yes interesting , And I could sign that on a home I built but on a 40 year old home that I didn't build I'd have to be lying . even if I could inspect a copper joint Id be guessing about the rest of a home being "Lead free"Just sold a house and a bank was asking for this to be signed. It was brand new so you’d assume all fittings are lead free.
yes interesting , And I could sign that on a home I built but on a 40 year old home that I didn't build I'd have to be lying . even if I could inspect a copper joint Id be guessing about the rest of a home being "Lead free"
In my house that would be considered a good thing.But I think it will remove fluoride also.
yea but he isn't going to tell us just leave us scratching our heads guessing what he wants. still vague 30 posts inI tried looking up the same paper and the law/code behind it but I failed. I don't think it would be possible or reasonable to have a requirement that wants you to verify something that you can't verify. I'm of the opinion that the document is asking that you verify that the NEW work you've installed is lead free.
Thanks folks, yes it's an annoying situation, I may have to speak with an engineer about whether they can test and sign off, I can see why a plumber would not want to do this.
I switched over early to 95/5 when I found I was getting fewer leaks with it. When the other plumbers I talked to found out that 95/5 meant fewer leaks they switched over too.
I went eighth months without a copper leak at one point, doing nothing but installing copper pipes and fittings in new construction.
This is awkward, but...
It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.
If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.