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
And in order to have a certified apprenticeship programs, its standards have to be set by the --
It has to meet the requirements of the state. And what that does, Councilman, is that if you're aware of prevailing-wage jobs, when you go on prevailing-wage jobs, if you are an apprentice but you're not registered with the State of Pennsylvania in an approved apprentice program, they have to pay you journeyman wages, even though you're not qualified to receive journeyman wages on prevailing-wage jobs, if your apprentice program's not registered with the State, that's what happens. So our apprentice program is registered with the State so they can pay them the lesser rate for the apprentices. That's how that works. That's where they get their standards.
Okay. Now, let me understand some of the other kind of connections and relationships.
Now, your members, I guess, work for some or all of the 480 contractors?
No. I have signatory to my contract, I have between 50 and 55 contractors in this area.
And that area takes in the five counties and also a number of counties in New Jersey.
All right. So the people you have that -- when you call it "signatory," You have a contract?
Okay. And you have 56 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 the apprenticeship program certified by the State.
So in terms of this -- on , Section 9-2054, Section 2, in the context of this bill and if this were to become the law, then everyone who's working in the industry would have to have the 10,000 hours of the practical experience, the 900 hours of the classroom in order to be able to take the test to get their certificate; is that correct?
So I'm working for a company right now and let's, just for this example, say -- not me. Someone's working for a company that is not a signatory with the union. 57 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
The bill passes. In order for that person to work as a fire suppression person, I guess a couple things then have to happen. That they get a certificate and they have to go through an apprenticeship program regardless of how long they've been working in the industry or the business or what their experience is, or can they get credit for their past experience or how does it work?
Councilman, it's designed to have a grandfather clause so for fitters out there now or people who hold the certificates out there now, they can come right in. Anyone else would have to have the requisite training and the apprenticeship to take the test.
I don't know. There's a number of contractors out there that have people certified and so there may be -- 58 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
That's sort of all -- anybody who does anything. The contractors that would be subject to the bill, I think, would be significantly less.
So whatever that universe, we would have reason to believe that at least one person at each of those companies has a certificate.
That's right. And they would come right in. Anybody else would have to meet these apprenticeship standards. Now, there are union and nonunion apprenticeship programs. Nonunion companies do participate in registered apprenticeship programs with the State of Pennsylvania and they would have to meet these standards. So the people, they would either have to be in a program, or if they weren't in a program, they'd have to get them into a program so they get the requisite training. It's all about 59 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 training and minimum qualification standards before get testing.
The training for a contractor right now, contributions is cents an hour for 11 every man-hour my men work. 12
Tell me about the -- 13 originally, it was 10,000 hours; now you want to 14 propose 8,000 and 800 hours. What does that work 15 out in -- what's the phrase? I don't want to say -- 16 in personnel hours. 17
Roughly, it's about four years. Four years of work, you figure eight hours of schooling every two weeks for an individual and his regular 40 hours a week on the job.
All right, 40 hours a week on the job, 50 weeks, 2,000 hours. So about 60 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 four years.
Okay. So what do you think the universe of people is who would need -- 'cause we know that the people who already have a certificate are going to be grandfathered. You get all of these other people working out there, union, nonunion, who are working who don't have -- what do you think the universe is that we're talking about?
And how many do you think would end up going through your shop? Is that the total universe of people?
Okay. Can you give me some ballpark numbers on -- what's the current size of 692?
We've had a number of women. 61 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 Matter of fact, we're going through our applications right now. We've had a number of women come in to take the test, were accepted, ready to start, then on the day of starting, they decided not to. We meet every requirement. We go out of our way to get women federally and in the City of Philadelphia to bring women, minorities into our local, yes.
Okay. Well, tell me a little bit about that. Now, the 532, does that also cover -- is that the entire union? I mean, you talked about you cover not only Philadelphia, the four counties around us and a little bit of New Jersey?
I cover parts of the five counties in this area. I cover from up above Lumberton to Vineland, New Jersey, with my people.
How many of them do you think are Philadelphia residents?
Over half, over half. Also, I'm a Philadelphia resident. I lived in Juniata 62 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 Park my whole life and I don't intend on moving out of Philadelphia.
In the great 7th Council District. He's got the nicest lawn on the street.
You don't want to give out too much information. Tell me a little about this. As we have a fairly diverse committee here, tell me a little bit about the diversity of the union in terms of its composition.
Tell him a little bit about Congreso de Latinos Unidos. He was one of the first unions to --
Yeah, we were the first union to bring the Congreso de Latinos up to our office. As a matter of fact, we have a number of applicants right now from that group. We have a number of applicants from DAP. We have every other agency that wanted to fill out an explanation.
Would you explain to the committee what you do with them. I mean, you bring people up, you coach them in taking the test, your apprentice instructor sits whoever Congreso or 63 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 DAP sends up.
Well, Congreso de Latino is very, very good. They actually teach their people prior to coming up and they send very qualified people to our school. We have a number of people in our local from different organizations. Our local is open to everyone. We have no -- I want to talk as a sprinkler fitter. I don't look at black or Latino people as minorities; they're sprinkler fitters just like I am, okay, and they have every opportunity in our local to work there.
Mr. Miller, just let me jump on that question there. When Congreso -- 'cause I'm familiar with them. When they send someone up, do they send you women?
This is my own question, but when they send women, do women stick 64 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 with it and take the test?
I mean, you probably ask them, send me all the women you can.
Let me tell you something. If any women -- the federal law says you have to -- if any women come up and take our application, we have our arms open. We need women, we need women.
Well, everybody in here needs women, but that's a question we're -- it's just not an industry -- it's a tough industry. I mean, you said pipes get lighter, but I remember when I was in construction, usually the sprinkler fitters were the guys with the big shoulders. I mean, it's a heavy, heavy business.
Nobody wanted to be a sprinkler fitter because of the lightness of the piping and stuff like that, but we have -- right now, we're going through our application period. Let me give you an example. The size of my local is 500-and-some members.
We put applications out to 65 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 all the appropriate authorities. We had 300 people apply for our apprenticeship, okay, 300 people from all races and creeds and whatever. And by the time everybody filled out all of the applications and all, we're down to somewhere -- and returned all the information -- we're down to about 130 people. Now, I have a 500-man local. What we do is when these guys pass the test or these women pass the test, unlike a lot of other locals, what we do is, if you're on that list, I don't care if that list goes three years, you have a right to come into this local. We take so many every six months according to how you score in the program. And once you pass that test, you're going to be a sprinkler fitter. And that's just the way it is.
Let me see if I got that right. Councilman Ortiz and I take the test, he scores higher than me, he might get in the first or second year, and I'm after him so I may not get in till the third?
What we do is we keep the list for as long as it goes, okay? And then what we'll do is every six months, because we're not a 5,000 member local, we're a smaller local, we take 66 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 between and people every 6 months, and we've been doing that since -- for a number of years.
So you're telling me 5 if Councilwoman Brown comes up tomorrow and passes 6 the test, she gets in in front of Ortiz and I, 7 right? Is that because she's a woman? 8
She still has to 10 score high, though, of course. 11
Exactly. We had a number of our own members send their daughters up, and they went through the whole application process, passing the test, and the day they were starting school, they said no. 19
I'm compelled to do some follow-up questioning. You 67 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 said you had 500 applications, correct?
You had 300 applications, okay. You received them or you spoke to appropriate authorities. Define what that means.
What we do is that by law, we have to send out notice of our tests to all of the different agencies, DAP, Contesso [sic] and so forth and so on. They're all sent out to all of the agencies that by law they have to be sent out to.
Okay. And then at the end of the day, you have 130 applications.
Yes. What happens is that when you come, you pick up the application and fill it out and you return it. Not everybody returns the application when they're due, but the people that return the applications, that's who we're going to test. We're going to test about 130 people.
So the number is really attributed to individuals not returning the applications versus some of the other factors that screen them out. 68 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
Oh, yeah. We don't screen anybody out? What they do is they pick up the applications, and on their applications, they have to have transcripts of the school they went to.
A high school graduate or GED, equivalent to it. They have to be 18.
Any tie-in or linkage with the welfare-to-work programs where most of those are women coming off welfare and they're now required to work? Any linkage to any of those programs?
Offhand, I don't know. My coordinator handles that and sends it out to the appropriate agencies. There's a possibility that it is -- I could find out for you. 69 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
Of the 500 membership, what percentage of that is minority?
I -- I don't know offhand. I'd be only guessing. Maybe percent, something 9 like that. 10
Okay, 11 Mathematician Nutter, how many is that? 12
On that question, let me just say this first, Mr. Miller. Your union, I remember from being in the industry, you had 300 guys till 10 years ago?
So when you took over in 19 -- 70 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
I took over in 2000 but I was a part of the administration from '91.
You almost doubled in size. Now of the new people, that doubled, I would guess, most of your minority and women are from that. They weren't with the old regime because that was a business when the pipe was giant and men didn't want that job.
But as lately coming in, yes, we have -- since I've been taking over, we have a number of minorities, higher probably than the percentage that I talked to you over all the years that we've been around.
And final question. DAP, is that the program associated with Sam (indiscernible)'s organization?
Is that the one where they take 'em right out of the housing developments? Are you involved with that one with the building trades?
We're not involved with the housing developments. 71 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
Could I talk on that? You know this housing project down on Washington Avenue that they did? We're sprinkler fitters.
Here's what happened. What they were doing is that they were taking a person from the community and putting them with sprinkler fitters, okay? That was the biggest load of garbage I've ever seen in my life. They took an individual to go do sprinkler. He's not trained to do sprinkler work, so all's he did was laborer's work, and when the job was over, they got rid of him. That's not right. What they should do is that all of the minority organizations should hook up with the apprentice coordinators, not with the business agency out there. And no one (indiscernible) to get real meat into the matter, and talk to 'em when's the test coming, when's it going to be here? so they don't hear it secondhand, and then they have a career. 72 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 Now what they do is they toss the people away when they do that community stuff. To my opinion, that's not good.
And that's what Congreso de Latinos Unidos does, they coordinate, they (indiscernible), they tutor the people, and they bring you the --
Right. That girl from the Latino, she's aggressive. She comes up, she takes no for an answer [sic], she comes to your executive board meeting, she wants to know when your test is going to be, she wants to know everything, which is great. You don't get nothing unless you're aggressive, and she's aggressive, which I'm impressed with.
And the point person that serves as your linkage with organizations like Congreso and others, what was that title you mentioned?
My training coordinator is Frank Curran (ph.) and his number is 215/673-9565. He's there five days a week. If you have to call at night, I have a class that goes from 6:00 o'clock at 73 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 night to 10:00 o'clock at night. Joe Matthews, okay? Same number. Joe Matthews
One last question, then an information request. The question is, there has been a fair amount of discussion earlier in the record about One Meridian, and I just wanted to kind of conclude that part of the conversation by asking either yourself, Mr. Miller, or Mr. Haigler: Have we had anything, any of that similar or comparable to the One Meridian situation or failure in the past ten years? My recollection is that One Meridian was in 1991?
Ten years later, can you tell me how the landscape has changed or improved? Or have things, from your perspective, stayed the same? 74 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
Well, since the Meridian fire, laws have changed, and since that time, Council -- this Council passed legislation to require sprinkling of all commercial high-rise buildings. We aggressively conducted a program to ensure that those buildings, they applied for permits on a schedule basis. And by December 17th of 1999, all of those buildings had to be sprinklered. We've gone out and we've reinspected those buildings, and those buildings that are classified as high-rise buildings without affidavit to limit their height, they are a sprinklered, to our knowledge. We have not as a department been made aware of any problems similar to the Meridian issue. We have not dealt with any situation similar to the Meridian issue within the past ten years.
A number of buildings in the past ten years, I was a business agent and I worked on the street all the time instead of being in the office. And I can give you a couple of 75 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 for-instances on there. A number of companies that worked on jobs that never hooked sprinkler systems up, I arrived on the job, my contractors had to go in and take over, and they found out that the spring system wasn't hooked up. That was on Cottman Avenue, and that was -- the name of the company was Alpha Fire Protection, which debarred in New Jersey for certain reasons. Also, there's another building that was going up on Delaware Avenue across from George L. Wells Meats -- I think it was called Vegas. Well, I was called down to the job after they were ready to open, and they found out that the sprinkler system wasn't connected, nor were the permits pulled for the job. So the individual asked me to take care of it. I said, Look, I'll send a contractor in -- I don't do anything -- a contractor takes care of that. That's in other places. See, what we do, Councilman, is that sprinkler systems are inspected on different times of the year, and over a period of five years, we have other inspections. The people that go in with the contractors and the men that work there, they go 76 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 in and they find problems with systems. They don't go around and blab it; they go around and they fix the problem and they take care of it. Some of these problems that are fixed is from some shoddy workmanship that, if it wasn't addressed in the inspection, it could have been a problem if there was a fire. And the thing is that with more systems in effect, according to the Meridian thing -- and I foresee down the line that if there's a tragedy in commercial buildings or in residential buildings, they will sprinkle them. That's the reason you need more people to do the inspections, and they have to be trained and qualified to know what to look for in the first place. To give you an example, we bring in people from Licenses and Inspections, and they're new building people, new building code people, and we bring them into our school and we teach 'em certain things about sprinkler systems. We also bring in the Philadelphia Fire Department and bring them into our school and give them training.
We're the experts in this 77 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 field. We have the training that's already built in. And if everybody's playing on that field --
Well, I'm dismayed about the story that you shared with us early about the -- I think you were talking about a relatively new public housing development, with regard to personnel who may have not have had appropriate training, and I guess, Mr. Haigler, I do have to ask, how is it possible that someone could be brought on to a job in that capacity with virtually no training and work on such a critical life-safety system? I mean, how would that be possible?
Again, the person who is responsible, that person is responsible to supervise the work of their employees. That person we assume to be well-trained, well versed, understanding the full requirements of the code, complying with the requirement of the code, doing their quality assurance to make sure that the work is done and the workmanship of the work that's being done is in accordance with the requirements of the code. 78 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 If that person should fail and we are made aware of that, of course, we would take whatever appropriate actions that we need to take against that person or --
Let me just make sure my math is correct. I asked a question earlier with regard to the cost of the training, and I think you indicated that it was cents a person-hour; is 13 that correct? 14
Yes, that's my training, 15 that's my training. And the thing is, it used to be 16 30 cents and we cut it down to 20 cents. But, yes 17 that's my training. 18
With that as the 19 factor, would it be correct that for -- and I know 20 you again want to propose some amendments. So the total cost to either the individual or to the company that the person works for for the training would be, based on that rate, $1600?
Yes, but can I clarify one thing? 79 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498
That's no cost to the company, okay? Any fringe benefits that are out there are our wages. Even though that goes into the apprentice training program, that's a collective bargaining agreement that we collectively bargain with our contractor. We believe that's strictly wages for us instead of raises.
Instead of wages, okay, the money that you said the contractor puts up, okay, we don't think that's the contractor, that's our wages. And we take the wages and sacrifice that to training. We put that cents, 30 cents an hour -- 17 it was 30, we cut it down to 20, and as a matter of 18 fact, I'm going to take my training up to 35 cents 19 an hour 'cause that's how important I think training 20 is.
The contractor pays it, but 80 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 that's through our collective-bargaining agreement. And that's a sacrifice from our wages. We could put it in our pocket but we do that.
Okay. My last question is, there was a fair apartment of back-and-forth. I asked some questions, Councilwoman Brown asked some questioned, others Councilmembers may have asked questions about the number of people in the union, the Philadelphia population, surrounding population, some diversity and gender issues. Could you get us a statistical report instead of us just having our little notes scribbled down on a piece of paper? Could you get a statistical report to the chair responding to those particular questions?
There's one other point I want to make. I don't want to seem like I'm knocking L&I. Believe me, I'm not. These guys do a 81 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 great job for what they have.
We appreciate that we. Fight with them ourselves. Mr. Haigler understands.
They do a good job, and the thing is they have resources that they have to have and so forth or whatever. But I'm not knocking them.
One other thing I want to explain is there's a case in Ohio, just one case, if I may. In Ohio, there was a case involving a schoolhouse, okay, last year that what happened was, people that weren't trained installed the sprinkler system and the schoolhouse caught on fire. Thank God, there was no one hurt in that schoolhouse, but if there was children in that schoolhouse, someone would have been hurt. The sprinkler never came on. That's what happened in that schoolhouse. And the thing is, Pennsylvania is not any different than Ohio or anyplace else. And we have to have fire prevention, we have to protect our people in these places, and that's what I wanted to explain.
If a person has their 82 10/16/01 L&I - BILL 010498 certificate, I assume that -- I mean, as in any other job when you have a certain credential or a qualification, does that put them in a slightly better bargaining position in terms of their wage?
If I was a contractor, I would say yes. But I'm not a contractor, okay?
Here's how I look. That doesn't put in us a better bargaining position, economics don't put our local in a better bargaining position; our men put ourself in a better bargaining position.
I understand. I have to assume that, I mean, between a person with a certificate and a person who doesn't have a certificate, obviously, the person with the certificate, just based on the limited knowledge that I have right here, 8,000 of work, 800 hours of classroom, I mean, unless you were asleep during the whole time, you have to have more knowledge, more information, more background, and I mean, logic tells me you're a better person, you should be able to make more money.
Thank you, Councilman Nutter. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Okay, you witnesses are excused. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill 010555, an ordinance 16 amending Title 9-2500 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by amending the provisions of Section 19 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.
Mr. Haigler had to be excused. (Witness comes forward.)
Spell your name and 84 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 come up.
My name is Marty Tuzman and I'm the owner of Jenkintown Building Services, and I've also provided some information and some of the notes I'll touch on now as well as information material and some shots of what acid actually looks like on glass. Very briefly, Jenkintown Building Services has been in business over 65 years and its largest market these days is the downtown market high-rise residential and retail while we also serve the surrounding counties and the general region. Jenkintown began to be called on to remove this acid graffiti from windows over a year ago, prior to the Republican National Convention. A brief history of use of this acid is as a tactic against furrier companies, PETA would apply acid onto the glass of furriers. Later on, it was found very prevalent at the riots in Seattle, Washington, for the World Trade Organization. We began to see it in Philadelphia prior to the Republican National Convention and much more after the Republican National Convention. We saw the ground floors of major 85 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 buildings begin to be hit by the acid as well as retail stores and vacant properties attacked very similar to graffiti with the same kind of very personal tags that graffiti vandals use. And we're at this point already identifying those tags very regularly and frequently in the City. We were originally helpless in removing the graffiti and launched an international search on the Web for chemicals and processes. We found a product in Belgium, which we translated to figure out how to use it here and make it operator-friendly. We used it on Commerce Square, where all the ground floor glass had been attacked. The potential of replacing that glass was in excess of $10,000. We wound up charging the customer a little bit over $2500 and were able to remove the acid with the process from the chemical from Belgium. We found it still labor-intensive, in some cases not even cost-effective against the cost of replacing the glass. So we worked more at {indiscernible) the problem. Meanwhile, after the RNC, the problem exploded further in the City, and we found it spreading well beyond the Center City 86 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 region into Old City, South Street, Kensington, Castor Avenue, Franklin Mills, etc., etc. Eventually we found equipment from the automotive industry with some old-time chemicals for glass repair, and now we're able to remove all acid, leaving behind no blemish at a fraction of the cost of replacement of glass. We've never seen a problem hit the City like this. Acid graffiti is now showing up all over on the major high-rises right on Market Street and on vacant properties, you know, in any block in the City, from ground floor to high-rise to retailers to vacant properties. It recently has attacked Northeast Philly so aggressively that their blocks were literally on virtually every storefront is hit. Of course, nearly all of the bus shelters in the City have been attacked and many SEPTA buses and train lines themselves. We have developed a database where -- you see some of the pictures there. We have digital pictures where we try to track every acid head. We know at this point the tags. "Dean" is one of the big offenders where we actually see names showing up all over in certain areas of the City. 87 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555
Well, the name is Dean. You know, we can't identify the individual.
Dean, D-E-A-N. That name is somehow very prevalent in the City. We have, as I said, a database pretty much tracking where we see this, when we see it, and when it attacks our -- in Northeast Philadelphia, we were as recent as one day behind everywhere they were being hit. We are partnering with the Center City District and the Special Service Districts, the Anti-graffiti network, the Managing Director's Office, the police departments, to try to help get a handle of this and identify, and we were one step behind catching somebody recently, and the business owner scolded the kid and said, "You better stop that," you know, and they felt sorry for him and let him go. Our process is very successful to remove the acid but is time-consuming and costly. Some building owners choose to pessimistically leave it on the glass with the futilistic attitude that 88 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 they'll hit us again. We are now seeing distinguished retailers and restaurants come to town like Capital Grill McCormick and Schmidt, ING Direct, who quickly get attacked with graffiti and are often discouraged and feel they need to adjust to what business in Philadelphia is like. While our old esteemed retailers like Bailey, Banks & Biddle and J.E. Caldwell Jewelers just accept the blemish and accept the blight and have left tags on buildings on their windows far too long. This offense to our city must be stopped, and we at Jenkintown Building Services strongly support the restricted access to the highly destructive chemical. Respectfully, I'd like to go one step further and suggest that Council consider additional legislation to be considered in the future that also really gets at the root of the problem. We're able to apply a film coating, and you all have samples of that film coating there, a film protection to windows that completely deter any attack of the acid on the glass. When acid is applied to this film, it has no effect at all. Additionally, this film 89 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 protects against scratches on the glass. Scratches are not addressed in this bill -- that's often called "scratchiti". And scratching glass is a form of graffiti that's been around much longer, and it's all over the City. The film protects the glass from being scratched As well. When attacked, this film can just be removed and replaced at a fraction of the total cost of glass replacement. We ask City Council and other legislation to consider matching costs with business owners on this film as a deterrent and preventive measure deterring vandals and eliminating -- reducing the economic impact of this graffiti damage. It is effective against acid attacks on glass as well as scratched glass. We think the first step is restricting access to the chemicals by the measure being considered by Council at this point, but the larger picture and requirement is to protect against the glass by the application of this film. It's a blight that has been accepted in our city far too long, and the application of film would eliminate the problem of both the acid attacking the glass as well as the scratching on buildings throughout the 90 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 City. Thank you very much
Thank you. Councilman Rizzo has a question and then Councilman DiCicco.
Sir, not being familiar with the actual process, when this vandalism this crime is committed, could you describe -- you know, I know how graffiti is installed with magic markers, but how is this applied? Is it with a spray can, is it brushed on? What are we talking about here?
I'm sorry that we didn't bring it to Council today, but we have bottles of this acid that we can just go into any store and buy. The acid is the same process that an artist uses to see make beautiful designs on glassware. So hydrofluoric acid is the operative element in the glass, in the chemical, mixed with some other agents so that it's very user-friendly for anybody to be able to apply this acid onto glass. Normally, it's in a bottle and there's a swab, we think, very similar to the swab that's used to apply a shoe polish. You apply it onto glass. The way it's normally done for an artist is they 91 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 protect certain areas, make the design they want to apply, apply the acid over the entire film and the glass, and it etches the glass, and you take the film off and the film leaves the glass clear in those areas. So this product is available and accessible in art stores throughout the City. Anybody -- I imagine a 14-year-old, a 12-year-olds, anybody can go up to an art store -- Pearl Art Supply on South Street is one of the stores that carries it. Anyone can go in and buy the product. And very similar, like I say, to a shoe polish, you're able to swab your tag onto glass.
Without a protected surface, a plain piece of plate, how long do you have to wash it off? If you had a garden hose, could you wash it off within 15, minutes and not 19 have damage? 20
Well, we know that the product that they're using is cut with something because the product that we buy from the store is a much thicker paste, like a shoe polish, so there must be a liquid that --
Excuse me, thank you. 92 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 Councilman Rizzo, I'm sorry to cut across your question. Sir, you said you know that the product whoever uses is cut with something.
I would imagine that it's either -- we have not found anybody with it. What we know -- we have not found a graffiti vandal certainly with possession of it in his hands so that I could do a chemical analysis of it.
Do you think they cut it with something that enhances it?
It certainly liquefies it. If you look at some of those photographs -- the colors, of course, are better than the black and white -- there is a rundown effect on them. And so we know that it's liquefied somehow. Either it's cut with a little bit of water to make it easier to apply or it's cut with another agent.
We know that for the most 93 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 part, the easy access to this chemical is -- and I believe that the Police Department has found bottles of this particular brand chemical made by a company in New Jersey called Armor Etching. And --
Would you repeat that for Councilman Nutter, the name of the brand and company.
I believe it's Armor Etching from Jersey. We could bring Council a sample of what we have and what the Police Department has also identified as being the active agent.
That's okay. That was important to hear that. So I follow you now, this vandalism occurs, and how quickly can it be removed without damaging a raw window?
Well, it's an etching process that's an acting process, and the quicker that it's rinsed, the less damage to the glass and the less effect. It's pasty enough such that it bonds to the glass and doesn't completely wash down other than, obviously, as you've seen in the photos, a little 94 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 bit of washdown on the product. So that the longer it's left on, the more of a effect on glass. We can literally run our fingers over the glass and in some cases feel a significant ridge where it has attacked the glass.
So until this problem's resolved, if you own a business and you arrive in the morning, an ideal situation would be to wash it off or make an effort to wash it off as quickly as possible? Or would the damage already have occurred?
My guess is that the damage has probably -- physically if you were to wash it in 15 to 20 minutes, you might see a very light line, and if you got to it in an hour, you might see most of the damage done, and if you got to it in two, three hours, my guess is that most of it would have evaporated, and you would just come and find what looks like, you know, a milky whitewash paint, and many people feel that it's just some kind of paint on the glass, and they can just take it off. It looks like a swab so it could look like a painted brush mark, but it's attacked the glass. So we find people scraping it off using sanders, using all 95 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 kinds of chemicals to try to remove it. You literally have to buff off the top layers of glass. And I would guess the active work is an hour or less.
Has this moved to motor vehicles? Have you heard of any of this occurring to vehicles, windshields or rear windows?
No. We know that it's hit the buses, we know that it's hit the bus shelters, and we know that, you know, it's hit all kinds of stores throughout the City, but there's been nothing that we've heard of hitting cars.
Councilman? Sir, what is the average cost to remove the etching material once it's on, if you don't have to replace the window or the bus shelter panel completely? I'm sure there's a certain amount of damage that could be done that it's actually more cost-efficient to take panel out and put a new piece of glass in, but if you have to remove it, could you give me a generally idea of what the costs involved are?
Sure. The variables are just 96 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 few. One is how thickly applied it may have been, and literally you can run finger over it and feel how deeply it's in the glass. You have to go down much further into the glass to remove it. The next is, of course, how much area is covered, of course, but also whether it's gone right up to the edges of the glass. The machine that you see us use is, you know, a radius of (indiscernible). You know, it can only come so close to the end of the glass so that we go to a very fine piece like this, which takes much longer. Having said that, the average hit, you know, which may be a couple square feet, might be 250, 300, 350, 400, depending on how much it's dripped down, how far it's gone. And we are always facing the cost-effectiveness of replacing the panel versus --
Is the cost involved in removing this based on an hourly figure? Again, I understand it may vary, depending on the amount of the etching that has been placed on the window and how deep it is, but is there a general number like what you would charge per hour? 97 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555
We generally -- there's a fair amount of chemicals, there's very expensive machinery involved.
Your charge to the client is roughly 48, 50 bucks an hour/
And we're averaging 4, 5, 6,7 hours on the spot, depending on what's involved in it.
Mr. Tuzman, I just have two questions, I think. First, we have a definition here of the etching acid. You've made reference on a couple of occasions, I believe, one, to hydrofluoric acid, you've made reference to unknown chemicals, and you've made reference to the cutting of or -- I mean, which is, as best I can tell, is generally a drug paraphernalia term of art, 98 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 where a combination of substances are being used to either enhance or dilute the effect of the main chemical or substance. What I'm trying to figure out is for the store owner, I'm virtually certain that I was around for the spray-paint containers and indelible markers, and in that case, at least, I mean, I think everyone pretty much knows what a spray-paint container is or an indelible marker. They were very easily identified, you knew what they were, people put them behind the glass, and that ended that story. It doesn't mean we've eradicated graffiti, but we've certainly made it more difficult. What I'm not absolutely certain on is for the people who are going to have to make whatever adjustment they have to make and put whatever they need to put behind the counter that this definition provides enough information or whether the definition could possibly be enhanced either with some examples, technical terms, or something else that lends the person who legitimately want to be in compliance but is, you know, either your a mom-and-pop hardware store or, you know, some big-box retailer that's got a million products. 99 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 How do you know which ones do this kind of damage if you don't either use some brand names or some of the chemical names that essentially says any of these things that have such-and-such as a base or has certain chemicals that are its components or elements or something like that. I'm concerned that we provide as much information and disclosure for the people who are going to be subject to this as well as, quite frankly, alerting the public that you're not going to be able to just walk into a store and buy these particular products. You gave a name of one, and I'm sure there are others out there. So can you give me some sense of -- you know, are there some set of components or series of chemicals that really qualify as the damaging components that make this liquid a cream or paste or a similar substance the danger that we're trying to prevent?
To my understanding, and I have certainly not searched the market for every place this product surfaces, generically, it's a glass-etching product. Generically, hydrofluoric acid component is usually the active ingredient in 100 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 it. There are at least a couple of popular brands out there. We know that -- I believe it's Armor Etch that is the most prevalent one. We could certainly get Council more information on that. I believe that certainly hydrofluoric acid exists in its purest state and there are many restrictions for one's access to that acid, nitric acid, you know, all kinds of acids, hydrochloric acid, etc. My sense is that the restriction that applies to them that doesn't allow you and me to just walk off the street to a major chemical distributor already provides restrictions. The problem is that the product we're looking at normally is found in the arts supply store normally under glass etchant generically as a product. Finding and providing more information to you, I'd be glad to work with the Police Department and with the Center City District and with Tom Conway and Russ (indiscernible) from the Managing Director's Office and the anti-graffiti network, all of whom, you know, we've all been working together to try to identify the problem and to identify the source. 101 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555
I think my other questions is probably more for Mr. Haigler with regard to enforcement and what, if any, penalty exists. I know that in Section 3, there's a prohibited conduct for people, and all of them seem to revolve around either selling or transferring or offering. I was intrigued as to what is the penalty for actually doing this stuff, the act or the destruction. That could be in another part of the code under this general section, and I just wonder whether we're amending that particular section in terms of penalties for people who actually engage in the conduct.
Mr. Haigler, you want to try to help Councilman Nutter with that.
Our penalties that we have in place are code enforcement type penalties, but for the actual use, that would be a police matter, that would be something that would be subject to crimes code or police issue. That's not something that -- 102 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555
Any more questions for either of these witnesses? Mr. Haigler, do you want to read your testimony. Mr. Haigler, every time you come in here, I'm, like, amazed. You're a fountain of knowledge. Now you know about scratchiti and you walk around with all of this knowledge. It's a scary thought.
Good day. I'm Otis Haigler Jr., Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 010555, which, if enacted, will regulate the purchase and use of etching acid. The proposed amendment to Title 9, Section 9-6-18, as etching acid to the list of materials which 103 10/16/01 L&I BILL 010555 require greater monitoring due to improper use by minors and others, causing damage to property and contributing to blight, the Department has been successful in the past with its enforcement of the current requirements of Section 9-6-18, regulating the sale of spray-paint containers and indelible markers. The Department, therefore, fully supports the enactment of Bill 010555 and is prepared to enforce the provision once it becomes law.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. There are no questions for Mr. Haigler from the committee. Seeing none, that's it for this bill. Now, Bill No. 010257 is being held at the request of the sponsor. - - - 104 10/16/01 L&I COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING
We're going to move from the public hearing and into the public meeting The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 0105555
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 010555 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules as to be reported at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, aye? No opposed, so 010555 gets voted out with a favorable recommendation. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill 010498.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010498 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with request for a suspension of the rules so as to be reported at our next session of Council.
Question. Mr. Chairman, I thought we heard testimony in the hearing on this bill that there was an interest in 105 10/16/01 L&I COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING possible amendments?
We're going to hold that bill after we get it out of here and we're going to meet with the Administration and amend it before we bring it in front of you again, so I guarantee you there will be an amendment.
The motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor of Bill No. 0100498, say aye. Opposed? No opposed, so that passes. This concludes public hearing on Licenses and Inspections. (Proceedings end as 12:12 p.m.) - - - 106 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections of Tuesday, October 16, 2001, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Bill No.'s 010498, 010555 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)