COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AN INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 10/16/01 10:18 a.m. - - - BILL 010257 - Amending Chapter 10-100 of The Philadelphia Code relating to animals by adding a new Section 10-104.2 entitled "Restraining of Dogs." BILL 010498 - Adding a new Chapter 9-2500 to Philadelphia Code, entitled "Fire Suppression System Workers" providing for examination and certification of fire suppression system workers and permitting of fire suppression system apprentices; prohibiting performance of fire suppression work without necessary certification and/or permit; and providing for all penalties. BILL 010555 - Amending Title 9-2500 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by amending the provisions of Section 9-618 relating to the sale of spray-paint containers and indelible markers to include the sale of etching acid and to make certain technical changes. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER, Vice Chair 18 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 10/16/01 L&I COMMITTEE INDEX WITNESS BILL 010498 Otis Haigler, Jr. ...................... Regulatory Affairs Manager, L&I Wayne Miller, Business Manager.......... 13 Sprinkler Fitters Union Jared Waites, Esq. ..................... 14 Counsel, Sprinkler Fitters Union BILL 010555 Marty Tuzman, Owner..................... 84 Jenkintown Building Services Otis Haigler, Jr. ..................... 101 Regulatory Affairs Manager, L&I 3 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
The committee on L&I would like to bring this public hearing to order. Presently we have myself, the Chairman, Councilman Frank Mariano; Vice Chairman Councilman Nutter; Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown; Councilman DiCicco; and Councilman Rizzo. Will the clerk read the title of Bill 9 010498.
An ordinance adding a new Chapter 9-2500 to the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Fire Suppression System Workers"; providing for the examination and certification of fire suppression system workers and the permitting of fire suppression system apprentices; prohibiting the performance of fire suppression work without the necessary certification and/or permit; and providing for all penalties; all under certain terms and conditions.
Otis Haigler is going to testify first. Mr. Haigler's from L&I. (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Councilman Mariano 4 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 010498, which, if enacted, will regulate individuals who perform work on fire suppression systems. As the department which is responsible for enforcing laws really to public safety, we support the concept of training and having performance measures to ensure that qualified individuals perform work on life safety systems. The goals and merits of this bill commendable and, if enacted, the Department will do everything in its power to enforce the provisions of the bill. That said, in order to effectively administer and enforce the provisions of the bill, we have estimated that we will need an increase in our current budget. Presently, the Department licenses companies that employ at least one individual who is certified to perform fire suppression work. We currently have 480 companies licensed by the City to perform this work. The proposed bill will require that all employees within a company be certified or 5 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 enroll in an apprenticeship program prior to doing such work. This requirement applies both to new companies and retroactively to assist the companies, which will have to meet the requirements within 180 days after enactment of the ordinance -- and from my understanding, it's going to be a full year. Also, there is a requirement that the Department will have to provide photo identification to all individuals who are certified and that the individual must carry the identification at all times on the job site. The Department currently does not have the equipment or the computer technology in place to issue photo identification. This will also have to be factored into the cost of administering the certification program. We have estimated that the start-up cost for enforcing and administering the certification program will be $250,000, and the annual maintenance cost will be $200,000. The cost includes the additional personnel and equipment needed to administer and enforce the program. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on behalf of the Department. I will be happy to answer questions at this time. 6 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Are there any questions from the committee for Mr. Haigler? Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haigler, I know your testimony says that if the bill is enacted, you'll do everything in your power to enforce the provisions. You also tell us later on that you need $450,000 to administer both the certification program and the annual maintenance cost. I don't know what the maintenance cost is, but tell me a little bit about some of the provisions with regard to the 180 days for new companies and the retroactive enforcement for the existing companies. How long does it take someone to become certified? who does the certification? how do we know that they've become certified? And tell me a little bit more about how this will all function.
Currently, under our current provisions of our fire prevention code, we have in place certification requirements for fires 7 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 suppression system contractors. We currently have 480 companies that are certified, and the City contracts out the testing of those individuals to a private testing agency. They actually give the test, we administer --
These various companies, now, what do they do? They end up under contract to the various buildings around?
And the buildings have to show that their system has been tested?
And then they get what, a certification that "X-Y-Z Company," which is certified by the City based on information you get from whoever tests their people --
The companies that are certified, they actually install the systems, and they're the only ones that are allowed to take out 8 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 the permits to install fire suppression systems on an annual basis, as you stated. The owners of the buildings would have to contract with one of these companies in order to test their system.
Okay. And so -- okay. Okay, so tell me a little bit about the training: What's involved? what does it cost? All of those kinds of issues.
As under the proposed bill, there would have to be an apprenticeship program that individuals who have not met the current requirements of the bill -- the bill requires that individuals have at least 10,000 hours of work or training experience as well as 900 classroom hours, in-class hours prior to becoming certified.
The present requirements? The present requirements is that they would have to have work experience; we don't put a particular number on the amount of work experience, I don't believe. And they have to pass the certification testing that's administered by a private testing agency and present those qualifications to the Department in order to 9 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 be certified. Professional engineers who are licensed or registered by the State of Pennsylvania as a professional engineer's who's registered in fire suppression and fire safety work, they're exempted from taking the test as long as they can show us that they do have the professional credentials by the State, and we give them a certification. We have three types of certification under the current requirements. Type deals with fire sprinkler system and fire suppression systems; Type deals with hazardous systems, suppression systems; and Type deals with fire extinguishers.
Now, what does 10,000 hours of documented practical experience and 900 hours of classroom and/or shop instruction amount to?
I really can't -- I really don't know. That's under the proposed requirements. I really don't -- I can't answer that. Maybe the individuals who will come up to testify after me, they could probably answer that.
Okay, all right. Well, who actually will run the apprenticeship 10 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 program?
It says under the bill that the apprenticeship and training council -- the State Apprenticeship and Training Council, established pursuant to the apprenticeship and Training Act, and it's on the first part under the definition.
Councilman, I think when the other witnesses come up, I think they're going to have all of the answers for all of your questions.
Mr. Haigler, what are you going to do about the $450,000 with regard to L&I? And tell me about the 180 days and what, if any, impact that would have on a company's ability to be in compliance.
Well, under the provisions of the current -- or the proposed bill, there is a provision in here, and if you can just give me a minute to find that.
That would be on of the bill, under Section 9-2507. It talks about the grace period for transition to full certification and permitting requirements. Under the first subsection there, it says that no person shall be required to possess any certificate or permit mandated by the Chapter for the first 180 days from the effective date of this chapter. And during the period from 181 days after the effective date of this chapter through one year after the effective date of this chapter, no person shall be required to possess any certificate or a permit mandated by this chapter provided he or she has submitted the necessary certificate or permit application within 180 days of the effective date of this chapter. I'm not exactly sure how to interpret that. Again, that's the -- the gentlemen who are behind me, I think, can --
That sounds like if you apply -- for the first 180 days, you don't have to do anything. From 181 and beyond, you don't have to have a certificate or a permit as long as you have applied for one. 12 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
Councilman, how about if I bring up the people from the industry that helped us write this bill. I think maybe they'll have all of the answers to your questions.
Mr. Miller, state your name for the record, both of youse, and your business. And maybe you can help Mr. Haigler with the questions. Although he's testifying for the City and you're testifying for the industry, I think you guys know -- Mr. Miller, grab a chair and sit next to Mr. Haigler.
And while they're coming together, I mean, I would certainly say, notwithstanding whatever the questions are, and I respect the gentlemen and their answers, whatever they may be, I mean, obviously fire suppression and the qualification of workers involved is a very serious issue. We've unfortunately experienced a couple very tragic situations here in past years. 13 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 I'm just not questioning whether we need to have people certified or not; I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of what it is that we're --
Can you guys say your names and your business for the record and then you can jump in here.
My name's Wayne Miller, and I'm from the Sprinkler Fitters Union.
And you're the business manager for the sprinkler fitters?
My name is Jared Waites (ph.) and I'm counsel for the sprinkler fitters.
My name's Wayne Miller and I'm the business manager of the Sprinkler Fitters Local 692. (Sound system difficulties.) 14 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
Do you know anyone in the acoustics industry? Maybe they can come in after this hearing. Go ahead, I'm sorry.
And I've held this post since 2000, but prior to that, I was a business agent since 1990, and I started in the sprinkler business in 1974. Our main thing is promoting and improving quality of safety in the sprinkler industry; it's been a personal priority of mine since I've taken office. Also, our internationals have asked us to get involved and have our men licensed in this field. The purpose --
To have a sprinkler fitters's license -- certified, I should say, instead of license. The proposed bill establishes specific training and testing requirements for all persons working on sprinkler systems. This would apply to the men and women in our city who install, repair, service, and maintain our sprinkler systems, which 15 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 basically consist of stand pipes, pumps, valves, and sprinkler heads. The bill builds on the existing licensing and certification requirements now in place in the City prevention fire code, but the current requirements generally apply only to sprinkler fitters contractors, not to the men. I'd like to explain that. Mr. Haigler said that some -- one man in each company is licensed, okay? What happens is that to be a fire suppression contractor, you have to have one guy in your company that is licensed to pull permits and so forth and so on. That does not mean that that guy that has the certificate for fire suppression contractor is an installer whoever worked on a sprinkler system; that's just to have the company be able to pull permits and so on.
Does that person have any overall responsibility to either inspect that job or sign off on that job in putting their, I guess, credential,if you will, or their stamp of approval, name, recommendation on that job as having been done according to code or specification?
No. All that does is give 16 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 the company -- you have to be a licensed suppression contractor in the City of Philadelphia in order to pull permits. That individual does not -- he could be an estimator, he could be a salesman. It doesn't necessarily mean he has any experience working with the sprinkler --
I have to add too that as a person who has direct responsibility for enforcing that when I was a co-compliance specialist reviewing plans for fire suppression work as well as the chief of the commercial industrial fire unit that dealt with the actual looking at the credentials and sending out inspectors to inspect after the contractors, the person who does take out the permit, they are held responsible for the work that's performed under the permit. The company itself has to have a minimum of $1 million liability insurance and meet all of the other requirements. Now, it does not say that all of the other individuals have to be certified, but whoever works for that company, they assume responsibility for their employees that perform the work, and the City 17 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 actively goes after the individual.
Just clear this up for me, Mr. Haigler. Mr. Miller was laying out -- and I could certainly see where this would be the case. Just tell me whether or not the person who is certified -- who is the certified person for "Company X," they go and pull the permits for the job. Is there any requirement presently that that person who is the certified person, who is allowed to pick up the permits, has actually worked on the particular job that those permits are being pulled for at that time?
No, sir, but they have to sign off on the paperwork or documentation that's submitted to the City to --
Is there any requirement that that person ever go to that particular job site during the course of the installation of the fire suppression system for which the person pulled permits?
No, sir, there's no particular requirement that they have to actually be there.
So all we require is that the person pull the permits, the job gets done, 18 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 and whether they have to sign some paperwork or something when it's completed showing that from their professional judgment and their certification that everything was done correctly even though there's no actual requirement they actually go in and inspect that job site. They may be in and inspect the job site, but there's no requirement that they go in and inspect the job site. Is that your testimony?
They have to go in and certify that the system is in operation at the time of completion as well as on an annual basis, and the plans that are submitted to install the systems, they have to be approved by -- they're approved by our engineers in our department and they are also --
Let me answer on that one and I think Councilman DiCicco's got a question. Councilman Nutter, here's my thing: For those of us who don't know this industry, how do you test a sprinkler system; do you fill it up with water and actually let it spray? I mean, Mr. Miller, can you help us with that of Otis -- I'm sure Otis knows that. What's the difference here? 'Cause I'm 19 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 sure if someone's not qualified, that may be the thing.
Okay, there's a number of different systems, okay? Most people think that sprinkler systems are just water, but that's not the case. There's dry systems, there's pre-acting systems, there's phone systems. There's a number of systems that --
But, Mr. Miller, a high-rise like Meridian, since we're all familiar with that, that had to have water in it if it worked properly.
Yes. Okay, that's a wet system, okay, which meets it has water in it all the time, that there's no chance of freezing. So what you would do is that each individual floor you would test at 200 pounds per square inch, okay, and you would hold it for two hours, and that constitutes the test on the sprinkler system. Then most of the -- years ago, you used to call up L&I to come out and witness your test, but as time went on, I mean, L&I didn't have a lot of people to get out there, and we would call L&I and say, Look, we're doing a test on such-and-such a 20 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 (inaudible), and they would say to us, Are you doing a test? is it done right? and so forth and so on. And we would tell 'em who we were, yes, it's done right, and they wouldn't come out. But yeah, you have to have hydrostatically tests on all different systems.
There are a number of points I want to go into, but let's take that last thought. A test is performed on the system, whether it be the wet system or the dry system.
The installer. Is that installer required to be certified, the person who's conducting the test?
No. Is it -- and 21 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 maybe, Otis, you might be able to answer this better. I know that when you do electrical work in a building, as an example, someone pulls the permit, but before the job is closed up, an inspection is done and/or an underwriter signs off, guaranteeing that the work has been performed correctly, even though a licensed electrician may have pulled the permit; is that correct?
And that's the same thing. A license electrician may have pulled the permit but that licensed electrician isn't necessarily the person one actually does the electrical work.
You're correct, the underwriter agency does come out and do the inspection and sign off on it.
Do we have a similar set of standards for the fire extinguishing system that we do for electric, as an example?
Me too, I want to hear that answer. Is there an underwriter for the sprinkler fitter system? 'Cause I know as an electrician, I've done that. The electrician hires the underwriter. 22 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
At the time the permit is taken out, they have to indicate who their inspection agency is on the permit application.
Let's think about that, and that's a whole 'nother bill at another time, but if we're hiring the underwriter, I'm the electrician and I need to get this done. I can hire Councilman Nutter or Councilman DiCicco as the underwriter, and I don't like what DiCicco's going to do, but my friend Councilman Nutter is a little nicer underwriter. You know, that's what's wrong with that industry. But for this one, there's no underwriter?
We have no underwriters. We do the testing ourself and verify it, unless L&I comes out --
And also -- can I just chirp in for a second here? L&I does spot-check certifications, we do spot-check them as well as if we receive any complaints on the ineffectiveness of the system, we will go out and we will cite the 23 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 building owner for having the system certified, as well as we will take action against the contractor if the contractor -- if we determine that the contractor has failed to perform the work that was required by the code. We have done that.
I'm not so -- and this is just me speaking, obviously. I'm not as concerned with who pulls the permit, because that's kind of normally practice. I mean, you can hire an expediter to go out and pull a building permit for a job that you're doing, but there are different standards for the work that's being performed, whether it be for the carpentry work, the electrical work, plumbing work, what have you, that ultimately someone from L&I will come out and inspect. I'm actually doing a job now with my sons on a conversion, and each of those departments at some point has visited the site and ultimately will be there before the walls start getting closed in.
And with the electric, there's an electrical contractor who pulled the permit, and even though he's a certified electrical contractor, we can't close the walls in 24 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 until an underwriter comes out and signs off.
And I'm not certain if all of the people who perform the electrical work, aside from the contractor, the people who work for him are certified. So for me, I don't have that much of a problem with that because I want the ultimate inspection to be guaranteed that the work was done according to code.
Well that's done by our department for fire suppression or any work that's taken out where you need a building permit and you would need a building permit to install fire suppression work. So any work where a building permit is required, our building inspectors actually go out and perform the inspection prior -- and they finalize the permit prior to either occupancy of the building or allowing the work -- to state that the work is completed. They have to finalize that permit. So that's done by our building 23 inspectors. 24
So I'm wondering 25 if -- while safety is the obvious concern here, is 25 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 it really that necessary for everyone who's on the job to be certified? And why is that? Why would we require every person who's working on the job to be certified as opposed to maybe the contractor and ultimately an underwriter or a final inspection that would guarantee it?
If I could answer that. First of all, the -- we don't have underwriters, okay? This is a life safety system. We don't have -- the Fire Department has nothing to do with it. The license suppression contractor who has one person in his company that can pull the permits 99 percent of the time does nothing with the installation of the work. And the people that do the installation of the sprinkler work should be trained and have the knowledge of a working sprinkler system and not just have the practical experience of pulling permits and maybe doing design. It's a lot different than pulling the permits and having design as to install the right work in the field. And there would be permits for apprentices and you would have to have at least one -- at least 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 one certificate holder on a job when there's an apprentice, as in most jobs there is.
Mr. Miller, do you know of any other counties or municipalities that have this as a requirement?
There's a lot of different states, and in the back of our book that we submitted to the Councilpeople, it lists the states that have requirements for licensing laws -- Connecticut, Boston, Wisconsin, and so forth and so on. And there's a lot more states looking into licensing laws.
I was actually speaking to Pennsylvania initially, I'm sorry. Thank you, Councilman Nutter. Are there counties in Pennsylvania?
No, there's no counties in Pennsylvania and there's no -- there's just basically state laws in different states.
Has there been any attempt to address this at the Commonwealth level, the state level?
Not yet. We're trying to 27 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 address --
I see Mr. Haigler jumping on that one. Okay, Mr. Haigler?
The state recently adopted Act 45 -- I'm not sure if all of the Councilmembers are familiar with that, but it requires that the municipalities have certified individuals who are certified to do any type of work on buildings or inspections of buildings or fire suppression work. It also requires third-party certification for companies that perform any work on buildings, fire suppression systems and so forth and so on. Our inspectors, all of our inspectors in the department, will have to be certified by the end of the year 2003 -- we're working on that right now -- to certify all of our building inspectors, fire -- everybody: Building inspectors, fire inspectors, plans examiners, engineers who may already have a PE, they still have to become certified. All of this has to take place by 2003. This was passed and acted upon by the state. It was last year, and there's an implementation date. We, being a city of the first 28 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 class, we've been given till 2003 to actually become in compliance with all of that.
But that's at the inspection level. I mean, it's not requiring every employee who works for the contractor to be certified.
Yeah, and my concern is, while public safety should be paramount to everything, is that we find ourselves possibly again in a situation where we lose the competitive edge to the counties surrounding Philadelphia where they can perform work at less cost to development as opposed to Philadelphia. Now, that obviously shouldn't take precedent over safety, but it's a reality that it's a lot less expensive to do work in the counties than it is in the City of Philadelphia, and this is another situation I think that -- while we'll address it here, I would think that the State, the Commonwealth at the state level is where these types of regulations should be imposed as opposed to just at the municipal level. 29 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 But that's just my personal thought because. I think another reason to discourage development in the City of Philadelphia is the cost of doing business here.
And, Councilman, on that thought, my personal thought -- and I think you know how I feel about this is that after September the 11th, public safety is at the top of the list.
But in the real world, people who invest money to develop and build will always look at the bottom line, and whether we agree with that or not, the bottom line is the bottom line, and they're going to look to do development and building office space, apartment space, whatever, in a place that their bottom line is going to be greater than it would be in the City of Philadelphia. And, again, I'm not suggesting that we should throw public safety to the wind, but it's a reality that we're dealing with.
This is a small industry, and this is not going to keep companies or anything from coming into the City. 30 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
It's one of the pieces to the bigger puzzle that eventually drives development out of the city.
The thing is that when people put sprinkler system in, it's a life safety system. We seen it with the laws that were passed here on the high-rise bill, when the problems came into effect with that. Now all commercial buildings in the City of Philadelphia are equipped with sprinkler systems. What I'm trying to say is that, you know, a system can be put in and the installer can test it, but six months down the road when they have to go back and maintain system, you still need qualified people to go back there and test that, unlike an electrical system. If the sprinkler system doesn't work, it's not like building a block wall or something. You get one shot, and it has to be right, and you need people who are professional to do this, and you don't need anyone driving around with a truck to throw a shingle on their truck and go out there and take care of life safety systems. Sprinkler systems are intricate; they're not just what you see. All's you see is the end 31 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 product up there, you see the head; you don't see what goes into that, you don't see what the training takes for a journeyman sprinkler fitter. It's a five-year training program. This is not something that --
I agree with what you're saying and I support and defend the position of L&I. Where most people this think that it's intrusive and cost-prohibitive to pull a permit, they don't realize what really goes into the cost of that permit, that it pays the salaries and administrative costs for us to make certain that buildings are built safely, whether it's fire safety systems, whether it's electric, and I think electric could be just as important because you may not need a sprinkler system if the electrical work is functioning properly. If you have a malfunction in the electrical system, that's the cause of the fire, and then ultimately, you need the sprinkling system. So, you know, where does it begin? You know, I think it begins at the first stage where the building permit is pulled out, the examination that goes through the Department of L&I and the various other departments that sign off to the plans and the 32 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 follow-up inspections during the progress of that building being built so. So I think they're all a part of the big puzzle that provides for public safety. And, again, I'm not throwing this to the wind that because of the cost, we shouldn't be concerned with public safety. I think in the scheme of things that this case should actually be made -- in addition to being made here, should be made at the state level, and I would be supportive of that and whatever I could do to --
We agree with that, but the first step is we're coming here to the City to get it done. The sprinkler system a unique system. You know, you get one shot. You can't take chances with the sprinkler system; you get one shot and that's it.
Mr. Miller, let me 33 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 ask you a question -- if you're done, Councilman, I'm sorry. The Meridian fire, that's the one for us that aren't, you know, educated in this industry, it seems to keep coming back and haunting us, and I know I talked to Mr. Haigler about this a littler before. Was there something the matter with -- why didn't them sprinklers work there? If everyone was licensed, do you think that that would have happened, or is there something you can enlighten us on with that? Like, we don't know all the technology and we don't understand, you know, the nomenclatures for sprinkler systems, why they work. I just need 'em to work when they got to work.
There's a lot of contributing factors to the Meridian fire. I don't profess to be an expert on that. The system in the Meridian fire, you have stand pipes. Stand pipes run up through your building. That's an express line of water going up through the building. You have hose valves on these risers, which the firemen hook up to to fight the fire. These hose valves on the Meridian fire are called "pressure-reducing valves." Because you need such a great amount of 34 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 pressure at the bottom of the riser to pump up to the top of the building, you have a great amount of pressure. So you have to restrict that pressure on the bottom floors and all of the floors as you go up and have an orifice on the bottom that's open like this, and at the top of the high-rise, the orifice would be like that. What happens in a pressure-reducing valve, they must be set, okay? You're taught as a sprinkler fitter to learn how to set pressure-reducing valves, and that's the first rule of thumb as you go up. Evidently, from my understanding, the pressure-reducing valves on the floors were not safe. The fireman didn't get any water out of the restrictive orifices there. So what happens is that on the ninth floor -- on the 30th floor, there was a sprinkler system installed by competent people who did the job. That fire couldn't be fought with the Fire Department; it was 22 stories up. You have a difficult time fighting a fire over seven stories. You can't get the water up the hose and so forth and so on. Nine sprinkler heads put that fire out, 35 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 which they figure would burn out through the building. But the thing is that if you're a trained sprinkler fitter, you know there's a few things in the sprinkler industry that you do. You never leave the building without having the water on that; it's a sacrilege, okay, in the sprinkler system. And setting pressure-reducing valves is another main purpose of a sprinkler fitter. It's from training. You just can't have people that are taken off the street that can go in and do these jobs. We have to lock at that. You know, we've been fortunate in Philadelphia. We have inspectors -- sprinkler fitters go out and do inspections, okay, and they catch a lot of the things that maybe a shoddy company may have put in. You never hear anything about it; it's just taken care of. But there's also been things in the City of Philadelphia that were problems, and I can give you an example. You have the Churchview Apartments where falsification of records were done and the system was never hooked up, and the building burned down these. 36 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 We need these things. These are things that happen every day but they're not caught and they're not publicized. But it's an accident waiting to happen. Our main concern is fire prevention, is the prevention of fires; that's what it's all about. And when you have well-trained people to do that, you can do it. I can go through it -- the VA Hospital --
You know, you got all of your information, you know, I mean, besides being the business manager of the sprinkler fitters, you went to an apprenticeship and it was the Apprenticeship Training Council certified by the State.
And that's where this bill is aiming to, to make sure that everyone's trained.
Our bill is comparable to the State. We have 10,000 hours of actual work experience and 900 hours of classroom. We will reduce that, that's going to be an amendment. It's going to be 8,000 hours and 800. That's the 37 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 standard for an approved apprentice program in the state of Pennsylvania. That's where we take our cue from and that's on prevailing-wage jobs and different things like that that you have to have these hours.
Mr. Haigler, did you want to add something to something Mr. Miller said?
I just would like to agree with my table mate here on the importance and the situation. There were a lot of lessons learned by the City as well as the nation after the Meridian fire. There were a lot of studies done and there were a lot of new laws that came out after the Meridian fire. One of the laws that we've adopted here in Philadelphia is that the pressure-reducing valves that were indicated, we no longer permit those on the system so that they can't be regulated. If the system does not produce at least 175 pounds per square inch, they're no longer even permitted on the system. And that's primarily for Fire Department use. So there were a lot of things that were learned after the Meridian fire, and the laws have 38 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 changed considerably to address some of the problems that precipitated -- that happened after the Meridian fire or during the Meridian fire.
Can I say one thing. I don't want to interrupt. Going back to Mr. Haigler's report here, as Mr. Haigler said, the pressure-reducing valves are going to be eliminated. Okay, Mr. Haigler didn't tell you the reason why pressure-reducing valves are going to be eliminated. The reason why pressure-reducing valves are going to be eliminated is because of the pressure that a head can take. Heads were only tested at 125 pounds per square inch before. Now they're tested at 300 pounds per square inch. So you don't have to restrict the water going in there. This is part of training that we give our -- a first (indiscernible)apprentice knows these things that we deal with. But one other thing is that with these qualifications, we have better trained people, better trained installers. Better trained people in the field is what makes us and makes people more qualified. And that's the important thing here, in 39 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 my opinion.
Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I'm late; I was at another meeting. But I read your testimony and it reads as -- do we currently allow people to install these systems that are not qualified?
No, sir, I don't believe so. We allow -- the companies themselves, they have to take an examination. The individuals -- we talked about this earlier. The individuals who work for the company, the company assumes responsibility for their employees, they assume the responsibility for the workmanship of their employees, they assume the responsibility to ensure that whoever they hire, it's there responsibility to make sure that those people are qualified who work under their licenses and certifications. And if they don't, well, there are certain things that the company has to assume. They have to assume liability because they are the ones who are insured to assume that liability as well as their 40 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 credentials are at stake. So if something is found to be wrong, we can suspend or revoke their credentials to perform that work.
So currently, the City and L&I currently has quality controls to ensure that sprinkler systems meet all of the requirements at the state and federal levels and city levels?
The quality controls are that to install a system, you have to apply for permits, you have to submit plans, those plans are reviewed by our engineers. Then after that, the systems are installed. And before the permits are signed off on by our inspectors, our inspectors will have to go out and verify that whatever was done and approved on the plans actually exist in the building, and the sprinkler contractor himself would have to certify himself to the Department in writing that the system was operable at the time of occupancy of the building. And on an annual basis, the system is tested and retested and recertified to ensure that it still works and meets the standards that it was when it was first installed.
Besides the cost to the Department, do we have any idea -- and I don't know 41 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 if my colleague Frank DiCicco has asked this. Do we have any idea of how much doing this will add to something like that new Rouse tower that is going up in terms of cost and expenses to --
I'm not an expert, but there's no extra cost 'cause they have to have sprinklers in the new tower anyhow. What this does is, the cost is passed -- and correct me if I'm wrong. It's passed on to the industry, it's passed on to the guy who wants to take the test.
The way it works is that in capitalism, it's usually passed on to the taxpayers, or in some other way, it's passed on to the consumers. And I don't see a developer taking a whack on this, and I just would like to know if all of the economic factors that entail within the bill, you know, because I know that there is some organizational aspects for L&I, and I'd just like to find out from those in the business other than the union that -- what would be the cost that may be added on or tacked on to any new buildings that are -- if there is any. If there isn't any, you know, I would like to find that out too. 42 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
But, Councilman, I think the union and the union's lawyer here -- I mean, he's a union representative but he's a sprinkler fitter and he works every day. It's not union against the guys that build the building; they work together in a partnership.
But Mr. Miller here, his company -- and this is just for everybody's information, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Miller, he's not going to build these building -- Rouse isn't going to build these buildings if it becomes cost-prohibitive. And your example is perfect, that's right, but it gets passed on -- I mean, that's how I understand it. It gets passed on absolutely to whoever is going to take the test, and L&I has to hire new people, of course.
There's no developers here or anybody that's against this. This, in my opinion, has no effect on this. It's such a small part of the construction. 43 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
What's the percentage of the construction job? You know, I mean, no 4 matter if it's a one-story or a 100-story building --
The sprinkler system is about 1 percent of the cost, about the same amount as carpeting in the building.
I would like to find out all of the numbers because right now, we're throwing a lot of numbers around in this Council, you know, every day, and I would like to see if anything is going to be tacked on and make any new buildings more expensive to build in Philadelphia than they already are.
Our position is it's no 17 impact on the cost to developers or anything else.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Rizzo.
Just to digress for a second, Mr. Haigler. Nationally, there's been a trend, especially in upper-end new construction residential to fit the new construction with the 44 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 fire suppression systems.
Are we heading in that direction here? Has there been any discussion or conversation about new construction equipping residential space with fire suppression sprinklers?
Well, under the provisions of our code, we enforce a national code. Our BOCA code is a national code, and under the provisions of that code, any residential, newly-occupied residential occupancy or newly-constructed residential occupancy has to be fully fitted with sprinkler, we do require that under our current building code.
So if in the City of Philadelphia, a person wants to build a single-family -- or a builder wants to build a single-family 33,000 square foot home, is it required for --
Not for single-family buildings, but for apartments, apartment buildings.
Residential could be 45 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 anything from a single-family to a high-rise building.
But the scenario I just described, a single-family 3200 square foot home, it's not in the BOCA code?
As you are aware, though, there are any communities nationally that are in their local code, even if it's not in BOCA, requiring new construction of single-family duplexes, whatever, to have fire suppression systems. Has L&I looked at that or is there any movement in that direction like other communities throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey?
Well, Councilman, as of 2003, the City will not have the authority to enact codes or laws that may differ from the state, national building codes. We are under the state -- under Act 45 mandated all counties in Pennsylvania to enact one code to cover all counties, all areas of Pennsylvania. And the City of Philadelphia being a city of the first class, we have until 2003 in order to enact this code. 46 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
So you're telling me that if we want to be more stringent than the code, we're prohibited from doing that?
We could be more stringent; we just can't be less stringent. You're correct, that's more stringent, that's correct.
So my question is: Has L&I looked at requiring new construction to have --
Again, you're talking about single-family homes, and it's not required. You know, we would support to have that but that's a completely different bill with single-family dwellings and things like that. The main purpose of everything is that the installers of the sprinkler systems are not -- are not certified, and the people that pull the permits are certified, but they don't do the installation. And we need to have the people that do the installation of the sprinkler systems certified. And a well-trained technician is what we need, and 47 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 that's our whole --
Well, I agree that there's nothing better than knowing the issue, knowing the product that you're installing. A situation in my neighborhood where you're talking about a sprinkler, I'm talking about one that's least -- that's less important than the systems that you install is that landscape gardeners think they know how to install sprinkler systems for irrigation, and they don't, they install them improperly. Two of my neighbors told me they had to come back and have a professional company that does irrigation systems come back and straighten out the terrible job that some landscape person thought that they were experts. And I'm sure it's a similar situation --
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You have a guy that goes out that does lawn sprinklers and then the next thing you know, he want to install sprinklers in a high-rise. He's not qualified. You know, just because he puts in a lawn sprinkler, there's so many different aspects of a sprinkler system. And that's why we need certification for installers. Training and 48 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 certifications are the main thing.
Thank you, Councilman Rizzo. Any other questions for our witnesses? Councilman Nutter.
Mr. Miller, I just had a couple other questions and I appreciate it. You had said something a little while ago in response to one of the questions. As best I can figure out the situation, presently, you have the one person who can has to go out and get the permits, and they have taken a test and they have a certificate; is that correct?
They take an open-book test to become a licensed supression contractor.
But not in fire suppression. I guess as I hear the testimony going back and forth, a lot of good points have been raised in 49 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 a variety places. I did also have the question as to why everyone, I guess, working on the job had to have the same level of certification. And I did wonder, before that question was asked, why we wouldn't, at a minimum, look to -- and this goes to one of my earlier questions about, does the person who gets the permit, who is the certified person, what I was asking Mr. Haigler, do they have to ever be on that particular job site? And I think the answer was no. 12
But then they have to put their stamp or their name or sign certifying that, you know -- and I don't know how you would do that if you didn't go to the site, but it doesn't mean that you necessarily were there every day and watched the things that were going on, and if someone had a question, they could get the benefit of the certified person's knowledge. So kind of somewhere in the middle of all of this, I guess I wondered, at a minimum, why wouldn't we require that someone on that job be a certified person that has a certificate that is right there at that moment so that if there is a 50 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 question or some, how do you do this or is this the best way to do that, we would at least have that situation, which I think doesn't then result in every person being certified but that at least someone on every job site is, and you get some level of protection there. Does that not make sense, or is that -- does it provide some level of safety?
It's a valid question that you bring up. But when you work on a sprinkler project, it's a little different than everybody being (inaudible). What you do is that you could be in different parts of the building doing an installation, and you have to be qualified to do that.
And it's -- this -- because of these life safety systems, everyone that does installation has to be trained and has to be certified. Because the thing is that if you look at sprinkler jobs -- and years ago, sprinkler jobs had a lot more people in them. Now they might have two guys on it three guys, four guys. They move 'em around to different locations. 51 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
That few number of people actually install the whole system?
It's a very small industry. I mean, the thing is -- I'll give you an example. You take a high-rise down here in Philadelphia, and years ago, you might have 15 sprinkler fitters on 8 there. You do a high-rise now, you might have six 9 guys on that high-rise. 10
Technology has changed. The 13 piping has gotten lighter, there's not that much 14 screw piping, there's clamps that you hook the 15 piping and things like that. The spray pattern of 16 the heads take in a greater area so you don't need 17 that much piping in the systems. There's a lot of 18 different aspects like that. 19
Okay. Let me ask you 20 a couple of other questions that are pertinent to 21 the particular bill. 22 I am -- I think you probably figured this 23 out. I mean, I am truly trying to better understand 24 and get a little bit of education. I'd like to 25 understand what it is that I'm doing. 52 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 On the first page of the -- well, let me ask this question: Is this particular bill modeled after some others? Or how did it all kind of come together?
Yes, Councilman. It's essentially based on a best-practice model based on the other states. There's six or seven states that have passed sprinkler fitter ordinances.
This is from your -- it's documented. Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts.
Okay, all right. So you got a bunch of those bills, you know some best practices in the industry.
Okay. You also made reference, I think, Mr. Miller, in a previous answer to the Apprenticeship and Training Council, and it's listed as one of the definitions. It seems to be an entity created out of a state act; is that correct? 53 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
Yes. That's the approved registered apprentice program, registered apprentice program with the State of Pennsylvania.
Okay. And is that just for your industry, or is this a council that provides training program or apprenticeship for programs for a whole host of --
They oversee all of the apprentice training programs in the State of Pennsylvania if you're registered with the state. It sets the standard.
I think I had originally asked Mr. Haigler about the 10,000 hours of practical experience, the 900 hours of classroom, and I know you had mentioned that there might be an amendment or something. Is that coming out of the provisions that they've made?
Yes. When we first drafted the bill, the 10,000 hours of actual work and the 900 hours of classroom work is what my people go through. But what the standard is for the State --
I don't mean to cut you off. When you say your people go through that now, why do they do that? 54 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498