Assessment of Plumbing Code Enforcement in the

United StatesKyle Onda

April 23, 2014Alexandria, VA

2014 Emerging Technology Symposium

Introduction

Health Risks

Health and Safety

Introduction

Health Risks

Health and Safety

Known Health Risks

Theoretical Mitigation Measures

Introduction

Health Risks

Health and Safety

Known Health Risks

Theoretical Mitigation Measures

Codes and Regulations

Introduction

Health Risks

Health and Safety

Known Health Risks

Theoretical Mitigation Measures

Codes and Regulations

ComplianceEnforcement

Introduction

Health Risks

Health and Safety

Known Health Risks

Theoretical Mitigation Measures

Codes and Regulations

ComplianceEnforcement

Introduction

Health Risks

Health and Safety

Known Health Risks

Theoretical Mitigation Measures

Codes and Regulations

ComplianceEnforcement

State and local governments

OutlineState plumbing code enforcement regimes

Dimensions of state code enforcementCategorization of code enforcement regimes

Local plumbing code enforcement official surveyCapacityEffortStrategies

Dimensions of State Code Enforcement

Type of plumbing code

Local enforcement role

Local discretion

Standardization of local enforcement

State review of local enforcement

State revocation of local enforcement

Dimensions of State Code Enforcement

Type of plumbing code1. No code

2. Enabling code

3. Mandatory statewide code

Dimensions of State Code Enforcement

Local Enforcement Role1. State delegates to local government on an

individual basis

2. Broad authorization of local code enforcement

3. Mandatory local enforcement

Dimensions of State Code Enforcement

Local discretion: How local code enforcement agencies are permitted to amend the state code1. Prohibited

2. Can make more stringent with state permission

3. Can amend to suit local conditions with state permission

4. Can amend the code or adopt a different code without state permission

Dimensions of State Code Enforcement

Local Standardization1. No particular requirements

2. State prescription of requirements for personnel certification, allowable enforcement actions, record-keeping, and other administrative procedures

Dimensions of State Code Enforcement

State Review1. No state review of local enforcement

2. Review process of vague frequency

3. Reviews initiated based on complaints to state officials

4. Mandatory, regular/ periodic reviews

Dimensions of State Code Enforcement

State Revocation1. State reserves right to revoke authority of local

agencies to conduct inspections and issue permits

2. No mention

Dimensions of State Code Enforcement

State Revocation1. State reserves right to revoke authority of local

agencies to conduct inspections and issue permits

2. No mention

Nationally Representative Plumbing Enforcement

Official SurveyAsked about enforcement practices, agency

capacity, effort expended on different activities, perceived compliance

~2500 Agencies selected with probability proportional to population of jurisdiction

Each response weighted according to this probability

2% 0.4%1%

2%

6%

89%

Plumbing Code Enforcement Body

No CodeCode adopted, not enforcedCountyStatePrivate ContractorMunicipal Depart-ment (Respondent)

Notice

of V

iola

tion

Stop

-Wor

k Ord

er

Fine

for w

orki

ng w

ithou

t per

mit

Revoc

atio

n of

a p

erm

it

Field

Cita

tion/

fine

Misde

mea

nor p

rose

cutio

n/ fi

ne

Notice

of C

olle

ctiv

e Act

ion

Fine

for n

ot fo

llow co

de p

rovi

sion

Revoc

atio

n of

Cer

tifica

te o

f Occ

upan

cy

Fine

for n

ot fo

llowin

g pl

an

Tem

pora

ry R

estra

inin

g Ord

er

Prel

imin

ary

Inju

nctio

n

Perm

anen

t Inj

unct

ion

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Deterrent Action by Agency Frequency

Surv

ey-W

eig

hte

d P

roport

ion

Inspecti

on check

lists

Inspect

or req

uired to

consu

lt superv

isor o

n hard ca

lls

Annual insp

ector p

erform

ance

evalu

ation

Periodic i

nspect

or work

review

Follo

wup insp

ections o

f insp

ector w

ork

Agency

manual

Intensiv

e insp

ector p

olicy tr

aining

Rotation of in

spect

or terr

itory

Use of p

roducti

vity m

easu

res0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fieldwork standardization of Inspection and Regu-lation Activities

Surv

ey W

eig

hte

d P

roport

ion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Discretionary Actions by Inspectors

Surv

ey W

eig

hte

d P

roport

ion

Conce

rted

effor

t to

be cor

dial

Prior r

ecor

d ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in p

rose

cutio

n de

cisio

n

Attitu

de ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in p

rose

cutio

n de

cisio

n

Any o

ther

ince

ntive

Less fre

quen

t ins

pect

ions

for fi

rms w

ith g

ood

reco

rds

Mod

ifica

tion

of st

anda

rds fo

r firm

s with

goo

d re

cord

s0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Incentive Actions by Enforcement Officials

Surv

ey W

eig

hte

d P

roport

ion

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Technical Assistance Actions by Enforcement Staff

Surv

ey W

eig

hte

d P

roport

ion

Factor Analysis

Action Category Systematic PhilosophyFacilitative Philosophy

Deterrent 0.55 0.28Standardization 0.66 0.14Discretion 0.08 0.58Incentives 0.24 0.64Techanical Assistance 0.53 0.13

Cluster Analysis

Facilitative33%

Accomodative48%

Strict8%

Energetic11%

Survey-Weighted Agency Strategy Distri-bution

Local Strategy Accomodative Facilitative Strict Energetic Total

State

Regime

Minimalist 0.04 0.0357 0.002 0.007 0.0847Enabling 0.0603 0.0669 0.0059 0.0144 0.1475

Mandatory 0.0943 0.0629 0.0261 0.0508 0.2341Standardized 0.1132 0.0968 0.0374 0.0075 0.2549

Energetic 0.1725 0.0704 0.0067 0.0293 0.2789Total 0.4803 0.3327 0.0781 0.109 1

Adequacy of non-personnel budget

Adequacy of staff levels

Technical Expertise

Authority

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Senior Enforcement Official Perception of Capacity

Very PoorPoorFairGoodVery Good

Survey-Weighted Percentage

Legal Pros-ecution

Surveillance

Public Awareness

Technical Assistance

Plan Check-ing

Inspection

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Self-Reported Effort by Activity

NoneA LitteSomeA LotA Great Deal

Survey-Weighted Percentage

Technical Problems

Organizational Problems

Negligence (Intentional)

Deliberate Noncompliance (Intentional)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Relative Frequency of Perceived Reasons for Violations

NeverRarelySometimesOftenAlways

Survey Weighted Percentages

Building Code/ Permitting Department

52%

Another Department (Water Utility, Health Dept, Fire

Dept)45%

Private Contractor1%

Not enforced2%

Backflow-Prevention Enforcement Responsibility

Insp

ectio

n Dur

ing

Const

ruct

ion

Durin

g Pla

n Rev

iew

Insp

ectio

n fo

r Plu

mbi

ng M

odifi

catio

ns

Perio

dic, R

egul

ar In

spec

tions

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Backflow Prevention Enforcement Actions

Surv

ey-W

eig

hte

d P

roport

ions

Unprotected Cross-Connection

Failing to test backflow assemblies

Failure to maintain backflow assemblies

Failure to submit required documentation

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Relative Frequency of Backflow Violations

Never<10%10%-30%30%-50%50%-70%70%-90%>90%

Survey Weighted Percentages

Next Steps Investigate Hypotheses:

State Policy-> Agency Capacity State Policy->Agency Strategy-> Perceived Compliance Different Agency areas of effort-> Perceived Compliance

Present Findings ETS Conference Water policy?/ Water Sci & Tech? Final Report Industry newsletter?