# Section  405.5  -  2006  IPC



## globe trekker (Aug 28, 2012)

Yes, it's time for another poll!

Section 405.5 in the 2006 IPC requires that _"Joints formed where_

_fixtures come in contact with walls or floors shall be sealed."_

The IPC Commentary states that "the seal can be in the form of

plaster of paris, grout or silicon."

In some former discussions, some have not required / inspected

for these seals (i.e. - at the urinals, lavatories and the water

closets).

*POLL QUESTION #1:* Does your jurisdiction require / inspect for

these fixture seals (RE: Section 405.5 in the IPC)?

*POLL QUESTION #2:* If you answered "yes" to POLL QUESTION

#1, do you seal all the way around the water closet fixture, or

leave a small gap at the rear for identification of a sewer gases

/ failed wax rings? If you answered "no" to the POLL

QUESTION, ...thank you for playing along and kindly return

to your seat.

*POLL QUESTION #3:* If you DO require the sealing of all

plumbing fixtures, what do you typically use / require?

I know that I posted this topic in the Commercial section,

but do you what about your Residential applications?

What, if anything, do you do on the Residential side.

Thank you for playing!

Door prizes will be awarded at the end of the

polling!  

.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 28, 2012)

Yes; completely with seal approved material. Purpose to prevent unsanitary conditions from leaking in, not out behind the fixtures in both commercial and residential.

Personal experience with kid (teenager) puke odor persisted regardless of amount of cleaning until the lack of seal around toilet was notice.

Francis


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 28, 2012)

Some of code writing at its finest; both plaster of paris and grout are porous mediums. Short of glazing the p/p and using epoxy grout.

I would agree with Francis complete water tight seal.


----------



## steveray (Aug 29, 2012)

A lil caulk...a lil paint....make it what it aint!


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 29, 2012)

Same as Francis.  We don't see much of the Plaster of Paris around here.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 30, 2012)

Answers based on past employment w/ Bldg Dept.

1.) Yes, a part of the final CO inspection

2.) Desirable, but not a code issue per say, more of a workmanship/craftmanship issue

3.) Caulk, paint, and sometimes old timers would use plumber putty.........


----------



## Durant (Aug 30, 2012)

Poll #3.  As an old plumber, 30 plus years, I have found that it is desirable to be able to observe any leaks in seals (such as bowl wax) as soon as possible in order to detect any water leaks before they cause extensive damage to the building.  In the case of a a second story bathroom, around the toilet bowl base, I want to know if the bowl wax leaks before it causes serious damage.

Some plumbers and maintenance workers, will leave a small opening when forced to comply with the code requirement.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 30, 2012)

Durant said:
			
		

> Poll #3.  As an old plumber, 30 plus years, I have found that it is desirable to be able to observe any leaks in seals (such as bowl wax) as soon as possible in order to detect any water leaks before they cause extensive damage to the building.  In the case of a a second story bathroom, around the toilet bowl base, I want to know if the bowl wax leaks before it causes serious damage.Some plumbers and maintenance workers, will leave a small opening when forced to comply with the code requirement.


So when the water leaks through the intentional passage and stains the ceiling how do you determine if it was water urine puke etc. from the floor area or the wax ring. The chance of the water following the closet flange downward is far more prevalent than it hitting the floor and exiting the intentional passage. I see no merit in that procedure.


----------



## Sifu (Aug 30, 2012)

Not doing plumbing inspections here yet but did in my former jurisdiction.  There we required a seal, however we permitted an opening at the back of the toilet for potential observation.  It was decided that was the least likely place for the bad stuff to get in and allowed at least some form of observation potential.  IMO the toilet should have been checked and re-checked for problems and tightness, once it is determined to not leak and be tight the seal should help it remain steady and resistant to being knocked around so that it would remain sealed over time ( I used an adhesive caulk back in the day).  I see both points of view on this issue and have heard most arguments.  I tend to agree with the code.  I think there is at least as much chance of deterioration due to water (or other liquids) intrusion from outside the toilet as there is from a properly installed and maintained toilet.  One interesting point, last week on the Mke Holmes show he specifically stated that a toilet should NOT be sealed since one would never know if the toilet was leaking.  I don't know if that was his opinion or if Canadian codes mandate that.  (Yes, I did just disagrere with Mike Holmes)


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 30, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Not doing plumbing inspections here yet but did in my former jurisdiction.  There we required a seal, however we permitted an opening at the back of the toilet for potential observation.  It was decided that was the least likely place for the bad stuff to get in and allowed at least some form of observation potential.  IMO the toilet should have been checked and re-checked for problems and tightness, once it is determined to not leak and be tight the seal should help it remain steady and resistant to being knocked around so that it would remain sealed over time ( I used an adhesive caulk back in the day).  I see both points of view on this issue and have heard most arguments.  I tend to agree with the code.  I think there is at least as much chance of deterioration due to water (or other liquids) intrusion from outside the toilet as there is from a properly installed and maintained toilet.  One interesting point, last week on the Mke Holmes show he specifically stated that a toilet should NOT be sealed since one would never know if the toilet was leaking.  I don't know if that was his opinion or if Canadian codes mandate that.  (Yes, I did just disagrere with Mike Holmes)


Unless you have a water tight seal between the closet flange and bolts and the substrate that it is sitting on you would not be able to detect a leak.

If the closet flange is set at the proper elevation in reference to the level plane of the floor and fastened to the sub-floor and the closet bowel is lowered onto the wax ring that is positioned on the flange and then tightened and caulked completely water tight, short of the floor rotting from other means there should never be an issue with the wax ring leaking. By leaving a passage can lead to water rot of the flooring and bacteria and fungus growth  under to the bowl.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 30, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> One interesting point, last week on the Mke Holmes show he specifically stated that a toilet should NOT be sealed since one would never know if the toilet was leaking.  I don't know if that was his opinion or if Canadian codes mandate that.  (Yes, I did just disagrere with Mike Holmes)


The code is silent on it, so you can do whatever you want. If you agree with everything Mike Holmes says you're probably not paying attention.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 30, 2012)

tmurray said:
			
		

> The code is silent on it, so you can do whatever you want. If you agree with everything Mike Holmes says you're probably not paying attention.


Paying attention and comprehension are totally different. This show has more fallacies than Neverland.


----------



## Sifu (Aug 31, 2012)

Gregg, are you saying that the bone we throw to those who want the toilet left un-sealed so they can detect a leak is not justified?  If so I kind of agree, I always thought if the W/C were installed correctly and properly checked out there should be no reason to leave it unsealed.  After all, we don't leave an inspection gap at a shower drain.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 31, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Gregg, are you saying that the bone we throw to those who want the toilet left un-sealed so they can detect a leak is not justified?  If so I kind of agree, I always thought if the W/C were installed correctly and properly checked out there should be no reason to leave it unsealed.  After all, we don't leave an inspection gap at a shower drain.


A dog would not even take the time to bury that bone.


----------

