Editor’s note: The following is a response to “New plumbing code for Minnesota? Them’s fightin’ words,” which appeared in Finance & Commerce on May 19. It represents the views of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), the group that developed the Uniform Plumbing Code and a key player in the state effort.
While we applaud Finance & Commerce’s effort to bring the state plumbing code issue to the public’s attention with its May 19 coverage, we believe the story included inaccuracies that must be corrected.
To give the reader a more balanced view of what’s happening with the code, we want to highlight some myths we believe the article created and provide our view of the facts:
Myth: A “plumbing code war” in Minnesota is pitting contractors, unions, building operators, owners, designers, and others against each other.
Fact: The state Plumbing Board’s goal is to maintain the best possible code by using a familiar format that’s based on the latest technology for the plumbing systems while protecting public safety. Far from creating conflict, this will eliminate the need for extensive training and education.
Myth: The issue is to replace Minnesota’s homegrown plumbing code with one of two international codes — the International Plumbing Code (IPC) or the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC).
Fact: There has been only one proposal to replace Minnesota’s homegrown plumbing code. It was initiated by the International Code Council (ICC) utilizing a local building inspector in early 2010. The actual request document asks the Board to “repeal” and “replace” the existing code with the International Plumbing Code (IPC). Our group, IAPMO, requested that the Board consider the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and our association’s Green Plumbing Supplement as the basis for updating the state code. This is what the Plumbing Board decided to do by two-thirds majority vote. At no cost to the state or public, we’re working with the board and the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry to merge the existing Minnesota Plumbing and the Uniform Plumbing. We submit each draft for review to Labor & Industry officials and the Plumbing Board. The final decision for any revisions rests with the department.
Myth: Plumbing contractors and the board prefer the UPC because it sells more plumbing.
Fact: Plumbing contractors and the board do prefer the UPC. So do many others, such as plumbing inspectors. Besides being very similar, the state code and the UPC share the same philosophy that all plumbing provisions should be in one place and that place is the plumbing code. Plumbing is plumbing and residential plumbing is no less important than commercial plumbing. However, this is not the case with the IPC, which applies only to commercial buildings, and the International Residential Code is applicable to residential construction. Additionally, those two documents conflict in many areas. The user would have to learn two codes to cover commercial and residential. Furthermore, the IPC references six other codes that would otherwise be covered by the UPC. Buying the necessary documents and getting training makes this a very expensive proposition for a plumber, inspector, designer, or homeowner.
Myth: Because of the other codes adopted in the state, the only logical choice for Minnesota is the IPC.
Fact: Statements like this by some organizations are uninformed. Each ICC code is developed concurrently by one or more committees and supported by different staff members. A number of them are out-sourced or obtained from other organizations. With regard to plumbing, the IPC is not the predominant code in 26 states. There are numerous examples of codes developed by local authorities and our organization that are widely adopted and that work well with the International Building Code.
Myth: The Minnesota Plumbing Board is unwilling to consider the ICC’s arguments or the IPC, and “stonewalled” an ICC lobbyist.
Fact: After a review in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Minnesota determined the IPC is not a suitable plumbing code for the state. More recently, the plumbing board established a code committee after receiving a formal request from ICC to repeal the existing code and adopt the IPC. All meetings of the board and subcommittees had public meeting notices. In addition, both the ICC and our organization made at least two presentations and had the opportunity to attend all subcommittee meetings that addressed this very issue, as well as the regular board meetings.
Myth: The “fixture” count will cost Minnesota upwards of $6,000 per building with the UPC.
Fact: In the example cited in the story, the reason for the disparity in the fixture count is not because of needless additional fixtures to pad labor and building cost, but rather to respond to the research performed by the Stevens Institute of Technology and American Society of Plumbing Engineers that concludes that women require more plumbing fixtures due to the differences in how fixtures are utilized and wait times. The research also forms the basis for recommendations made by the American Restroom Association and the Journal of Planning Literature.
Myth: The IPC is a “greener” code.
Fact: Quite the opposite is true. IAPMO currently publishes the most advanced green plumbing code in the United States. The ICC is offering a draft document not yet formally approved by their organization or Board of Directors. The 2012 UPC will be the most sustainable plumbing code ever published. Green is nothing new; in fact, the UPC has been green for decades, with provisions for gray water reuse and establishing water consumption limits for plumbing fixtures and fittings. In 2012, the UPC will have numerous substantive changes that raise the sustainability bar even higher, while maintaining health, safety and reliability.
While we applaud Finance & Commerce’s effort to bring the state plumbing code issue to the public’s attention with its May 19 coverage, we believe the story included inaccuracies that must be corrected.
To give the reader a more balanced view of what’s happening with the code, we want to highlight some myths we believe the article created and provide our view of the facts:
Myth: A “plumbing code war” in Minnesota is pitting contractors, unions, building operators, owners, designers, and others against each other.
Fact: The state Plumbing Board’s goal is to maintain the best possible code by using a familiar format that’s based on the latest technology for the plumbing systems while protecting public safety. Far from creating conflict, this will eliminate the need for extensive training and education.
Myth: The issue is to replace Minnesota’s homegrown plumbing code with one of two international codes — the International Plumbing Code (IPC) or the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC).
Fact: There has been only one proposal to replace Minnesota’s homegrown plumbing code. It was initiated by the International Code Council (ICC) utilizing a local building inspector in early 2010. The actual request document asks the Board to “repeal” and “replace” the existing code with the International Plumbing Code (IPC). Our group, IAPMO, requested that the Board consider the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and our association’s Green Plumbing Supplement as the basis for updating the state code. This is what the Plumbing Board decided to do by two-thirds majority vote. At no cost to the state or public, we’re working with the board and the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry to merge the existing Minnesota Plumbing and the Uniform Plumbing. We submit each draft for review to Labor & Industry officials and the Plumbing Board. The final decision for any revisions rests with the department.
Myth: Plumbing contractors and the board prefer the UPC because it sells more plumbing.
Fact: Plumbing contractors and the board do prefer the UPC. So do many others, such as plumbing inspectors. Besides being very similar, the state code and the UPC share the same philosophy that all plumbing provisions should be in one place and that place is the plumbing code. Plumbing is plumbing and residential plumbing is no less important than commercial plumbing. However, this is not the case with the IPC, which applies only to commercial buildings, and the International Residential Code is applicable to residential construction. Additionally, those two documents conflict in many areas. The user would have to learn two codes to cover commercial and residential. Furthermore, the IPC references six other codes that would otherwise be covered by the UPC. Buying the necessary documents and getting training makes this a very expensive proposition for a plumber, inspector, designer, or homeowner.
Myth: Because of the other codes adopted in the state, the only logical choice for Minnesota is the IPC.
Fact: Statements like this by some organizations are uninformed. Each ICC code is developed concurrently by one or more committees and supported by different staff members. A number of them are out-sourced or obtained from other organizations. With regard to plumbing, the IPC is not the predominant code in 26 states. There are numerous examples of codes developed by local authorities and our organization that are widely adopted and that work well with the International Building Code.
Myth: The Minnesota Plumbing Board is unwilling to consider the ICC’s arguments or the IPC, and “stonewalled” an ICC lobbyist.
Fact: After a review in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Minnesota determined the IPC is not a suitable plumbing code for the state. More recently, the plumbing board established a code committee after receiving a formal request from ICC to repeal the existing code and adopt the IPC. All meetings of the board and subcommittees had public meeting notices. In addition, both the ICC and our organization made at least two presentations and had the opportunity to attend all subcommittee meetings that addressed this very issue, as well as the regular board meetings.
Myth: The “fixture” count will cost Minnesota upwards of $6,000 per building with the UPC.
Fact: In the example cited in the story, the reason for the disparity in the fixture count is not because of needless additional fixtures to pad labor and building cost, but rather to respond to the research performed by the Stevens Institute of Technology and American Society of Plumbing Engineers that concludes that women require more plumbing fixtures due to the differences in how fixtures are utilized and wait times. The research also forms the basis for recommendations made by the American Restroom Association and the Journal of Planning Literature.
Myth: The IPC is a “greener” code.
Fact: Quite the opposite is true. IAPMO currently publishes the most advanced green plumbing code in the United States. The ICC is offering a draft document not yet formally approved by their organization or Board of Directors. The 2012 UPC will be the most sustainable plumbing code ever published. Green is nothing new; in fact, the UPC has been green for decades, with provisions for gray water reuse and establishing water consumption limits for plumbing fixtures and fittings. In 2012, the UPC will have numerous substantive changes that raise the sustainability bar even higher, while maintaining health, safety and reliability.
No comments:
Post a Comment