It’s always best to consult an expert. :slight_smile:

It is important to note that most ratings for piping are based on sustained working conditions, and what the material can actually withstand is a different story. Inspectors should not raise unwarranted concerns based on their own interpretations of material specifications. There is often more than meets the eye. :wink:

Good one thanks Cameron

I’m sure you know Illinois plumbing code requires the discharge pipe to be metal.

“](http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/077/077008900I12300R.html)3)Any piping used for discharge from the relief valve shall be of metallic material and conform with the requirements of Appendix A, Table A (Approved Materials for Water Distribution Pipe) for potable water piping and shall drain continuously downward to the outlet.”

Great post Cameron.

“Inspection 101” - report the facts.

I see CPVC quit frequently on TPR valves.

Thanks Cameron.

Did I miss something what is it (CPVC)incompatable with???

Good point. I should clarify that I am not specifically stating the requirements of any one state or jurisdiction. I only questioned Mr. Priddy on the actual material performance of CPVC when used as a TPRV discharge. YMMV as far as what is and is not allowed for TPRV piping.

Come on Jeff, why are you advocating mudding up all the opinion preferring “facts” in inspection reporting. :wink:

Did you read post 5 ALL CAPS?

What should we focus on at this page? Any particular post?

Sorry I was gone.
James Bushart’s comment is bang on and I provided this as it shows the changes made even with CPVC.
Just in the store and you can get CPVC with 100 PSI and 180 F.
So either we regressed, the info provided is not accurate or the CPVC in Ontario is inferior.
I also provided the info Michael provided in rebuttal to show what markings to look for in approved CPVC.

CPVC remains a permitted material for TPR discharge.

Local codes can change that but Kevin cannot.

I have not said it is not permitted if it has all the ASTM standards or proper markings. I only have pointed out that I don’t support the CODE and you already know that Michael.
Reading James B’s post is bang on.
Code is minimum and only when forced to follow minimum will I do it. My Clients know this very well, my students were taught this also.
One Home Inspector pointed out on another MB that minimum Codes are a stepping stole to a higher standard. We also go by the statement at InterNachi. Codes are minimum and anything less would be criminal. But then again you can get way out of whack and start building like Mike Holmes right.:wink:

Actually, you DID say that.

But you never did provide anything to back up that ridiculous, inaccurate and misleading statement.

Not all CPVC I have found is acceptable so drop it Jeffrey. Walk away! Even if it was you have no right to do what you did or continue to do on this MB.
Going by the minimum code is fine, putting it on the MB is fine fore reference but enforcing it is on an HI is not your job.
Calling me what you did has been reported.

I have to disagree. James mentioned that codes are the “bare minimum”. While that may be true in certain circumstances it can’t possibly be true when referring to the list of approved materials for discharge pipes that Mike Larson posted in that thread. The list included every type of approved material including the copper piping which you and others are promoting. That would be like saying the fact that copper is listed in the code means it’s the bare minimum you could use.

Acceptable material lists are not the bare minimum in construction. They are differing materials which all meet the required standards for their application. CPVC is rated at 180° and can be operated indefinitely at that temperature barring other unforeseen defects in the piping itself. It can also withstand elevated pressures and temps for periods of time.

If you want to argue the inadequacy of CPVC, more power to you, but do it based on its specifications for performance during a TPRV discharge not sustained usage.


I did walk away Kevin, but you continue to spew your lies and misinformation, so I’m back. Deal with it. Stop posting your BS and I’ll stop hammering you.

I have provided the information to the the authority so we will see if changes are made. Part of the problem is the fittings, part of the problem is temperature, part of the problem is lack of proper installations i.e not enough cure time or wrong glue used, part of the problem is cracking, part of the problem is it flex’s too easy, part of the problem is documentation of melting discharge, part of the problem is de-rating.
So like PVC it is not recommended by me and never will be. I am not saying one single Home Inspector has to follow what I do.
ASTM marking show all the testing including Temperature and pressure.I still mention in my report to use copper or pex whenever possible. If you say it is BS Jeffrey that is fine, just don’t resort to further tactics like bullying.

All of this is just more hogwash. Who are you trying to fool?

You provided information to whom? What information did you provide? You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your ridiculous position. Even if you did send a letter to someone, why would they be expected to respond when CPVC has already been approved for this use? Can you show any documented failures? Give it up already Kevin. This really is comical.