I am often asked, “How do you remove the stranglehold that the union has on the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Mechanical Code?” My answer is always the same — you outvote them at the Annual Conference at the end of the code change cycle.

That is exactly what happened at the IAPMO Annual Conference, held the second week of September, in Charlotte, North Carolina. On the morning of the code hearings, it was announced that there were 466 registered voting members. All appeared to be in the room. It is the largest crowd I can remember seeing for the past 25 years. There were many shocked expressions from IAPMO regulars when voting took place.

Of the 466 present, about 100 were union colleagues. The majority of the additional members were from the mechanical engineering community. They were most interested in the Mechanical Code discussions. As it turns out, the code changes to the Plumbing Code were non-controversial. All of the controversies appeared to be related to the Mechanical Code.

Prior to the hearings, everyone worked behind the scenes on plumbing code issues to bring out comments to accept certain code changes that were rejected in the spring. That included the new partitions standard for water closets and urinals, mandating soap dispensers and adding adult changing station requirements.

There was universal support for adding the partitions standard, IAPMO Z124.10, to the code. Included in the change was a requirement for all gender toilet rooms to have Type A privacy partitions for water closets and urinals. These styles of partitions are often referred to as European style, running full height, with no visible openings from the outside to the inside of the partition. For separate gender toilet rooms, Type B privacy partitions would be required for water closets. Type B partitions are the standard partitions installed today.

The adult changing station code change was designed to coordinate the Uniform Plumbing Code with the Building Code. The next edition of the Building Code will mandate adult changing stations in certain buildings. The requirements proposed to the Plumbing Code stipulated the location that the adult changing stations are allowed to be installed in, as well as, the level of privacy required. There is also a requirement for a lavatory for clean-up.

The typical Technical Committee vote is to agree with the will of the membership. That sounds good when the membership at the meeting is overwhelmingly union members. This year, attitudes have completely reversed. The Technical Committee has voted against every Mechanical Code item approved by the membership at the Annual Meeting. It appears that the membership only counts when it is the membership you like.

The original change would have allowed an alcohol wipe dispenser in place of a lavatory in existing buildings. This allowance was deleted from the change at the meeting. The IAPMO membership overwhelmingly approved this change.

You would think that mandating a soap dispenser for a commercial lavatory would be an easy change, especially with the public awareness of the need for handwashing with soap during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was opposed by the Technical Committee. However, the membership overwhelmingly approved the change.

Controversial subjects during the Mechanical Code hearings were related to the listing of appliances, low global warming potential refrigerants, concealed joints, Legionella and cooling towers.

UL submitted a proposal to require all appliances to be listed. What many did not realize is that the Uniform Mechanical Code does not require all appliances and equipment to be listed. The section states that only listed equipment shall be listed. Which really makes no sense. The membership approved the UL change, which was previously rejected by the Technical Committee.

There was considerable discussion on low global warming potential refrigerants that are Group A2L refrigerants. The industry representatives pointed out that the change approved by the Technical Committee was three years out of date. AHRI submitted a Public Comment that updated the provisions, based on the latest listing standard and ASHRAE 15. There was a lot of testimony in support of the AHRI modifications. The membership outvoted the union contingency in approving the AHRI Public Comment.

Another change submitted by the UA, and approved by the Technical Committee, would have required all concealed joints in refrigerant piping to be brazed. During testimony, those in opposition indicated that the change would only allow copper tube for concealed refrigerant piping, whereas other piping materials are used and approved in the code. While obvious the change was a “make work,” or increase the amount of labor requirement, this was never stated. The membership voted to reject the change, allowing any joint in concealed locations.

The discussion on Legionella was most interesting. ASHRAE and various cooling tower manufacturers spoke in opposition to the change adding a new appendix on Legionella. Having chaired the Task Group that developed this change, I had to testify, identifying the hours spent by the committee listening to all sides and coming up with compromises throughout the new appendix. The membership voted to support the Technical Committee’s approval of the new Legionella appendix.

Another proposed new appendix addressed cooling towers. The appendix listed procedures for building shutdown, building start-up, testing of cooling tower water and cleaning of cooling towers. The cooling tower representatives claimed that the proposed appendix was detrimental to their industry by singling out one segment of the profession. The membership voted to reject this code change.

The IAPMO membership vote is not the final action in the code change cycle. The Technical Committee has to vote to either agree or disagree with the membership vote. A two-thirds majority is required for approval by the membership vote.

Over the past 10 years, there has only been one code change where the membership’s vote did not receive the support of the Technical Committee. However, since that time period, the makeup of the Technical Committee has changed significantly. UL, Intertek, Lubrizol, National Association of Home Builders and National Propane Gas Association no longer have representatives on the Technical Committee. All of these organizations voted against membership on this one code change.

The typical Technical Committee vote is to agree with the will of the membership. That sounds good when the membership at the meeting is overwhelmingly union members. This year, attitudes have completely reversed. The Technical Committee has voted against every Mechanical Code item approved by the membership at the Annual Meeting. It appears that the membership only counts when it is the membership you like.

As a result of the vote of the Technical Committee, 21 items from the Mechanical Code will be automatically appealed to the Standards Council. The Standards Council will meet on Nov. 16 and 17 to discuss the issues and vote on whether to agree with the membership or the Technical Committee. In the past, the Standards Council has accorded great respect for the membership vote. The question is whether that respect will remain.

The Standards Council will be faced with the decision to accept the will of the membership regarding 21 code change issues or the will of the union. Their decision will be a defining moment for the organization.

The views expressed here are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily represent PM Engineer or BNP Media.