PEX in Calfiornia

[conarb]

A lot was made here several months ago when our Building Standards approved PEX, I haven't seen it yet and a couple of plumbers have told me that it's not legal. I found out why, a judge has banned it at least temporarily.

Jan. 12--SACRAMENTO -- The battle over the use of plastic pipe in construction has flared again.In a decision released Dec. 30, Alameda County Judge Frank Roesch ruled that the state conducted an inadequate review of the health impacts and other possible problems from a type of plastic pipe known as PEX, or cross-linked polyurethane. The state Building Standards Commission is scheduled to discuss the ruling at its meeting today.

An industry group already has appealed Roesch's decision, leaving the PEX regulations in place for now.

Since the early 1980s, the fight over plastic pipe has continued through several governors and consumed a small forest of paper in environmental reviews and court filings.

Pipe manufacturers and building industry groups contend that plastic-pipe plumbing reduces construction costs and resists corrosion. But opponents, including environmental groups and the plumber and pipefitters union, have said that pipe chemicals and glue can leach into drinking water and produce toxic smoke when burned.¹

¹ http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-judges/13722652-1.html

 

[texasbo]

It's polyethylene, not polyurethane. It is joined mechanically; not with glue. If unions and environmental groups are against it, I'm for it. And interestingly enough, buildings produce toxic smoke when burned. The product has been in use since the 1960's.

 

[vegas paul]

Trust me, if the product required soldering, tube-bending, de-burring, and fittings every time you wanted to change direction, the unions would be for it.

 

[FM William Burns]

Since milled and manufactured wood creates Acrolein when exposed to fire, even in million dollar custom homes, should we ban wood construction also?

 

[mark handler]

On Jan. 22, 2009, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on crosslinked polyethylene (PEX) tubing and adopted regulations approving PEX water distribution systems into the California Plumbing Code, effective Aug. 1, 2009. Court has removed the injunction, it is legal.

 

[conarb]

Mark:

Building Standards approved it on January 22, 2009, the court enjoined it's use in January 12, 2010.

 

[mark handler]

Contact: Jane Taylor Senior Architect California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) 916) 263-0916 jane.taylor@dgs.ca.gov

 

[conarb]

I see, an appeal has been filed so the injunction has been lifted pending the hearing on the EIR. I guess the AHJs who are still banning it are awaiting the appeal. I'll check wiht the court and see when the hearing is scheduled, I'd like to sit in on that one.

An industry group already has appealed Roesch's decision, leaving the PEX regulations in place for now.¹

Speaking of plastic pipe, have you guys heard about this one:

Four States and 43 California localities join whistleblower to sue Formosa Plastics and JM Eagle for inferior PVC pipe used in water and sewer systems

​

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, February 11, 2010 - Nevada, Virginia, Delaware, Tennessee, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and 39 other California municipalities and water districts have joined a whistleblower lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in damages from JM Eagle and its former parent company, Formosa Plastics Corp. (USA), for supplying their water and sewer systems with pipes that JM knew were substandard.

As a result, those PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipes will have to be replaced sooner than expected -- a budget nightmare for cash-strapped states, cities and local agencies. It is also more likely that the pipes will leak or break.

The "qui tam" (whistleblower) lawsuit was unsealed earlier this week and announced today after the states and other government entities investigated the allegations and elected to intervene in the case, which is filed in federal district court in Los Angeles.

"The decisions by so many states, cities and water districts to join this case show just how serious these allegations are," said Mary A. Inman, a San Francisco attorney with Phillips & Cohen LLP, which represents the whistleblower, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Tennessee and 25 California cities and water districts. "With government entities struggling to meet their budgets, it's particularly important for them to recover their losses from any fraud."²

¹ http://www.pe.com/localnews/politics/stories/PE_News_Local_W_pexpipe12.1.40b79df.html

² http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/CM/NewsSettlements/NewsSettlements563.asp

 

[pete_t]

The revised EIR report was posted a few days ago.

http://www.bsc.ca.gov/pex.htm

Notice of Availability of the

Second Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report and

Notice of Public Meeting for the

Adoption of Statewide Regulations Allowing the Use of PEX Tubing

 

[mark handler]

NOTICE THAT CALIFORNIA’S PEX REGULATIONS

ARE VACATED AND SET ASIDE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010

The Alameda Superior Court has ordered the California Building Standards Commission to vacate and set aside its decision approving and adopting the regulations amending the California Buildings Standards Code to allow the use of PEX plastic plumbing pipe and any actions taken founded on those regulations until the State has fully complied with CEQA. THIS IS TO ADVISE YOU THAT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010, THE PEX REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5, section 604.11 and Table 6-4) ARE REPEALED.

Based on the court’s order, at its June 17, 2010, meeting the Building Standards Commission repealed the amendments to the 2007 edition of the California Plumbing Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5) relating to PEX tubing. The provisions being repealed are California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5, section 604.11 and Table 6-4, which were adopted in January 2009 and authorized the use of PEX water supply piping. Additionally, this action repeals the amendments added to California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5, Table 6-4 that reflected findings in the Environmental Impact Report upon which CBSC relied in its rulemaking.

This Commission’s June 17, 2010, action repeals to the following rulemaking proposals adopted and/or approved by the Commission in January 2009:

I. Building Standards Commission (BSC 01/07)

II. Division of the State Architect (DSA-SS 02/07)

III. Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD 01/07)

IV. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD 06/07)

V. Department of Public Health (CDPH 01/07)

VI. Department of Food and Agriculture (AGR 01/07)

Please note that pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 18938.5, the repeal of the PEX regulations does not apply to building permit applications that have been submitted, issued or completed prior to July 1, 2010.

Please also note that PEX plastic plumbing pipe may remain authorized for use if your local jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance or regulation approving its use (see Health and Safety Code sections 17923, 17958 and 18941.5). Also, PEX may be authorized for use by local jurisdictions pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 17591(e) [Alternate Materials and Construction Methods], or California Plumbing Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5, sections 108.7 [Alternate Materials, Designs, Tests and Methods of Construction] or 301.2 [Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Equivalency].

Additional information regarding the Commission’s actions related to PEX is available on the Commission’s website: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/default.htm. If you have additional questions regarding the Commission’s actions related to PEX, please call Commission staff at 916-263-0916.

 

[pwood]

looks like Moe, Larry, and Curly are back in charge in this state..the state of confusion!

 

[mark handler]

looks like Moe, Larry, and Curly are back in charge in this state..the state of confusion!

No just the unions

 

[Alias]

Oy vey................

Make up your minds, people!

Thanks for the heads up Mark.

Sue, living in the state of confusion (CA)

 

[mark handler]

Unions, Lawyers and Judges

 

[mark handler]

PEX Remains in California Plumbing Code

Posted by Uponor on Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Cross‐Linked Polyethylene (PEX) piping continues to be fully authorized for use throughout California despite a ruling by a California court. An appeal by the Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association (PPFA) has stayed the court’s ruling, and the regulations permitting PEX remain firmly in place. In a recent status update to the court, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) stated that it has already begun to revise the PEX Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the issues of concern to the court. In the meantime, as noted by CBSC, the regulations remain in full effect.

Thus building officials shall continue to have full authority to allow the use of PEX. Despite a very thorough environmental review and strong support for PEX, the CBSC’s actions certifying the EIR and approving PEX in the California Plumbing Code were challenged by a group of organizations led by the California Pipe Trades Council, which has a long history of opposition to approval of any plastic pipe use in California.

That lawsuit brought by the Pipe Trades Council resulted in a December 30, 2009 Superior Court judgment ordering CBSC to revisit its analysis of several issues discussed in the EIR. Despite arguments by unions, the court did not find that PEX would result in any adverse effects to human health or cause taste or odor problems with drinking water, or that PEX was likely to fail prematurely. The court merely directed CBSC to provide a more robust analysis of these issues, which already is underway.

http://www.californiapex.com/?p=218

 

[conarb]

The court merely directed CBSC to provide a more robust analysis of these issues, which already is underway.

Cities here in the Bay Area are still not allowing it, apparently awaiting the final court decision. It sure looks Mickey Mouse, plumbers her refer to it as "mobile home style plumbing".This post appeared today in the Journal of Light Construction:

Hydronic Air PEX Piping Deteriorating - Repipe or Install New Heating System? I bought my house 7 years ago and for the past month have been getting leaks everywhere from my IPEX piping from my Hydronic Air heating system. Fix one, another leak appears. Every plumber's visit is adding up. In addition I have tenants in there and supposedly by law, I cannot turn off the heating system because I have to provide heat to them year round (even though it is summer). I already contact IPEX and if it is determined the pipe is bad they only warranty the materials. Which is peanuts because the money is all in the labor.So the plumber says it looks like there are other leaks and parts of the pipe deteriorating and that I will need to repipe the whole house.

I am trying to figure out if I should repipe or just reinstall a whole new heating system. A neighbor across the street is looking into a split ductless system.

If I do repipe, how do I find someone good? My worst fear is repiping and then another 7 years from now I get all these leaks again.

My property manager is also suggesting I file a home insurance claim for this. I'm not sure if that is a good idea?

Any help or suggestions appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[Mark K]

I suggest that PEX plastic plumbing pipe is allowed simply because it is allowed in the CBC. The statement that the building official has the “full authority to allow” its use is wrong. Rather the building official must allow the use of the product as long as its use complies with the provisions in the building code.

I am supportive of the use of plastic pipe but I believe that the logic previously put forth is wrong.

Justification of the wholesale use of PEX based on the Alternate Materials provisions in the code is questionable. In “Legal Aspects of Code Administration” published by ICC it makes the point that such actions run the risk of effectively amending the code which would have to be done by the legal authority that adopted the code.

Further the reference to H&S Section 17958 ignored the reference to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 which require that the local jurisdiction make a finding that the change is “….reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.” Since it is hard to imagine that these conditions impact the use of plastic pipe it is suggested that the local jurisdiction does not have the ability to amend the code regarding the use of plastic pipe.

 

[conarb]

Mark:

I think all AHJs should err on the cautious side and not allow it until all the litigation is settled on it

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Zurn Pex and Zurn Industries Relating to Failure of PEX Plumbing Systems in Homes ST. PAUL, Minn., Aug. 10, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Homeowners in Minnesota have filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court against the manufacturer of residential plumbing systems. The homeowners, Denise and Terry Cox from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, started the nationwide class action against Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries after brass plumbing fittings used in their home's PEX plumbing system failed shortly after completion of their new home. The failures caused water and other damage at the Cox home.

PEX plumbing systems involve flexible plastic plumbing tubes (as opposed to the more common copper plumbing systems) that are attached to brass fittings throughout the plumbing system. "PEX" is a generic term for cross linked polyethylene -- the material used to make the plastic piping. PEX plumbing systems are the newest generation of non-copper plumbing systems coming into favor after the plumbing industry stopped selling the failure-prone polybutylene pipe systems.

According to Cox's attorney, Shawn Raiter, the problems with Zurn's brass fittings can cause significant damage to homes. "Water damage from a total failure, or even a slow leak, can cause serious damage. A large percentage of the brass fittings in a typical residential PEX system are hidden behind drywall or between floors. If undetected, water damage from a leaking fitting can even lead to mold, which in turn can pose a health risk."

Over the last six years, Zurn has reportedly sold 139 million of the brass PEX fittings. Because of the premature failures, certain Zurn distributors have subsequently requested and received refunds for the brass fittings. In fact, according to Raiter, Zurn no longer recommends installation of the brass fittings in certain geographic areas. Yet, Zurn currently denies that these failures will continue, much like its predecessor U.S. Brass did before filing bankruptcy because of litigation related to its polybutylene systems.

Some plumbers have had 150 or more claims related to failed Zurn fittings. And while Zurn initially honored its warranty and covered the damage caused by the failed brass fittings, the company stopped paying claims, leaving homeowners to pay for the damage themselves.¹

Let's face it, ti's cheap junk only specified by architects and used by contractors trying to cut corners and build cheaply. ¹ http://newsblaze.com/story/2007081013504600001.pz/topstory.html

 

[Mark K]

The point is that the AHJ needs to comply with the adopted regulations and does not have the authority to change them.

The issue of plastic pipe is admitedly controversial but in times like this the best thing that the AHJ can do is to comply with the regulations. If every building official and inspector enforced his own idea of what was good then we would have chaos. The resulting variation and uncertainty would lead the public and contractors to lose respect for the code and as a result they would do their own thing. This in turn would cause problems for inspectors trying to enforce the code.

A building official or inspector who intentionally enforced his own preferences in opposition to the code could find himself subject to a court order compeling him to enforce the adopted code. He could also find that he is personaly liable if he knowingly violated the code. The legal immunity for building department employees against litigation is not absolute.

It is easy for lawyers and other interested parties to make claims of problems but as we have found that these claims are often not convincing.

 

[conarb]

Mark:

PEX is notorious for failing with hot water and in jurisdictions with chlorine in their water, in the action to allow it pending court determination they say at the end:

The law allows local jurisdictions to make modifications to Title 24 for reasons of local conditions, namely climate, topography, and/or geology. This provision may have an impact on the use of PEX in any particular local jurisdiction.¹

This is an open invitation to AHJs to disallow it, I've talked to the BSC and local amendments are routinely accepted and filed without review, all they want is to enforce the filing for legal compliance, they don't want to be put into the legal position of determining what "climate, topography, and/or geology" a jurisdiction determines requires different materials or methods. Disallowing most plastic pipe is easy since it is brittle and can crack and/or break in earthquakes satisfying the geological requirement, with PEX I'd cite the chlorine in our water supply to disallow it as a local condition. As a practical matter many AHJs control materials through their zoning ordinance and Design Review Commissions, while these are good devices to keep plastics off of the exterior of buildings, they are used to keep plastics and other suspect materials out of the interior as well. About 30 years ago I sat on a Design Review Commission at the request of the local CBO, if I saw something like PEX in a proposed structure we would just keep denying the application giving "hints" to the architect making the presentation to "lose it".

¹ http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/cd_qustns/documents/2009/BSC_09-03.pdf

 

[Mark K]

What you are saying is that BSC will not evaluate whether the determination is valid. This does not mean that the local regulation is valid. Some other party could challenge this.

There are a couple of problems with the “geology” criteria. The earthquake codes are focused on life safety. Thus as long as people can safely exit the building the building complies even though it may have to be torn down. In this context worrying about cracked piping is irrelevant.

The code is written to apply to a wide variation in geologic conditions thus I would argue that the geological exemption applies only when the local geology is different than what the code assumed. Since the use of plastic pipe is not tied to geology in the code I would suggest that the code assumed it would be valid in all geologic conditions that exist in the state of California.

What is your technical justification for determining what level of earthquake would justify the concern about plastic pipe?

Similarly the reasons for local amendments do not list “local conditions” but rather list specific types of local conditions. I do not believe that the existence of chlorine would be covered by the listed conditions.

If the local jurisdiction cannot modify the building code then I would argue that they cannot do this through a zoning ordinance. While I recognize that zoning ordinances can control the exterior of the building I find it difficult to believe that they can control items such as plumbing that is not exposed to view.

I would argue that using the Design Review Commission to blackmail the applicant into not using plastic pipe that was hidden from view, would be an abuse of power. It would be interesting to understand the limits of Design Review Commission’s authority.

Rather than playing all of these games to impose your beliefs I would suggest that you be up front and engage in an act of civil disobedience. This means that you would be up front to all involved that you were acting in violation of the adopted building regulations. An act of civil disobedience means that you are willing to accept the consequences of violating the law. I would also ask that you inform the city or county attorney what you were doing. If you did this then the legal system would be able to address the issue. Do we have rule of law or is the building official given unlimited legal powers?

 

[Alias]

I will be following this thread closely as I have PEX being installed in my jurisdiction regularly. I will say that I know of one instance where they replumbed an entire low-income housing complex with PEX and have heard no complaints.

As we have freezing weather and the water lines run through the attic in this complex, it has so far withstood the horrendous temperature fluctuations we live with here. Conversely, the copper lines that were originally installed when built froze and burst due to the extreme temperatures on a yearly basis. The owners and the tenants are happy with the PEX.

Sue, on the CA frontier..........................

 

[conarb]

Sue on the frontier:

Be very careful up there, when they write the history of the State of Jefferson you don't want to go down as the gal who rendered the men impotent!

Researchers have found that a chemical compound found on some till receipts contains enough of the hazardous substance Bisphenol A (BPA) to suppress male hormones in the body. The compound – used to make ink visible on thermally sensitive paper – is ingested when men handle the paper – and then touch their mouths or handle food.

Professor Frank Sommer, 42, a Berlin-based urologist, said that the substance could just tip the balance.

"A substance like that could shift the balance of the sex hormones in men towards oestrogen," he said.

"In the long term this leads to less sexual drive, encourages the belly instead of the muscles to grow and has a bad effect on erection and potency."¹

Apparently Building Standards didn't care, here was a study submitted to them , PEX contains both Bisphenol A and phthalate compounds.¹ http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/pex/exhibit_a_reid_pex.pdf

 

[packsaddle]

"In the long term this leads to less sexual drive, encourages the belly instead of the muscles to grow and has a bad effect on erection and potency."

Wearing a wedding ring has the same side effects.