NIBCO

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 9, 2017/04/28) */ Ms [redacted] returned a sample of the PEX Piping back to NIBCO in September NIBCO evaluated the PEX Piping and sent an Evaluation Response Letter (ERL) back to Ms [redacted] , on October 3, 2016, using the email address Ms [redacted] had originally providedNIBCO found that the PEX Piping was not defectiveThere was no evidence of defective material or manufacturingMeasurements showed the tubing had an expanded outside diameter, indicating excess pressure in serviceThis can be the result of delivery pressure and/or thermal expansion, which can damage the tubing Ms [redacted] states that she did not receive written information from NIBCO about the results of the evaluationHowever, the ERL was first sent to the original email address provided by Ms [redacted] , which turned out to be the wrong addressOnce a correct email address was provided, NIBCO sent the evaluation results to Ms [redacted] again on January 3, Ms [redacted] also states that she did not receive results from the second sample she sent inHowever, NIBCO sent an ERL for this second sample on 4/11/This sample showed evidence of having been bent over an object improperly, and did not show signs of a manufacturing defect We are sorry that Ms [redacted] has experienced leaks in her home, but at this time all evidence points to improper installation and use