The Intent of Recommending a Model Plumbing Code: Part 2
By Dan Cole
In this article, we continue discussing the intent of the National Bureau of Standards for recommending a model plumbing code. Along with the intent of eliminating waste and developing a scientific basis for plumbing standards, the sub-committee on plumbing deemed it necessary that there should be governmental regulation of plumbing.
The first matter of regulating plumbing was to define plumbing itself. This would determine the scope of regulation. The sub-committee differentiated the terms plumbing and plumbing system. The latter was defined in a broader sense to include the service pipe from the water main and the house sewer from the street sewer. The building’s plumbing system was integrally related to the disposal system of the public sewer as well as the public water supply. The street sewer and the water main were already under municipal control. It would be to the public interest for governmental control over the number and character of plumbing fixtures within a building’s plumbing system since plumbing fixtures affect the municipal’s quantity of water available for public use and the economical operation of the sewer system. Unregulated wasteful plumbing systems could adversely affect living conditions.
A second matter involved in determining the need for the regulation of plumbing was its relation to health. Proper sewer disposal, prevention of drain leakage that may contaminate neighboring wells, obstructing access of insects and vermin, safeguarding against cross-connections between the drainage system and water supply, prohibiting air of sewers or drains containing methane, sulphuretted hydrogen, carbon oxide, and bacteria from entering the habitable space are all plumbing-related matters affecting the health of people. For this reason, the sub-committee believed that government has the right to protect the people’s health, but must not be carried too far to infringe the rights of the people. Where is such a line drawn? Only to the point where there is injury to health or safety as recognized by the courts. Beyond this was considered a public benefit within the realm of personal rights. The principles of science were deemed as the guide to just regulations and as knowledge advances so also must the regulations be revised.
The third matter of regulating plumbing was the legal principle, commonly referred to as plumbing administration. Seventeen principles were delineated as safe guides for governmental control (BH13 9-10). There is admitted caution in bringing “police power” for the regulation of plumbing. Such power is broadly understood as encompassing not only the police officer, but also inspectors, fire marshals, and health officials who act in matters of injuries against health. The cautionary note concerns the difference between the prevention of injuries against health and the enhancement and promotion of health above normal. It was agreed that the latter does not fall within the scope of police power. As the committee investigated and reviewed numerous existing plumbing codes and regulations, they observed certain requirements in plumbing codes that have failed to make this proper distinction. Such requirements cannot be legally justified as essential to the protection of the public health from injury, nor can they be supported in a court of law. The committee was therefore careful in examining plumbing regulations in light of sanitary science and accepted legal principles only to the extent of protecting individual human health (not merely “public” health) and preventing injury and no farther.
Some of the salient features of the safe guides for governmental control over plumbing regulations are:
* The police power resided in the State governments and could be delegated to the municipalities. The Federal Government only had advisory powers to the States. The Federal recommendation of the Plumbing Code as set forth in BH13 was considered a “model” for the States and cities, whose acceptance would result in a more effective uniformity.
* The plumbing regulations could not legally contain requirements that did not either directly or indirectly prevent injury to health or safety. Hence, economical matters of plumbing construction, even though beneficial to parties involved, were excluded from legal regulation. This did not preclude the desire for standardization of plumbing materials and methods that would reduce costs for the public benefit but did not directly affect public health. There was the recognized difference between legal regulation and standardization. Legal regulation related to health matters. Standardization related to uniformity and was considered a public benefit rather than protection against injury. It was not seen as being legally required under police power. Such standardization was expected to be by consensus of parties interested inclusive of manufacturer, distributor, engineer, architect, plumber, municipal authority, and owner rather than by governmental legislation. In this regard, the National Bureau of Standards offered its services and facilities to the various industries in bringing about standardization.
* The scope of legal regulation for plumbing included the design of the system, plumbing materials, and methods of construction. The design must ensure an adequate and safe water supply and proper elimination of wastes and gases that could endanger health. The materials must be reliable and without danger to health for the reasonable life of the building. The methods employed are to prevent faulty workmanship in guarding against danger to health. Once again, the scope of regulation was related directly or indirectly to health matters.
* The governmental control over the plumbing system was by means of permit, testing, inspection, and examining of plumbers. The committee deemed examination of plumbers as a public benefit and suggested certificates of competency rather than licenses. That the committee frowned upon licensure was because such licensure did not guarantee competency and it prevented competition by debarring a competent non-licensed individual from doing plumbing work (the committee revealed a strong laissez faire posture).3 Licensure was originally intended to guarantee craftsmanship and knowledge of the regulations, but when it precludes competition then competence was expected to decline or at least stagnate. Such laissez faire competition was expected to give greater protection to the public from faulty plumbing. The committee thought that a program of certificates of competency would raise the status of plumbers and gain the confidence of the public.
* Whatever the various states adopt for plumbing regulations, they should include in their statutes the same essential principles that come within the scope of police power. The committee drafted these essentials as Basic Plumbing Principles (BH13 13-15). It was their recommendation that the state’s department of health be the chosen vehicle through which a state code is adopted.5 The Plumbing Code recommended by the committee for state adoption assures compliance to these essential principles.
As we have inquired into the reason for a model plumbing code, how can this be advantageous for the economy? Is this a mere historical curiosity, or is there something here that can better the industry? We all are prone to loose our footing the further removed we are from our historical roots. If we cannot learn from history, then we are doomed to repeat it. There are three things we are doomed to repeat if we indeed forget the intentions of recommending a model plumbing code.
First, we are prone to violate the minimum requirement resulting in waste and unnecessary costs. The minimum meant the reduction of unnecessary waste in construction cost of material and labor. Exceeding the minimum requirement may be a safety factor, but may also violate the minimum requirement in needless waste of material and labor. For example, I inspected a commercial sanitary underground building drain with a horizontal branch for three toilet rooms, a mechanical room and a break room sink. The plans indicated a four-inch drain (with 32 fixture units), but the plumbing contractor installed a six-inch drain instead. Wondering why he felt the necessity to increase the drain size, he answered that it was a safeguard from clogging. His exceeding the minimum requirements is without justification, wasteful and violates the necessary scouring velocity of two feet per second.
Individually venting every fixture is also an example of violating the minimum requirement if such venting is unnecessary and wasteful. The sub-committee’s investigations on the pneumatics of vent systems discovered alternate methods that would minimize the need to individually vent every fixture. Such alternatives were group-venting, i.e. the wet vent, circuit vent, loop vent, stack venting and combination waste and vent.6 As a plans examiner, I rarely see these alternatives, and plumbers in the field would rather individually vent every fixture than face contention from code officials who variously allow or disallow these alternatives in their municipalities (code officials also need to evaluate local amendments that violate minimum requirements without justification).
Some municipalities violate the minimum requirement by favoring a certain method of construction. For example, there is a municipality that mandates a cast iron system as the only allowable material for waste and vent for residential homes. If the only reason for this local amendment is to raise the cost of housing within that community, then the restriction is unjustifiable as a plumbing regulation. Granted, weather and soil conditions, waste products, or water quality may preclude certain types of material and require local amendments to meet those conditions. These are justifiable and countenanced by the sub-committee. But for a municipality to deny, for example, CPVC piping in favor of copper for the potable water supply for no other reason than prejudice is in violation of the minimum requirement. Municipalities that have forgotten this history are indeed doomed to fall back into prejudice and local pride causing the situation to become chaotic once again.
Prejudice becomes a serious causative factor for repeating history’s failures if we forget to base plumbing upon scientific principles, proven and tested. SoVent, ProVent, air admittance valves, waterless urinals, 1.0 gallon per flush toilets and countless other products entering the market typically have a knee-jerk reaction of prejudice. Such products may save costs and improve methods of plumbing construction, but must also be based on scientific principles. However, opinionated arguments have ruled over scientific principles. It is to our advantage to rekindle the enthusiasm for science that dominated the industry 100 years ago. The progression of science may antiquate regulations of the past. If plumbing is to be based upon science, then we must continue to be men of science and with open minds grow. If we accept or deny a product or method, then let us do so as justified by science rather than prejudice. Code update committees have the responsibility to weigh the physical evidence, interpret the significance and determine the practical value of every item that comes under its review. The Bureau published its investigative findings for the public. I would encourage this practice to continue for all code committees.
Lastly, we are doomed to repeat unjustifiable regulations if we forget what the regulations were originally intended for. Plumbing regulations are intended to protect health and prevent injury and no more. Beyond this, regulations infringe personal rights. Perhaps a building owner wishes to reduce the plumbing cost in construction by installing CPVC piping rather than copper, PVC cellular core piping for waste and vent rather than cast iron, or designs a single vent system (wet vent, or stack venting) for the bathroom groups, and utilizes an air admittance valve for the island kitchen sink. This is the personal preference of the building owner. Is there a health issue at stake? Is there anything in this preference that needs to be precluded in order to prevent injury? If there is no justifiable health reason to prohibit this owner’s preference, then regulations prohibiting such use are an infringement upon personal rights according to the sub-committee. Unfortunately, this situation still exists today. Municipalities may have the right to amend the state adopted code if the amendment is more restrictive. However, this greater restriction may infringe personal rights if it lacks sanitary science proving health risks and prevention of injury. Amendments to the state adopted code are acceptable if and only if such amendments prove the need for greater health protection or prevent faulty plumbing systems rather than just being more restrictive based on prejudice or favored construction types.
It is my hope that the entire plumbing industry - manufacturer, distributor, engineer, design professional, contractor, journeyman, and inspector - regain their footing and stay within these intentions of a model plumbing code in order to show themselves as leaders in the revival of our nation’s economy.
Works Cited
1. Cochrane, R.C. Measures for Progress: A History of the National Bureau of Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1966
2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois Plumbing License Law. Springfield, IL, 2001
3. theplumber.com. “History of Plumbing in America.” July 1987. April 2008. www.theplumber.com/usa.html
4. United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of Standards. Report BH13. Recommended Minimum Requirements for Plumbing. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1928