http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/general/ruptured-pvc-air-lines-what-not-do-230253/
Nice to see one incedent photo documented. all the posts were stll filled with the "it happened in my brothers shop" though.
I have seen the damage left behind when a schedule 80 pipe broke at the ceiling level in an industrial plant, but I have no picture to share. For people that make their living dealing with employee safety issues in occupational settings the persistent belief that PVC pipe works fine for compressed air defense gets really old. I think the most frustrating statements are those indicating if one has never seen the aftermath of a PVC line failure then the warnings against it's use are not valid enough to heed. Essentially if I have not seen it or seen pictures of the aftermath then there is not a issue.
The prohibitions against using ANY type of plastic pipe, schedule whatever, unless labeled as sitable for use in compressed air systems were not cooked up by OSHA. Those rules originally came from the plastic pipe industry, the manufacturers of these products. One must wonder what equips all of the various minds weighing in with statements supporting the use of plastic pipe ( that is not identified as suitable for this application) as perfectly fine for the application. I guess they must be correct and the manufacturers of PVC pipe have clearly got it wrong.
Lets think about that a bit more. If you owned the company that made PVC pipe why would you voluntarily present your product as unsuitable for an application that could/would result in the sale of a huge amount of your product effectively stating that using your product in compressed air applications is hazardous and could result in physical harm to bystanders in the highly likely event of line failure.
Explain that please. The manufacturer voluntarily sacrificed the sale of their product for compressed air applications by proclaiming the product as unsuitable for handling compressed air.
First, the manufacturer identifies PVC for use in compressed air systems as unsuitable because the engineering, composition of the material, and product liability costs in the event of line failure far exceed the benefit they might realize by selling the pipe as suitable for compressed air applications. Too bad folks don't look at the issue this way. Why would an industry turn their back on potential revenue from the sale of their product if it was safe for the application as many assert? It would not happen if the monetary benefit of it's sale outweighed the potential liability of lawsuits that might follow the failure of the product.
I never understand why so many guys persist in wanting to use PVC waterpipe in compressed air applications. To me, what these guys are really saying is that they have better knowledge of the limitations of this product than the true experts that joined forces to establish suitable parameters for the use of the product. The people that set on ANSI committies NEC committees, NFPA committies and hundreds more just like them are considered to be the smartest in their field or they would not be a part of committies like this in the first place. So what makes homeowner Joe so smart as to say he has a better understanding of the working parameters or suitability for the material than the company that produced it and the true industry experts that originally deemed the product as unfit for air applications.
