# PEX in Calfiornia



## conarb (May 21, 2010)

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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## texasbo (May 21, 2010)

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 (May 21, 2010)

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 (May 21, 2010)

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 (May 21, 2010)

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 (May 21, 2010)

Mark:

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


----------



## mark handler (May 21, 2010)

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


----------



## conarb (May 21, 2010)

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.
> ...


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 (May 21, 2010)

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 (Jun 18, 2010)

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 (Jun 18, 2010)

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


----------



## mark handler (Jun 18, 2010)

pwood said:
			
		

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


No just the unions


----------



## Alias (Jun 18, 2010)

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

Make up your minds, people!

Thanks for the heads up Mark.

Sue, living in the state of confusion (CA)


----------



## mark handler (Jun 18, 2010)

Unions, Lawyers and Judges


----------



## mark handler (Jun 25, 2010)

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 (Jun 26, 2010)

> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mark K (Jun 26, 2010)

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 (Jun 26, 2010)

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.
> 
> ...


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 (Jun 26, 2010)

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 (Jun 26, 2010)

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 (Jun 26, 2010)

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 (Jun 30, 2010)

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 (Jun 30, 2010)

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.
> 
> ...


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 (Jun 30, 2010)

> "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.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 30, 2010)

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..


----------



## conarb (Jul 1, 2010)

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.


----------



## beach (Jul 1, 2010)

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.


----------



## fatboy (Jul 1, 2010)

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........


----------



## conarb (Jul 1, 2010)

> 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.


Beach:How did they get it approved if it wasn't approved by code?


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 4, 2010)

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


----------



## conarb (Jul 4, 2010)

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
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Jul 5, 2010)

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.


----------



## beach (Jul 6, 2010)

Conarb,

"Alternate methods and materials"


----------



## mark handler (Jul 6, 2010)

Less than Significant Inpact

Second Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report May 17,2010

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/pex/2010/Ref/PEX-SRDEIR-05-17-10.pdf

Errata

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/pex/2010/Ref/PEX-Errata_05-19-2010.pdf

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


----------



## mark handler (Jul 15, 2010)

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.”


----------



## beach (Jul 15, 2010)

> only local jurisdictions had the power to approve the use of PEX.”


It will be approved again soon, in the mean time...... Alternate methods and materials!


----------



## conarb (Jul 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## beach (Jul 15, 2010)

*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. 

​


----------



## conarb (Jul 15, 2010)

> 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.


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.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## conarb (Jul 15, 2010)

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._
> 
> ...


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


----------



## mark handler (Jul 15, 2010)

"...we (still) do not sell PEX pipe or fittings...."

Their loss


----------



## conarb (Jul 15, 2010)

The only good thing about it is that attorneys will make more money suing the architects who specify it and the builders who install it.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 15, 2010)

We'll see how it comes out in the end.


----------



## Alias (Jul 16, 2010)

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!


CA -

Don't you mean important?  

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


----------



## Alias (Jul 16, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> "...we (still) do not sell PEX pipe or fittings...."Their loss


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


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

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.....


----------



## pwood (Jul 16, 2010)

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:


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

pwood said:
			
		

> 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:


I cant get the water out of the car right now, I need to cook my lunch in a plastic container

And yes It's triple digits with high humidity


----------



## Alias (Jul 16, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


Mark -

Here, it's the plumbers that want to use it. Guess this might be because we don't have any unions? Or maybe it doesn't burst like copper with a freeze? I sent letters to the 4 licensed plumbers informing them of the decision and got phone calls from two with questions. I told them not to worry and it will be decided on a case by case basis only.

Maybe I'll add a blurb in the city ordinance about allowing PEX under CPC 108.7.

Sue, bottled water, we don't need no stinkin' bottled water, tap is tasty


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

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].

Don't forget the Lead solder in all the pre 1990 buildings and water coolers....


----------



## Mule (Jul 29, 2010)

Press Release on PEX

Press release on PEX is here.

Press Release


----------



## Alias (Aug 18, 2010)

Looks like we have a final draft EIR. Here is the link:

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/pex/2010/Final-EIR/SR-FINAL-EIR-PEX-08-09-10.pdf

Maybe we will get to use PEX statewide.................. I allow it on a case by case basis now. With the wild temperature variations here, it makes sense with the expansion and contraction issues with the pipes.

Sue, in sunny CA

Sue,


----------



## pwood (Aug 18, 2010)

got an email from a salesman that said pex was approved for use by the building standards commission on august 17th. i have not received any official notification from the bsc so still in plastic pipe limbo. it is getting to be a real pita to figure which permits and applications were issued when pex was approved and then not approved and then reapproved? you gotta love the bsc and the left coast.


----------



## Alias (Aug 18, 2010)

pwood said:
			
		

> got an email from a salesman that said pex was approved for use by the building standards commission on august 17th. i have not received any official notification from the bsc so still in plastic pipe limbo. it is getting to be a real pita to figure which permits and applications were issued when pex was approved and then not approved and then reapproved? you gotta love the bsc and the left coast.


I sent the plumbing contractors a notice in July about the suspension.  Do I get to send them an 'it's okey dokey' notice now?  Dunno, like you said pwood, is it approved or not?

PEX is perfect for cold weather climes.

Sue, in sunny CA


----------



## pwood (Aug 18, 2010)

Alias said:
			
		

> I sent the plumbing contractors a notice in July about the suspension. Do I get to send them an 'it's okey dokey' notice now? Dunno, like you said pwood, is it approved or not? PEX is perfect for cold weather climes.
> 
> Sue, in sunny CA


sue,

i had a plumber use it in a new house when it was code approved and he had installed it in a crawl space.at underfloor inspection i told him he needed to insulate the pex and he said it was not necessary because it would not bust. i told him it would freeze and the homeowner would be calling him to thaw out his pipes! how does a torch work for thawing out pex? some people will hook a welder up to the pipes to thaw them out, how's that work with pex? :mrgreen:


----------



## Alias (Aug 18, 2010)

pwood said:
			
		

> sue,i had a plumber use it in a new house when it was code approved and he had installed it in a crawl space.at underfloor inspection i told him he needed to insulate the pex and he said it was not necessary because it would not bust. i told him it would freeze and the homeowner would be calling him to thaw out his pipes! how does a torch work for thawing out pex? some people will hook a welder up to the pipes to thaw them out, how's that work with pex? :mrgreen:


verrryyyyy carefully!  :mrgreen:

Seriously, what has been installed here has been in attics or crawlspaces is blanketed by the insulation or in the wall.

Sue


----------



## mark handler (Aug 21, 2010)

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/pex/2010/Final-EIR/IB_10-01-PEX.pdf

TO: INTERESTED PARTIES

SUBJECT: STATE PEX EXCLUSION REMOVED from the

California Plumbing Code (CPC) EFFECTIVE

AUGUST 18, 2010

This information bulletin is being issued to highlight an action taken by the

California Building Standards Commission (commission) on August 16, 2010,

concerning cross-linked polyethylene flexible plastic pipe, commonly referred to

as “PEX.” The action taken removed the state’s amendment that excluded the

use PEX for water piping systems from the 2007 California Plumbing Code

(California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5), and to amend the 2010

California Plumbing Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5). The

regulations include mitigation measures identified in the Commission’s Second

Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (SRDEIR) and additional conditions

and restrictions on the use of PEX. The Commission's action allows the

statewide use of PEX in hospitals, clinics, schools, residences and commercial

structures. The effective date of this action is August 18, 2010 for the 2007

CPC and January 1, 2011 for the 2010 CPC. You can view the SRDEIR on the

Commission’s website: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/pex/2010/Final-

EIR/SR-FINAL-EIR-PEX-08-09-10.pdf

Background

In January 2009, the Commission adopted “PEX regulations” that allowed the

statewide use of PEX Tubing by removing the CPC’s exclusion of PEX. The

PEX regulations have been the subject of litigation. During the litigation, the

court ordered that the PEX regulations must be “vacate[d] and set aside …”

pending the Commission’s preparation and certification of the SRDEIR. The

Commission complied with the court’s order by repealing the previous action

taken by the Commission in January 2009. The repeal became effective on July

1, 2010.

The Commission prepared and certified the SRDEIR which supports the adoption

of PEX regulations and constitutes full compliance with the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The California Building Standards

Commission adopted and approved new PEX regulations and amended other

regulations that allow the statewide use of PEX Tubing. The parties involved

have reached a tentative settlement agreement that reflects the mitigation

measures identified in the SRDEIR and additional conditions and restrictions on

the use of PEX that address concerns raised after the release of the SRDEIR.

The Commission action implements the terms of the settlement agreement.

Availability

The documents reflecting the changes are available on the Commission’s

website at http://www.bsc.ca.gov/pex.htm . Publication of the changes to the

California Plumbing Code will be available from the publisher at www.iapmo.org,

depository libraries around the state, and bookstores carrying technical

publications.

In addition to the above, California Building Standards Law requires that each

local jurisdiction, including charter cities, obtain and maintain with all revisions on

a current basis, at least one copy of the building standards and other regulations

relating to buildings published in Titles 8, 19, 20, 24 and 25 of the California

Code of Regulations. The law mandates that these codes are to be maintained

in the office of the building official responsible for administration and enforcement

of California Building Standards Law.

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.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2010)

PEX tubing is back in the California Plumbing Code.

PEX is back in the California Plumbing Code. The California Building Standards Commission has removed the state’s exclusion of PEX tubing from the code.

The action removes the state’s amendment that excluded the use of PEX for water piping systems from the 2007 CPC and amends the 2010 CPC. The regulations include mitigation measures identified in the commission’s Second Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (SRDEIR) and additional conditions and restrictions on the use of PEX.

The commission’s action allows the use of PEX in all occupancies, including commercial, residential and institutional building construction, rehabilitation and repair under the jurisdiction of the CBSC and responsible agencies in all areas of California. The effective date of the action was Aug. 18 for the 2007 CPC and Jan. 1, 2011, for the 2010 CPC.

PEX became part of the California Plumbing Code in August 2009, following CBSC’s January 2009 certification of an Environmental Impact Report on PEX and the commission’s ensuing unanimous adoption of regulations approving PEX water distribution systems. However, CBSC was compelled to repeal the inclusion of PEX in the state code effective July 1, 2010, to comply with a court order. During the litigation, the court ordered that the PEX regulations must be “vacate(d) and set aside…” pending the commission’s preparation and certification of the SRDEIR. The commission complied with the court’s order by repealing the previous action taken by the commission in January 2009.

“The recent adoption of regulations related to the use of PEX represents a statewide regulatory change,” California Building Standards Commission Executive Director Dave Walls said. “We believe that we have developed responsible standards that incorporate the California Environmental Quality Act measures while integrating additional provisions that will not only satisfy the court’s ruling but all parties involved.”

The tentative settlement agreement reflects the mitigation measures identified in the SRDEIR and additional conditions and restrictions on the use of PEX that address concerns raised after the release of the SRDEIR. The commission action implements the terms of the settlement agreement.

California law allows local jurisdictions to make modifications to Title 24 (which includes PEX tubing) 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.

“We are very excited about the reinstatement of PEX tubing into the California Plumbing Code,” said Rich Houle, associate product manager, commercial, for PEX manufacturer Uponor. “We have been involved with the process since the beginning and are pleased with the final outcome, culminating a decade of work.”

Mike Miazga

miazgam@bnpmedia.com

Mike Miazga is the senior editor of pme. He can be reached at 630/694-4362.

http://www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Industry_News/2010/08/25/California-PEX-Exclusion-Removed


----------

