Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/25/1998 03:21 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 269(L&C) - PLUMBING CODE Number 0181 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first item of business was CSSB 269(L&C), "An Act relating to the state plumbing code; and providing for an effective date." Number 0195 ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman, indicated she wished to allow the Department of Labor and other witnesses to make their presentations. The sponsor statement read: SB 269 simplifies the process for adopting the Uniform Plumbing Code for Commercial, Industrial and Residential plumbing systems and its related codes dealing with swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and solar energy. The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) is responsible for publishing these codes. They publish an update every three years. Alaska is presently working on the 1994 code. A new 1997 code is forthcoming and legislative action is required before the new codes may be used by contractors in Alaska. This legislation adopts the 1997 code and will hereafter, allow the Department of Labor to automatically adopt through the regulatory process the latest published version of the national code as provided by the IAPMO as the minimum state plumbing code. This is efficient government. The Department of Labor currently adopts other codes it is responsible to enforce such as the electrical, elevator, and boiler/pressure vessel codes in this manner. Number 0223 DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Labor (DOL), came forward to testify in support of CSSB 269(L&C). He said this bill mandated that the most current edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC); Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa, and Hot Tub Code; and the Uniform Solar Energy Code, as published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), would automatically be adopted as the minimum standards for the state. He said this legislation alleviated the need for legislative action every three years to adopt a new edition of the family of plumbing codes. He noted the legislature had taken similar action with regards to electrical codes, the boiler and pressure vessel codes, and the elevator codes, He indicated this action was efficient government, and said language was built in for the exception by regulation if, for some reason, a portion of the code would be inapplicable to Alaska, so that the state would not be compelled to comply with something that simply did not apply in Alaska. Mr. Perkins additionally indicated there was an amendment in the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee on page 1, lines 13 and 14, about the minimum plumbing facilities and the addition of Appendix Chapter 29, table A-29-A, the minimum plumbing fixtures of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code. He said the department had no problem with that amendment. Number 0363 MR. PERKINS noted there had also been some discussion about Appendix L which was intentionally left out in the legislation for a couple of reasons. He stated, "One is that in ... Appendix L of the ... code regarding engineer plumbing systems, in 'L' 2.2 ... it talks about that the designer of the system is to provide periodic inspection to the installation on a schedule found suitable to administrative authority. It also talks about the water heat ... exchanger. You may remember, a couple years ago we talked about the single wall heat exchangers; that is currently in statute ... we are not changing that at all. This is only to reflect the latest edition of the ... plumbing code, so we feel that that's being redundant. In statute we do - the department does ... grant exceptions from the code if they are requested and there is a procedure to do that, but in section 3 of the plumbing code it also talks about the ability to adopt some other type of system. So, it was intentional that the department did leave out 'section' L. We would like to keep that out, we don't see the need for it and ... that concludes my testimony and I'm available to answer questions." Number 0497 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY said the committee had some letters from the homebuilders and others which recommended adding the wording "other nationally recognized codes" for more flexibility in the future. He asked Mr. Perkins if he had problems with that. Number 0531 MR. PERKINS replied in the affirmative. He said the UPC was the current minimum standard, and had been since the early 1970s when the state of Alaska adopted plumbing codes. He said the other nationally recognized code being referred to had been written since 1995 and adopted in two states, to his knowledge. Mr. Perkins said he did not believe that was the code the state of Alaska would like to adopt at this time. If that code became the superior code for some reason, he believed it would come back before the legislature for that discussion. The department had adopted, and wanted to continue to adopt, the UPC as its minimum standard. Number 0595 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the language, "nationally recognized codes", referred to the code Mr. Perkins was talking about, or was it a broad or generic reference. Number 0607 MR. PERKINS replied the code they were referring to was the other nationally recognized code. The only one he was familiar with was the International Plumbing Code (IPC). He said it is not done by consensus as the UPC is. He indicated the IPC is written by a group of building code officials without professional mechanical contractors, engineers and the professionals in the plumbing and mechanical systems, so therefore the department would rely heavily on the UPC rather than what was been quoted as "the other nationally recognized code" and would like to stay with the UPC. Number 0672 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated CSSB 269(L&C) deleted subsection (a) of the existing plumbing code, AS 18.60.705, and replaced it with this language; leaving in subsection (b) and (c). He said (b) had to do with the pipefittings and the percentage of lead in solders, et cetera; and (c) was the famous single wall heat exchanger issue, which would remain allowable. Chairman Rokeberg indicated he understood from his discussions with people that this (indisc.) mentioned failure to adopt the Appendix L was because subsection (c) was in the law and would remain in the law. MR. PERKINS stated the chairman was absolutely correct and had a pretty good grasp. Number 0742 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG continued that one of the problems with adopting Appendix L were some inspection requirements which would result in undue burden and added cost to local and state building officials. Number 0753 MR. PERKINS said that was correct. He additionally stated that for design systems other than materials normally used in the designing of systems, under section 3 of the 1997 edition of the UPC, they could come to the administrative authority and ask for consideration for those kinds of waivers. He indicated that was set-up in regulation in AS 18.60.710, duties of the department. Number 0803 REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN apologized for his lateness, noting he had a bill up in the Senate. He asked Mr. Perkins if the department was for or against the bill. MR. PERKINS said the department fully supported CSSB 269(L&C), the version which came from the Senate. Number 0853 RON WATTS, Building Official, Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works, Municipality of Anchorage, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated the municipality would go on record as supporting the bill, but asked the committee to consider inserting the words "other nationally recognized codes" into Section 1, paragraph (a) of the bill; and deleting the words "a later edition of the following publication". He indicated in explanation that the current language would lock the municipality and any other home rule jurisdiction into having to adopt the UPC in the future. It would also prevent, particularly the municipality and, again, any other home rule charter, from adopting any of the family of consolidated and coordinated codes coming out in the year 2000. Also, he said they would think that the state of Alaska should have the option to adopt any other nationally recognized codes if it so chose, and not be locked into any particular code. Number 0923 MR. WATTS also addressed a couple points brought up by, he said, "Commissioner Cashen" (DOL). Mr. Watts indicated the code Mr. Perkins of the DOL was referring to, the IPC, would be a part of this consolidated family of codes in 2000, and that code was officially written a couple of years ago by a national committee made up of the plumbing industry, the mechanical engineering communities, plumbing and mechanical officials, industry people. It was patterned very closely after the "national plumbing code" and the "southern plumbing code" which have been in effect since 1924 and 1930, if he recalls correctly. Mr. Watts said, at any rate, it had been around for years; it is used in the northeastern and southern parts of the country. He said they would really like to make sure the option to adopt another code existed in the future if it was so chosen, indicating the situation, interest and need might not come up. However, if it did, they should not be restricted from that option, which this bill would definitely do as presently written. Number 1012 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG congratulated Mr. Watts on his appointment as the Municipality of Anchorage's building official, noting he has worked with Mr. Watts for over 20 years. Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr. Watts how long he had been with the municipality. MR. WATTS replied almost 25 years. Number 1040 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the UPC was written by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Number 1058 MR. WATTS replied it was written by the "international association of mechanical officials." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that organization was a member of the ICBO. MR. WATTS replied it was not. He noted there has been a long history over this whole issue, commenting that it boiled down to politics. Mr. Watts explained that the ICBO and "international association of mechanical officials" were basically joint owners of the code process up until about three years ago. He indicated the following groups and codes got together, attempting to consolidate all the codes nationally: the international and uniform code; the national codes published by the BOCA group [Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International, Incorporated], a northeastern group; and the southern group, "southern building code congress" [Southern Building Code Congress International, Incorporated (SBCCI)]. Mr. Watts said there was pressure from the architectural, engineering and construction communities for a consolidated group of codes. So, he said, the effort was undertaken to do that, and in consequence, ICBO signed up to this effort and actually asked IAPMO to be a portion of that. Number 1143 MR. WATTS said negotiations went on for well over a year, not proceeding satisfactorily, and then there were two lawsuits filed by the "international association of mechanical officials" against the "national conference of building officials" because of the effort in proceeding with the international code. He said what will be coming out in 2000 will be called the international code, and so this was the IPC basically versus the UPC. Mr. Watts stated, "The Uniform Plumbing Code is a very strict code. It is very rigid in terms of - of the requirements, the materials, the methods of installation. The International Plumbing Code is being written in a little more of a - a performance code format, and the reason for that is that all the national codes and international codes are going that direction. There's a real pressure push from industry to allow a little more flexibility in design and installation of not only plumbing but mechanical, electrical, building, structural components, all that combined. So the effort is an attempt to allow a little more flexibility ... into the design and installation. And that's the direction the codes are going, and whether I agree with it or not, I don't think that any one individual or probably any one group is gonna be able to stop that, because there is a definite push by the industry to go that direction." Number 1244 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Watts if he was on the board of directors or had an affiliation with the ICBO. MR. WATTS answered in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how long he had been on the board. MR. WATTS replied since 1992. Number 1259 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what would keep the state from adopting some other code in the future, or in 2000, if it was decided that was something that had to be done. Number 1274 MR. WATTS said nothing, except this language in this bill would definitely preclude it. He quoted from page 1, lines 5 and 6, of the bill, "and unless the department adopts by regulation a later edition of the following publications,". He said it went on to list those publications and the only plumbing publication was the UPC. Mr. Watts indicated that was the reason the municipality was recommending the deletion of the wording "a later edition of the following publication ["codes" stated on tape]" and the insertion of "other nationally recognized codes" so the flexibility would exist. He stated, "It doesn't say that you can't and may not go ahead and adopt the Uniform Plumbing Code, but at least you do have the option if something else came along and you so choose to do it. But that would be left up to, either local jurisdiction and/or to the state to do that, but you are aware that the state does have a requirement that says that you can't be any less restrictive -- I don't think [it] says that you have to adopt the exact code if you're a home rule charter, but then the question comes: Are there differences? And I will tell you right now that there's at least three or four major efforts going in terms of - of comparison, right down to individual word by word of these two particular codes. So there's a lot of work going on right now to analyze that, but the jury's still out, I think, as far saying that one is absolute totally superior over the other one, and/or the other one is such a new ... code that it hasn't been tested. And again, as I said earlier, basically the basis for the International Plumbing Code comes primarily from the ... national plumbing code and the southern plumbing code." Number 1381 PETE JURCZAK, Lead Plumbing Inspector, Sitka Office, Mechanical Inspection Section, Division of Labor Standards and Safety, Department of Labor, testified next via teleconference from Sitka. He said Mr. Perkins asked him to sit in on the hearing and offer comments. He concurred with the present language in CSSB 269(L&C), noting he has been a plumbing inspector for the state for 10 years and has been in the industry for 25 years. He said he thought it would really be a hindrance to the industry if two different codes were adopted throughout the state; in other words, having the different municipalities and the state on different codes. He indicated that engineering-wise, and also for the industry, the contractors and the plumbers, it would create a lot of confusion about the requirements. Secondly, he said, the 1997 UPC published by IAPMO was an international or national code; it was an amalgamation of the UPC, the ANSI/A-40 (ph) plumbing code, and the "national standard plumbing code." He said it has been adopted throughout the country in many states, it is not a regional code. Mr. Jurczak noted he was not there to debate the better code, and he said he did not know that the UPC was more restrictive. From his experience, he said he thought the UPC had an advantage in that it definitely was a broader code and covered more areas of the plumbing industry than the IPC did. He thought that for a plumber or an engineer to use the IPC, published by ICBO, a contractor, plumber would be required to carry three or four additional code books because not all the information that the UPC currently contains was in the IPC. He stated the UPC was the more user- friendly plumbing code. Number 1510 STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official, Building Department, City of Fairbanks, testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. He commented on the helpfulness of Chairman Rokeberg's staff. Mr. Shuttleworth noted a March 11, 1998, letter to the committee indicating the amended language the city would like to see in SB 269 [From the March 11, 1998 letter: "... We recommend that Section 1, Paragraph (a) be revised to read as follows: (a) Except as provided otherwise in this section, and unless the department adopts by regulation other nationally recognized codes [a later edition of the following publications] the following publications are adopted as the minimum plumbing code for the state:"] He said that, realistically, all they are asking is to have an option. He said he is not so sure what the best code may be three or four years from now, stating, "(Indisc.) the industry for 19 years, I can't predict which would be the best code or the most appropriate course of action for the state of Alaska." Number 1567 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "Mr. Perkins certainly cannot state unequivocally that that would be the best way to go as well, nobody can. And because none of us have a crystal ball, it's only prudent public policy to give yourself an option, and if we put that amended language in that we requested, it will at least allow us to engage in a technical discussion and debate with the Department of Labor at - at a later time period. Technocrat will be able to speak to technocrat persons, we won't have to belabor the legislature when you're embroiled in issues such as subsistence, finance and education bills, etc. But if we're just looking at this to be politically expedient, we are really doing the wrong thing. I don't know why we'd want to eliminate an option, I think it is just a little shortsighted. The other comment that we have is that if the state is so confident that the Uniform Plumbing Code is the best, then what are we afraid of by having an option in there? I think we ought to discuss on the base of merits." Number 1616 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "A couple of other comments would be is that Appendix L really needs to be adopted, it is not redundant. Section, subsection 2.2 does put a burden on the designers to go ahead and inspect this work but that doesn't invalidate the entire appendix. If a ... designer wants to use that and he wants to fly to Fort Yukon to make sure his approved or his alternate system is in right, that's his option. If he can't do that then he has to go back to the body of the plumbing code and perform in a proprietary fashion, but at least gives them the option. If you eliminate Appendix L, home rule cities such as Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, et cetera, that have full-service building departments, we would not be able to use this. And it doesn't make sense that, for instance, a professionally-licensed mechanical engineer would be enjoined from ... practicing his profession. So, realistically, if we ... just go with recognizing only the UPC as sole source, it's really analogous to saying that if you're in the state all you can do is buy Fords, you can't buy Chevys or anything else that - that's out there. And I think that's where I had a philosophical problem with, and I've discussed this with the mayor, and the city concurs that we would just like to have an option and we'll let the merits of the ... actual codes (indisc.) themselves out." Number 1680 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "And the last comment is that the UPC is - is more stricter. That could be good, that could be bad, but I do know that the UPC is - is somewhat intolerant of plastic pipe; they have a long track record of being somewhat adverse to plastic pipe and I think therein lies some differences fundamental from the IPC. And it's interesting to note that in your Appendix L that the UPC does finally address the single wall coils that we debated two years ago ... and I - I think it just shows that this code is somewhat ultraconservative in areas that may be detrimental to plumbing installations in the Bush, as well as home rule cities. So again, I just ... appreciate to give this another look. As being an ex-high school baseball coach, I can tell you, I like to go into a game having an option, and if I'm not given an option, I'm not too successful, and I don't see why the state legislature would want to paint themselves in a corner, and I think that's just not prudent policy ...." Number 1732 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA said, "You stated that the city council and the mayor agreed ... with this statement, yet ..." MR. SHUTTLEWORTH responded, "I had a meeting personally with Mayor Hayes and went through the language that we submitted down to you, and we discussed that at - at some length. And I could not tell the mayor that I thought the IPC was the best or the UPC was the best because, as Mr. Watts has articulately stated, that debate is ongoing right now, and I really don't have a dog in that fight, but I do know that philosophically he agreed that we do need to have at least an option. It only makes sense." Number 1764 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the city council had passed a resolution or something similar on this. MR. SHUTTLEWORTH answered in the negative. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said, "I'm just looking at a letter from you that sort of says something opposite from - from Mr. Swarner, and ..." Number 1781 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the committee had a letter from Romar Swarner, Fairbanks City Council, taking exception to Mr. Shuttleworth's position, and he asked if Mr. Shuttleworth was aware of that. Mr. Swarner's letter reads: You have received a letter from the City of Fairbanks' Building Official stating the City of Fairbanks does not support Senate Bill No. 269 in its present form. This statement is not correct. To the best of my knowledge, the City of Fairbanks Code Review Commission has not discussed this issue nor does Mr. Shuttleworth have the authority to make this statement. The Fairbanks City Council certainly has not taken any position or action on this issue and to the contrary of the earlier statement, would support the present form of this bill. Giving local municipalities a full range of options, if and when they become available, is not good public policy when life/safety issues involve something as important as the State Plumbing Code. Until such a time as the unknown is stated and can be reviewed, it is my opinion, the Uniform Plumbing Code has served the City of Fairbanks well. [Mr. Swarner provides a contact phone number for further questions.] MR. SHUTTLEWORTH answered in the negative, commenting that was not particularly unusual as well. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that was what Representative Kubina was referring to. Number 1794 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said, "I guess ... I'm just concerned that someone, without any (indisc.) position taken from the City of Fairbanks, is representing the City of Fairbanks' position, and normally, if where somebody's gonna represent it, the city would send us something in a resolution form or something, rather than just taking an individual's word for it, that's all." Number 1820 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH said he cannot send letters out in this format without approval from his boss, the mayor. He said he works for the mayor, not the city council; the mayor directs the policy for the city. He stated, "There may be constituents within the council that agree and/or disagree, but I take my direction from the mayor and this letter was not written without that process and without that thought, and it is not unusual to have some ... difference of opinion in various council or assemblies' level. We did not, last time, when we went through HB 224 on the single wall coil, we did not have to debate the issue or put the issue in resolution form at that time, so I don't know why this letter would be invalidated because one city councilman takes exception to it." Number 1858 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Shuttleworth, noting he most vividly remembered their discussions in 1995 over adoption of the last plumbing bill, and he said this legislature did not want to see another one in quite some time. Number 1871 LARRY LONG, Plumbing Inspector, City of Fairbanks, testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated he has been the plumbing inspector in Fairbanks for 17 years, and has been in the trade for 30 years. He agreed with Mr. Watts and Mr. Shuttleworth that not leaving an option open was somewhat blind. Mr. Long said he had worked with the UPC, been at their conferences, seen how the system was devised. At the present time, if he were asked, he would say the UPC was the code he would like to enforce. However, he indicated he would not like to ignore the fact that there might be a better plumbing code in the future. Referring to Appendix L, Mr. Long stated, "I think as diverse and as complicated as our plumbing systems are, trying to keep 'em working in arctic conditions, I look forward to and enjoy working with professional people that come up with innovative designs and can't take the time to put these in code form, and this Appendix L would leave things open to innovative designs and improved systems that wouldn't have to go through the rigorous code adoption processes. I think Appendix L would be extremely helpful in the Bush communities where you have unique situations that -- let's face it, the Uniform Plumbing Code is written and designed by people in Southern California who wouldn't know an icicle if they saw one. So I think the adoption of Appendix L is rather important and I think leaving (indisc.) options open in the future for different codes is important." Number 1943 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was the last of the teleconferenced testimony. Number 1957 SHARON MACKLIN, Lobbyist for Alaska Professional Design Council, came forward to testify in Juneau. She stated the Alaska Professional Design Council is a coalition of architects, engineers, landscape architects and land surveyors; representing approximately 1,400 licensees in the state. She said, "We definitely support the bill, we think its -- well, it's an issue, the whole adoption of the plumbing code that's been around for a long time as most of you know and we feel the Department of Labor should have the ... ability to adopt the latest plumbing code. As far as the proposed amendments to allow an - an option for the department to select another code, we are supporting that. We feel very strongly that although this new code is not in force, ... the Department of Labor should have that option and that would be the right place for the discussion to be held about it. So, we are supporting that and I ... appreciate your time and effort." Number 2013 RUSS CHANEY, Executive Director, International Association for Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, came forward to testify next. He said the IAPMO was the author of the UPC and was headquartered in Southern California, approximately 30 miles east of Los Angeles. He said he would give some background and address some of the assertions made. Since 1972, as Mr. Perkins has stipulated, the state of Alaska has adopted the UPC, and to his knowledge there has been no problem at all with the implementation or the maintenance of that document. The industry within this state has been, and continues to be, trained on the provision of the UPC. Additionally, there are a number of people from the state of Alaska who participate in the IAPMO's code change process, and he said that is really the crux of this issue, in so far as adding additional wording with regard to an alternate plumbing code. Mr. Chaney said that, as Mr. Watts pointed out, there is a transition occurring in the building community. Without getting into great detail, he said as an example, about three years ago there were seven nationally recognized plumbing codes promulgated in the United States. In an effort to standardize the provisions of those codes and make it easier for the users of those codes to comply with those provisions, two different processes began. One process was instituted by the membership of the ICBO; the "building and code administrators international" [Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International, Incorporated]; and the "southern building code congress, incorporated" [Southern Building Code Congress International, Incorporated (SBCCI)]. Those organizations are predominantly made up of building officials or local administrators, and he said that is the organization Mr. Watts has served as a board member for since 1992. Number 2098 MR. CHANEY said the other process has seen the development of the UPC through an industry process. As he said Mr. Jurczak pointed out, the 1997 UPC is an amalgamation of three previously recognized codes: the 1994 edition of the UPC; the 1993 edition of the United States-only ANSI (ph) consensus plumbing code, the A-40 (ph) code; and the 1996 edition of the "national standard plumbing code," which had been recognized by the federal government. Those three documents went into the provisions of the latest edition of the UPC, which, Mr. Chaney said, is by far the most technologically advanced document that has ever been produced in the United States. The processes that the IAPMO utilizes to develop the contents of the UPC differ from the process that is utilized to develop this alternative code, the IPC. He said the IPC is developed by inspectors, and only inspectors are permitted to vote on the provisions contained in that code. Number 2150 MR. CHANEY continued that alternatively, the process used by IAPMO and its industry allies, the National Association of Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors (NAPHCC); and the Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA), is more open. He said any affected party within the plumbing industry is provided the opportunity to vote; nobody is denied the opportunity to vote. He stated, "If we wanted to participate in the development of the International Plumbing Code, and you are not a working inspector that happened to belong to one of the three organizations that I had mentioned earlier, you could not vote. We would simply be relegated to testifying at code change hearings, and that's as far as our influence would go. We could not stand up and be heard as to what our position would be, and that's the philosophical difference that drove IAPMO and ICBO apart in 1994. IAPMO decided to go to a pure consensus open process to allow all affected industries the ability to participate and ICBO decided to join together with their sister organizations who have traditionally developed the building code." Mr. Chaney said the UPC is adopted in more than 30 states, and he is very proud to announce the government of Vietnam has adopted the UPC as that country's recognized plumbing code. He noted the UPC is used in at least ten other countries outside of the United States and is a true international document. He stated, "It's used as a basis, just as it's used here in Alaska. They are minimum requirements." Number 2216 MR. CHANEY address Appendix L, indicating the DOL had inadvertently created some confusion. He said, "Appendix L, and in particularly, the single wall heat exchanger coil, resulted from the problems that were experienced here in Alaska two years ago. We never had Appendix L in the body of our code and in particular provisions for the indirect heat exchanger coil. The reason it is there is to address the issues that were correctly raised by the community here in Alaska. So what we have done in essence is provide provisions in Appendix L for the other 49 states as well as the international countries that adopt our code, and introduce that document now into Alaska, not realizing that you've already provided for those provisions in statute. So the Department of Labor made a judgement to eliminate Appendix L because the - the provisions were already provided for in the statute that was passed two years ago." Number 2255 MR. CHANEY said, "Alternatively, the issue has been raised about engineer design systems, which is another provision that's contained in Appendix L. ... Section 301.2 [UPC] provides the criteria that is contained in Appendix L also. So design professionals, contractors, material manufacturers, government representatives, whoever it may be, has the opportunity to design systems consistent with the provisions in Appendix L or the provisions in section 301.2. It's the same information, it doesn't deny anybody from deviating from the minimum requirements of our code. We recognize that as a model code developing organization, we can't possibly provide all of the criteria that people need throughout this country. There are geographical differences, there are climatic differences, there are political differences. We provide a minimum code, you make judgments locally as to whether or not the provisions ... of this code is suitable for your use. ... We're prepared to continue support the adoption and maintenance and implementation of the Uniform Plumbing Code here in Alaska, ... we've done it for 26 years without any problems that I'm aware of, we will continue to support government, the industry, plumbing inspectors, anyone who needs our assistance. We provide seminars on a regular basis here and we continue to train anyone that needs the training." Number 2320 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked Mr. Chaney if he'd ever seen an icicle. MR. CHANEY replied he had, stating he was from New Jersey not Southern California. Number 2335 EDWARD SALTZBERG came forward to testify next. He said he was a consulting mechanical engineer and stated, "I'm representing today the Industry Health and Safety Code Council [IHSCC] group that undertook, because of their concern about the health and safety of the public, undertook the code comparison that I think all of you have been given a copy of." Number 2352 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG directed the committee members' attention to the copies in their packets, noting the author was sitting before them. Number 2359 MR. SALTZBERG said, "I am a registered mechanical engineer ..., registered in 16 states in the Lower 48. I have ... spent the last 50 years installing plumbing and designing and inspecting plumbing systems. I am a co-founder of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers, known as ASPE, and I am a past national president; [I] currently serve on ASPE's code committee. I'm the past national education chairman for ASPE and have taught plumbing system design at UCLA [University of California at Los Angeles] Extension and I'm also on their national code committee. We've heard some testimony here today about the relative merits of the Uniform Plumbing Code and the IPC. You have before you, an impartial review of the two documents, and many of the statements that were made about the performance basis of the IPC and the conservative nature of the Uniform Plumbing Code are absolutely invalid and not true. In some aspects, the IPC is far more conservative for no reason whatsoever. For example, it says that you shall have two water services to every hospital. Period, end of discussion, whether there's a water main out there ... that's it, it's in the code. So, the legislature has the right to adopt any document they want, but I, as a professional engineer and the plumbing community, we've heard comments that the IPC is a performance document. The profession doesn't want performance, they want a minimum criteria, they don't want to have to do a research project every time they design a plumbing system." Number 2443 MR. SALTZBERG continued, "The Uniform Plumbing Code provides a minimum standard for the design of an installation of plumbing. The IPC does not, and I'd like to give a - a minimal example if I can, I don't want to get real technical. In the water section there is no criteria for the sizing that is - is to be installed in a structure. They do have a section, 604.3, that gives the requirement for fixtures, and, for example, a - a shower says 3 gallons a minute at 20 pounds pressure, and - and this is in the body of this document. The next table over, 604.4, lists shower at 2.5 gallons a minute at 80 pounds pressure. Well, you can't provide 2 1/2 gallons at 80 pounds pressure and 3 gallons a 20 pounds pressure, the two are incompatible. Then in - in addition, on 604.5 it says that showers shall have ..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 98-37, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. SALTZBERG continued, "... (indisc.) you shall reduce it one size. You may not be able to, if you reduce it one size you can't get the flow so you have all of these conflicting, and there is no basic statement of how to size a water [?], it's in the appendix, and the appendix conflicts with the body. So, therefore, the Uniform Plumbing Code has been the accepted national standard as the minimum document for the health and safety of the public and it has served Alaska well and it's served about 30 other states extremely well. And it has got the input of the entire cross section of the plumbing community: the engineers, the manufacturers, the contractors, the installers, the building officials; all of 'em have come together and have come up with the document. This, the IPC, is done solely by the building officials, and therefore, I urge that this committee adopt the - the current language that you have, that the Uniform Plumbing Code be adopted. The Appendix L is already in the body of the code under alternative methods and procedures; it allows any professional to come in with any sort of design for unique installation." Number 0069 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Saltzberg had had a chance to look at the Alaska Statute which refers to the single wall heat exchanger. MR. SALTZBERG said he was aware that Alaska has it but had not looked at the language. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he also had a question about lead pipes, suggesting Mr. Saltzberg might review the statute before CSSB 269(L&C) passed out of committee. Number 0093 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN questioned whether it was single wall or double. Number 0095 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied it was single. He said they have had this argument too many times and were not going to have it again. He indicated this might be the bill's last committee of referral before it reached the House floor. Chairman Rokeberg stated that concluded the public testimony on CSSB 269(L&C), asking if the committee had any discussion. Number 0125 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON said he was somewhat confused because the committee had heard from representatives of the City of Fairbanks as well as professional bodies that it would be good public policy to give some options. Representative Hudson indicating he was referring to the suggested addition of the language, "other nationally recognized codes". He said he liked to believe that flexibility or options were good when establishing state law and asked for an explanation, stating, "I really hope somebody could maybe give me a better understanding of why we should not have that other (indisc.) -- because it's so technical, I - I got lost a little bit by the last two ... folks that testified here. Number 0163 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said his answer would be, "We have adopted this code by statute. The only thing that ... this bill is allowing is the updated version to be put in by regulation. If somebody wants to bring a different code back, then they can do so, and we're the ones that would make that decision whether that is. We decided this one was the one that we wanted, we have adopted it, and if somebody wants to bring us another code, then we could say, 'Alright, we want to change that one to this one at some time in the future.' But, I'm afraid to where we go because of the controversies we get in with these bills, and you know of much of the debate and arguments. I would not just want to put it out to the department to then -- who knowing's running the department next year or the year after, and what kind of -- then changes come that we would then have to get into the middle of a real donnybrook because somebody has changed codes and it's caused us problems. So, my feeling is, allow them to use the updated version, but if somebody wants to change the code, come back to this committee with a bill and explain to us why." Number 0220 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he agreed with Representative Kubina's analysis. He asked if there were any other comments. Number 0224 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "From what I've seen of building departments throughout the state and the difficulties that people have trying to (indisc.) their own (indisc.) into residences or buildings with the arbitrary nature of city employees, the more uniformity and the less option for local employees to exercise their discretion, the more I'm for it. I think that a person should know going in what it is they have to do and if they do it, they shouldn't have to put up with a bunch of folks coming down and reading them chapter and verse." He asked if the chairman wanted a motion. Number 0247 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for a brief at ease [THE TIMES THE COMMITTEE WENT AT EASE AND CAME BACK TO ORDER WERE NOT NOTED IN THE TAPE LOG NOTES]. Number 0253 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move CSSB 269(L&C), dated 3/4/98, out of committee with accompanying zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. There being no objections, CSSB 269(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|