BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "BUILDING CODE COMMISSION"

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No. B BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF Article , Sentences (1), (1), (1), (2), Clause (1)(a), Subclauses (1)(a)(ii), (1)(d)(iii), and Table A.of the Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Fathy El-Kasir, Homeowner, for the resolution of a dispute with Robert Waldron, Chief Building Official, City of Peterborough, to determine whether the plumbing system which has been installed to provide service to an additional washroom on the second floor of a two storey, Group C, residential dwelling provides sufficiency of compliance with Article , Sentences (1), (1), (1), (2), Clause (1)(a), Subclauses (1)(a)(ii), (1)(d)(iii), and Table A. of the Building Code at 79 Facendi Drive, City of Peterborough, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Fathy El-Kasir Homeowner Peterborough, ON Robert Waldron Chief Building Official City of Peterborough Tony Chow, Chair Gerry Egberts Prabhakar Mahant Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING February 7, 2008 DATE OF RULING February 7, 2008 APPEARANCES Mr. Fathy El-Kasir and Mrs. El-Kasir Homeowner Peterborough, ON The Applicants Mr. Robert Waldron Chief Building Official City of Peterborough The Respondent

2 Dean Findlay Deputy Chief Building Official And George Drumm Senior Plumbing Inspector City of Peterborough Designates for the Respondent

3 -3- RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The subject building is an existing two storey, Group C, residential dwelling of combustible construction. The dispute involves the construction of a drainage, waste and vent system, installed to provide service to a new washroom in the second storey addition of a residential dwelling at 79 Facendi Drive, City of Peterborough, Ontario. The Applicant received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, 1992, to remedy certain alleged code contraventions. The Applicant also received an Order Not to Cover or Enclose the drainage, waste and venting system installed within the second storey addition of the subject building, and its connections to the existing drainage, waste and venting system in the home. The dispute initially brought before the Commission pertained to whether the as-installed drainage piping for the new additional washroom, which discharges into the existing plumbing system, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause (1)(a), Subclause (1)(a)(ii), Table A, Sentence (1), Sentences (1), (1), (1), (2), and Clause (1)(d)(iii) of the 1997 Ontario Building Code. At the outset of the hearing, the Applicant requested that the matter be reviewed under the 2006 Building Code for sufficiency of compliance. As the Respondent had no objections to this request, the Commission reviewed the matter under the. It was also at the hearing that Clause (1)(a), Subclause (1)(a)(ii) and Table A of the were withdrawn from the dispute upon mutual agreement between the Applicant and Respondent. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute The following is a list of the 1997 Code provisions in dispute along with the corresponding 2006 Code references, under which the Commission reviewed the matter Length of Fixture Outlet Pipe (1) Except as provided in Sentence (3) the developed length of every fixture outlet pipe shall not exceed 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) Length of Fixture Outlet Pipes (1) Except for fixture outlet pipes installed in conformance with Sentence (3), the developed length of every fixture outlet pipe shall not exceed mm Copper Tube (1) Types M and DWV copper tube shall not be bent.

4 Copper Tube (1) Types M and DWV copper tube shall not be bent Tests and Inspection of Drainage or Venting Systems (1) Except in the case of an external leader, after a section of drainage system or a venting system has been roughed in, and before any fixture is installed or piping is covered, a water or an air test shall be conducted Tests and Inspection of Drainage or Venting Systems (1) Except in the case of an external leader, after a section of drainage system or a venting system has been roughed in, and before any fixture is installed or piping is covered, a water or an air test shall be conducted Application of Tests (1) After a section of a potable water system has been completed, and before it is placed in operation, a water test or an air test shall be conducted Application of Tests (1) After a section of a potable water system has been completed, and before it is placed in operation, a water test or an air test shall be conducted Cleanouts for Drainage Systems (2) A cleanout fitting shall be provided on the upstream side and directly over every running trap Cleanouts for Drainage Systems (2) A cleanout fitting shall be provided on the upstream side and directly over every running trap Sizes for Wet Vents (1) Where 2 or 3 fixtures are installed in a plumbing system, any one of the fixtures may be wet vented by one or both of the other fixtures if d) at least one of the wet venting fixtures is drained through a vertical continuous waste and vent and the waste pipe serving as a wet vent is at least, (iii) 2 in. size, where the wet vented trap is of 3, 4 or 6

5 Hydraulic Loads Draining to Wet Vents (1) The hydraulic load that drains to a wet vent shall conform to Table (2) When determining the size of a wet vent, the hydraulic load from the most downstream fixture or symmetrically connected fixtures shall not be included. Table Maximum Permitted Hydraulic Loads Drained to a Wet Vent Forming Part of Articles and Column Size of Wet Vent, in. Maximum Hydraulic Load, Fixture Units Not Serving Water Closets Serving Not More Than Two Water Closets Fixtures Other Than Water Closets 1 ½ 2 N/A N/A 18 6 N/A Applicant s Position At the outset of the hearing, the Applicant requested that the matter be reviewed under the 2006 Building Code for sufficiency of compliance. As the Respondent had no objections to this request, the Commission agreed to review the matter under the applicable provisions of the. The Applicant submitted that the Type M copper pipe used in the installation of the subject plumbing system was slightly bent using a half inch spring bending tool to accommodate a 2x8 floor joist. The Applicant maintained that that the pipe was bent using an appropriate tool causing no damage to the piping and that there had not been any leaks or breakage of the pipe since its installation. Further, the Applicant stated that it was common trade practice to slightly bend a Type M copper pipe whenever cold and hot water pipes are located in the same vertical plane. He argued that provided the pipes are not damaged this installation should be acceptable. The Applicant also submitted that the developed length of the washing machine s discharge piping, which is approximately 1400 mm, is only a minor deviation from the Code s required 1200 mm length and should therefore, be considered sufficient. The Applicant argued that using a 1.5 inch ABS wet vent to serve one water closet is more than adequate, as the Code allows a 2 inch wet vent to be used to serve two water closets. The Applicant also argued that a cleanout for the laundry tub s running trap is not necessary in this particular case, as a snake can easily be inserted through the pipe by removing the washing machine hose and therefore, it is possible to clean out the trap if required. In support of his arguments, the Applicant submitted that he had tested the plumbing system. The Applicant explained that the bathtub and vanity sink were filled with water simultaneously

6 -6- and then discharged simultaneously while at the same time the lavatory was flushed. The Applicant claimed that no air bubbles were visible in either the vanity or bathtub during this test and further, the volume of water inside the P-Trap of the vanity was 250 ml before and after the lavatory was flushed. The Applicant maintained that this test confirmed that there was no siphon effect, and therefore, proved not only that the plumbing system was adequately vented but that it was also in perfect working order and did not present a threat to the public s health or safety. However, the Applicant admitted that the plumbing inspector was not present at the time of testing. During the course of the hearing, both the Respondent and Applicant agreed to repeat the tests in accordance to the requirements of the Code. In summary, the Applicant stated that he recognized that there were deviations from the Code in the installed plumbing system but that they were very minor in nature and should therefore be allowed on the grounds that they do not present a threat to the public s health and/or safety. Further, the Applicant requested the Commission to make a ruling based on whether the Applicant s plumbing installation indeed posed a threat to public health and safety, to which the presiding members at the hearing clarified that the Commission was a tribunal in which only sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code could be addressed. 4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that upon inspection of the subject plumbing system multiple Code contraventions became apparent. As a result, the Applicant was given a time frame and directed to correct the deficiencies. He was directed to contact the municipality for a re-inspection once the deficiencies had been corrected. He was further advised that if these matters were not addressed, an Order under the Building Code Act would be issued. An Order to Comply was issued on March 13, 2007 listing nine Code contraventions related to the installed plumbing system. Upon responding to questions and based on the most recent inspection of the plumbing system to date, the Respondent agreed that six of the listed Code contraventions were still in dispute, namely: Sentence (1), Sentences (1), (1), (1), (2), and Clause (1)(d)(iii) of the 1997 Ontario Building Code. The Respondent submitted that under the requirements of the Code, the installed water closet wet vent must be 2 inches and therefore, the Applicant s installation of a1 ½ inch wet vent was not sufficient. The Respondent stated that upon inspection it was observed that the length of the laundry tub fixture outlet pipe was in excess of 1400 mm, which was over the required maximum length of 1200 mm as prescribed by the Code and therefore, in contravention of the Code. In addition, the Respondent maintained that the Type M copper pipe had been bent in several places, and as this type of pipe was very thin, it could easily be damaged by bending it. It was his opinion that the Code is implicit that this type of piping not be bent because of how easily it can be damaged. Further, the Respondent stated that an inspection of the as-installed laundry tub running trap revealed that it did not have a cleanout as required by the Code, therefore, a proper drain and vent was required. In addition, the Respondent stated that he could not support the tests or the results the Applicant had described, as an inspector had not been present to witness the tests. Therefore, it was his opinion that neither the drainage or venting piping nor the potable water system had been tested in accordance with the Building Code.

7 -7-5. Commission Ruling No , (B ) It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the plumbing system which has been installed to provide service to an additional washroom on the second floor of a two storey, Group C, residential dwelling does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Clause (1)(a), Subclause (1)(a)(ii), Table A, Sentence (1), Sentences (1), (1), (1), (2), and Clause (1)(d)(iii),. of the at 79 Facendi Drive, City of Peterborough, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) It is the Commission s opinion that the 1997 Ontario Building Code is applicable to this application. However, at the outset of the hearing the Applicant requested that the matter be reviewed under the 2006 Ontario Building Code for sufficiency of compliance. As the Respondent had no objections to this request, the Commission reviewed the matter under the. ii) iii) At the hearing, Clause (1)(a) and Subclause (1)(a)(ii) and Table A of the were withdrawn from the dispute upon mutual agreement between the Applicant and Respondent. Therefore, the Commission will not rule on these items. Sentence (1) of the 1997 Code stipulates that the developed length of every fixture outlet pipe shall not exceed 900 mm. In the, Sentence (1) states that the developed length of every fixture outlet pipe shall not exceed mm. The developed length of the already built laundry tub fixture outlet pipe is mm, which exceeds the maximum length permitted by the Code. iv) Sentence (1) of the 1997 Code referenced as Sentence (1) in the, both identically state, Types M and DWV copper tube shall not be bent. The Code is explicit that type M copper tube shall not be bent. The Commission was advised that the Type M copper tube had been slightly bent in the subject plumbing system installation. Therefore, the Commission has determined that sufficiency of compliance with the requirement of the 1997 or the has not been achieved. v) Sentence (1) of the 1997 Code, referenced as Sentence (1) in the 2006 Code, both equivalently state, Except in the case of an external leader, after a section of drainage system or a venting system has been roughed in, and before any fixture is installed or piping is covered, a water or an air test shall be conducted. The Commission was advised that the building inspector was not present during the time when the tests were conducted and therefore, could not verify the results. The Commission was further advised that the tests would be redone in accordance with the Code requirements. Therefore, the Commission will not rule on this item. vi) Sentence (1) of the 1997 Code and referenced as Sentence (1) in the 2006 Code, both require that a water test or an air test be conducted after a section of a potable water system has been completed, and before it is placed in operation. The Commission was advised that the building

8 -8- inspector was not present during the time when the tests were conducted and therefore, could not verify the results. The Commission was further advised that the tests would be redone in accordance with the Code requirements. Therefore, the Commission will not rule on this item. vii) Sentence (2) in the 1997 Code and Sentence (2) in the 2006 Code both state, A cleanout fitting shall be provided on the upstream side and directly over every running trap. The subject plumbing system does not include a cleanout trap directly over every running trap. The Code is specific in this requirement; the Commission finds that sufficiency of compliance with the Code is not achieved. viii) ix) Subclause (1)(d)(iii) of the 1997 Code, referenced as Sentence (1) in the 2006 Code, states that the hydraulic load that drains to a wet vent shall conform to Table By virtue of Table , the minimum size of a wet vent serving not more than two water closets, and up to three fixtures other than water closets, is 2 inches in size. The subject plumbing system having a 1 ½ inch wet vent installed to serve one fixture, which is a water closet, does not meet the minimum requirement of the Code. There were no acceptable compensating measures offered by the Applicant, therefore, it remains that the subject installed plumbing system does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Ontario Building Code, which is a minimum set of construction requirements.

9 -9- Dated at Toronto this 7 th day in the month of February in the year 2008 for application number Tony Chow, Chair Gerry Egberts Prabhakar Mahant