zizzi
2019-03-09 12:07:43
- #1
Hello everyone,
a question about the main pipelines: were your pipelines installed as in the approved drainage application (possibly corrected or improved by the city)?
In our case, an application was submitted (the pipelines shown in red), approved but with corrections and improvements (in green), executed by the general contractor as originally planned (red). The landscaping company, as far as possible, did everything correctly. The person (from the wastewater disposal authority) who approved the planning with corrections and was present during the tightness test, marked “passed” in the verification proof test.
This form contains a note: “If it is determined that the connection approval or the general requirements as well as DIN standards are violated, this must be noted in writing in the protocol of the tightness test.” But in our case, this deviation was not noted. The tester said: the installed main pipelines are approval-compliant but also improvable.
According to DIN 1986-100 and DIN EN 12056,
a) Every main pipeline inside the building must be accessible and maintainable via shafts or at least rectangular inspection openings suitable for accommodating high-pressure cleaning devices and sewer cameras.
b) For trouble-free function, drainage systems must be sufficiently ventilated. In wastewater and combined water systems, ventilation is provided by vent pipes.
I do not see points a and b being or only conditionally adhered to in the installed pipelines. The planning was not followed. The ventilation of the main WC was combined with the guest WC in the attic and routed outside via the roof. In the utility room and kitchen section, we have none at all. The pipes are only partially cleanable from the inspection shaft.
The general contractor said: “It was approved by the city and we see no problem here. I see the fault as 1. with the general contractor who did not execute as planned and 2. with the city that approved it.
What do you think and what else can be done? Do you think the whole thing is that bad if the general contractor does nothing?
Thank you very much
a question about the main pipelines: were your pipelines installed as in the approved drainage application (possibly corrected or improved by the city)?
In our case, an application was submitted (the pipelines shown in red), approved but with corrections and improvements (in green), executed by the general contractor as originally planned (red). The landscaping company, as far as possible, did everything correctly. The person (from the wastewater disposal authority) who approved the planning with corrections and was present during the tightness test, marked “passed” in the verification proof test.
This form contains a note: “If it is determined that the connection approval or the general requirements as well as DIN standards are violated, this must be noted in writing in the protocol of the tightness test.” But in our case, this deviation was not noted. The tester said: the installed main pipelines are approval-compliant but also improvable.
According to DIN 1986-100 and DIN EN 12056,
a) Every main pipeline inside the building must be accessible and maintainable via shafts or at least rectangular inspection openings suitable for accommodating high-pressure cleaning devices and sewer cameras.
b) For trouble-free function, drainage systems must be sufficiently ventilated. In wastewater and combined water systems, ventilation is provided by vent pipes.
I do not see points a and b being or only conditionally adhered to in the installed pipelines. The planning was not followed. The ventilation of the main WC was combined with the guest WC in the attic and routed outside via the roof. In the utility room and kitchen section, we have none at all. The pipes are only partially cleanable from the inspection shaft.
The general contractor said: “It was approved by the city and we see no problem here. I see the fault as 1. with the general contractor who did not execute as planned and 2. with the city that approved it.
What do you think and what else can be done? Do you think the whole thing is that bad if the general contractor does nothing?
Thank you very much