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.