Snappytrap : Code OK for California? Temporary double sink install.

[wwhitney]

If you want to see what the code-making organization is willing to say about what it means:

https://iapmo.org/group/codes-and-standards/ask-a-code-question

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Jeff H Young]

I think I would ask inspector what he would allow short of you jack hammering floor? Maybe if it dosent pass just dont call back for reinspection then after a year or so your done with the "Temporary" and tear it out. Im guessing you gotta make it all legal for the free loaders

 

[Sponsor]

 

[wwhitney]

Because messing with 95 year old plumbing can... go badly.

FWIW, you do have an option that only requires messing with the galvanized vent pipe, not the drains: each side goes trap - trap arm - rolled up wye for vent - combine the fixture drains on the horizontal - connect to existing san-tee. Now you have to combine the vents from the wyes and tie that back into the existing vent. You're supposed to do that at least 6" above the flood rim of the sinks, maybe you can get a little leeway on that.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[TheOverThinker]

My local AJH approved an "Alternative Materials and Methods Request" allowing use
of a common trap, rather than a Double Fixture Fitting.



They did not accept that the "in the same room" applied only to the three fixture sink.

 

[Jeff H Young]

My local AJH approved an "Alternative Materials and Methods Request" allowing use
of a common trap, rather than a Double Fixture Fitting.

View attachment 66416 View attachment 66417

They did not accept that the "in the same room" applied only to the three fixture sink.

Good for you! Inspector is wrong but as long as he buys it thats good. So you did use the snappy trap? show pictures

 

[TheOverThinker]

Good for you! Inspector is wrong but as long as he buys it thats good. So you did use the snappy trap? show pictures

Will send pictures later.

Snappy Trap turned out to solve no real problem, and it's a ratty piece of junk that I was unable to really use. It's sort of a one size fits none solution, as you can't adjust the trap arm lengths.

Why do you say inspector/building department is wrong?

 

[Jeff H Young]

Will send pictures later.

Snappy Trap turned out to solve no real problem, and it's a ratty piece of junk that I was unable to really use. It's sort of a one size fits none solution, as you can't adjust the trap arm lengths.

Why do you say inspector/building department is wrong?

A single trap may only serve sinks in same room. but he aprooved it . it will be fine plus its just temporary. I thought snappy trap was a bit ammusing first I ever heard or saw anything like it. glad job working out for you

 

[TheOverThinker]

A single trap may only serve sinks in same room. but he approved it

I applied for a code exception, or as they say an "equivalence". I demonstrated that sharing a trap was "equivalent" in safety and effectiveness to using two traps. There's a 1925 cast iron riser, and doing it to code would have involved a janky cut in to that cast iron. Doing the single trap is a cleaner result. And if it ends up being a permanent feature, it will be just as durable if not more compared to the two trap solution.

This went above the inspector's head, to the building official.

Frankly it's a bit janky for fire, in that a plastic pipe will melt and give fire access to the inside of the wall. But I guess that's not a super strange situation.

 

[Jeff H Young]

I applied for a code exception, or as they say an "equivalence". I demonstrated that sharing a trap was "equivalent" in safety and effectiveness to using two traps. There's a 1925 cast iron riser, and doing it to code would have involved a janky cut in to that cast iron. Doing the single trap is a cleaner result. And if it ends up being a permanent feature, it will be just as durable if not more compared to the two trap solution.

This went above the inspector's head, to the building official.

Frankly it's a bit janky for fire, in that a plastic pipe will melt and give fire access to the inside of the wall. But I guess that's not a super strange situation.

I applied for a code exception, or as they say an "equivalence". I demonstrated that sharing a trap was "equivalent" in safety and effectiveness to using two traps. There's a 1925 cast iron riser, and doing it to code would have involved a janky cut in to that cast iron. Doing the single trap is a cleaner result. And if it ends up being a permanent feature, it will be just as durable if not more compared to the two trap solution.

This went above the inspector's head, to the building official.

Frankly it's a bit janky for fire, in that a plastic pipe will melt and give fire access to the inside of the wall. But I guess that's not a super strange situation.

I understand it completely thanks and I totaly agree in practical terms to allow this way or stacked tees or even a double fixture fitting in a situation like this no need going over my head Im sure if I was an inspector bigger things to worry about. And what I meant was he would be wrong to call it code compliant. I guess" equivilant" has differant meanings.
A point to allow it I think would be that having a wall there dosent change the function of drainage , if there were no wall there would be no question of legality so Id be hard pressed to say that they arent "equivalent"

plastic pipe passing through a wall no problem. a fire rated wall is a problem.