AGENCY TESTIMONY
Proposed changes to periodic gas piping system inspections
0:18:37
·
5 min
The DOB addresses several proposed changes to the requirements for periodic inspection of gas piping systems in Intro 429.
- The department opposes changes that would require inspections for buildings with no gas piping or not currently supplied with gas
- The DOB finds proposed changes to inspection frequency unnecessary as they can already modify frequency by rule
- Concerns are raised about proposed changes to inspector qualifications, which could limit the pool of qualified inspectors
- The department opposes expanding the scope of inspections to include tenant spaces, citing logistical challenges and potential increased costs
- The DOB disagrees with the deletion of the list of unsafe or hazardous conditions requiring notification
- Concerns are expressed about new reporting requirements for abnormal operating conditions and the department's role in determining corrective measures
Constadino 'Gus' Sirakis
0:18:37
Periodic inspection of gas piping systems, admin code section 28318.
0:18:43
The bill proposes several changes to the requirements for the periodic inspection of gas piping systems, which I will address at a high level.
0:18:51
Admin code section 28 dash 318.1.
0:18:54
The current law exempts covered buildings with no gas piping and covered buildings that aren't currently supplied with gas from the inspection requirements.
0:19:03
There are already provisions in the law for informing the department of such and those who've been successfully implemented.
0:19:10
The proposed amendments as drafted would require the owner to hire last licensed master plumber or registered design professional to conduct an inspection to inform the department that the building has no gas piping or is not currently supplied with gas, which is contrary to what was intended by the existing exceptions to the inspection requirements.
0:19:30
Admin code Section 28318.2.
0:19:33
The current code already allows for modification of the inspection frequency by rule.
0:19:38
The department has promulgated and implemented a rule, 1 RCNY 103 dash 10 related to the periodic inspection of gas piping systems.
0:19:47
The department has the ability pursuant to the New York City Administrative Procedure Act to amend the rule.
0:19:52
Therefore, the proposed change is unnecessary and would have no meaningful impact.
0:19:57
Admin code section 28318.3.1.
0:20:01
It is unclear what the issue the proposed changes to the inspection entity qualification requirements are intended to address As mentioned earlier, the department promulgated rule 1 RCNY103-ten, setting forth certain inspection and other requirements.
0:20:17
That included the minimum qualification requirements for the inspection entity.
0:20:21
Inspectors must be a licensed master plumber or an an individual working under the direct and continuing supervision of a licensed master plumber, provided that such individual has 5 years of experience and has completed a related training program.
0:20:36
The proposed amendment includes language requiring those working under the directing continuing supervision of the licensed master plumber to also hold the journeyman plumber registration, which would significantly limit the pool of individuals who are qualified to perform these inspections.
0:20:52
The department believes the existing code and rule provisions are sufficient to address the qualifications for entities conducting the inspections.
0:20:59
Additionally, mandating proof of inspector qualifications on each report and certification submitted to building owners and the department reflecting that the required inspection has occurred as unnecessary.
0:21:10
The licensed master plumber is ultimately responsible for work performed by those working under their directing continuing supervision, including verifying that they possess the appropriate qualification.
0:21:21
The department believes, including the proposed language, could muddy the waters with respect to the line of responsibility.
0:21:28
Admin code section 28 dash 318.3.2.
0:21:32
The proposed changes to the scope of the inspection are significant and may pose an undue burden on building owners as the current inspection requirement does not include tenant spaces.
0:21:42
This includes logistical challenges since access to tenant spaces would now be required.
0:21:47
Additionally, expanding the scope made directly correlate to increased inspection costs for building owners.
0:21:53
We encourage you to discuss these changes further with building owners to better understand what impact they may have on their requirement.
0:21:59
To perform these inspections.
0:22:01
Admin code section 20 18 28 dash 318.3.4.
0:22:07
The proposed changes to this section include deletion of the list of unsafe or hazardous conditions where notification to the owner utility and the department is required.
0:22:15
The department believes the deletion of this list is a step backwards.
0:22:20
Providing a definitive list of when notification is triggered is useful to all parties.
0:22:25
It provides clear direction and avoids the potential for confusion and uncertainty.
0:22:33
Admin code section 28 dash 318.3.4.1.
0:22:37
Bill proposes to add a new section related to reporting and correction of abnormal operating conditions that don't pose an immediate hazard and requirements for correcting abnormal conditions related to service piping.
0:22:49
The requirements that pertain to service piping are beyond the intended scope of local law 152 of 2016.
0:22:56
Service piping is under the jurisdiction of the public service commission, not the department.
0:23:01
This proposed new section also adds a provision that would require the to be notified in connection with any abnormal operating condition that does not present an immediate hazard discovered during the inspection.
0:23:13
The current code requires notification to the owner utility and the department when an unsafe or hazardous condition is identified.
0:23:20
Requiring notification to the department in connection with any abnormal operating condition that does not present an immediate hazard would be unduly burdensome.
0:23:28
In addition, requiring the department to promulgate a rule dictating what corrective measures should be undertaken to address an abnormal condition is impractical as they should appropriately be left to the qualified individuals performing the inspections.
0:23:41
The determination as to the appropriate course of action to remediate an abnormal condition is done on a case by case basis by the inspection entity based on their assessment of the condition.
0:23:52
The proposed provision would potentially shift responsibility from the inspection entity to the department, which would be inappropriate.
