Get the lead out?

By Timothy Allinson, P.E.

Murray Company, Long Beach, Calif.

Here in California we have a new Assembly Bill (AB-1953 — now referred to as Health and Safety Code 116875-116880) that requires all potable water pipe, valves and fittings to be lead-free effective January 1, 2010. Now, you shouldn’t stop reading here if you live outside of California, because this trend is sure to sweep the nation as so many of California’s plumbing laws have, such as 1.6 GPF toilets and the like. Vermont has already joined the club, so it is only a matter of time before all states follow suit.

 

Lead free is defined as containing a weighted average of less than 0.25% lead on the wetted surface of the potable water pipes, fittings and fixtures. As with most legislation written by lawyers and politicians who know little about our industry, this Assembly Bill is as clear as mud.

 

First, nobody seems to know how this Bill came about — what the motivational factor was. It was written by Assembly member Wilma Chan, whom I’m told has since left her post. According to Dr. Larry Russell, an engineer with the Marin County Water Board, the Bill just had “a bang-up good feeling for legislators.” There were no environmental or health issues involved.  Russell further said, “We have a lot of money being spent here and for what? For one reason and one reason only and that’s because water companies don’t want to get sued… But, as is always the case, especially in the early institution of a law like this, the devil is in the details. And no one seems to know what the details are.”

 

Second, nobody knows exactly how this Bill will be enforced. It says, “No person shall introduce into commerce any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting, or fixture that is not lead free.” That clearly says that the manufacturers are not allowed to sell any products that do not meet the lead-free requirement as of 2010. But is the plumber allowed to install products purchased before the first of the year? Nobody knows for sure.

 

Third, the exclusions to this law are entirely unclear. The Bill excludes “water distribution main gate valves that are two inches in diameter and above.” Some manufacturers that I have spoken with take this to mean that all valves two inches and larger need not comply, and their attorneys would argue same. But the verbiage is very odd — the use of the words “main” and “gate” — are they intentional? Or are they used arbitrarily by industry outsiders in order to sound highly technical? A “main” valve might imply only the incoming service shut-off valve. And “gate” valve implies that ball valves, check valves, and the like would NOT be excluded. Some manufacturers are interpreting this literally on the advice of their attorneys and are only excluding gate valves two inches and larger. Of course, all of these uncertainties give the inspectors free license to interpret things however they want.

 

Fourth, the Bill says it “shall be published in the State Building Standards Code” but it does not say when — in the next Code cycle? Or will some sort of Code amendment be published? “The standards shall be enforced by the appropriate state and local building and health officials.” Does that mean that the plumbing inspectors will be policing this? And when will that begin? Nobody knows.

 

From the manufacturer’s perspective the situation gets even more complicated. With the reduction of lead, bismuth is used in its place, which produces a harder and more brittle alloy. This in turn requires their machines to be retooled, and they have to operate slower to avoid fracturing the material. This of course slows production and increases cost, so the new products will carry about a 30% premium — possibly more.

 

Then there’s the fact that this is a state rather than federal requirement. The manufacturers need to produce and stock valves and fittings for California separately from the same products sold to other states and for non-potable applications, such as HVAC and industrial. And when I say separately, I mean completely separately. The boxes of leaded products can’t even be on the same shelves as the lead-free boxes — as if the lead were going to somehow creep over from one to the other.

 

Of course the manufacturers are tasked with marking the valves and fittings such that anyone can distinguish between leaded and unleaded. In the case of the valves, the manufacturers I have spoken to will be producing them with white handle covers. Gone are the days when you could identify a valve brand by the color of its valve handle. Further, the valve bodies will be stamped with an identifying marker so that white valve handles can’t be put onto leaded valves.

One of the biggest challenges of this Bill is in the testing. All products must be certified by one of three third-party testing agencies. This of course requires time and money. Interestingly, Vermont does not require third-party testing. But in California, even products with no metal alloys such as plastic valves and fittings have to be tested. How ridiculous is that? And then the State wonders why so many businesses are choosing not to do business here.

 

Since the Bill was first written there has been a little bit of clarification. Appurtenances in the domestic water system that do not supply water for drinking purposes are excluded from the Bill. This includes bath and shower fittings, toilets and urinals and their fittings and flush valves, hose bibs, laundry and service sinks, clothes washer and dishwasher supplies, and the like.

 

One of the most unfortunate aspects of this Bill is if you were to look at the potable water system as a whole, none of the valves or fittings would likely have to change at all. Since the definition of lead-free includes the pipes, and it allows a 0.25% weighted average of all the wetted surfaces, the copper or plastic water pipe that contains no lead would dramatically influence the weighted average. Since probably 98% of the wetted surfaces in the system are the pipes, if the valves and fittings making up 2% of the system contained 6% lead as presently allowed, the weighted average for the system would be 0.12%. However, since it is impossible for the manufacturer to say what percentage of the system their product will represent, they are forced through uncertainty to have their product comply.

 

It all comes down to politics. And as the Executive Director of the California Metals Coalition, James Simonelli said, “Politics is a lot like hot dogs — if you like ‘em, don’t watch ‘em being made. And its apparent missteps have been made and gaps exist in the current legislation.”

 

Timothy Allinson is a senior professional engineer with Murray Co., Mechanical Contractors, in Long Beach, Calif. He is a professional engineer licensed in both mechanical and fire protection engineering in various states, and is a leed accredited professional.