GrumpyPlumber said:Fl-Orange,
I know you suggested adding a vent, but you mean to say FL code would allow the whole lower bath group to use the main stack as a vent even with additional plumbing going into it above?
acjensen said:if you're going to wet vent the bath group, doesn't everything being wet-vented HAVE to be above the WC?
GrumpyPlumber said:FL-orange,
From what the diagram shows, the lavs are above the bath group, yes thats what I mean.
This thread could rapidly become a "Who's on first" skit between diagram interpretations and various codes.
In my state we cannot reduce stack size for starters, it would have to remain 3" all the way up.
Other states require that the 3" be broken into at least the same square volume in smaller vents.
We are only allowed to wet vent a single bath group and it has to be a minimum 2" with a seperate vent per bath group either vtr on it's own or tying in 6" over flood above the highest fixture in the house.
In other words, I think YOU are about the best candidate to answer this guys questions, You're Fla.
markts30 said:I will hold off comments on this as it would not fly here but I don't know the Fla code...
hj said:The drawing is good, the plumbing is not. Even if that system would pass ANY plumbing code, it would still be a bad system, and I would not install it that way, even if the drawing were approved.
Terry said:That's not plumbing.
Plumbing has vents to prevent siphoning of traps.
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.