Jim Katen

As I read the requirements, it's fine. 908.1 .1 Wet venting is limited to vertical drainage piping receiving the discharge from the trap arm of one (1) and two (2) fixture unit fixtures that also serves as a vent not exceeding four (4) fixtures. Wet-vented fixtures shall be within the same story; provided, further, that fixtures with a continuous vent discharging into a wet vent shall be within the same story as the wet-vented fixtures. No wet vent shall exceed 6 feet (1829 mm) in developed length. 908.1.2 The vertical piping between two (2) consecutive inlet levels shall be considered a wet-vented section. Each wet-vented section shall be not less than one (1) pipe size of the upper fixture or shall be one (1) pipe size exceeding the required minimum pipe size for the sum of the fixture units served by such wet-vented section, whichever is larger, but in no case less than 2 inches (50 mm). 908.1.3 Common vent sizing shall be the sum of the fixture units served but, in no case, smaller than the minimum vent pipe size required for a fixture served, or by Section 904.0.

And if you get him to come out, don't let him breathe on you. . .

Thanks for repeating information that's been discussed to death dozens of times here. It kind of reads like it's been copied and pasted from elsewhere. If so, please provide attribution. Are others seeing many of these old 80% furnaces? They're getting rare around here.

State Farm considers it a problem. They threatened to cancel my policy unless I cleaned up the modest mold growth on my shingles. It's even more easily removed by sprinkling some moss-killing granules up there and letting the weather do the rest. Apparently, you've never been to Oregon.

First of all, take that mold report, set it on the back stoop, and light it on fire. It's worse than useless to you for all the reasons SNations posted and more. Second forget every gosh darned thing that you've ever heard about mold; just about all of it is false. Now, repeat this mantra, "Mold is not the problem, it's the symptom." Next, hire a really good person to work with you to locate the source of the water that's allowing the mold to grow and fix that problem. Try this guy if he's close to you: http://www.almosthome.com/bio.htm Finally, don't put wall-to-wall carpet in a basement. If you've got to have carpet down there, use throw rugs.

Maybe next time they'll get it written by someone who's first language is English.

A good finish carpenter or woodworker can make a door for you in any size or shape. (Some cabinet shops are equipped for this as well.) Right now, there might be some very lean finish carpenters out there who'd be happy to get the work.

Actually, I honestly don't know. I know that it wouldn't be covered from a physical damage or loss of income perspective, but I'm not so sure about from a liability perspective. While I would hate to think it, it's likely that someone will eventually sue someone else for failing to take measures to prevent spread of the virus.

Here's an idea: Some inspectors have begun to make their customers sign hold-harmless agreements with regard to Covid 19. These agreements spell out the actions that various parties will take to mitigate the spread of the virus and state that the parties won't sue each other if one party feels that they were infected by another. Good idea? Bad idea? What's an insurance company's take on this? (Personally, I hate it.)

Gosh, when times are slow, I should work on my website! I had never thought of that! What a great idea! I never would have though it! IPro's "articles" on this site have always been thinly disguised advertisements. As long as they provide fresh & useful content, they are tolerated. (And some of them have been quite good.) This one provides neither. It's just old, worn-out advice that provides nothing new or truly useful. It reminds me of those click-bait ads: 10 Tips Guaranteed to Make Business Soar - You Won't Believe #8!!!" It's just as bad as those home inspector seasonal newsletters that contain important "tips" for homeowners like keeping your gutters clean. It's lazy.

Biggest bunch of crap you guys have ever posted. Nothing but recycled platitudes of little value.

I thought the dog nailed it.

What plumbing code are you on? Are there any other fixtures that dump into that vertical pipe?

I take it you (and everyone else in Boston) have seen the Hundai commercial:

Fer sure.

You'd probably enjoy my attempts at understanding finance even more. I can't even balance my checkbook without counting on my fingers.

Is this your first time looking at milled lumber? Everything in your pictures is perfectly normal. These are characteristics of lumber, which is a natural product that comes from large plants called "trees." The characteristics in your pictures are all taken into account when lumber is graded. The ugly things in the 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th pictures are old injuries to the tree that have scabbed over, probably from wind damage where limbs broke off. Don't worry about them. The lumber grader looked at them and said that they were fine for that grade of lumber. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 15th, 16th, and 17th pictures are something called "wane." This is when the lumber includes a bit of the outer surface of the tree, where the "bark" is. (Bark is a rough outer covering on the trunk of a tree.) In fact, you can see some bark still attached in several places. It's a common characteristic of framing lumber. The 11th, 12th, and 13th pictures show some blue staining and some iron staining - utterly unimportant. The blue staining is caused by a very, very, very unimportant fungus and the iron staining is probably from where the lumber was in contact with - wait for it - iron. Many of the pictures also show "knots." These are where branches grew out laterally from the tree trunk. In the sizes and positions in the pictures, they're fine. You need to understand that framing lumber is graded for utility, not for looks. A completely separate grading process would be used for wood destined to become trim or furniture. It would be foolish to use defect-free wood for framing lumber. This is second nature to anyone who's ever worked with lumber in any way. If an inspector were to mention any of these things in an inspection report, he'd be a moron. Every piece of wood in every picture is fine. Forget about it and use your powers of obsession for something else.

They've used them here for quite a while as well. I think it's silly to put them on the whole house. They're best used on the lines that lead to tubs with separate hot & cold valves or to all the tub & shower valves. Then you can guarantee 120-degree (or less) hot water to those fixtures while having hotter water to things like the washer & dishwasher.

I don't see a lot of them, but every one that I've seen was failing in one way or another. (There are almost no real shake roofs here, so no reason to have fake ones.) I also know that ventilation has little effect on the surface temperature of a roof (usually less than 5 degrees) and, despite manufacturer's claims, has little bearing on the overall performance of roof coverings. And that's about all I can contribute.

I could be wrong, but I think that Bobby Jim was saying that his own statement, ". . . does not appear to be suitable for outdoor use" was sarcastic.

The plumbing code leaves this pipe size up to the pump manufacturer. Given that you're only dealing with 8 fixture units, I can't imagine that the pump manufacturer would require anything larger than 2". If you're doing this under a permit, get the pump model number and ask the manufacturer to give you a discharge pipe size for the local inspector. Be sure to join the 4" pipe from the top, like Mike said.

If you're investigating this for forensic purposes, you can probably remove all the other lumber from it and get better pictures of the printing. You might even find the manufacturer's name.

Gee, do ya think?

What fixtures will use this section of drainpipe?

Was there s fire suppression system? What's with big CMU wall? Is that how the units are separated? My guess is that when the building was built, the designers and the city agreed that separation walls in the attic were unnecessary, for who-knows-what reason. Perhaps because a sprinkler system was present, or because the units were separated by masonry walls, or maybe someone just paid off the building official.