The Intent of Recommending a Model Plumbing Code: Part One
By Daniel Cole
The following is a two-part article on the model plumbing code’s effect on the economy.
In light of the recent economic downturn that has moved this country in the worst recession since the 1930s, building construction and employment has declined substantially. Although not identical, a similar post-World War I depressed economy sought the stimulation of housing construction to revive the economy1. A large part of this stimulus package was to recommend a building code that would reduce waste and costs resulting in efficient construction and affordable housing for lowered incomes. Likewise, in the present depressed economy we are being called toward energy efficiency and cost reductions; toward sustainability and elimination of wasteful construction; and to find ways to meet lowered incomes with affordable housing.
The plumbing industry played a significant role in the early 1900s in boosting the economy with the help of the National Bureau of Standards. This article begins to retell the story in hope of rekindling the plumbing industry to take again the lead in helping revive the economy. We shall look at the greatest stimulus we can offer — our plumbing code.
The National Bureau of Standards presented a foundational model code to the states in the early to mid-1900s. This model code laid the basis upon which all current codes have been built. Why did the Bureau present a model plumbing code? What was their intent of recommending a standardized plumbing code? The answer takes us to the investigative work of the National Bureau of Standards.
As we inquire into the reason for a model plumbing code, we look back to May 1921, when the Department of Commerce, under the leadership of Herbert Hoover (then Secretary of Commerce) organized the Building Code Committee under the Division of Building and Housing in an effort to stimulate a post-World War I depressed economy. Housing construction had the greatest potential to revive the economy (Measures for Progress 232). The Committee’s purpose was to gather experimental data upon which to base minimum code requirements to govern the various phases of building construction. The Senate Committee on Reconstruction and Production reported that inactivity in the building industry was due to restrictive building code requirements and great economic loss from regulations lacking in uniformity and justice (BH13 1). The simplification and standardization of construction was the plan for recovery in reducing costs and rekindling employment.
The Building Code Committee aimed at one of many targets of the division of building and housing, namely, building codes and regulations.2 In addition, a survey initiated by Hoover in 1920, resulted in the discovery of the percentage of wasteful practices in the construction industry.3 This prompted the publication of the Elimination of Waste Series4 of the Building and Housing reports, which recommended numerous minimum standards to eliminate these wasteful practices.5 The minimum in this series did not mean the least allowable standard, or the least marginal practice. The minimum meant the reduction of unnecessary waste in construction cost of material and labor. For example, the minimum requirement for plumbing initially meant the reduction of the size of the building drain and water supply and the elimination of unnecessary venting. If the minimum requirements were followed, then the industry would benefit in cost savings and in turn pass the same onto the consumer.
The stimulus worked. The committee’s recommended minimum requirements were accepted by the states6, saving people who build dwelling houses several million dollars per annum in plumbing costs alone (BH13 224). New construction averaged 750,000 homes annually (Measures for Progress 253), and from 1929 to 1954, sales by distributors of plumbing products and heating equipment rose from $498 million to $2.33 billion (Plumbing in America).
As plumbing systems and fixtures were required to be installed in buildings in the early 20th century, the added cost to construction rose significantly enough to hinder housing construction. Initially, the Building Code Committee had gathered data on present plumbing practices and through a questionnaire collected the opinions of plumbers and sanitary engineers. After reviewing 81 various plumbing codes, state laws and local ordinances the committee deemed the situation chaotic (BH13 212). Uniformity was lacking in regulations, the administration of permits and licenses, and code requirements. The latter revealed improper discrimination between building types, local pride and selfish prejudice favoring a certain method of construction (BH13 11-12) It is no wonder that within four months after the appointment of the Building Code Committee, a sub-committee on plumbing was appointed by Secretary Hoover (BH13 1).
The sub-committee consisted of six engineers, two plumbers and one plumbing wholesaler.7 They held conferences with John Gries, chief of the division of building and housing; Ira Woolson, chairman of the Building Code Committee; Frank Cartwright, technical secretary of the Building Code Committee; Dr. L.J. Briggs, chief of the engineering physics division and assistant director in charge of tests; and Roy B. Hunter, physicist of the bureau to whom was delegated the task of conducting the experimental work (BH13 2-3).
The players in place, tasks assigned, methods of procedures determined, the sub-committee went to work. They did not attempt to sort through the chaotic irregularities of the various plumbing codes to formulate minimum requirements by any method of selection or law of averages. Rather, the entire plumbing system was to be studied anew and formulations were to be based upon scientific investigations instead of opinions.8 The recommended minimum requirements for plumbing (as well as other construction minimum requirements investigated by the bureau) are the unbiased scientific principles codified. They are the results of analyzing the physical evidence, interpreting its significance and determining its practical value. This investigative work took place at the laboratories of the Bureau of Standards in Washington D.C. from November 1921 to January 1923 under the oversight of Dr. Hunter (BH13 47). A preliminary report was submitted to the chairman of the Building Code Committee on June 17, 1922. The final report dated July 3rd was submitted on October 10, 1923, the second in the building and housing waste elimination series (BH2). A revision superseding this report was published in 1928 known as BH13.
Along with the scientific investigations under the conduct of Dr. Hunter9, the sub-committee on plumbing addressed matters of regulating plumbing (BH13 5-10; 208-11). George Whipple, in a letter addressed to Mr. Woolson, stated his opinion that the standardization of plumbing should be brought about by a mutual agreement of interested parties rather than by legislation. However, he deemed governmental control of plumbing is needed, but not until there is some kind of uniform consensus.
In the next article we shall investigate what was deemed necessary for governmental regulation of plumbing.
Part 2 of this report will appear in the August issue of Plumbing Engineer.
Daniel Cole is a plumbing inspector and plumbing plans examiner in Lake Zurich, Illinois. He is a licensed journeyman plumber in the state of Illinois and holds ICC certifications for plumbing and residential building inspector. He is a member of the Illinois Plumbing Inspector’s Association and the International Code Council.
References
1 For further economic conditions, see Cole, Dan. “The Fixture Unit: A Historical Perspective”. Plumbing Engineer. Nov. 2008, 59-62.
2 “Poor home designs, high labor and material costs, antiquated and obstructive building codes and zoning regulations, and tight mortgage money were among the targets of the division of building and housing set up by Hoover…” (Measures for Progress 250).
3 The survey was performed while Hoover was President of the Federated American Engineering Societies. It was found out that “twenty-five percent of the costs of production could be eliminated….without affecting wages or labor. In six typical industries, wasteful practices accounted for almost 50 percent of materials and labor” (Measures for Progress 253).
4 Elimination of waste became synonymous with standardization. Standardization was an “attack on waste in commerce and industry. It comprised standardization of business practices and of materials, machinery, and products; specifications to insure good quality of products; and simplification in variety of products.” (Measures for Progress 254)
5 The Building and Housing recommended minimum requirements for small dwelling construction (BH1, superseded by BH18); plumbing in dwellings and similar buildings (BH2, superseded by BH13); masonry wall construction (BH6); live loads allowable for use in design of buildings (BH7); fire resistance in buildings (BH14).
6 It is to be kept in mind that the National Bureau of Standards could only recommend and “was to have no regulating or policing powers; enforcement of standards was left to the discretion of the States.” (Measures for Progress 43)
7 The members of the Sub-committee on Plumbing were: George C. Whipple, chairman and professor of sanitary engineering in Harvard University; Harry Y. Carson, research engineer for the American Cast Iron Pipe Co.; William C. Groeniger, consulting sanitary engineer; Thomas F. Hanley of Hanley & Co., mechanical engineers and contractors; A.E. Hansen, hydraulic and sanitary engineer; James A. Messer, president of James A. Messer Co. (a plumbing wholesale company); William J. Spencer, secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Labor and journeyman plumber; Albert L. Webster, consulting engineer; J.L.Murphy, plumbing contractor. (BH13 2) At this time, Samuel Stratton was the Director of the Bureau.
8 “One of the chief reasons for appointing the committee on plumbing was the manifest need of a carefully planned investigation of the scientific principles of plumbing systems. In spite of many experimental investigations which have been made in England, Germany, and the United States, some of the latter being of recent date, there is a widespread feeling that the subject is still imperfectly understood, and that some of the present-day plumbing regulations are without adequate scientific foundation” (BH13 47). With the application of mathematic probability, it was recognized that “…even in such commonplace subject as plumbing the so-called higher mathematics may be used to show what capacities are necessary and sufficient” (BH13 50).
9 Dr. Hunter, with assistant L.W. Snyder, published a report attached to the BH13 report on The Physics of Plumbing Systems.