Drain pipe size for 30 square roof

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

What size drain pipes are the standard size for a 30 sq roof? 4" or 6"

The house will also have 4 bathrooms plus utility items like washing machine, "slop" sink, etc.

Thanks

 

[Micrornd]

How do you see the roof size figuring into this ?

4" for "4 bathrooms plus utility items like washing machine, "slop" sink, etc." if it's a residence, 6" if it's apartments, dorms, etc.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

The roofing drain pipes tie into the main plumbing pipes under the basement cement flooring, as-well-as the drain system around the basement walls. Originally they were 6" A plumber said 4" would be sufficient. Had the side basement walls dug up around the house, waterproofed, plumber suggested to tie in the pipes to the mains. The main pipes were replaced with 4" The entire basement cement was dug up, replaced with rock, re-cemented. It rained and there was HEAVY leaking on the walls as well as from under the new basement flooring which was also water sealed.

 

[herm0016]

your sewer system is different than the drain system around the foundation and for rain water. or should be. the drain system should be going to a sump pit or to an outlet lower than the pipe around the foundation. if they hooked them to the sewer system, its probably against code. also, if its tied into the sewer system, you would need some kind of check valve or ptrap to prevent sewer water from getting into your home. @Greenman ?

 

[Micrornd]

If you live in the US and are tied into a municipal sewer system, in 90% of the municipalities and counties, it is illegal to tie your storm water (roof, yard, any rainwater, etc.) into the sanitary sewer system because it can effectively kill a sewage treatment plant during a heavy rain and ruin treatment in just a "good" rain.
Please check your local ordinances, it used to be allowed before they knew better, but was generally changed in the '60-'70s and any construction in which the 2 systems are involved, they are required to separate the 2 systems for permit approval and permit final.
In most municipal and county cases, if permits were "not pulled" and the 2 systems were tied together illegally (or the systems were redone and the storm water and sewage not separated), daily fines (from the time it was done) would be applied until they were separated properly, it is taken that seriously.

If you are on a septic system it is an even worse idea, as just a "good" rain will kill or wash out all the bacteria in the tank.

Any plumber that suggests tying storm water together with sanitary sewage, well I certainly wouldn't be dealing with, but looking for a real plumber instead.

 

[sdifox]

Pretty sure you are no longer allowed to pipe rain water into sewage. It has to go to the lawn.

Something is wrong with the waterproofing if you just did it and it is leaking into your basement..

 

[Greenman]

your sewer system is different than the drain system around the foundation and for rain water. or should be. the drain system should be going to a sump pit or to an outlet lower than the pipe around the foundation. if they hooked them to the sewer system, its probably against code. also, if its tied into the sewer system, you would need some kind of check valve or ptrap to prevent sewer water from getting into your home. @Greenman ?

Some old city's have combined sewer systems, I know San Francisco does. I'm honestly not sure of the specifics for traps where the storm drains tie into the sanitary system.
It's bonehead arrangement that requires massive storage systems to hold the combined runoff and sewage. Back in the day it was simply dumped into the nearest body of water and ignored.

 

[Greenman]

The roofing drain pipes tie into the main plumbing pipes under the basement cement flooring, as-well-as the drain system around the basement walls. Originally they were 6" A plumber said 4" would be sufficient. Had the side basement walls dug up around the house, waterproofed, plumber suggested to tie in the pipes to the mains. The main pipes were replaced with 4" The entire basement cement was dug up, replaced with rock, re-cemented. It rained and there was HEAVY leaking on the walls as well as from under the new basement flooring which was also water sealed.

Sounds like the entire project was a failure. Is the contractor going to correct the faulty work? Was any of it permitted and inspected? Is your city on a combined sewer system?
Clearly something went wrong, and may even be worse than what is apparent.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I'll have to ask my brother what exactly happened but from what I know that's what it sounded like happened. The nightmare continues

 

[Scarpozzi]

Sounds like the entire project was a failure. Is the contractor going to correct the faulty work? Was any of it permitted and inspected? Is your city on a combined sewer system?
Clearly something went wrong, and may even be worse than what is apparent.

Here, where I live, permits are only required for new work. It seems that there are a lot of plumbers that are not licensed, that handle break-fix stuff. I'm sure it allows for a bunch of bad work.

Good luck separating out your drainage. I would do everything in my power to limit the amount of water that flows through my foundation walls...in or out of a pipe. I have buried pipes in my yard to handle runoff, but split it into a few 4" lines that could potentially be snaked if needed.

 

[Greenman]

Here, where I live, permits are only required for new work. It seems that there are a lot of plumbers that are not licensed, that handle break-fix stuff. I'm sure it allows for a bunch of bad work.

Good luck separating out your drainage. I would do everything in my power to limit the amount of water that flows through my foundation walls...in or out of a pipe. I have buried pipes in my yard to handle runoff, but split it into a few 4" lines that could potentially be snaked if needed.

We're the exact opposite. Need a permit for everything, and detailed plans to boot. Just finished an 800 square foot addition, 23 pages of plans on 24x36 paper. That doesn't include the seven revisions.

 

[Scarpozzi]

We're the exact opposite. Need a permit for everything, and detailed plans to boot. Just finished an 800 square foot addition, 23 pages of plans on 24x36 paper. That doesn't include the seven revisions.

My 1900 sq ft addition was designed by me on a napkin. I didn't follow all the rules to get it signed off on, but the city was a pita at every step of the way. A couple of times, inspectors claimed they couldn't find my house...and it's on every GPS. I live on a corner lot, so my driveway is on a different street than my physical address....but that's how it was when we moved in. I even put a number on each side of the house so deliveries make it.

Anyhow, I am glad they do have codes offices. They provide some safety and standards when so many people don't have common sense or follow established building processes. (Plumbing and electrical, especially)

 

[Greenman]

My 1900 sq ft addition was designed by me on a napkin. I didn't follow all the rules to get it signed off on, but the city was a pita at every step of the way. A couple of times, inspectors claimed they couldn't find my house...and it's on every GPS. I live on a corner lot, so my driveway is on a different street than my physical address....but that's how it was when we moved in. I even put a number on each side of the house so deliveries make it.

Anyhow, I am glad they do have codes offices. They provide some safety and standards when so many people don't have common sense or follow established building processes. (Plumbing and electrical, especially)

It's all very sensible, until it's not. I just had an inspector tell me an existing retaining wall was to close to the house and it had to move two feet further away. That will cost the owner around $15k.

 

[Scarpozzi]

It's all very sensible, until it's not. I just had an inspector tell me an existing retaining wall was to close to the house and it had to move two feet further away. That will cost the owner around $15k.

Exactly... I would ask for documentation on when it was built/installed and who signed off on it....if they're that strict. Here, that's the kind of thing I would appeal and I'm not even a contractor.

I had them giving me hell about framing on a portion of a roof connector that joined new work to the existing structure... I ended up having to scab in about 15 extra boards so it 'looked right', but I'm smart enough to know it didn't increase the maximum snow load...it only increased the weight of the roof itself.

 

[Greenman]

Exactly... I would ask for documentation on when it was built/installed and who signed off on it....if they're that strict. Here, that's the kind of thing I would appeal and I'm not even a contractor.

I had them giving me hell about framing on a portion of a roof connector that joined new work to the existing structure... I ended up having to scab in about 15 extra boards so it 'looked right', but I'm smart enough to know it didn't increase the maximum snow load...it only increased the weight of the roof itself.

I'll be involved in this to defend my client, but the simple fact is there is a detailed site plan that shows the wall a foot away from the structure. The city approved that plan, I don't see how they can retract that approval after the fact.

The main issue here in the Bay Area is all of the local jurisdictions want complete control and no responsibility. They also see remodeling and additions as a cash cow, the fees charged are insane. $10k is common for a small addition. Inspections can run days or weeks behind, during that time the job shuts down.
I'm averaging around $410 a square foot for additions, with architectural, engineering, and permit fees on top of that. It's strange that I couldn't afford to hire me to build an addition.

 

[herm0016]

Here in boulder, they are months behind on approvals and the permit costs are well north of 10% of project cost, and if they don't think you are spending enough on a project, they will adjust your expected cost on your permit themselves.

i tried to get a permit for a shed over 120 sq feet. they wanted me to pay for a site plan review and it would have cost me about 2 grand for the permit. LOL. now i have 2 120 sq foot sheds that cost me less total than what they wanted for a permit.

 

[Micrornd]

I'll be involved in this to defend my client, but the simple fact is there is a detailed site plan that shows the wall a foot away from the structure. The city approved that plan, I don't see how they can retract that approval after the fact.

Sounds as though there may be being enough work done that it requires that the retaining wall be brought up to current code, you do have requirements like that out there, right?

Here the Field Inspectors are the AHJ, approved plans and/or review are not superior to them and it is stated in the paperwork you receive with permitting (basically it is seen as a "boots on the ground" situation by the licensing boards). However, appeals and exemptions are allowed (for a fee). Field Inspectors and Plan Reviewers are both licensed by the State and fall under the DPBR (Department of Professional and Business Regulation). What is important (here) is that due to changes in the laws (about 2 decades ago) anyone required to be licensed by the DPBR essentially "stands alone" in a legal situation. In other words, (City, County, State, etc.) Building Inspectors can't hide behind the "I work for the xxxxx" as a defense if sued and can lose their license permanently if found to have been "wrongdoing" by the DPBR (with no court system involved) and they can also be sued as an individual in a Civil court, whereas before the DPBR existed they were considered "employees" and the body they worked for was the "responsible party" in all matters.

Bottom line is here they have a job to do, but treated civilly, they try to reach a something that works for both sides. I know I had Inspectors tell me exactly what I needed to do to get around a problem the cheapest or easiest way and still meet the code requirements. Sometimes all it requires is a letter from a licensed P.E. to allow exemption.

 

[Greenman]

Sounds as though there may be being enough work done that it requires that the retaining wall be brought up to current code, you do have requirements like that out there, right?

Here the Field Inspectors are the AHJ, approved plans and/or review are not superior to them and it is stated in the paperwork you receive with permitting (basically it is seen as a "boots on the ground" situation by the licensing boards). However, appeals and exemptions are allowed (for a fee). Field Inspectors and Plan Reviewers are both licensed by the State and fall under the DPBR (Department of Professional and Business Regulation). What is important (here) is that due to changes in the laws (about 2 decades ago) anyone required to be licensed by the DPBR essentially "stands alone" in a legal situation. In other words, (City, County, State, etc.) Building Inspectors can't hide behind the "I work for the xxxxx" as a defense if sued and can lose their license permanently if found to have been "wrongdoing" by the DPBR (with no court system involved) and they can also be sued as an individual in a Civil court, whereas before the DPBR existed they were considered "employees" and the body they worked for was the "responsible party" in all matters.

Bottom line is here they have a job to do, but treated civilly, they try to reach a something that works for both sides. I know I had Inspectors tell me exactly what I needed to do to get around a problem the cheapest or easiest way and still meet the code requirements. Sometimes all it requires is a letter from a licensed P.E. to allow exemption.

The issue here is that there is no code infraction, as there is no code.

 

[Micrornd]

The issue here is that there is no code infraction, as there is no code.

Here it is a requirement that the code violation (section, subsection, paragraph, etc.) must be cited on the inspection report. You don't have that sort of requirement there?

 

[Greenman]

Here it is a requirement that the code violation (section, subsection, paragraph, etc.) must be cited on the inspection report. You don't have that sort of requirement there?

nope.

 

[Micrornd]

nope.

Wow
With all the other crap rules and regs Cali has , I would have thought that was a "given".

 

[Greenman]

Wow
With all the other crap rules and regs Cali has , I would have thought that was a "given".

It would be more work for the inspector.
The reality is that the vast majority of them are reasonable people and don't want to create problems for the contractor. But every now and then we get a new guy who thinks he has to find code violations.

 

[Micrornd]

It would be more work for the inspector.
The reality is that the vast majority of them are reasonable people and don't want to create problems for the contractor. But every now and then we get a new guy who thinks he has to find code violations.

More work? Don't your guys carry a code book with them in their vehicle for reference?
I guess I misspoke earlier. It isn't a requirement here that they have to put the section, subsection, paragraph, etc. of the violation on the inspection report, they only have to if you ask them to, then they are required to. Most do it as a matter of routine or will tell you verbally where in the code the violation is if it's something minor and easy to fix, heck, most will tell you the easiest way to fix it.

But, yeah, we get the new guys that think they have to find something to justify their pay.
Then I've got those that have known me for ages, and just ask if the sub did the work properly and then get out of the truck, walk over and sign the permit, and say "see you later".
That always blows the subs away.

The State, it self, also has "contracted" inspectors, in addition to "real" State inspectors for it's projects. First thing the "real" guys do when they come on the site is reinspect everything the "contracted" ones did
'Course, after working with the "contracted" ones, I don't blame them a single bit, 90% just seem to "phone it in".