• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

PEX in Calfiornia

If we looked carefully at the impact of all of the products we commonly use in construction we might find many such claims.

It would not be wrong for the building department to make information availible about controversial code provisions to permit applicants while allowing the use of any product allowed by the code. Such information should be balanced and reflect the unbiased arguments from both sides. You probably should check with the local city/county attroney regarding how to implement this practice..
 
Unfortunately the building codes have changed form protecting the health and safety of the public to an organization to promote the commercial and political agenda of special interest groups, euphemistically called "stakeholders". If there was any honesty in the process they would be following the work of the Healthy Building Network, and banning all chemical products on their list, instead we've got green codes, in effect mandating the use of toxic products, even the biggest environmental "law firm", The Sierra Club is challenging our green code in the courts, and working to ban the toxic products going into our homes to "save the forests". It's beyond terrible when people are getting sick in Green homes and suing their builders, when all the builders did was follow code. Several AHJs in Silicon Valley have jumped the gun and adopted green codes making people sick, God only knows how much cancer and how many birth defects are going to result from this insanity. I had a couple in Livermore move out of their new million dollar home becasue she was sick all the time in it, the CBO told her that the best she could do is disclose and sell it, then try to find a good 50 year-old home and very carefully remodel it to be toxic free.

I have to wonder with these new energy and green codes, shouldn't building officials inform people of toxic products being mandated in these new sealed up new homes? The energy code mandates fans running full time, or on a time clock to exhaust the toxics, but people disable them becasue of allergies, the noise, and the cost of running them. The new green code, taking effect in 6 months, mandates a 14 day air flushing period to get rid of the toxics, my industrial hygienist says that will only get rid of surface toxics like paint, products like OSB offgass for their life. How are you inspectors going to monitor the 14 day air-flushing period?

Looks like we are arriving at the point that codes are killing people.
 
We have a block of Res/commercial buildings that have had pex in them for approx. ten years....... no problems, and no overdoses of ****** have been noted.
 
We've seen it used extensively around here also for the past 5-7 years, have not heard of a single failure. And believe me, if there would have been a failure, we would have heard from someone........ :o
 
We have a block of Res/commercial buildings that have had pex in them for approx. ten years....... no problems, and no overdoses of ****** have been noted.
Click to expand...
Beach:How did they get it approved if it wasn't approved by code?
 
When a homeowner has a problem with their plumbing; they call a plumber; not the city inspection department; so, you aren't going to hear from them unless they are a "city hall nut".

I never liked the idea of the crimp fittings behind walls;

http://factoidz.com/problems-with-pex-fittings-the-class-action-lawsuits/

And, because the homes are required to be sealed (the infamous Energy Codes), and moisture not allowed to dry out; all leaks will cause mold and degradation of building materials.

I also have seen numerous hot and cold pex lines bundled together in attics and not supported per manufacturer's instructions; in Central Texas. Because there hasn't been a serious freeze in several years; ahj's have been allowing Pex in attics without properly insulating the pipes; and, allowed the manifold to be installed on the garage wall instead of an inside wall to protect it from freezing (despite manufacturer's warnings). They are also allowed to overdrill load-bearing studs and top plates; and, overbend the pex piping (because we can't install it any other way).

It's a mess that will haunt the homeowners and their families.

The adverse effects on people's health from new manufactured products; allowed to be used in homes; will not be exposed because they are not readily or easily attributeable to the product.

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uncle Bob:

Excellent information, I would say that in an AHJ that has approved PEX every installation should be cheeked by the inspector by following their procedure:

Verify your PEX pipe manufacturer To verify what each PEX manufacturer has achieved in third party testing of its product for use in traditional domestic (NSF P171 Cl-TD) and re-circulating (NSF P171 Cl-R) potable water systems that contain chlorine, please refer to the NSF web site. Site directions are:

1. Go to: www.nsf.org

2. Select "Search Listings" at the bottom of the page.

3. Select "Plumbing Systems Components" at the bottom of the page.

4. Product Standard list, select "Protocol P171".

5. Select "Search".
Click to expand...
 
I haven't been in on this discussion but I will. Uncle Bob, I was surprised at your comments. They all have to do with problems where the AHJ wasn't enforcing proper installation. Come on, we can criticize ANYTHING that isn't installed properly. I have used PEX with a Viega Manabloc system on a number of houses and the only problem was one with improper installation of one fitting (the same is true of copper pipe installations I have had done). Using the mainfold home run layout has eliminated ALL connections except at the point of delivery thus eliminating a lot of potential problems. I put it in my personal home and the delivery time for hot water is definitely reduced a lot. However, it is easy to see who really opposes it. The labor cost is drastically reduced.
 
Thursday, July 15, 2010

PEX vs California

http://www.greengoddess-vidaverde.com/2010/07/pex-vs-california.html

This is an interesting issue currently being debated in the Courts of California regarding the use of PEX plumbing being included in the residential building codes.

PEX which is common in green build and well used in Europe for its ease of use especially in renovation has hit a wall in California due to the debate of its safety.

The arguments that PEX leeches a chemical that has potential hazards is one I have heard before yet not seen substantiated in any lengthy manner. And if that is the case I would like to see a comparative to what metal, copper or PVC leeches over use of life. Anyone who would believe that PVC both in use and manufacturing is preferable to PEX piping might have a vested interest in the industry.

Valid or not, I see a real problem here if in fact the naysayers get their way. As goes California goes the nation when it comes to green and this could seriously handicap the use of what is a highly successful plumbing product.

The article below is from Remodeling Magazine discussing the current legislation.

_________________________________________________

Cailfornia’s PEX Battle Continues

By:Lauren Hunter

A years-long battle between the PEX plastic plumbing pipe industry and its opponents is continuing in California. A win for the industry was short-lived when a court order on June 17 directed the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to cancel its approval of the material for residential construction.

Despite its best efforts, the cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) industry has been unable to have its products added to California’s plumbing code for very long. Opponents of the products, including environmentalists and construction unions, have repeatedly filed lawsuits impeding the industry’s progress.

“Up until August 2009, PEX was not in the California plumbing code, and contractors had to rely on their local jurisdictions to approve use of the product,” says Dale Stroud, business strategy manager for PEX manufacturer Uponor. “We know plumbers and their customers have been looking for a product that’s safe, clean, and environmentally friendly, but there’s been resistance against putting it into the state code.”

PEX Battle Timeline

While arguments about the approval of PEX in California have been going on for years, the last 18 months have been particularly volatile.

To illustrate the safety of PEX products in residential construction, the industry performed a detailed Environmental Impact Review (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The CBSC certified the EIR in January 2009 and directed that PEX be adopted into the state’s plumbing code effective August 1 of that year.

Opposing groups filed a lawsuit in February 2009 claiming the EIR was improperly performed, and a judge issued a court order for the repeal of the PEX approval to the state code. The PEX industry won a stay of the judge’s order, allowing the initial August 1 date to stand; the use of PEX in residential applications was added to the building code that summer as planned.

In December 2009, another opposing lawsuit was filed. “Ultimately, the judge’s original court order stood, and the CBSC had no choice but to vote under threat of contempt of court to abide by the repeal,” Stroud says. “The use of PEX reverted back to the way it had been, in which only local jurisdictions had the power to approve the use of PEX.”

Amid the lawsuits and court arguments, a revised EIR has been published with a comment period through July 19, 2010. Industry manufacturers expect the CBSC to recertify the new EIR in August or September, thereby re-approving PEX for the state code.

Opponents Fight Approval

Builders and plumbers are of the opinion that PEX is easier and faster to install than copper piping, and that third-party testing has shown that the material is safe for consumers. On the other side of the issue, pipefitters unions and environmentalists disagree, claiming that chemicals used in the manufacturing process could be a health hazard.

Groups such as the California State Pipe Trades Council (CPTSC) call the repeal a “victory for Californians,” suggesting that a specific chemical called methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) can leach into drinking water from plastic pipes.

“Evaluating the risks from exposure to MTBE-contaminated drinking water is particularly important to protect the health of construction workers” says Rod Cameron, CSPTC executive director. “Construction workers are often the first people to consume water from newly installed pipe, and because they move from one jobsite to the next, construction workers will be repeatedly exposed to this contaminated water over the course of their work career.”

Industry manufacturers have voiced their disappointment over the course of the California PEX battle. “Viega, as a long-time manufacturer and seller of PEX, is obviously is disappointed in the continued efforts to derail approval of PEX in California by groups that have historically opposed the use of any plastic pipe in plumbing systems,” says Bill Seiler, chief of staff for Viega. “PEX is a proven product with many advantages, particularly in remodeling applications. It has successfully undergone extensive testing and listing procedures, to include ANSI/NSF 61 on health effects, and Viega will continue to vigorously participate in getting California to join the other 49 states in giving persons a full choice of plumbing materials for their applications and local conditions.”

Indeed, across the United States, California is the lone hold-out for adding PEX to its state plumbing code. Stroud estimates that 60% of single-family homes are currently plumbed with PEX, with the balance falling to copper and CPVC piping. He adds that PEX has been a useful product in repiping applications as well, making it an attractive choice for remodelers.

“PEX has been used in North America for 20 years and in Europe for 40 years,” Stroud says. “The arguments over PEX have made it more difficult for residents of California to enjoy the benefits of a safe, long-lasting plumbing system.”
 
If others recall, California mandated MTBE in gasoline as a replacement for lead, the first problems were disintegrating fuel injection lines, particularly in diesel engines, after they were replaced it was discovered that MTBE was much more poisonous than lead, our reservoirs, wells, and other water supplies were badly contaminated, so California outlawed MTBE, now they want to put it in our drinking water; oh well, people can drink water from plastic bottles to poison themselves and the ocean if they don't want to drink water out of plastic pipes.

There will always be cheapskates who will do anything, cut any corner to save money, and there will also always be those who want to profiteer off those who want to build cheaper. These hassles are making for strange bedfellows, in the case of PEX the pipefitters and the environmentalists, led by the Sierra Club. In the case of the Green Code the Sierra Club and health care people against other environmentalists.

Codes and environmental groups should protect our health and safety against poisonous plastic products that are filling the oceans and causing cancer, not against a natural gas necessary for the survival of both us and the earth like CO2.
 
Cigars and Your Health

Debora J. Orrick, M.A., LCDC, CTAC-ACP

drkoop.com



Unfortunately, most new cigar smokers are poorly informed about the major health risks associated with daily cigar smoking; and new smokers in general greatly underestimate the potential health effects of smoking and often regret their naivete after they have become dependent to the drug and the habit. Seventy percent of regular smokers wish they could stop and wish that they had never started in the first place.

Cigar smoking has increased dramatically in the United States in the 1990s, especially among women and teen-agers. Between 1993 and 1997, cigar sales jumped 50 percent. Current usage levels are the highest in 20 years. Since 1993, cigar and cigarillo use has increased by 45 percent, and the use of premium cigars (which can cost more than $10 each) has increased a dramatic 250 percent. By 1997, more than 10 million Americans smoked cigars; that is three million more than in 1994, which represents an incredible increase in just three years! The greatest increase in cigar use has been with young and middle-aged Caucasian adults with higher-than-average incomes and education. Adult men are eight times more likely than women to use cigars. More teen-agers use cigars than smokeless tobacco. One out of every four teen-agers reports having smoked a cigar at least once, and as many as 30 percent of teens report having smoked a cigar in the last month.

Research shows that three-quarters of cigar smokers smoke occasionally and that 76 percent of them smoke fewer than five cigars a day. Occasional cigar smoking (once or twice a month) is considered to be of minimal health risk unless you have special or hereditary factors that would place you at higher risk for tobacco-related illnesses or tobacco addiction. If you have parents or grandparents who are or were addicted to tobacco, if you grew up in a home with one or more chronic smokers and high levels of second-hand smoke, or if there have been unusually high levels or many types of cancers in your family (particularly in your parents and grandparents), you may be at a higher risk.

Cigar vs. Cigarette Use

One of the main thrusts behind cigars' popularity is the belief that they are a safe alternative to cigarettes because the smoke is not inhaled, and because cigars are commonly used only occasionally and not daily. Traditionally, cigar smokers hold the smoke in their mouth and throat, allowing nicotine and other chemical compounds to be absorbed through the mucous lining of the mouth and throat, rather than inhaling the smoke into their lungs.

A smoker can spend more than an hour puffing on a cigar, which has the equivalent risk of oral cancers as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Daily cigarette smokers and daily cigar smokers have similar levels of risk for oral cancers. Smokers who smoke more than five cigars per day have lung cancer risks comparable to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

The real difference between cigar and cigarette smoking is the type of cancers that cigar smokers develop, which is usually a head or neck cancer instead of the lung cancer so common among cigarette smokers. Unfortunately, people who switch from using cigarettes to cigars tend to smoke cigars the way they smoked cigarettes: by inhaling deeply and smoking often. Inhalation seems to raise the health risks of cigars so that the smoker will face the same health risks as with cigarette smoking.

Unlike cigarettes, cigars do not have filters to reduce their tar and nicotine content. Cigar packages do not carry the Surgeon General's health warnings that are required on other tobacco products. Like cigarettes, the additives in cigars are not regulated by any consumer or governmental agency and do not have to be reported or put on the label.

Cigar Smoke and Nicotine Content

Researchers currently believe that as few as five milligrams of nicotine a day is enough to cause addiction to the drug. The average cigarette has around one milligram of nicotine in it, and cigars have much higher levels of nicotine -- up to 400 milligrams in large, long cigars. This means that one cigar a day may be enough to cause addictive changes in your brain cells. Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, including the following substances, which are also contained in household products with warning labels telling you to avoid inhaling them:

  • formaldehyde
  • ammonia
  • urethane
  • naphthalene
Other cigar smoke contents include the following substances:

  • carbon monoxide
  • hydrogen cyanide
  • arsenic
  • nicotine
  • benzene
  • vinyl chloride
  • ethylene oxide
  • other volatile aldehydes
  • cadmium
  • radioactive polonium 210
Because of the long aging and fermentation process for cigar leaves, because of the larger size of cigars and because of the toxic way it burns due to cigars' nonporous wrappers, cigar smoke has 20 times more ammonia than cigarettes and 80 to 90 times the number of highly carcinogenic, tobacco-specific nitrosamines. Cigar smoke also contains 30 times more carbon monoxide than cigarette smoke.

Cigars and Your Health

The National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health has determined that cigars are not safe alternatives to cigarettes and may cause addiction to nicotine. Regular cigar smoking increases risks for heart disease, lung disease and cancers of the mouth, throat and lung. Daily cigar smokers who do not inhale have a 27 percent higher risk of heart disease than nonsmokers, and a 45 percent higher risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a blanket term for emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Cigar smokers who inhale have a 53 times greater risk of larynx cancer, 27 times greater risk of oral cancer and 23 percent greater risk of heart disease. Drinking three or more alcoholic beverages a day with your cigar increases your average risk of mouth and throat cancers, because alcohol is extremely effective in dissolving the carcinogens from the smoke into the bloodstream.

Overall, cancer death rates of cigar smokers are 34 percent higher than those of nonsmokers, and cigar smokers are three to five times more likely to die of lung cancer than are nonsmokers. One study found that 90 percent of cigar smokers have precancerous changes in the cells of their voice box. There are also strong links between cigar smoking and cancer of the pancreas and the very rare male breast cancer.

Second-Hand Cigar Smoke

The second-hand smoke from a single cigar burned in a home can take five hours to dissipate. Secondhand cigar smoke contains the same 4,000 chemical compounds found in other tobacco products. Many of these compounds occur in much higher quantities in cigars than in cigarettes. These include unusually high amounts of ammonia, carbon monoxide, nitrosamines and easily inhaled particles -- all potent carcinogens!

No studies have been conducted to determine the health effects of nonsmokers who frequent cigar social events and clubs, but a significant body of evidence clearly demonstrates an increased risk of lung cancer, asthma and other lung diseases from secondhand cigarette smoke. Research conducted at two cigar events in San Francisco found carbon monoxide levels were higher than the levels found on a busy California freeway. Had these exposures lasted more than eight hours, they would have exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air, which were established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Recommendations About Cigars

Because the health risks are so high, U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher and the American Cancer Society have made the following recommendations regarding cigars:

  • Adopt measures identical to those employed in the fight against cigarette smoking.
  • Raise taxes on all tobacco products.
  • Require health warning labels.
  • Increase public education programs about the risks of cigar smoking, especially for children and teen-agers.
  • Adopt laws limiting access to all tobacco products by children and teens.
​
 
Research conducted at two cigar events in San Francisco found carbon monoxide levels were higher than the levels found on a busy California freeway. Had these exposures lasted more than eight hours, they would have exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air, which were established by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Click to expand...
Those cigar events included over a hundred men in a ballroom smoking cigars continuously for about 4 hours, some were sampling more than one cigar at a time, had they continued to smoke their cigars for 8 hours they would have exceeded the outdoor air contaminate levels on our worst days. So a person walking down a San Francisco street would have been better off to leave the street and join the cigar smokers in the hotel ballrooms. Maybe some environmental group should get some Obama stimulus money and do a study to find which is safer, smoking cigars, or drinking water from PEX pipes, I'll take the cigars thank you, you drink the water through the plastic pipes, when all is said and done the cigars will have disappeared, the plastic will end up in the ocean to poison the fish and birds, in turn poisoning those who eat the birds and fish.
 
PEX has been used for years in both residential and commercial applications in California.

Residential refrigerators, "water in doors" and "icemakers";

Commercial soda dispensers and beer taps for more than thirty years have used It.

Time to stop using the outhouse Technology, and move into the 21st century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The major online plumbing supply house:

Note: at this time, we (still) do not sell PEX pipe or fittings. There are many reasons for this: some of which may not seem "rational." Also, some people have viewed our attitude as "paranoid" and we understand this. Our Founder has seen and experienced what happened with polybutylene, (Shell Oil, the resin manufacturer pulled out of the U.S. market mainly due to litigation) and we simply wish to wait and see with PEX whether it will stand the test of time with potable water usage.

One of the main things that bothers us even after a number of years of PEX being available in the U.S. is that there is the lack of universality of the pipe and fittings. The continual "improvements" that keep coming along with PEX is nice but we just don't want our customers to be "stuck" later.

We understand that PEX has been used in Europe in hydronic - closed systems - conditions for over 35 years (but not with chlorine and open systems).

We have recently read where some brands of the PEX piping cannot pass (very) high concentrations (4 parts per million or more) of chlorine. We understand that most potable water never sees over 2 ppm. Our concern is that of time and chlorine; and we simply wish to stay on the cautious side. "Better safe than sorry" is our Founder's attitude.

Questions we have asked ourselves about PEX piping:

Are all PEX pipe manufacturers offering the same quality of PEX pipe?

Is all PEX piping the same?

Are all methods of connecting PEX pipe and are all fittings for PEX equal?



Then there is this for us to consider:

There is the PE-Xa (Engel Process PEX with manufacturers Wirsbo and Rehau).

There is the PE-Xb process PEX produced by the silane-method (offered by Vanguard also known as PEX-B).

There is evenPE-Xc (irradiation-method of PEX also known as PEX-C).

There also is available the sandwiched PEX/Aluminum/PEX pipe.

PEX is cross-linked polyethylene and it is not ordinary polyethylene pipe.

PE stands for polyethylene and X for cross-linking.

The material's chemical abbreviation is PE-X.

There is PEX specifically made for potable (drinking) water.

There is PEX made for under floor piping and there is PEX specifically made for radiation type heating.

We realize that not all PEX pipe is the same and that makes it very difficult for us to "know" what is "best."¹
Click to expand...
Why take a chance? To save money and undercut the prices of other more cautious builders? Is PEX the next MTBE? It even leeches MTBE, if it's too dangerous in our cars it certainly should be too dangerous in our homes. We should be building better, not cheaper. ¹ http://www.plumbingsupply.com/pex.html
 
conarb said:
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!
Click to expand...
CA -

Don't you mean important? :D

For those of us who live in the 'other CA'...... all the rules and regs perpetrated on us by Sacramento that have no relation to our climatic, geographic, or geologic conditions is enough to drive one round the bend. We have no chlorinated water here in my corner of rural CA.

So, I'm allowing PEX on a case by case basis per CBC section 108.7....alternative methods.... What is good for the 49 other states in the union is fine for me. We have weeks where the winter temp barely breaks the freezing mark and I have had the pipes at my house freeze along with my pressure tank. I think that due to local geographic/climatic conditions that PEX makes sense when installed correctly. I wish I had PEX, at least it expands and contracts, not just breaks.

Sue, living la vida loca in the 'other' CA :cool:
 
mark handler said:
"...we (still) do not sell PEX pipe or fittings...."Their loss
Click to expand...
Agreed. Good thing we are about an hour from the nearest building supply store in OR.

Sue, livng la vida loca in the 'other' CA :cool:
 
Sue, living la vida loca

The Plumbing supply house is about 12 miles from me and there are more than twenty places between them and me to get PEX pipe and fittings

Another thing Conarb gets wrong is that the choice to use PEX is not the Architects. It is usually the Owner or Engineer that makes that decision.

But then again, be carful of advice you get on the internet.

I need to get some water, in plastic bottles.....
 
mania...err uhh handler,

i hear it is hot in so cal today! don't leave your plastic water bottle in the car with the windows up. it is a known fact that cancer causing chemicals are created in just these conditions. i think i read it in the enquirer:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top