Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/21/1999 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
SB 50 am - BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTIONS
Number 1470
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is SB 50 am, "An Act relating to certain boiler and pressure vessel
inspections and inspectors; and providing for an effective date."
He invited Mr. Perkins forward.
Number 1490
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor, came
forward to testify in support of SB 50 am. The department is
currently severely backlogged with inspections of boilers and
pressure vessels. Mr. Perkins indicated more than half of the
6,000-plus vessels overdue for inspection are of the type that
would be affected by this legislation. SB 50 am would allow the
commissioner of the Department of Labor to identify certain
existing state personnel - plumbing inspectors - and qualify them
to perform these particular inspections with some minimum training.
The newly-trained inspectors would be required to take an
examination and be passed off per the director of the Division of
Labor Standards and Safety's oversight. Mr. Perkins indicated
these personnel would be different from inspectors certified by the
National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors (NBBI). He
noted the department is trying to reduce its backlog on these
smaller-type boilers that need to be routinely checked. Mr.
Perkins further indicated the legislation would result in
approximately 40,000 new general fund dollars to the state because
the department charges fees for this service, thus the positive
fiscal note. It would also free up the department's NBBI-approved
inspector to perform the inspections needed on the larger-type
boilers and pressure vessels. Mr. Perkins emphasized the
department would be using existing personnel, this would help
reduce the department's backlog and help it service its clients,
and would bring new revenue to the general fund.
Number 1596
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked the difference between an exam
approved by the director [of the Division of Labor Standards and
Safety] for these "lightweight" inspections versus the examination
described in AS 18.60.290.
MR. PERKINS replied the examination the department would be
administering would only be a portion of the national board
examination. Mr. Perkins commented in past the department has sent
boiler inspectors outside the state for training, at a large
expense to the state. However, he indicated the department has not
been able to keep these board-certified individuals once they
return because of the higher pay available in the private sector,
both inside and outside the state. He indicated this legislation
would allow the administering of only a portion of the NBBI test,
scoped to apply to the small pressure vessels. Mr. Perkins noted
the department's existing employees are qualified to look at these
[vessels] and have worked with the tools; they are plumbing
inspectors who have been around for many years and know the
systems. He indicated the inspections they are speaking of would
be, for example, making sure the pressure relief valve - the
low-water cut-off that could send off an alarm or shutdown - is
working properly in a six-plex apartment building. They are not
speaking of the large, industrial-type [vessels].
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there would then be an expense to
the department to administer this reduced portion of the exam to
these plumbers.
MR. PERKINS thinks it is a negligible cost; the department does not
see any kind of fiscal impact for that.
Number 1708
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned why building officials in other
jurisdictions cannot be used for this purpose, if the jurisdictions
already have a building safety official and inspector.
MR. PERKINS indicated he and the chairman have discussed this
subject once previously. Mr. Perkins understands that it has to do
with the population base per the national code. Alaska does not
have the 1 million population base. It is Mr. Perkins'
understanding the state cannot give its jurisdiction out to other
entities - that the state has to oversee this.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Perkins, then, to explain the
legislation currently in the committee, euphemistically known as
"potty parity" [SB 8], which changes the Uniform Plumbing Code
["National Plumbing Code"] to acquire more fixtures, therefore
deviating from the code. The chairman questioned why the
population specifications of the plumbing code could not be changed
to accommodate lower-population jurisdictions.
MR. PERKINS deferred the question to Al Dwyer of Labor Standards
and Safety.
Number 1779
AL DWYER, Director, Division of Labor Standards and Safety,
Department of Labor, came forward. Mr. Dwyer stated the 1 million
population requirement is a national board requirement [National
Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors]. It could be
delegated to any municipality willing to take the responsibility.
The statute would have to be changed. Mr. Dwyer indicated that
presently the state can delegate to NBBI-certified insurance
company personnel, and NBBI-certified personnel employed by
"owner-user companies" like oil companies which can afford to hire
national board-certified people. Mr. Dwyer indicated these
inspections are delegated out but the department retains control.
Copies of the inspection reports, frequency of inspection,
organizational charts, et cetera, are sent to the department so
that the department knows the inspector has authority to enforce
the code [American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code]. The legislature could add
municipalities to that, but Mr. Dwyer thinks there would have to be
some discussion as to what the department's role would be in that
situation. Mr. Dwyer indicated the department's chief inspector,
a national board-certified individual, would have to have some
control over the activities and scheduling of boilers and pressure
vessels.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned why a board-certified local inspector
with the proper credentials couldn't do the inspections on the
residential-type or small commercial boilers.
MR. DWYER confirmed the chairman is referring to someone who has
passed the national board test but who is not working for the
state, an insurance company, or an "owner-user." Mr. Dwyer stated
it would not matter whether the individual is national
board-certified; the national board would not recognize the
inspections done by municipalities unless they had a population
over 1 million. Therefore, it would be a moot question. Mr. Dwyer
indicated the department could probably require the municipalities
to employ a national board-certified inspector if the department
would delegate that out.
Number 1882
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "But the national board wouldn't accept
the inspection, ... and it then creates an insurance problem, is
that the issue here or what?"
MR. DWYER answered he thinks it might, but he can't say for sure.
The insurance companies have a vested interest in these boilers and
they generally inspect their own boilers with certified people.
Mr. Dwyer indicated he thinks the problem the state has is making
sure that the inspections are done. He noted they have delegated
out elevator inspections, for instance, to the Municipality of
Anchorage. The municipality has a competent elevator inspector who
reports to the department on a quarterly basis. The department
does not have any control over what this inspector does or how he
does it; the way the delegation is, the department simply receives
a report which notes the inspector has inspected certain elevators.
Mr. Dwyer questioned whether the legislature wished to do this with
boilers.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how many of the 6,000 uninspected boilers
are in the Anchorage area.
MR. DWYER replied probably a very small number. Most of
uninspected ones are the ones that are remote. He added, "And that
keeps changing as we do the (indisc.)..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected, "And if we had the Anchorage boilers
inspected by the Anchorage building department, then your state guy
could go out and do the remote ones, or am I wrong?"
MR. DWYER replied the chairman is absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he had asked this before, and was under the
impression that it was because the insurance underwriters would not
accept a non-board-certified inspector who wasn't authorized by the
state.
Number 1954
MR. DWYER responded that had been his impression - that the
insurance company would not like this. However, Mr. Dwyer said he
could be incorrect on that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether Mr. Dwyer had checked on that,
noting the chairman had inquired about doing that, and that is the
reason the legislation is before the committee. The chairman
commented he will return the legislation to the Senate if
necessary. He noted they are trying to solve the problem here.
One way to do it would be to have board-certified personnel in the
local jurisdictions [perform the inspections], if the provisions
existed in the statute giving them the right to do that under the
department's purview so it is done properly. This would lower the
department's manpower requirement and allow the local governments
to do this work. The chairman indicated the local governments
would presumably be more timely and, therefore, because this is a
safety issue, it would be a safer circumstance. The chairman
questioned if the department did not want to give up any authority,
power, or something, expressing his incomprehension. In response
to Mr. Dwyer's comment as to whether that was a question, the
chairman asked, "Does the department not want to give up any power
or why couldn't we - why can't we (indisc.)..?"
MR. DWYER spoke over, "(Indisc.) that's not an issue with us, Mr.
Chairman. It's up to the legislature to change the statute if they
want to delegate this activity to municipalities." Mr. Dwyer
indicated the department would have to research the impact of that
with the insurance companies. He added that perhaps the
Municipality of Anchorage would not want to accept that liability
- he has not spoken with anyone from the Municipality.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "On that point, are there -- is the
liability created by the inspection and would the building
department have the liability when they inspect it? I think that's
the case, right?"
MR. DWYER answered it is a good question; he thinks it might be the
case.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated there is case law showing that building
departments have liability if they fail, or by omission don't
inspect correctly. He asked if that was not correct.
MR. DWYER answered it is his understanding, stating, "If you should
have caught it and didn't (indisc.) liable."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented there is a lot of case law on that. He
expressed his disappointment, noting he thought that had been
clear, and Mr. Dwyer is answering a little differently than he (the
chairman) had thought. The chairman indicated it has been his
desire to try to farm some of this out to basically increase the
number of inspectors on the job without any fiscal impact. He
noted there are several building departments in the larger
population centers of the state that presumably have people who
would or could become board-certified and who would be able to do
these things.
Number 2060
MR. DWYER commented it is probably not necessary that they be
board-certified if they don't look at "the real serious
high-pressure boilers in large buildings." He indicated
non-board-certified inspectors could inspect the smaller boilers in
six-plexes and things of that sort. Therefore, there are different
levels of delegation that could be considered - there are any
number of ways to approach this.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Well, next time I have questions about
plumbing bills, I'll bring you over here first before we - and put
you on the record before we ask more questions, because that's
fundamentally what I've been seeking from the department is some
answers along those lines. And I got responses in the negative
before, and now I'm getting them more in the positive, so I don't
understand what's going on."
MR. DWYER stated, "I'm sorry for misleading you, Mr. Chairman, but
it was my understanding at that time that the insurance companies
would not favor that, and that there'd be a liability situation.
I've been told that there're other cities in the country where the
state has authority to inspect boilers - that certain cities under
the population of 1 million are inspecting them. And it's just
that they're not national board-certified; they're not recognized
by the national board."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, "(Indisc.) type inspectors in Section -
the first section (indisc.). I mean, wouldn't that be a feasible
method if we would grant that authority to the -- (indisc.) it
looks like the title is loose enough."
MR. DWYER agreed; he thinks that would be a way to do it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Dwyer had made inquiries of any of
the building departments around the state, if they would be
interested.
MR. DWYER replied his last instructions were to provide a list of
all the building officials to the deputy commissioner, which he
did, and Mr. Dwyer thought that list would be provided to the
chairman.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that was regarding SB 8. The chairman
noted the existence of plenty of code problems this year. He
informed the committee it has been the legislature's goal, by
statute, to remove all building code statutory reauthorizations and
grant them to the department. This allows the department to handle
the adoption of the periodic changes in the building codes by
regulation, so the politics can be removed. However, the chairman
noted that apparently the Senate has not received the word on that
yet.
Number 2173
MR. PERKINS commented that, to the chairman's credit, he is
absolutely correct and the department has appreciated this in the
last few years. It has certainly made everyone's job and life a
little bit easier when it has been time to renew codes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, "Wouldn't (indisc.) this make it
easier? I mean, I've been talking to the department for several
months about this bill and asked it if you could add a provision
that would allow local inspection. Wouldn't that save you money
and save the state money and increase public safety, if it was
administered correctly? ... If the program was designed right? I
mean, is that possible or am I off-base here?"
MR. DWYER responded he would have to research that. He noted it
sounds like a very possible thing to do. He noted, "It would be a
question of delegating that to the municipalities..."
Number 2213
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected a course of action. He noted the
legislation would be held over and suggested that Mr. Dwyer call
the chief building officials in Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks to
find out if they have any qualified people and if they're
interested in taking this on. The chairman noted the committee
would then take the legislation up again and Mr. Dwyer could answer
that in front of the committee.
MR. DWYER indicated his agreement with the idea and directive.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether anyone else wished to testify
on SB 50 am. There being no one, SB 50 am was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|