It’s finally happened! BernzOmatic has finally released a recyclable line of fuel cylinders they’ve dubbed the Fat Boy™.

I mean, I don’t know about you, but for me, dealing with spent propane and MAPP gas cylinders has just been a pain. You’re not supposed to throw them into the trash, though many people do. And you can’t put them into the recycling bin, because even though you’ve used all the gas, they’re still under pressure and explosive. Technically they’re hazardous waste — though in all honesty, the vast majority have ended up in our land fills.

Up until now, the best I’ve seen anybody do with an empty propane cylinder is to (illegally) refill it and reuse it until the seals gave out. But you’re not supposed to do that either.

Finally addressing growing environmental demands of professionals and do-it-yourselfers, BernzOmatic developed what it’s labeled its Green Key® technology. It allows consumers to completely discharge an empty Fat Boy™ cylinder. Empty cylinders can therefore be taken to the local recyclers.

Another bonus, the Fat Boy™ is bigger than the old cylinders. You, like me, have probably seen folks screwing their torch head onto those larger camp stove gas cylinders. Well, that might slow down some as the Fat Boy™ gets into the distribution stream, because it contains 20% more fuel that the old tall, slim cylinders. Another, more dubious bonus, the Fat Boy™ is 25% shorter than the old cylinders, to allow “greater accessibility in tight spaces,” a company press release said.

Well, maybe. A loss in height means an increase in girth — doubly so because it holds more fuel. So what’s lost in one dimension will no doubt be gained in another. We’ll have to see.

The Fat Boy™ is apparently not yet in full roll out, though I gather the company will do so soon. I’ve asked a rep to send me a Fat Boy™ to try out. If they do, you’ll be reading about how well it worked in the field right here!

Technorati Tags: BernzOmatic, Fat Boy™, propane torch, MAPP gas torch, recycling

Share This

PEX, (or cross-linked polyethylene tubing) is `legal’ for installation in homes and businesses in 49 States of the Union — but not in California. This despite the fact that the 2001 California Plumbing Code (CPC) listed PEX “as an acceptable material for domestic water piping,” (but didn’t approve it for installation). So do the International Plumbing Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and the National Standard Plumbing Code — which is why it is legal to install in the other 49 states of the Union.

The Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association (PPFA) has listed some of the characteristics that make PEX both popular and positive from both the consumer’s and installer’s point of view:

• Its high temperature capability, up to 200° F
• Its High pressure capability/stability
• The smooth walls provide excellent flow characteristics
• Its quieter than PVC or copper
• There’s less heat loss and condensation
• Because it’s a tubing, it allows flexibility for design
• It has a proven long life, rigorous certifications, and is highly tested
• It doesn’t corrode
• Unlike copper, it doesn’t develop pinholes
• No build-up inside
• Its secure and simple, but reliable fittings reduce the possibilities of leaks
• It’s lightweight, easy and safe to transport and handle
• It comes in long coils, and is therefore efficient to install, and joints are reduced
• It’s clean and safe to work with, unlike copper which requires flux and solder, or PVC which requires glues that produce toxic fumes

Why then, you ask, can’t we install it in California?

The Official reason is “environmental review.” But the fact is, PEX has already undergone an independent review — and passed! And because it passed, it’s already been approved by the four major model code standards, including the one just adopted by California itself in January 2008!

So the problem here really boils down to nothing more than politics. PEX is so easy to install you can do it yourself. The Plumbers Union is understandably not happy about that! (Which is also why until recently the only fittings available for PEX had to be installed with special equipment only licensed plumbers — not general contractors, not members of the public — could buy through special outlets.) And it’s plastic, so environmental groups weren’t happy either, despite the blatant reality that we have yet to develop any better environmentally friendly products through which to pump our water. But we decidedly have quite a few worse options. (PEX can be made from recycled grocery bags.)

Back to our story: The PPFA filed suit in 2001 and obtained a court order that basically said what everyone else had been saying for years: PEX was safe to install, so allow it to be installed already! The result: For almost 3 years PEX “was code” and was installed across California.

Then, in 2004 an appeals court reversed the ruling. Suddenly, PEX was again “not code” and couldn’t be installed. Ironically, during that brief three year period all kinds of rumors began to crop up about PEX. It was claimed, for example, that PEX pipes leech methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and benzene into the water, that PEX prematurely decays and then ruptures, and so on. I’ve even heard rumors that PEX will break down if exposed to chlorine treated water, and urban tales of “catastrophic failure” in homes where PEX has been installed, causing tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage.

None of these rumors have been found to be true.

PEX tubing bearing the marks “NSF-61″ or “NSF pw” — i.e. tubing rated for domestic potable water use has been tested by NSF International, an agency with a 60 year history of successfully protecting public health, and was found to meet the health requirements of NSF-61 and the long term strength and quality control requirements of NSF/ANSI Standard 14.

In other words, it’s at least as good (safe) as the alternatives.

(Warning! If the tubing has the mark “NSF rfh” it is only rated for radiant heat, not for potable water.)

Now… Let’s get real! If PEX weren’t safe, could it have possibly been approved by all four major, independent, model code standards — and California’s own CPC? Not likely.

The sad irony that this seven year (and counting) fiasco has cost California home owners and tax payers millions at the expense of its bloated, self righteous bureaucracy. And to prove precisely what?

In May (May 2008) the California Department of Public Health decided the rest of the civilized world was right after all. It proposed an Amendment to the 2007 California Plumbing Code, removing its restrictions against the installation of PEX “for occupancies regulated by The Department of Health Services.”

The public comment period closed July 7th. The regulations may not be approved for another 18 months.

What have they proved? You decide.

Technorati Tags: PEX tubing, California Building Code, International Plumbing Code, ANSI International, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Standard Plumbing Code, California Plumbing Code, California Department of Public Health

Share This

Took a long weekend over the 4th to go camping. Not far away, just “over the hill” to a little campground called East Fork, near Willow Creek. Got away late on Wednesday and went into Willow Creek for dinner, then back to camp.

It has been a couple of years since I had any time off. I really didn’t even realize it until I was sitting around a camp fire on Wednesday night wondering why I was so tired I didn’t even want to get up out of my chair to go to bed. We like to go camping a few times a year, but last year my wife was down with a staph infection, so we couldn’t get away.

Anyway, it was nice to get away for a few days. Watch the puppies play, listen to East Fork Creek babble by, and in general do very little. Made for a nice change despite the nearby forest fires. It was kind of smoky there a couple of mornings, but it never lasted for more than an an hour. Then the breeze would come up and blow the smoke away.

Now I guess it’s time to get back to work. I’m supposed to have the Cove House construction documents completed and ready for filing by the end of the month.

Technorati Tags: camping, vacation, construction documents

Share This

Back at the turn of the year I said one of the projects on the table for his year was a design build project I’d be calling the Cove House. Well, the project hasn’t gone away. We signed the contract the end of January, but didn’t get started until the first of March. And, as the first few months of any project like this are fairly boring, there just hasn’t been much to say. Happily, now there is.

This is my first project in this area of the county. It’s over a hundred miles from my office (one way!). I was told when I started that they kind of had their own rules in that area, and boy ain’t it the truth! I’ve been around the area all my life. In fact, when I was a wee lad my dad and I used to hunt just a few miles away from the northern edge of the development area. It’s a beautiful area, which is probably the only reason they get away with some of the stuff they do:

• Utilities hookups: $36,000 (recently up from $15,000), and for that breath taking sum they won’t even provide a construction drop for your contractor! If PG&E did that, they’d have the PUC down on them so fast their head would swim.
• Setbacks: The standard 20 ft, but there’s a twist. Off street parking within the setback doesn’t count as “off street” parking. They claim that this is a California Coastal Commission rule, but that’s bogus. Drive through any housing project in the coastal zone (there’s one less than 5 years old in Fort Bragg that’s so close to the ocean you can hit the surf with a rock) and you’ll see a 20 ft setback with cars parked in the driveway — in the 20 ft setback.

  I’d never heard of such a thing. But I’ve worked with enough bureaucracies and elected bodies to understand what they’re doing. They’re almost childishly transparent about it: They want the property owners to develop the right-of-way adjacent to their property at their expense. That way the county doesn’t have to pay to pave it over. So, if you pave the county’s right of way adjacent to your lot, that automatically meets the requirement. If you try to avoid that by parking on your lot, they admit they’ll be very picky. And since fighting town hall, so to speak, is a lot more expensive and time consuming than paving sixty odd feet in front of the property, they get away with it. The City of Fort Bragg did the same thing to my grand parents in Fort Bragg back in the seventies. It made residents pay out of their own pockets to put in sidewalks adjacent to their property. Side walks that had to be built to City specifications, of course.

• Community standards: All cities have some kind of set of standards how a home must look. They don’t want a three story four thousand foot McMansion being built right square in the middle of five a hundred one or two story, two thousand square foot suburban project. But I’ve never been asked to take pictures of all the houses for several blocks around the building site, and to fill out a form describing each house. Most building and planning departments actually know what’s in their jurisdiction. That this one doesn’t… Well…

On other fronts, the “design” part of the job has turned more into “modify”. The client found a stock house that they really liked, but they wanted to make some changes to it. And of course, meeting the above requirements (the parking silliness, mainly) has caused some other changes, as has the site and the local weather.

First, in order to meet the height requirements the roof had to come off. The roof shown in the picture is an 8/12; we replaced it with a 4/12, which is fine for this area. That also means the little dormers came off. The client doesn’t want a fireplace, so that’s also gone. And though it’s not really clear from the picture, the ground floor garage is cement posts separated by lattice. That would work for someplace like Florida, but we needed a walk out basement, we needed four parking spaces beneath, and we’re in the middle of a temperate rain forest. So we’re re-doing the foundation to hold the bank, and pushing the garage out to the edge of the porch on both front and back. Of course, since we’re opening up the garage for parking, that also means changes to the floor joist system. It has to be able to span the entire building without any center support.

So far it’s been a really fun project. On the one hand, blatant attempts to pick the tax payer’s pocket for more money than we’ve authorized always annoy me, and bureaucratic requirements are often silly (and sometimes expensive). On the other, I’ve done my time, know how the system works, and enjoying shepherding projects through. The design changes have also been a lot of fun. Even the architect that did the stock drawings is interested in the changes I’m making. The plans are old (designed to 1991 UBC standards), and some of the changes we’re making are green, which he is also interested in.

As we get a little further along on the interior changes and I’ll show you the before and after.

Technorati Tags: design build, California Coastal Commission, new construction, building standards

Share This