Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/20/1995 08:09 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 1995
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Joe Green
Representative Brian Porter
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 224: "An Act relating to the state plumbing code.
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 304: "An Act relating to geographical differentials for
the salaries of certain state employees who are not
members of a collective bargaining unit; relating to
periodic salary surveys and preparation of an annual
pay schedule regarding certain state employees;
relating to certain state aid calculations based on
geographic differentials for state employee salaries;
and providing for an effective date.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HB 270: "An Act relating to retirement incentive programs for
the public employees retirement system and the
teachers retirement system; relating to separation
incentives for certain state employees; and providing
for an effective date.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 428
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 224
MIKE TIBBLES, Legislative Assistant
Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 428
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information of HB 224
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant
Office of Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 224
MARY LOU VILANDRE
803 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: 747-8086
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 224
PAT KNOWLES, Owner
Mountain Mechanical
8427 Mentra Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: 344-0700
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 224
EUGENE RUTLAND, Executive Director
Mechanical Contractors of Fairbanks
1066 Badger Road
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: 456-8347
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 224
ROGER COURTNEY, Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector
Municipality of Anchorage
3030 Brookridge Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: 338-4394
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 224
STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official
City of Fairbanks
2588 Riverview Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: 459-6725
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 224
TOM GERVAIS, President
Alkota Plumbing and Heating
P.O. Box 222412
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
Telephone: 563-5325
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 224
LARRY LONG, Plumbing Inspector
City of Fairbanks
326 Baranof Ave.
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: 452-5859
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 224
LEONARD KIMBALL, Building Official
City and Borough of Kodiak
P.O. Box 1397
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: 486-8070
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 224
LES BURNETT, President
K&L Plumbing and Heating, Inc.
P.O. Box 773871
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: 696-2441
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 224
JOHN BUTLER, Owner
Johns Heating Service
1235 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: 486-3706
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 224
JEFF BOVEE, President
Alaska Best Plumbing and Heating, Inc.
1845 Caribou Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: 455-6506
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 224
ROYAL BIDWELL
1507 Scenic Loop
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: 479-4377
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 224
MICHAEL HIRT, Mechanical Contractor
P.O. Box 81863
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: 479-3771
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 224
STEVE ANDERSON, Plumbing Contractor
807 Cloud Road
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: 488-1697
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 224
BILL SAGER, Owner
Chandler Heating and Plumbing
650 9th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: 456-4816
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 224
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 4650-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 224
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 224
SHORT TITLE: STATE PLUMBING CODE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOHRING,Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/95 564 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/03/95 564 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
03/22/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/95 (H) L&C AT 05:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/29/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/10/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/10/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/12/95 1281 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 4NR
04/12/95 1281 (H) DP: KOTT, ROKEBERG
04/12/95 1281 (H) NR: MASEK, KUBINA, ELTON, SANDERS
04/12/95 1281 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LABOR)
04/12/95 1281 (H) REFERRED TO RULES
04/13/95 1327 (H) STA REFERRAL ADDED
04/20/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 304
SHORT TITLE: GEOGRAPHIC PAY DIFFERENTIALS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/07/95 1174 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/07/95 1174 (H) STA, L&C, FINANCE
04/07/95 1174 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/07/95 1174 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (ADM, GOV-ALL DEPT)
04/20/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 270
SHORT TITLE: RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/20/95 813 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/95 814 (H) STA, L&C, FINANCE
03/20/95 814 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
03/20/95 814 (H) INDETERMINATE FN (GOV/ALL DEPTS)
03/20/95 814 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/01/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/01/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/20/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-51, SIDE A
Number 000
The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was
called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:09 a.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives James, Ogan,
Willis, Robinson, Green, and Porter. Representative Ivan arrived
at 8:12 a.m.
HB 224 - STATE PLUMBING CODE
Number 014
CHAIR JAMES announced the first bill on the agenda was HB 224 and
called bill sponsor Representative Vic Kohring to provide the
sponsor statement for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Sponsor of HB 224, stated the intent of
the bill was to give the Department of Labor the authorization to
implement the 1994 plumbing code. He stated this was the last of
the plumbing codes needing to be implemented by the legislature.
He mentioned the most recent code to be implemented was the
electrical code in 1993. It passed the House 37 to 3 and the
Senate 16 to 2. Thus, he thought there was evidence of strong
support for this process to implement the current codes from the
legislature. Explaining the history of the bill, he said it
initially had only one referral to the Labor and Commerce Committee
and passed after considerable testimony and discussion. Then,
rather than going to the House floor for a vote, he agreed to have
it heard in the State Affairs Committee at the request of Chair
James. He mentioned his legislative aide, Mike Tibbles, was with
him to help answer any questions on the bill. He stated he would
be glad to answer any questions from the committee.
Number 023
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if he could give a summary of the
Labor and Commerce committee substitute for HB 224.
MIKE TIBBLES, Legislative aide, Representative Vic Kohring,
answered that the committee substitute sought to find a compromise
on a particular issue of concern with the original bill, although
he emphasized that Representative Kohring still felt the thrust of
the bill was to give the Department of Labor the authority to adopt
and amend the plumbing code and these single issues of concern
should be addressed at the level of the department and not in the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS verified he was saying that the original
bill was the one they preferred.
MR. TIBBLES replied he was correct, although there was a technical
amendment added in the committee substitute that amended the
plumbing code to be considered both a publication and any
amendments the Department of Labor adds through the regulatory
process. They were just changing the word publication to the
minimum plumbing code. He stated the bill sponsor supported this
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what was the specific compromise
included in the committee substitute.
MR. TIBBLES answered the compromise was a grandfather clause that
would allow individuals with single wall heat exchangers to have
them replaced with a double wall heat exchanger over a three year
period.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN verified whether this provision was in the
original or the committee substitute.
MR. TIBBLES replied that was in the committee substitute from the
Labor and Commerce Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what was in the original version of the
bill.
MR. TIBBLES stated the original bill just contained the section
allowing the Department of Labor to update the plumbing code.
Number 138
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if in either version, the Department of
Labor could adopt regulations that would be regional in effect,
with different considerations for an Arctic environment from those
of Southeast Alaska.
MR. TIBBLES said he was not sure if this was the case. He thought
maybe the Department of Labor could answer better.
Number 152
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of Commissioner,
Department of Labor, answered that should they be given the
authority to adopt the updated code by regulation rather than by
statute, they would go through the normal regulatory hearing
process to determine where changes needed to be made. He also
mentioned that individuals could apply for waivers to particular
provisions of the code. He stated it was sometimes just a case of
common sense.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER verified that there were different
considerations given for a community such as Barrow versus
Ketchikan.
MR. PERKINS responded that he could not say definitely that they
would make changes in the code on a regional basis, as it is a
statewide code, but that he could say there were waivers given for
alternative methods of compliance that did not meet the standard of
the code.
Number 204
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thought the current wording of HB 224 set a
minimum statewide standard that would then lock in the Department
of Labor into giving individual waivers instead of one general
exception, such as on a regional basis.
MR. PERKINS stated that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the original version of the bill also
prohibited the Department of Labor from granting a general variance
for regional concerns.
MR. PERKINS replied that was also correct. He pointed out that the
code was adopted for the entire state, but because of regional
variations, there are waivers granted for particular provisions of
the code. He stated that as long as there were no public safety
concerns, he did not see why it would not be granted.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained the reason for his questions, was
that it seemed to him that a variance should be given to a region,
because concerns that affected the whole area, such as climate. He
thought it would be more advantageous to adopt a statewide code
that allowed for regional differences.
Number 243
MR. PERKINS stated this code was considered the minimum standards
for the state. He added that a local municipality could be more
strict than the state code, but not less stringent. He said that
most local governments do adopt stricter requirements. He
emphasized this was just supposed to be the minimum standard
allowed under state law. He said the Department of Labor would
like to see the plumbing code adopted by regulation rather than
statute, because of the longer period of time it takes to get
things through the legislative process. He pointed out the 1994
code was already out, but they were still using the 1991 version.
He stated they would like to be able to update to the new code and
be current.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that even a nationally applicable
code may not be functional for circumstances north of the Arctic
Circle, as an example. He asked if there was not some way that the
department could adopt the majority of the code as a minimum and
still allow for regional variances when necessary. He thought this
could take one of several forms: 1) A general exception for a
particular geographical region; 2) establishing a minimum standard
that was less strict and then allowing for stricter requirements to
be established by regulation for specific areas. He mentioned that
he thought it was meritorious to want to establish a minimum
standard, and in most cases it worked, but there was a large
segment of this state where the standard did not work. He thought
there ought to be a way around this situation.
MR. PERKINS commented that through the regulatory process, he was
confident this situation would be addressed. He assured the
committee that there would be a fair and open process for taking
testimony from those that would be affected by this code and that
their concerns would be taken into consideration.
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there were not provisions in the
code to allow for regional variances to address these concerns.
MR. PERKINS stated he could not cite a particular portion of the
code where this would be the case, but in the event there was a
need for a variance due to climatic conditions, he thought that the
waiver process would be appropriate.
Number 311
CHAIR JAMES commented that the issue was regarding single wall heat
exchangers versus double wall heat exchangers. She said the
interior of Alaska uses and feels very strongly that single wall
heat exchangers are safe. Those people in the Anchorage area feel
that they are not. She argued that the disagreement had nothing to
do with climate, but whether single wall heat exchangers are safe
and if the extra expense was warranted to install double wall heat
exchangers, which were also a third less efficient. She pointed
out that there was information contained in the committee packets,
which documented that New Jersey had accepted single wall heat
exchangers and found them to be safe. This was not an issue of
climatic conditions, she stated. She said the real issue was
whether single wall heat exchangers were safe and whether the state
should require double wall heat exchangers that may or may not be
more safe. She stated she wanted to clarify this point. She
commented that Mr. Perkins' response to the questions coming from
Representatives Green and Porter seemed to indicate that in
adopting the Uniform Plumbing Code by regulation, the department
was setting a minimum standard that allowed local governments to be
more strict, but not less strict. She mentioned that both the
National Plumbing Code and the International Plumbing Code allowed
for single wall heat exchangers and asked if she was understanding
him correctly.
MR. PERKINS replied she was correct.
CHAIR JAMES asked if the Department of Labor would be able to give
a waiver to an entire municipality or if it would have to be given
on a case-by-case basis.
Number 374
MR. PERKINS answered that he would think that a waiver would be
given to an individual, although he added that should a waiver be
given to a municipality, that once given, it is there.
CHAIR JAMES asked what he meant specifically, when he said it is
there.
MR. PERKINS responded that he meant that once a waiver is granted
to a municipality, then it is in place. Regarding individual
waivers, he said they are treated on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIR JAMES inquired that should this bill pass and the Department
of Labor upgrades the plumbing code by regulation, which then only
allows for local variances that are more strict, then would the
reason that a single wall heat exchanger is less expensive be
considered by the department as cause to grant a waiver.
MR. PERKINS stated he did not know the answer. He said that what
was being proposed was not just the allowance for single wall heat
exchangers, but this allowance based upon the use of propylene
glycol in them. He agreed this substance had been found to be
nontoxic. Under this scenario, he said its not a bad idea.
Number 417
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he had a bill being heard in Finance
Committee and apologized for having to leave. He argued this
situation demonstrated to him the need to put the plumbing code
into statute. He said he did not know enough about propylene
glycol or single wall heat exchangers to make an intelligent
decision. Nor did he feel they had the time to study this issue as
a collective group. He thought there was a difference of opinion
regarding this issue and argued there was enough concern raised
that he would tend to support the committee substitute version from
the Labor and Commerce Committee.
CHAIR JAMES responded that she felt that if the legislature did not
allow for single wall heat exchangers at this stage, then they
would not be allowed by the Department of Labor, except on a case-
by-case basis. She stated it was her personal opinion that if the
reason for requesting a waiver was because of expense, that a
waiver would not be granted.
MR. PERKINS replied that should this version of the bill pass
through the legislature, the department will go to the users of
this code and act on their input to determine what is best needed
for the state of Alaska. He said it would be erroneous for him to
agree to allow for this exemption before the department was even
granted the authority to make this decision. He thought this would
lead to accusations that the department did not follow the
regulatory process correctly. He wanted to assure the committee
that the department would make a good rational decision.
Number 466
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was a divided interest in this state,
then shouldnt the state law, if it is truly the minimum standard,
be less strict than all the various interests of the state. She
argued this would allow for those local areas that wanted a
stricter standard to adopt one on their local level. To require
the state code to have more restrictive requirements for compliance
would not allow the local municipalities to have less restrictive
policies. She thought that a state code trying to reach the lowest
common denominator of allowance, should truly set the minimum
standards statewide and allow the individual local communities set
higher standards where appropriate in their areas.
Number 490
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN thought this issue was one of safety and
not climate. He stated the concern was over single wall or double
wall, because of fear of contaminants getting into the potable
water and poisoning people. He argued that if it was safe for one
area of the state, it should be safe for all areas of the state.
He suggested that climatic conditions were not an issue, because
these units were in the house next to the boiler. He felt the
basic motivation for an exemption in a particular area was simply
money.
Number 506
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he would take an exception to the prior
speaker, but would agree on the fact that it was an issue of
safety. He asked if there had been a problem with single wall heat
exchangers that have killed or poisoned people. He pointed out
that single wall heat exchangers have been the norm for many years.
He also mentioned that he saw in the committee packet, that
propylene glycol was used in things such as ice cream and salad
dressings. He did not think that anyone would be placing poisonous
substances, even in low quantities, in food products such as these.
Thus, he was concerned that we might be jumping on the bandwagon,
because it was a popular thing to do in other states. He pointed
out that Alaska was probably the most diverse state in the country
and our regional differences were more acute. He stated he was
concerned about establishing such a requirement under the guise of
safety reasons, when no one could cite any evidence of a safety
problem. He failed to understand why we would require a more
expensive alternative with no justified reason other than that
Alaska wanted to adopt the Uniform Code and be like everyone
else.
Number 527
MR. PERKINS said that under AS 18.60.735, there is given the
authority of local municipalities to adopt plumbing codes that are
not any less stringent than the ones adopted by the state. He
stated this does not mean they have to adopt the Uniform Plumbing
Code, as long as their requirements are as strict as those of the
UPC. Regarding the single wall/double wall issue, he reiterated
the department could not be put in the position of being forced to
make a decision before they even go through the regulatory process.
Number 552
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN emphasized it was not an issue of the
Department of Labor making a commitment before going through the
regulatory process. He stated the real question was why the
requirements had to be set so strict in the first place, instead of
at a lower level. If the reasons were for safety issues, then he
would like to hear examples of where there have been safety
problems.
Number 573
MR. PERKINS answered there was one incident where an individual put
ethylene glycol, rather than propylene glycol, into their system.
The heat exchanger then had a problem that allowed the ethylene
glycol to get into the potable water and it was ingested. He said
he could not recall the specifics.
MR. TIBBLES stated he did know of a situation in Anchorage, where
there was a pinhole leak in a heat exchanger that allowed the
propylene glycol to get into the drinking water.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the results of this incident were.
He asked if someone was killed or made violently sick or what?
MR. TIBBLES said the written testimony was that the person said he
was not feeling so well.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the point he was trying to get at, was
whether or not this was creating a situation of overkill. He
mentioned that when someone violates a traffic law and kills
someone else, the state then does not prohibit all people of that
same age group from driving on the highway. He felt this was what
this bill was trying to do. Because of the remote situation where
an individual puts in the wrong type of fluid or has a pinhole
leak, the state is then deciding that it is necessary to enforce
these stricter, more expensive requirements on everyone who puts in
a heat exchanger. He emphasized that he was in favor of safety,
but was also in favor of rationale. He said he could not see that
the state was acting responsibly to force public compliance, when
there has not been a problem in the past. Had there been several
situations of poisoning or failures, then he could see this as a
real needed remedy, but this situation seemed worse to him, than
throwing the baby out with the bath water. Thus, he thought that
there may need to a lower statewide requirement or some type of
regional exception.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any other questions from the
committee, and mentioned that there were people on teleconference
waiting to testify. She called on Mary Lou Vilandre to testify
from Sitka.
Number 625
MARY LOU VILANDRE, resident of Sitka, stated she had both some
questions and testimony. She asked if the code had not been
upgraded from 1979 to 1991, which was 12 years, then why rush into
this code change. She also asked if local municipalities were
allowed to be exempt, then who would be legally responsible for any
liability, the state or the local government? Finally, she asked
for a definition for the proposed amendment phrase of practically
nontoxic.
CHAIR JAMES asked the bill sponsor if he could answer the question
of why it was necessary to rush into making these changes in the
plumbing code.
MR. TIBBLES answered that he did not feel that they were rushing
into adoption of a new code, but were just giving the Department of
Labor the authority to make that upgrade and amend the code to make
it more applicable to Alaska. He stated the bill does not say that
the department will adopt the 1994 code, but just has the authority
to upgrade and amend the code when necessary.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Vilandre if she could stay on teleconference
and they would try to get the answers to her questions later in the
hearing.
MS. VILANDRE said she could and stated she would rather have a
public hearing in the legislative process, when a new code is
adopted and not just to go through the regulatory process.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING mentioned that Representative Norm Rokeberg,
Chair of the subcommittee that heard this bill in the Labor and
Commerce Committee, was present and asked that he be allowed to
come to the table and be available to answer questions.
CHAIR JAMES invited Representative Rokeberg to the committee table.
She called Pat Knowles to testify via teleconference from
Anchorage.
Number 663
PAT KNOWLES, Owner, Mountain Mechanical, stated he would try to
answer some of the questions he heard asked earlier. He commented
he could cite examples of situations that had occurred, but did not
think that was the point. He argued the reason for the requirement
for double wall boilers was to try to prevent a danger should an
individual put ethylene glycol in their boiler, which then
contaminated the potable water supply. He said the cost of
ethylene glycol was about a third of the cost of propylene glycol,
which he felt was an incentive for many people to try to use it in
their boiler. He argued that there was no difference in cost for
installation of a double wall heat exchanger from a single wall
heat exchanger and argued there was not a very large loss of
efficiency between a single wall unit and a double wall unit. He
said the only difference in cost was for the initial purchase of
the unit. He claimed the beauty of the double wall system was that
should there be a failure of the system, it dumped the fluids onto
the floor. You did not have this indicator in a single wall heat
exchanger.
TAPE 95-51, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES asked if it was not true, that should there be a leak
in a single wall heat exchanger, that the pressure of the water in
the water lines is so much more than the pressure of the water in
the boiler, that the direction of travel would be from the water
lines to the boiler, which would cause the relief valve to be
released.
Number 040
MR. KNOWLES commented that he realized he was talking to someone
that was knowledgeable on this subject. He agreed that in most
instances this was the case. He said that even if the relief valve
failed, someone monitoring the boiler would notice that the
pressure was higher. He stated that unfortunately, these relief
valves sit unused for years and corrode shut. He could foresee a
situation where should there be a lime deposit covering a pinhole,
that should the water pressure be shut off such as during a repair,
this pinhole would be opened and could allow contamination into the
potable water. He thought the question that needed to be
considered was whether someone wanted to drink the substance they
were using to heat their domestic water supply.
Number 087
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that the National Plumbing Code allows the
use of single wall heat exchangers, with three conditions that must
be met. One of these conditions requires that it be posted what
substances are allowed to be put into the boiler. She asked if he
felt it was necessary to require double wall heat exchangers,
because people could not be trusted to read those signs. She asked
if he thought it was necessary for government to be their big
keeper.
MR. KNOWLES replied that one could think of it that way, but argued
that when many of those installing these systems do not know the
difference, then how can it be expected that the average homeowner
will? He thought that when there was a system that would prevent
contamination of the water supply, then why would you want to use
any other system?
Number 140
EUGENE RUTLAND, Executive Director, Mechanical Contractors of
Fairbanks, stated their organization was engaged in the plumbing
and heating industry in Fairbanks. He said their organization
supported the use of single wall heat exchangers. He argued that
the requirement of a double wall heat exchanger in the Uniform
Plumbing Code, was a solution looking for a problem. He
mentioned the cumulative experience of their organizations
membership totalled hundreds of years, virtually all of it in the
Arctic area. Their members had no first hand knowledge of any
death or illness caused by a single wall heat exchanger. He stated
that the Corps of Engineers follows the National Standard Plumbing
Code, which does not require the use of double wall heat
exchangers, and so all military bases in the state of Alaska use
single wall heat exchangers for the heating of domestic hot water.
He said their organization would like to see the use of single wall
heat exchangers allowed in HB 224, as they would feel more
comfortable with this allowance in statute than in regulation.
Additionally, their members opposed allowing the Department of
Labor to adopt and amend the Uniform Plumbing Code by regulation,
as it governs such an important part of their industry. He wanted
to urge the committee to listen to the people in the industry, who
use and understand plumbing codes and have actual experience of the
results from the requirements of these codes.
Number 190
ROGER COURTNEY, a plumber in Anchorage, supported the concept of
adopting the plumbing code by regulation, rather than by statute.
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG asked if he was not the building
official and chief plumbing inspector for the municipality of
Anchorage.
MR. COURTNEY responded he was not the building official. He stated
he was the plumbing and mechanical inspector for the city of
Anchorage, but was speaking only on behalf of himself.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if he sat on the committee that wrote
the relevant codes for the Uniform Plumbing Code.
MR. COURTNEY said he was.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what his position was regarding
exemptions for single wall heat exchangers.
MR. COURTNEY stated he was on a committee that approved the change
in that code section, that did not allow single wall heat
exchangers. He said the reason the committee came up with that
recommendation was because of the inability of any government
agency to control the types of solutions being put into these
boilers. They thought that the double wall heat exchanger was the
safer way to go.
Number 240
STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH thanked the committee for the opportunity to
address HB 224 and the single wall heat exchanger amendment. He
mentioned he had recently sent down some information from the Fuel
Merchants Association of New Jersey. He stated the amendment
allowing for the single wall heat exchanger was derived from the
efforts of this organization and the National Association of
Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors. He commented these
provisions were ultimately incorporated into the 1991 National
Standard Plumbing Code and are the same identical verbatim
amendments as adopted by the city of Kodiak in 1992 and the city of
Fairbanks in 1994. He noted that this association has 300
companies and supplies fuel for the entire state of New Jersey and
parts of New York and the upper New England area. Regarding the
safety issue, he read from a presentation to the National
Association of Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors from a
New York law firm hired by the Fuel Merchant Association of New
Jersey. He said this presentation documented that they have not
had a situation of glycol poisoning in four years, which covered 10
million installations. He stated these figures were from the
Department of Commerce in the federal government. He argued the
reason was that there were so many independent and unlikely things
that have to come together, that the chances are so minuscule, as
not to be measurable. He mentioned that Representative Green was
correct, that everything had to go wrong for a long time to
contaminate the water supply. To create a problem: 1) The wrong
type of material had to be introduce into the system, with odds of
1 in 50; 2) there must be a failure in the heat exchanger system,
with odds of 1 in 10; 3) there must be a leak or leaks in gaskets,
with odds of 1 in 2; 4) a leak in the heat exchanger coil must be
undetected, with odds of 1 in 100; 5) the pressure of the water
supply must fall below the boiler pressure, with odds of 1 in 1000;
6) there must be failure to detect the problem, with odds of 1 in
100; and 7) at the time all of this is going wrong, the system has
to be functional for culinary purposes, with odds of 1 in 64. He
commented there were odds of 1 in 10 of failure to detect a change
in odor and color at the tap source. When all of this is
calculated, the chance of glycol poisoning is 1 in 6.4 trillion.
He argued that even if it was thought that these odds were
inflated, there was still a 1 in 3.2 trillion chance of glycol
poisoning if you cut the odds in half. He thought the safety issue
had been addressed, but was simply being ignored for the purposes
of this discussion. He stated the result of this presentation was
the National Association of Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling
Contractors supported single wall coil heat exchangers with the
same provisions implemented and adopted by the cities of Kodiak and
Fairbanks for the last several years. He felt there would be a
rippling effect of this bill on other Alaska statutes. He said
that Administrative Act AS 118.269 required that all Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation projects meet minimum construction standards,
including the 1991 Uniform Plumbing Code, which has not been
amended. Any building funded in part or whole by the corporation
is required to comply with this code, which does not allow for
single wall coil heat exchangers. AS 18.60.705 exempts the
application of the Uniform Plumbing Code to villages with a
population under 2500 people. He argued this was contradictory, in
that if there was a problem with glycol poisoning in the urban
areas, it will exist in the rural areas as well. He asserted that
the only examples cited by the Department of Labor of problems with
glycol poisoning were in the rural villages. He asked if we were
writing the Alaska Native off. He felt this was not the case, but
that the state was not really addressing the problem. He thought
it was conveniently trying to legislate itself out of a problem.
In closing, he urged the committee to support the use of single
wall heat exchangers. He mentioned the city of Fairbanks had
received the support of the Alaska State Professional Engineers
Association, Interior Builders Association, City of Valdez, and the
City and Borough of Kodiak on this issue. He encouraged the
committee to closely consider the alleged safety issue and offered
to answer any questions from the committee.
Number 410
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked whether copies of the proposed
amendment had been sent to the Legislative Information Offices.
CHAIR JAMES stated she would check with her staff.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING commented that the discussion seemed to be
centering on whether single wall coil heat exchangers were safe.
He thought this discussion would be more appropriate on the level
of the regulatory public hearing process, once the Department of
Labor were granted the authority to adopt the plumbing code by
regulation.
CHAIR JAMES responded this was a public hearing and that the
legislature was charged with writing the laws of this state. She
thought this was an appropriate place to address this problem and
pointed out that the public hearings for the regulatory process
were not the same as those of the legislature.
TOM GERVAIS, President, Alkota Heating and Plumbing, expressed his
opinion that if there was a slight chance for contamination in the
potable water with a single wall coil heat exchanger, then he would
prefer that people not be at risk when there is a device available
to protect the public from this danger. He felt we should not wait
for someone to die before this is addressed as a safety issue.
Number 425
LARRY LONG, Plumbing Inspector, City of Fairbanks, said he was
representing the city of Fairbanks as its plumbing inspector for
the past 13 years. He commented he was a resident of Fairbanks for
35 years and that he had drank water from a single wall coil heat
exchanger with no adverse health effects. He said he faces these
types of problems every day. He thought HB 224 presents more
problems than it solves. He stated his concerns were: 1) This
bill limits the state of Alaska to only one choice of a plumbing
code, which will prevent the state from selecting another code that
may better suit its needs; 2) the Department of Labor will be
allowed to amend the code when it is in the best interest of the
state. He argued that he would rather do his job for the best
interests of the citizens of this state, not the state itself; 3)
the transfer of power from the legislative branch to the regulatory
agencies, seemed regressive to him, in that the national trend was
towards less government and more local control. He argued the
single wall/double wall coil heat exchanger debate speaks for
itself. He stated the proposed amendment that allowed the use of
a single wall coil heat exchanger to be phased out over a three
year period was nonsense, saying that single wall heat exchangers
will be safe for the next three years, but not after that point.
He said he did not know what would change about these coils in the
next three years, considering that these systems had been in use
for over one hundred years. He reiterated he thought the safety
issue for single wall coil heat exchangers speaks for itself. He
mentioned the city of Fairbanks had 14 proposed amendments to the
Uniform Plumbing Code and was concerned that they would have to
apply for individual waivers for each of these amendments. He
argued the Department of Labor did have the authority to grant
exceptions to the code, and quoted AS 18.67.010, which listed the
duties of the department, including and may grant exceptions from
specific code. He urged the committee to give the ability to the
local governments, where there is a building department in place,
to establish building codes appropriate for their area, rather than
establishing one general provision for the entire state.
Number 486
LEONARD KIMBELL, Building Official, City and Borough of Kodiak,
emphasized that the city and borough of Kodiak have both requested
an exception from the Uniform Plumbing Code to allow the use of
single wall coil heat exchangers. This system has worked well for
over four decades without report of injury. He argued that to
outlaw a system with this strong of a track record runs contrary to
the intent of building codes, which is to provide a minimum
standard of safety for the public. He stated the majority of this
countrys plumbing codes allow the use of a single wall coil heat
exchanger. He urged the committee to adopt the amendment proposed
by Chair Jeannette James to allow the use of single wall coil heat
exchangers. There was a real effort to establish a single building
and plumbing code for the entire nation. The heat exchanger issue
was not limited to the state of Alaska, but is a national issue.
He said there were three building code organizations in the United
States and four plumbing code organizations. The federal
government has become disturbed with having to design projects and
write specifications for projects in different parts of the
country, each with their own code. Thus, they are encouraging the
model code organizations to establish a single code for the entire
nation. He said there was a new plumbing code, the International
Plumbing Code, that has received the endorsement of the model
plumbing code organizations and by the Council of American Building
Officials, which is the organization representing all of the major
model code groups. He stated he had just attended a conference
where the Uniform Plumbing Code was described as the cadillac of
plumbing codes. He argued that Alaska could not afford Cadillacs
anymore. He thought it may be premature to outlaw the use of
single wall heat exchangers. If a national plumbing code is
adopted, he said it looked like their proposed amendment allowing
the use of single wall heat exchangers would be adopted in this
code word for word. He reiterated these systems have operated
safely for over four decades and are still allowed in most of the
country. He thanked the committee for their consideration of this
matter.
Number 533
LES BURNETT, President, K&L Plumbing and Heating, Inc., stated he
thought that the main problem was money and the lack of education
of people as to the possibilities of what may or may not happen.
He asked if it was worth saving a few dollars at the expense of an
individual or their familys life. He said there were several
instances of cases where there were problems, and he could take
people to places in Eagle River where people were putting ethylene
glycol in boilers. Fortunately, some of these were not tied into
the potable water system, he said. He claimed there was nothing to
prevent people from putting regular car antifreeze in their
boilers and heat exchangers. Regarding the plumbing code, he said
the Uniform Plumbing Code was one of the most accepted in the
world. He did not see why the state should even consider changing
to something less.
JOHN BUTLER, Owner, Johns Heating Service, commented that he had
heard a legislator state in a prior teleconference, that they would
not like to have the liability for a single wall coil heat
exchanger. He stated it was sad that most of the people passing
judgement did not work in the field and see what was required in
order to make these coils work, even when they are single wall.
He said he often had to run boilers up to 220 degrees. He felt
that if double wall coil heat exchangers were required, that he
would have to run boilers up to 240 degrees. He thought this was
a potentially dangerous situation, commenting that they already had
to bypass some of the safety mechanisms to prevent people from
scalding themselves. He said that the trade journals were full of
articles of people suing manufacturers as long as 10 years after
getting burned on a boiler or water heater. He thought this bill
would take a system that was barely efficient now, and substitute
it with something that was less efficient. He reiterated he was
totally supportive of the single wall coil heat exchanger.
JEFF BOVEE, President, Alaska Best Plumbing and Heating, Inc., said
the Uniform Plumbing Code was the most restrictive of the plumbing
codes. Thus, he argued it was not a minimum standard, but a
maximum. He mentioned the boiler manufacturers do not ship double
wall coil heat exchangers as standard equipment, but only offer it
as an after market product for the boilers installed in Alaska. He
argued that the manufacturers do not see a danger in the single
wall coil heat exchangers and have accepted the liability for them.
He stated he had been told that in order to make the change to
allow for single wall heat exchangers, he had to petition the court
system or the legislature. He urged the legislature to grant this
change to allow for single wall coil heat exchangers.
Number 598
ROYAL BIDWELL stated he was opposed to HB 224, with or without the
single wall coil heat exchanger amendment. He felt if this bill
passed, then those affected by the regulations of the Department of
Labor would not have any voice in the regulations imposed upon
them. He said he began working in the plumbing and heating
wholesale business in 1967 and had been buying and selling single
wall coil heat exchangers ever since. This amounted to many
thousands of units. He said he was not aware of a single case
where someone even got sick from glycol that contaminated their
drinking water. The only rumor of such an incident turned out
recently to be false. He reminded the committee that propylene
glycol, the type used in residential heating systems, is found in
many different food items. It is of very low toxicity when drank
directly and is diluted by about 60 percent when mixed with water
in a boiler system. He recognized that someone could not be
prevented from using ethylene glycol in their heat exchanger, but
argued that an individual could not be prevented from using a
single wall coil heat exchanger in their boiler system either. He
said the most popular size of a double wall coil heat exchanger for
residential boilers cost the homeowner about $1500 installed. He
thought they were inefficient, using roughly twice the amount of
tubing to get the same output of a single wall coil heat exchanger
system. He mentioned he had talked to an individual who had used
the double wall coil system on a project and had to remove them
because of inefficiency. This individual also stated that the
double wall tankless coil that replaces the single wall coil in a
boiler, costs three to four times the cost of a single wall coil
system. He commented that the cost of a double wall coil heat
exchanger system for a commercial boiler costs roughly double that
of a comparable single wall coil system. He mentioned a quote he
had given a contractor of $16,000 for the double wall coil system,
which had a deduct of $6,900 for the comparable single wall coil
system. This amounted to a 43 percent difference in price, he
said. He argued that banning single wall coil heat exchangers
would be banning the best heat exchange technology available today.
He commented this technology was being used all over Europe, where
safety and environmental issues were much stricter than in the
United States. This technology is spreading very rapidly in the
northeastern states and in the Rocky Mountain region. He felt
there was no real health or safety issue, yet we are applying
restrictions and controls that are difficult to comply with and
expensive. He stated that as an engineering student, his
instructors encouraged them to apply the KISS formula. This meant
Keep It Simple Stupid. He thought this was a good example of where
this formula needed to be applied.
Number 547
MICHAEL HIRT, Mechanical Contractor, noted that this bill promoted
the idea of the Department of Labor having the ability to adopt and
amend the plumbing code by regulation. He said the department has
created a lot of friction in the Fairbanks area by their attempts
to control the administration of the code. He mentioned the city
of Fairbanks has successfully challenged these attempts in court.
He felt the city was consistently being bombarded by the attempts
of the state to rule and administer the local government. He
argued it was never the intent of the Constitution of the state of
Alaska to give such centralized power to such an entity. He quoted
Article 1, Section 2: All political powers inherent in the people,
all government originates with the people, is founded upon their
will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as
a whole. He stated that when the idea of a borough was
considered, the delegates drafting its conception deliberately
eliminated the word county, as they felt it lacked the power they
wanted boroughs to have. Article 10, Section 1, states The
purpose of this article is to provide for a maximum local self
government with a minimum of local government units. Article 10,
Section 2, states All local government powers shall be vested in
boroughs and cities. Article 10, Section 6, gives power to the
legislature only where a lack of organization exists. Article 10,
Section 11, states A home-rule borough or city may exercise all
legislative power not prohibited by law or by charter. He thought
it was clear that a political subdivision, such as a city or
borough that shows itself to be responsible should not have this
constant interference from the Department of Labor. Referring to
AS 18.60.735, he commented on a contradictory part of the statute,
which he felt should be eliminated. He argued it was the source of
the usurpation of power by state officials. This section is where
the statute states, no less stringent than those established under
AS 18.60.705. He felt that the idea of less stringent strengthens
the thought that the legislature holds the ultimate power and it is
not the intent of home-rule entities. He asked if the people at
the legislative level were somehow more competent, careful, or
capable than those people at the city or borough level. He argued
they were not. An example of where the less stringent issue
causes a problem, is section 1007E of the Uniform Plumbing Code,
that states that all relief valves shall be extended outside and
allowed to release on the ground. They have chosen to be less
stringent in the Fairbanks area, because if they did not, the
dripping relief valves could freeze the drain pipe shut, creating
a very lethal and destructive bomb. Section 1008C2 of the Uniform
Plumbing Code states that underground copper piping should be
brazed. This does not work in the Arctic environment, as when
brazed piping freezes, it is very brittle. To avoid damage from
freezing, the Fairbanks area is less stringent and requires brass
flare fittings to be used. After citing other examples of where
they needed to be less stringent, he stated that with regard to the
issue of single wall and double wall coil heat exchangers, they
were less stringent and would continue to be, because the dangers
were hypothetical and not real. He felt they were less dangerous
than electricity at home or driving a car. He stated that AS
18.67.010, already gives regulatory power to the Department of
Labor, which is the stated intent of HB 224. This section also
states that the department is responsible for the administration of
the code. He thought that to comply with Alaskas Constitution,
this section only applies to where a city or borough is not
organized, or fails to administer the code. Even when the
Department of Labor is looking out for the public welfare, it
cannot impose an undue financial burden on citizens. In closing,
he cited several examples of where the government requires
compliance, but the private sector provides the expertise to insure
that it works. He reiterated his opposition to HB 224, because of
its redundancy with state statutes and its contradictions with
Alaskas Constitution.
Number 706
STEVE ANDERSON, plumbing contractor, stated his opposition to the
outlawing of the single wall coil heat exchanger and the adoption
of plumbing code by regulation. He said he was not a government
official, engineer, or qualified in design, but thought that he had
heard substantial testimony to influence his decision in support of
the single wall coil heat exchanger. He felt this bill should only
be considered after detailed communication with those who will be
using and complying with this code on a daily basis. He stated
this bill would force him to require compliance by his customers,
that will cost them a considerable amount of money, without any
demonstration of increased protection from a significant health
threat or other significant benefit. He thought that this position
would undermine both his personal integrity and the minimum trust
that the public needs to have in their government. He stated he
had worked in the industry as a plumbing contractor for 21 years.
TAPE 95-52, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that due to time constraints, it seemed
unlikely that the committee would be hearing either HB 304 or HB
270. She urged those on teleconference to fax their opinions or
written testimony to her fax number at 465-2381. She said these
bills would be rescheduled and they would be able to testify at a
later date.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN commented he wished he could have heard
testimony from his home area. He pledged to follow this bill and
seek feedback from his district as to how this bill would affect
local construction jobs and home building in this type of rural
area. He asked if anyone could answer his concerns as to what type
of impact this legislation would have on rural Alaska, with regard
to plumbing codes.
CHAIR JAMES asked how many people lived in the largest communities
in his district.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied that Bethel had about 5000-6000 people.
CHAIR JAMES stated this bill would apply to Bethel, explaining
there was an exemption to those communities under 2500 people. She
said she did not know whether they were using single wall or double
wall coil heat exchangers in Bethel.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING asked Mr. Perkins, representative of the
Department of Labor, if he agreed with the statements of Chair
James.
MR. PERKINS agreed that in communities under 2500 people, the
provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code were not enforced.
Number 043
BILL SAGER, Owner, Chandler Plumbing and Heating, expressed his
opposition to the requirement of a double wall coil heat exchanger
in the 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code. He mentioned he had been active
in the plumbing and heating industry since 1954. He stated he was
not aware of any failures of single wall coil heat exchangers that
created health problems. He emphasized there was only a small
degree of safety to be achieved with the double wall coil heat
exchanger, with a very large expense. He asked how much safety the
state and public could afford. In closing, he stated his belief
that this and other codes should be adopted by the statutory
process and not by regulation.
Number 098
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there was a scheduled date when
the committee would be hearing HB 304 and HB 270. She asked if
they would be meeting on Saturday.
CHAIR JAMES replied that she did not plan to meet on Saturday,
because there may be a conflict with the time of session. Thus,
she was planning on these bills being rescheduled for Tuesday,
April 25, 1995. She stated there would be a public notice of this
meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the Labor and Commerce committee
heard substantial testimony on this bill and referred it to a
subcommittee. He said they were trying to reach a compromise
situation. He said the Labor and Commerce committee substitute for
this bill: 1) Brings those installations of single wall heat
exchangers up to code with the 1991 code; and 2) gives specific
authority for municipal governments or boroughs with building codes
to request a waiver for the use of single wall coil heat
exchangers. The areas that are not covered under this version of
the bill are those areas outside of these jurisdictions in the
unorganized boroughs of the state or areas that are not covered by
a building code, such as the Fairbanks North Star Borough. This
was the compromise of the committee because of the concerns for
public safety and the potential liability of the state in adopting
a plumbing and making it applicable everywhere in the state. He
said there was also testimony stating that the full exemption for
single wall coil heat exchangers, as suggested by Chair James,
would influence the code proceedings currently underway in the
municipality of Anchorage, as they are between the board review and
the assembly's adoption of the plumbing code in Anchorage. He
thought they were pitting Anchorage against Fairbanks and a few
outlying areas. After hearing the testimony, he hoped this
committee would agree with the recommendations of the Labor and
Commerce Committee, to meet over the interim and develop a
regulatory system for all building codes and plumbing codes that
would be adopted for the state and allow for an orderly procedure
for local amendments under these codes. He stated this was their
intention and the reason for the provision of a three year sunset
of single wall coil heat exchangers. He said it was their
intention to remove from the legislature this regulatory writing
and their wasted time in discussing a local amendment to a
building code. He added that the current regulatory procedure does
not provide for the orderly review of building code amendments. He
reemphasized that they allowed the municipalities to create
waivers as they are restricted by state law to only adopt codes
that are more stringent than that of the state law. He mentioned
there were existing waivers and exemptions under current state
statute. Under 18.60.710, there is the ability of the department
administering the code to make exemptions from this code. He
reiterated the intent of this bill was to adopt the Uniform
Plumbing Code for Alaska. He was concerned about this bill getting
caught up in controversy and not getting adopted. He suggested an
amendment to page 3, line 8, Subsection B, under Section 4 of the
Labor and Commerce committee substitute for HB 224, to add the
language and the Department of Labor may grant an exemption under
AS 18.60.710. This provision allows the department to take into
consideration where implementation is impractical and special
consideration to outlying villages and slightly populated areas.
He stated he wanted to meet the concerns of Chair James, while not
holding up this bill. He said that he had one final point, that
this bill allowed for replacement of an existing system, during
this three year period, with a single wall coil heat exchanger, but
required new installations to be a double wall coil heat exchanger
boiler system. This was his recommended fix for this problem, as
opposed to Chair James' proposed amendment.
Number 260
CHAIR JAMES responded that she agrees that the legislature should
not be making regional exemptions. She said that was not her
intent. Her intent was to have a state law that was at the minimum
and not the maximum. She also stated that recognizing the
diversity of this state, that as a legislator, she felt the
legislature should be passing laws that were the lowest common
denominator. She thought it should be expected that a law should
be in effect for the entire state and if local areas wish to make
their rules more strict, then they should have that right. She did
not feel it was good public policy to set state law at the highest
common denominator and then allow local governments to exempt
themselves. She did not feel that issue was whether or not they
were addressing a specific regional concern, but whether it was in
the best interest of the state to have the lowest common
denominator law and then allow the local municipalities to apply
stricter standards, if appropriate. She reiterated that she agreed
they should not be addressing a regional concern, and argued this
was not what she was doing, but that she was putting forth a
position of the lowest common denominator of law. She stated she
thought the issue was how safe they could afford to be. Her
personal philosophy with regard to rules, regulations and laws, was
that the closer to the people they could get when making rules and
regulations, the better they would be. Thus, she would hope to
have most of those decisions made at the local level. She stated
she would like to trust those people as they were closer to the
people and this government was supposed to be of and by the people.
Throughout the course of this session, she had been trying to make
regulations less restrictive and more responsive to the public and
with legislative oversight. She stated this bill was in opposition
to her personal philosophy, in that it gives carte blanche
authority to the Department of Labor to write these regulations,
without any mechanism for legislative oversight. Thus, she opposes
implementing any code by regulation, believing it is something the
legislature should be listening to the entire state on. She also
disagreed that they could not make a good decision, as they were
not plumbers or mechanical contractors. She said that was why they
had the public process to take testimony from experts in the
community. She thought that as legislators, they have been
assigned to make decisions on what state laws are necessary, and
should feel competent to make those decisions. She stated she
would take Representative Rokebergs recommendations under
advisement and hold this bill until the next meeting, as they were
out of time.
Number 332
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that he understood it was
necessary to move this bill quickly, in order to accommodate those
people that were not in compliance with the 1991 code. He pointed
out that under the 1991 code, single wall coil heat exchangers are
absolutely forbidden in this state, without exception.
CHAIR JAMES agreed this was the case, but stated it was a matter of
whether you wanted to take the pill with water or whether you want
to take the pill with sour grapes. She reminded the committee
that the only reason this bill was filed, as testified by the
sponsor, was to allow the Department of Labor to adopt the updated
1994 plumbing code by regulation. She said that the issue of
single wall or double wall coil heat exchangers had not been a
problem, as the Department of Labor had not been active in
enforcing penalties for violations of this section of the code.
She stated that the people in her district were willing to continue
with the status quo and work on this problem in the interim.
Should there be resistance to a solution that is the lowest common
denominator, then maybe the other alternative is to do nothing at
all.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING reminded the committee that they were just
simply trying to upgrade the code and that the Department of Labor
already had a version of the code they were currently
administering. He felt Representative Rokebergs suggestions were
reasonable solutions to this issue.
CHAIR JAMES said the language was not before her, and she hesitated
to make a conceptual decision on an issue that was so substantial.
She stated she would be willing to look at this language, once it
was drafted, and see if it is a fair solution. She was also
concerned whether they could legally allow municipalities to take
a lesser standard than that of the state. Should that be the
intent, she did not feel that it would work. Secondly, she was
concerned that this bill would obligate the Department of Labor to
enforce the entire Uniform Plumbing Code, without exception.
Additionally, the question needed to be answered whether there
could be a waiver granted for the whole municipality, or whether it
would need to be granted on a case-by-case basis. She thought a
waiver was intended to be granted to a particular person and not a
particular situation. She said those were her questions, but she
would be willing to look at their recommendations and see if there
was a way to find a workable compromise.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING requested the committee hear this bill at
the next meeting, as it was his understanding that this bill would
pass out at this meeting.
CHAIR JAMES replied that was her intent, but things did not work
out.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated they would have the recommended
language drafted for the next meeting.
CHAIR JAMES said she would appreciate that and stated she would be
willing to work with him to try and find a solution to present at
the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 10:09 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|