http://www.stlouisco.com/Portals/8/docs/Document%20Library/Public%20Works/code%20enforcement/ordinances/09-Plumb-Appendix-M-Dwgs-v1-10.pdf


----------



## NYC Plumber (May 4, 2011)

woberkrom said:


> I didn't think this was online. The link to it is buried in the county site map.
> 
> This is Appendix M for the Saint Louis County Plumbing Amendments.
> 
> ...


Sketch 25 was what i was trying to explain. Those are some helpful sketches they put with your code.
Pictures are really worth 1000 words.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

The reason Toto says to use the double combo or, wye and 1/8 bends is there have been numerous instances of crossover on less directional fittings where the toilet on the other side is hit bad enough to be a dirty water bidet... :laughing:

They are not the only brand that is experiencing this problem, but are the only one that I know of that has addressed it. Many of the better performing toilets made today will do that...

Seeing as toilets are designed to siphon the trap with each flush and replenish it afterwards it really doesn't make much difference how it is vented as long as other fixtures will not siphon the trap on it. You will see code changes to allow this if yours doesn't already...


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

Redwood said:


> The reason Toto says to use the double combo or, wye and 1/8 bends is there have been numerous instances of crossover on less directional fittings where the toilet on the other side is hit bad enough to be a dirty water bidet... :laughing:


 Does that fitting even exist?

If it were a double wye with two 1/8 bends, the upper inlet would be much lower -- Same with a double combo.

If it were a partition/fixture cross, the two sweeps would be shallower.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

Widdershins said:


> Does that fitting even exist?
> 
> If it were a double wye with two 1/8 bends, the upper inlet would be much lower -- Same with a double combo.
> 
> If it were a partition/fixture cross, the two sweeps would be shallower.


Charlotte Pipe says it does...
And yes it would be the same as a double combo...

A double fixture is shallower and would still be susceptible to crossover...

Venting is pretty much a none issue for the individual toilet as they replenish the trap. But the vent does need to protect the trap seal from other fixtures...


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

Redwood said:


> Charlotte Pipe says it does...
> And yes it would be the same as a double combo...
> 
> A double fixture is shallower and would still be susceptible to crossover...
> ...


 Note the difference in the depth of the upper opening relative to the top of the offsets in the two fittings, they're not the same.


----------



## NYC Plumber (May 4, 2011)

I have seen wc's not vented properly and siphon out on their own.
Crazy things happen in high rise, pressure fluctuations are much greater than you would think.
But i agree, its totally different then venting any other fixture.


----------



## U666A (Dec 11, 2010)

Here in Ontario, we have what is called a "dual waste fitting" which is to be used to symmetrically connect two fixtures with a trap size of 2" or less. If the fixtures are 3" or larger, a dual San tee may be used (they figure because of the size of the fitting that waste will "jump across" a 2" dual San tee, but not a 3" one...) and should be used to maintain hydraulic gradient when referring to "FIXTURES WHICH DEPEND ON A P-TRAP"...

When an S-trap is involved, hyd grad is broken long before the waste/water passes your wax seal. 

As long as the other 6 of 7 "fixture waste requirements unique to a fixture which depends on siphonic action" are met, that install is cool with me.

Down with purple!


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

Widdershins said:


> Note the difference in the depth of the upper opening relative to the top of the offsets in the two fittings, they're not the same.


I'm not seeing a difference other than the height of the top run hub, and that has no bearing as its the vtr... :whistling2:

Note the red line!


----------



## OldSchool (Jan 30, 2010)

His install is to code here....

Have to use double Y and double TY not allowed


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

A laborious work around....


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

NYC Plumber said:


> I have seen wc's not vented properly and siphon out on their own.
> Crazy things happen in high rise, pressure fluctuations are much greater than you would think.
> But i agree, its totally different then venting any other fixture.


I don't buy that part. Siphoning out due to pressures or vacuum from other fixtures, sure.

Perhaps that is what you meant though.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

Protech said:


> A laborious work around....


Totally unnecessary though given the refilling of the trap and the effects of the other toilet being broken at the wye...


----------



## NYC Plumber (May 4, 2011)

Protech said:


> I don't buy that part. Siphoning out due to pressures or vacuum from other fixtures, sure.
> 
> Perhaps that is what you meant though.


I think we are saying the same thing.....


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Things have taken a favorable turn.

I called IAPMO for clarification this morning, and they clarified to me that introducing two toilets via a double wye are not an issue. Furthermore, if the manufacturer recommends the use of a double wye, YOU HAVE TO PUT A DOUBLE WYE IN, because that is considered the most stringent installation.

This means that is some instances, NOT using a double wye will make the connection out of compliance with the code.

:blink:

I got a hold of the top guy at the County as well. He says wyes actually make the toilets work better, because you are trying to induce siphoning and that my install should be correct. He has to talk with the inspector to make sure my story and reason for failing jive with what the inspector saw, but it looks like I might pass this one.

TL;DR: USE DOUBLE WYES FOR BACK TO BACK TOILET INSTALLS GOING FORWARD (or some other such measure to prevent one toilet siphoning the trap of the other)


----------



## U666A (Dec 11, 2010)

woberkrom said:


> Things have taken a favorable turn.
> 
> I called IAPMO for clarification this morning, and they clarified to me that introducing two toilets via a double wye are not an issue. Furthermore, if the manufacturer recommends the use of a double wye, YOU HAVE TO PUT A DOUBLE WYE IN, because that is considered the most stringent installation.
> 
> ...


Well that my friend, is a silver lining! I hope you get your way. Like I said... In Ontario, that would pass any day of the week anyways...

Let us know how it turns out!

UA


----------



## Protech (Sep 22, 2008)

So does that mean if they change the toilets to non-toto toilets their plumbing is now not up to code :001_huh:



woberkrom said:


> Things have taken a favorable turn.
> 
> I called IAPMO for clarification this morning, and they clarified to me that introducing two toilets via a double wye are not an issue. Furthermore, if the manufacturer recommends the use of a double wye, YOU HAVE TO PUT A DOUBLE WYE IN, because that is considered the most stringent installation.
> 
> ...


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Protech said:


> So does that mean if they change the toilets to non-toto toilets their plumbing is now not up to code :001_huh:


Double wyes instead of double tees are required when the manufacturer requires them because the code is whatever is the more stringent of the code or the manufacturer's recommendation/requirement.

TOTO requires the double wye vs the double tee on some models so for those installations you would need a double wye (or two separate stacks, one for each toilet).

I am not sure about Kohler. I will say that I saw two back to back Kohler toilets that were having the cross siphoning issue (I think they were Cimmarons).

It's stuff like this that makes our job interesting and more difficult.

For the record, the stack I replaced had two older toilets that worked fine, but I was trying to build my plumbing to be "forward compatible" with newer toilets.


----------



## Widdershins (Feb 5, 2011)

woberkrom said:


> Things have taken a favorable turn.
> 
> I called IAPMO for clarification this morning, and they clarified to me that introducing two toilets via a double wye are not an issue. Furthermore, if the manufacturer recommends the use of a double wye, YOU HAVE TO PUT A DOUBLE WYE IN, because that is considered the most stringent installation.


 That's not how they would interpret it in my neck of the woods.

In my area Code always trumps manufacturers specs.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Widdershins said:


> That's not how they would interpret it in my neck of the woods.
> 
> In my area Code always trumps manufacturers specs.


AHJ's always have the last word where ever you are, unless you want to take em to court.

Even if I was technically right and the AHJ deemed me to be wrong, I was prepared to modify the installation to appease them. Fortunately, it didn't come to that, and (in my mind at least) I have installed something that is going to work well for a long time even if the fixtures in use change.


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

Today was my first day back from vacation. I got an email of a certificate of completion for the job in question (the county's terminology for saying my installation passed).

Just thought I'd throw that out there to finish up the thread for anybody that might have wondered how it turned out.


----------



## shakeyglenn68 (Dec 29, 2010)

woberkrom said:


> We can/do use clear primer here. I am not a big fan of the purple.
> 
> :no:


OK requires the use of purple (So inspector can see primer is used) If the inspector doesn't see it he will flunk it!


----------



## woberkrom (Nov 19, 2010)

shakeyglenn68 said:


> OK requires the use of purple (So inspector can see primer is used) If the inspector doesn't see it he will flunk it!


Well, I understand you got potential staining problems, son.

I got 99 problems but Potassium permanganate aint one,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_permanganate


----------

