by Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD
April 1, 2010

A proposed change to the UPC would add a new listing of 1/2 DFU for the fixture unit value for non-water supplied urinals.
Many changes have been proposed to the Uniform Plumbing Code.
The IAPMO code change cycle
to develop the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code is now in full swing. All of the code
changes have been submitted and the first meeting of the Plumbing Technical
Committee will occur April 26-28 in Milwaukee.
After the past few cycles that have seen an extensive number of changes,
everyone expected a light cycle. That is not to be. There are more than 250 proposed
changes to the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Going green will be a major
theme during this code cycle. As all of you know, IAPMO issued its green
plumbing code. Now, the committee that put the green code together is proposing
to add many of the green code requirements to the Uniform Plumbing Code. This
includes many water conserving requirements.
One proposal would mandate 1.28 gallons per flush or HET water closets. This is
a change from the 1.6 gallon-per-flush water closet. Such a change raises all
sorts of questions. Unlike the green code, the Uniform Plumbing Code is adopted
by many states as the enforceable plumbing code. Water conservation for
plumbing fixtures is regulated by the federal government. The federal
requirements are listed as being pre-emptive, meaning no state is permitted to
change those requirements (up or down).
One of the arguments regarding the water-closet flush volume will be that
California has already, by state law, lowered its flush volume, while the opposing
view is California’s law doesn’t make it right. Furthermore, the California
legislation has yet to be tested in the courts. The discussion on this change
should be interesting.
Also included in the water conservation code changes is a proposal to limit the
amount of water in a shower to a single showerhead. Currently, the UPC has been
interpreted as allowing multiple showerheads in a shower. The change would
eliminate multiple showerheads and allow only 2.5 gallons per minute of total
water for taking a shower. This change shouldn’t stir much emotion since that
is plenty of water for a shower.
With the lowering in the amount of water use, there are a few changes to the
sizing of the drainage piping. One change proposes to lower the shower drain
size to a minimum of 1 1/2 inches. Currently, the UPC requires a 2-inch minimum
shower drain.
Another oversight in the
UPC is the sizing and fixture unit value for non-water supplied urinals. A
change is proposed to add a new listing of ½ DFU for the drainage fixture unit
value. While not affecting the fixture drain, this would have a significant
impact on the size of the drain when a series of non-water supplied urinals are
installed.
Attempts to place the fixture unit value for non-water supplied urinals failed
during the last code cycle. There was testimony that if you replace the
non-water supplied urinal with a water-supplied urinal, you need the piping in
the wall to accommodate that water-supplied urinal. This is someone attempting
to predict the future of plumbing and plan for it. Of course, it makes no
sense. To try and predict what may happen with a change in fixtures is not the
purpose of the code.
ASPE has submitted changes
on venting requirements and siphonic roof drainage. One of the changes proposed
is to move the circuit venting requirements from Appendix L to Chapter 9. It
makes no sense to isolate circuit venting requirements in an engineered design
appendix. These requirements belong in the venting chapter of the
code.
ASPE has again proposed a change to add air admittance valves to Appendix L as
an engineered design. This change is very similar to the change submitted in
the last cycle by ASPE. That change was approved through the normal code change
process only to be block-voted down at the annual meeting. What those attending
the annual meeting failed to understand is that air admittance valves can
already be used under the engineered venting design section of the code.
However, without guidelines in the code, the authority having jurisdiction has
no means of evaluating the proper design and installation.
It will be interesting to see where IAPMO, as an organization, positions itself
regarding air admittance valves. For almost 25 years, the sky has been falling
when you mention air admittance valves at an IAPMO annual conference. Yet,
everyone continues to wait for the day when all air admittance valves fail and
make everyone sick.
It is estimated there are more than 10 million air admittance valves installed
in the United States alone. You have to wonder how much longer you can stick
your head in the sand and say they don’t work.
The siphonic roof drain proposal is a repeat code change from the last cycle.
This was also approved through the cycle, only to be voted down at the annual
meeting. Siphonic roof drainage has been used more and more by plumbing
engineers. The UPC needs to add the requirements so the authority having
jurisdiction has the necessary tools for enforcing the requirements. The
resulting requirements would reference ASPE 45 for the design of the system.
With the changes to the IRC
mandating residential sprinklers in all one- and two-family dwellings and
townhouses, there is a change to address multipurpose piping systems. This
deals more with backflow protection, or lack thereof. Backflow is not required
when the sprinkler pipe and the sprinklers are listed to NSF 61.
IAPMO also developed a supplement on residential sprinklers. The supplement is
similar to Section P2904 in the 2009 International Residential Code. Basically,
there are requirements for a plumbing-based residential sprinkler system. The
concept is to use this document in place of NFPA 13D for a basic system. When
there is more complexity to the system, you would have to use NFPA 13D.
If you are in the Milwaukee area at the end of April, stop by the Hilton City
Center and see how the code change process works. I’ll be there. I hope to see
some of you there, as well.
Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD
jbengineer@aol.com
Julius Ballanco, P.E., is Editorial Director of PM Engineer and president of J.B. Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C. in Munster, IN. Prior to starting J.B. Engineering, he served as head of plumbing and mechanical engineering for Building Officials and Code Administrators International, one of the organizations that formed the International Code Council (ICC). His engineering consulting work includes the design of plumbing, mechanical and fire-protection systems; forensic engineering; training; and serving numerous manufacturers in different capacities. In addition, Ballanco is the current president of ASPE and a member of both ICC and IAPMO. He can be reached by e-mail at jbengineer@aol.com.
Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
Virtual encyclopedia on modern hydronic systems.
Title: Headline
By: Guest
Posted: April 20, 2010 5:33 PM
Shouldn't the headline read 2012 code cycle?