Inspectors from the Old Dominion State are very active in the code change process.
If you did a quick check of the public comments to this year’s code changes to the International Plumbing Code, you would swear Virginia was dominating the code. However, that is somewhat deceiving in that all the comments from the Code Action Committee list the name of the chairman, who happens to be from Virginia.
There is no denying that the Virginia Plumbing and Mechanical Inspectors Association is very active in the code change process. Other than the CAC, it has again submitted the most public comments to the plumbing code. Virginia always doubles up and lists the Virginia Building Officials Association.
Some think Virginia is trying to control the contents of the plumbing code. In reality, the inspectors from Virginia are just very involved, more involved than inspectors from other states. Perhaps the next closest state with representation is Colorado. There are also comments from Utah and Michigan inspectors.
What is surprising is the number of public comments. There were 72 comments submitted to the plumbing code. Some of the comments are very good, others are unreasonable.
The CAC is attempting to add the changes the Code Change Committee originally rejected. The first public comment will be a complete overhaul of the graywater piping section. Some objected to a few minor points, hence the CAC responded by changing those requirements. They deal with the definitions of storage tanks and distribution piping. Both definitions are proposed to be deleted from the original text.
Some, including one of the public commenters, believe nonpotable water systems belong only in the Green Code. I couldn’t disagree more. The Green Code is a goal-oriented code. The Plumbing Code is a set of mandatory requirements. Thus, if you want to install something in accordance with the Green Code, the basic requirements better be in the Plumbing Code.