HOUSE LABOR AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE HOUSE URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL 15 91 PUBLIC HEARING

Public Hearing held at Independence Seaport Museum, 211 South Christopher Columbus Boulevard, 4th Floor Ballroom, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, held on Tuesday, July 9, 2013, commencing at approximately 1:06 p.m., before Janice D. Burness, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Court Reporter (NJ), and Notary Public, pursuant to notice. 2 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 APPEARANCES: 2 Chairman Mario Scavello 3 Chairman William Keller 4 Chairman Keith Gillespie 5 Chairman Ted Harhai 6 Representative Seth Grove 7 Representative Eli Evankovich 8 Representative Susan Helm 9 Representative Ed Neilson 10 Representative Steven Mentzer 11 Representative Rick Saccone 12 Representative Kevin Schreiber 13 Representative Nick Kotik 14 Representative Mark Gillen 15 Representative Chris Sainato 16 Representative Mary Jo Daley 17 Representative Michael O'Brien 18 Representative Angel Cruz 19 Representative Daniel Truitt 20 Representative Maria Donatucci 21 Representative Michelle Brownlee 22 Representative John Galloway 23 Representative Mark Longietti 24 Representative John Sabatina 25 Representative Rosita Youngblood 3 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 APPEARANCES (continued): 2 COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT: 3 Vicki DiLeo, Democratic Executive Director 4 Joanne Manganello, 5 Democratic Research Analyst 6 7 8 TESTIFIERS 9 PAT GILLESPIE 11 JIM DOLLARD 13 10 LOUIS AGRE 2 0 KELLY SMITH 6 0 11 MICHAEL R. TAYLOR 62 BILL HARVEY 107 12 KEVIN KLINGBORG 111 DAVID FLEISHER 117 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 PROCEEDINGS 2 ***** 3 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Good afternoon, 4 everyone. 5 I'm State Representative Mario Scavello, 6 Chairman of the Labor & Industry Committee. 7 Before we begin, I'm going to ask the 8 members to introduce themselves. 9 I'm from Monroe County, the 176th 10 District. 11 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Good afternoon, 12 everybody. Keith Gillespie. I chair the House Urban 13 Affairs Committee, 47th District, York County. 14 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Seth Grove, Labor & 15 Industry Committee, 196th District, York County. 16 REPRESENTATIVE EVANKOVICH: Eli 17 Evankovich. I'm on the Urban Affairs Committee. I'm in 18 Westmoreland and Armstrong Counties. 19 CHAIRWOMAN HELM: Sue Helm in the 104th 20 District of Dauphin County. I'm on the Urban Affairs 21 Committee. 22 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: Ed Neilson, 23 Philadelphia County, 169th, Urban Affairs. 24 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Bill Keller, 184th 25 Legislative District right out there in South 5 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Philadelphia. 2 CHAIRMAN HARHAI: State Representative Ted 3 Harhai, 58th Legislative District. I'm the Democratic 4 Chair of the Urban Affairs Committee, and I represent 5 Westmoreland and parts of Fayette County. 6 REPRESENTATIVE MENTZER: Steve Mentzer, 7 the 97th District of Lancaster County. I'm on Labor & 8 Industry and Urban Affairs. 9 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Rick Saccone, 10 39th District, representing Allegheny and Washington 11 Counties. 12 REPRESENTATIVE SCHREIBER: Kevin 13 Schreiber, Urban Affairs Committee, representing the 95th 14 District from York County. 15 REPRESENTATIVE KOTIK: Nick Kotik, 16 Allegheny County, 45th District. 17 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: State 18 Representative Mark Gillen, Labor & Industry Committee. 19 I'm from Southern Berks County, but most importantly, my 20 mother lives out there in Representative Keller's 21 district. 22 REPRESENTATIVE SAINATO: I am 23 Representative Chris Sainato. I'm actually a Democratic 24 Chair of the House of Veteran Affairs and Emergency 25 Preparedness Committee, and I'm looking forward to 6 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 testimony today. 2 REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Mary Jo Daley, the 3 148th District in Montgomery County. 4 REPRESENTATIVE O'BRIEN: Mike O'Brien, 5 175th District, which I'm happy to welcome you here 6 today. 7 REPRESENTATIVE CRUZ: Angel Cruz, Chairman 8 of the Human Services for Philadelphia County. 9 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: I'm Dan Truitt, 10 representing parts of Chester County, and I'm with the 11 Labor & Industry Committee. 12 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Representative 13 Maria Donatucci, 185th District, that's Philadelphia and 14 DelCo, and I'm on both committees. 15 REPRESENTATIVE BROWNLEE: Good afternoon. 16 Michelle Brownlee, 195th Legislative District here in 17 Philadelphia, and I am on the Urban Affairs Committee. 18 REPRESENTATIVE GALLOWAY: John Galloway, 19 Lower Bucks County, 140th District, Labor Committee. 20 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you. 21 I'm so pleased to see six chairmen here 22 today for this hearing. I don't believe I've ever seen a 23 hearing with six chairmen from across the Commonwealth to 24 show the importance of us being here to get some needed 25 information. 7 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 First and foremost, I would like to 2 welcome everyone, and thank you for joining the House of 3 Labor & Industry Committee as well as the House of Urban 4 Affairs Committee this afternoon. 5 As everyone here is aware, the tragic 6 building collapse on June 5th took the lives of six of 7 our brothers and sisters and left over a dozen 8 Pennsylvania citizens critically injured. 9 And before we begin, I'd like to ask the 10 members and guests to please rise for a brief moment of 11 silence in recognition of the men and women who lost 12 their lives that day. 13 (Moment of silence observed.) 14 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: At this time I think 15 it's also appropriate to recognize the firefighters and 16 the first responders of the City of Philadelphia who had 17 heroically searched the wreckage and debris for survivors 18 of this catastrophe, and I applaud them. 19 (Applause.) 20 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: While no one can undo 21 the harm that was done that day, it is the duty and 22 responsibility of Legislature, working in conjunction 23 with the appropriate authorities, experts, and 24 stakeholders to investigate root causes attributable to 25 the June 5th disaster. 8 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Armed with the knowledge, we as 2 legislators can return to Harrisburg in the fall and 3 develop sound public policy which, God willing, will 4 prevent anything like this from happening again. 5 We have before us a preliminary piece of 6 legislation, House Bill 1591, which aims to do just that, 7 and I look forward to the hearing from all of our panels 8 of experts this afternoon. 9 At this time I would like to defer to my 10 counterpart, the prime sponsor of the legislation, 11 Chairman Bill Keller of Philadelphia, to tell us more 12 about House Bill 1591. 13 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 That was very touching. 15 I just want to start out by saying, you 16 know, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families who 17 were tragically affected by this collapse. 18 And, unfortunately, that is why we are 19 here today. We have to find out, you know, what we could 20 do when it comes to public safety to make sure that it 21 never happens again. 22 I believe this bill is a step in the right 23 direction to prevent any further catastrophes. 24 But we're here today to hear expert 25 testimony to see if we should add to or take out of this 9 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 bill certain things. 2 And basically what the bill does, it will 3 add a definition of commercial property to the act; 4 require the Department of Labor & Industry to annually 5 review the city inspectors and building code officials to 6 ensure they have the required training and 7 qualifications; require the City to conduct a site 8 inspection before issuing a demolition permit for a 9 commercial property or a multifamily dwelling here in 10 Philadelphia. 11 It will require contractors to meet the 12 following standards in order to obtain a demolition 13 permit: Provide the building plans and a demolition 14 schedule prepared by a licensed architect or engineer; 15 provide a site safety plan that meets or exceeds OSHA 16 regulations; maintain a liability insurance of at least 17 $1 million. 18 We found out from, you know, checking 19 around that the city inspectors have to have a liability 20 of a million dollars but the contractors do not. 21 Post a surety bond to the City in the 22 amount of $2 a square foot of the property to ensure that 23 the work is performed correctly; or if it's not performed 24 correctly, that they will have the money to chase that 25 contractor off the job and finish the job with the money. 10 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Provide notice of demolition application 2 and schedule by certified mail to the adjacent property 3 owners and occupants. That speaks for itself. They 4 would be aware of what was happening. 5 Comply with any and other requirements set 6 forth by the Department of Labor & Industry in the city. 7 Allow Philadelphia to adopt demolition 8 codes and standards that are stronger than the 9 requirements in the UCC, the Uniform Construction Code. 10 Charge -- I know people will get riled 11 about this, but I think it's important -- charge an 12 additional 15 percent fee on Philadelphia building 13 permits to fund additional training and enhance staffing 14 of inspectors. 15 That's another thing we found out, that 16 the City had 80 inspectors at one time because of the 17 Austerity Movement. It is now down to 40. That doesn't 18 seem to be enough inspectors. 19 We believe we can raise $1.5 million that 20 the State Department of Labor & Industry could use in 21 making sure that this never happens again. 22 And allow other municipalities to opt in 23 all of these provisions other than the additional permit 24 fee. 25 This bill is now crafted to include 11 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Philadelphia and have other parts of the state being able 2 to opt in. 3 Talking with a lot of members and people 4 in the industry, they seem to think we should do it 5 statewide. But that's one of the reasons we're here and 6 we're going to listen to expert testimony. 7 Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think you have 8 done a great job, you can see by the turnout. I believe 9 this is an important issue that we have to address. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you, Chairman 12 Keller, and I really want to applaud you for bringing the 13 legislation forward. I think it's something that 14 definitely needs to be looked at. 15 I just want to remind the members and the 16 testifiers, please speak directly into the mic because 17 this way they can pick you up back there. 18 The first group, Pat Gillespie. 19 Pat Gillespie, Lou Agre, and Jim Dollard. 20 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 21 My name is Pat Gillespie. I'm the 22 business manager of the Philadelphia Building and 23 Construction Trades Council. It's an organization that 24 represents the union construction workers in Philadelphia 25 and the five surrounding -- and the four surrounding 12 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 counties. 2 I applaud you for being here today and for 3 exercising your sovereignty on this issue in 4 Philadelphia. 5 The tragedy that occurred on 22nd Street, 6 22nd and Market, is -- it has happened. And it is a 7 tragedy, and we have six people who have passed. And I 8 think the obligation falls on all of us to make sure that 9 it's not repeated. 10 From the vantage point of people in the 11 construction industry, people who are trained, people who 12 know the business, they just shake their heads at how 13 stupid this whole operation was, how awful it was. 14 So it doesn't do us any good to point out 15 villains or to point out whatnot. But you did mention 16 the first responders there, and I'm proud to say that six 17 of those men who went in there were our members working 18 close by, and they ran in to help the people get out from 19 under that stuff. So we are kind of proud of that. 20 The unfortunate part, a number of people 21 who had been working in there for that contractor ran 22 away as if they stole something. So there's something 23 crazy about that whole operation. 24 So what we have done, we've offered to the 25 City of Philadelphia, we have people who have the 13 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 requisite knowledge, who know how to do this thing, who 2 know how to demolish buildings, who know how to work 3 safe, who have tremendous scholarship in this issue. 4 So we have offered to the City to bring 5 forth and help them develop a protocol for this type of 6 project, this type of demolition project. 7 You will hear shortly from two fellows who 8 work for various unions in the city. They are conversant 9 and they're experts in safety and in law and they know 10 that this can be done. 11 The one codicil that just got kind of 12 brushed over there in this proposal is that funding 13 mechanism that will direct the departments to make sure 14 that oversight is in place, to make sure that people do 15 what they know they should be doing. 16 And, again, you know, this is a city of 17 Philadelphia lawyers. There's going to be more 18 litigation about this thing and those debts will be paid. 19 But what we want try to do is to prevent 20 this from ever happening again, and I think we have the 21 wherewithal to do that. 22 So thank you for coming here today, and 23 I'll pass the microphone over to Jim Dollard. 24 MR. DOLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 My name is Jim Dollard with IBEW Local 98 14 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 here in Philadelphia. I am the safety coordinator for 2 IBEW Local 98. I've been a safety coordinator since 3 2001, and I have over 32 years in the electrical 4 construction business. 5 I would like to thank all of you for being 6 here today to discuss code enforcement policies with 7 respect to demolition. 8 I would like to echo Pat, you know, we 9 have the ability to keep this from ever happening again. 10 That's what we need to focus on. We need to focus on the 11 future. 12 I would also like to emphasize that we 13 need to look at, you know, where is the next possible 14 tragedy. And it could be on a construction project 15 instead of a demolition project. 16 IBEW Local 98 represents over 4,500 17 members in the Philadelphia industry -- in the 18 construction industry doing telecommunications work and 19 electrical work. We're in the construction industry. 20 We're out there every day. 21 Our members work in one of the most 22 dangerous trades that there is. We are exposed to all 23 of the hazards in construction, as well as electrical 24 hazards. 25 Due to the inherent dangers in trades -- 15 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 and that includes demolition -- we have to focus heavily 2 on safety training. We have to make sure that we have 3 people out there that know how to do the job safely. 4 Skilled workers are safe workers because they've been 5 properly trained. 6 My job as safety coordinator puts me on 7 the street. I'm out there with the construction crews on 8 all sorts of projects, including demolition projects, and 9 I also sit on multiple national committees for our 10 International. 11 Primarily it's in the NEC. I'm on the 12 Correlating Committee, multiple other committees, NFPA 13 70E, which is electrical safety in the workplace, and I 14 work heavily in product standards. 15 There is no -- no room on a job site with 16 respect to safety. We can't, you know, allow anybody to 17 do anything that isn't safe because it can impact that 18 individual, it can impact everybody. 19 Local 98 members and other Philadelphia 20 Building Trades members are trained. 21 We are trained to recognize those hazards 22 and the potential injury to us and others from those 23 hazards. We're trained to mitigate those hazards, and 24 we're trained to work within all of the minimum OSHA 25 requirements to protect us as well as others. 16 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Our goal is we want everybody to go home 2 at the end of the day in the same shape that they went to 3 work. We don't want them injured in demolition, we don't 4 want them to get injured by construction activity or be 5 exposed to hazards that are going to give them problems 6 later in life. 7 New workers in the construction industry, 8 for example in Local 98, before their boots hit a 9 construction site, they get a 3 0-hour OSHA course. That 10 is an awareness course. It makes them aware of the 11 hazards and the means to mitigate those hazards. 12 They're by no means experts on their first 13 day on the job, but they have a general awareness that is 14 absolutely necessary. 15 Additionally, we do a lot of training with 16 electricians for the hazards that we face that other 17 trades may not, specifically NFPA 70E training. 18 A typical apprentice gets about 1,000 19 hours classroom training, and they have to have 8,000 20 hours, per the BAT, to raise their ticket, to become what 21 we would call a journeyman wireman. 22 And it's not limited to classroom training 23 by any means. 24 On a typical job site there's safety 25 meetings every week with every trade. They discuss 17 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 safety. 2 Most job sites have, you know, a JHA, a 3 Job Hazard Analysis, before we begin in the morning, 4 before we begin at lunch. And the crew discusses the 5 potential hazards and how we're going to abate those 6 hazards. 7 But even with the best training, without 8 adequate enforcement overall we're never going to get 9 this thing done. We have to have overall enforcement on 10 job sites, because there's a lot of unscrupulous 11 contractors out there that are going to cut costs and not 12 provide that training. 13 One means that we see -- and we see it a 14 lot -- is 1099. A contractor will get a job, and then he 15 gets basically ten employees but he 1099s all of them so 16 they all become individual contractors and he has no 17 responsibility to train them, and there's no way to track 18 taxes, wages, et cetera. 19 Philadelphia is densely populated. It's 20 very difficult for one guy or two or three people to try 21 to track all of that down. 22 Within the City we've got big problems with 23 permits. To be a general contractor there's really no 24 competency requirements. 25 Some of the skilled trades have competency 18 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 requirements. For example, to be an electrical 2 contractor you have got to be able to prove so many hours 3 of training, so many years of experience, et cetera. 4 But a big problem there is anybody that pulls a 5 permit -- as long as you have got a license and you pay 6 the fee, you pull the permit, you can then subcontract to 7 anybody. We call them third-party permits. 8 There is no way to keep track of who's 9 doing the job, whether they are 1099'g people, whether 10 taxes are being paid to the State or the City. And we 11 did see that with the tragic events at 22nd and Market. 12 With respect to enforcement activities, 13 one of the things that you hear, and you heard on the 14 news, was OSHA, OSHA, OSHA. Well, it's not OSHA's 15 responsibility. It's L&I's responsibility to get that 16 done. 17 The Philadelphia area OSHA office does a 18 fantastic job. The compliance officers are diligent in 19 their work. But they're few, and they have to cover 20 every workplace in the area. That's not just 21 construction and demolition; it's literally every 22 workplace in the area. 23 Unfortunately, many politicians look at 24 L&I, Licenses & Inspections, in the City of Philadelphia 25 and other areas throughout the Commonwealth as revenue 19 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 generators. 2 They just look at them as, you know, 3 filling the coffers with money, when they should be 4 looking at them and saying let's make sure that the I's 5 are dotted, the T's are crossed and that we're getting 6 construction and demolition done without exposing people 7 that are on the sites and passersby, for example, to the 8 hazards. 9 Philadelphia needs inspectors on the 10 street. We need them to be trained. And what happened 11 at 22nd and Market proves that the industry can't police 12 itself and that we have major flaws in code enforcement. 13 And in closing, I would just like to state 14 that a dedicated revenue stream that Bill 1591 that was, 15 you know, put forth by Representative Keller would create 16 a fund whereby we could make sure that code enforcement 17 officials are getting the training. 18 And I can tell you, the code enforcement 19 officials want that training. They want to be able to do 20 more. But without the additional funds, it's just not 21 going to happen. 22 And in closing, I would like to thank you 23 very much. This is a very serious issue for me because 24 I've been involved in codes and standards my entire 25 career. 20 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 And seeing what happened at 22nd and 2 Market, and completely understanding that that should 3 have never happened, is the reason that I'm here. 4 Thank you very much. 5 MR. AGRE: Good afternoon. Thank you for 6 having me. My name is Louis Agre. I'm here on behalf of 7 the International Unit of Operating Engineers Local 542, 8 Joint Apprenticeship Training and Safety Committee. I'm 9 a business agent, organizer, and in-house counsel for 10 Operating Engineers Local 542. 11 Thank you for inviting me. I'm here on 12 behalf of Mr. Sullivan who got delayed, and I'll pinch- 13 hit the best I can. 14 Right now in order to do a job like they 15 did at 22nd and Market anybody here with $300 for a 16 permit and a credit card to rent a piece of equipment 17 could go in, rent a piece of equipment like that and 18 begin that demolition. No training, no reason to be able 19 to work legally. You don't even need a driver's license. 20 If you were falling down drunk, shooting 21 heroin, the only law you would be breaking is possession 22 of the heroin. And that's a tragedy, and that's what led 23 to this. 24 Operating engineers, we spend over 21,00 0 25 hours training our members, training our apprentices to 21 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 do this kind of work. 2 On top of that, we give a training for 3 OSHA -- a 30-hour OSHA training, as Mr. Dollard pointed 4 out. This is tailored to our industry. 5 In the demolition industry there are 6 basically two trades that do -- perform most of the work, 7 the operating engineers and the laborers. So it's very 8 important to us that this be done safely. 9 In addition, we give the 30-hour training. 10 And when I say 30-hour training, it's approved by OSHA. 11 You can go online and get an OSHA 3 0 training program, 12 but only very few of them are approved by OSHA. Ours is, 13 as I'm sure 98's is. 14 Anybody can sign up, but it's not really 15 training. 16 We go through -- we have OSHA 30, Process 17 Safety Management training, CPR, First Aid. We train 18 people -- we certify people to operate cranes safely, 19 forklift training, and any other training that comes in 20 as things get -- as new processes are introduced. 21 One of the things that a trained employee 22 would have done -- first of all, that piece of equipment 23 was too small to do that job safely. 24 They would not have taken that job down 25 the way they did it. They would have made them take it 22 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 down in sections and safely. They wouldn't have taken a 2 four-story building down over a two-story building. And 3 I'm sure if the employees were trained properly, they 4 would not have done it. 5 In addition to the kind of training we do 6 for general excavating and demolition, we have a 7 building, a steel structure that we build and take down 8 on a regular basis so that people -- our apprentices and 9 our journeymen can do this. 10 And, finally, the most important thing is 11 an apprentice will be in a piece of equipment next to a 12 journeyman, one-on-one training, where he learns or she 13 learns how to do this safely. And to learn how to do it 14 safely is to learn how to do it right. 15 I would ask -- I looked at the bill and I 16 would ask that there be some provisions. That there be a 17 3 0-hour approved OSHA training person on each job; that 18 all employees on the job be -- and all contractors have a 19 skilled apprentice, somebody who is going through an 20 apprenticeship training; and I'd ask that all first 21 contractors performing demolition work have a drug 22 testing policy so you don't have people impaired running 23 this kind of equipment. 24 Thank you very much. 25 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you, gentlemen. 23 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 First, we've been joined by Representative 2 Mark Longietti, Representative John Sabatina from 3 Philadelphia, Representative Rosita Youngblood from 4 Philadelphia. 5 You made one comment that I'm sure you 6 were going to get a reply for it. I don't believe, and I 7 don't think many of the members believe, that the 8 Department of Labor & Industry should be a money 9 generator; it should break even. Hopefully -- that's the 10 goal, you know. 11 MR. DOLLARD: My comments were meant 12 towards L&I in Philadelphia. 13 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Oh, excuse me. 14 MR. DOLLARD: That's because L&I in 15 Philadelphia is looked upon as a revenue generator and 16 not an enforcement agency. You know, I should have 17 clarified that better. 18 But, you know, the bottom line is -­ 19 because we call there all the time. We have got a 20 licensed contractor, they paid for the permit. And we're 21 telling them that they have got six subcontractors, that 22 there's people doing crazy things out there, and they 23 don't want to hear it. 24 So my comments were directed at the City 25 of Philadelphia Department of L&I. 24 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Okay. 2 Chairman Keller. 3 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 Mr. Dollard, it's come to our attention 5 that in New York City this is their -- just for 6 demolition this is their code for demolition. It's 7 double-sided, it's 45 pages -- or 90 pages. 8 This is Philadelphia's, four one-sided 9 pages. 10 I don't know how converse you are in the 11 New York code, but do you believe that if we adopted some 12 of the provisions in the New York code we could stop this 13 tragedy from happening again? 14 MR. DOLLARD: Thank you, Representative 15 Keller. That is an excellent question. It's an 16 excellent point. 17 That's true. I do believe -- I'm not 18 going to go out and try to get somebody off the hook 19 here, because I think that somebody was, you know, 20 negligent in the Philadelphia Department of Licenses & 21 Inspections, probably more than one person. 22 But I will tell you this, that every time 23 they see new legislation put through City Council they 24 take a look at it and they cringe. And the reason that 25 they cringe is because they don't have the money, they 25 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 don't have the people, and they know that they don't have 2 the training. So they don't have the funds to do that. 3 I think that if we were able to somehow 4 channel money into the Department of L&I -- and I'm 5 talking about Philadelphia -- and make sure that they had 6 enough people, that they had the training, then they 7 would not -- there would be no piece of legislation new 8 that came down the pike that they would be upset with. 9 For example, they have got laws now in 10 Philadelphia, you can't take a -- a guy with a tow truck 11 out in Montgomery County won't go into Philly and get 12 your car and bring it back. You've got to get somebody 13 to jump through all of the hoops in Philly to take -- to 14 come from Montgomery County, for example, to get your 15 car. 16 I actually ran into that. I called my 17 mechanic. He said, You are going to have to get somebody 18 else because I don't jump through all of those hoops. 19 Well, we need people to start jumping 20 through hoops with respect to demolition. And what you 21 just held up there, you know, in New York City we could 22 probably adopt it as written and we're going to save 23 lives. 24 Because we don't hear about the lives that 25 we didn't lose; we hear about the lives that are lost. 26 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Many years ago I was in a big argument in 2 the National Electrical Code for ground fault circuit 3 interrupters. You've got them in your bathroom, you've 4 got them in your basement, you've got them on your 5 kitchen counter, you've got them outside. And I 6 guarantee you that you know somebody, maybe somebody in 7 your family, that their life was saved because of a GFCI. 8 But there's always pushback to new codes, 9 to new standards, to new requirements. And we need to 10 overcome that, and I think that this bill is going to get 11 us in the right direction. 12 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you. 13 Mr. Agre, another complaint we've heard 14 frequently is that it is difficult to get the Department 15 of Licenses & Inspection to enforce the state crane 16 operator's licensing law by checking the state board's 17 database that contain crane operators that are licensed 18 in Pennsylvania. 19 Have you found this to be true? And how 20 big of a problem is it? And could that be another 21 accident waiting to happen in the future? 22 MR. AGRE: If you mean difficult, you 23 probably mean impossible; because at this point I know of 24 no crane operator that has ever been cited for not having 25 a license. 27 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 And we know of many, because we go up on 2 the jobs and we ask them to see their license. We report 3 it to either L&I or the State. Nothing is done. There's 4 no enforcement procedure. 5 We have trained -- our joint apprentices 6 have been trained -- the safety committee trained every 7 inspector in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But 8 unless there's somebody that's going to go pull a guy's 9 or a woman's crane license, there's no enforcement 10 procedure. 11 So you can have many, you know, 12 nontrained, nonlicensed persons. They are operating 13 cranes right as we speak, but there's no procedures, 14 there's no enforcement to stop that. 15 And that is another tragedy waiting to 16 happen, because you're over head, you're doing 17 demolition, you're swinging around buildings. And it's a 18 severe danger to the people under working there and to 19 the people surrounding. 20 CHAIRMAN KELLER: I know when we did that 21 bill, I was part of it. Because when I worked down in 22 the waterfront, I ran cranes and ran the winches. We had 23 no training. We did on-the-job training. Stay at 24 lunchtime and somebody would help you. 25 So I thought this was a great improvement 28 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 from what -- how I learned to run a crane, and it's not 2 working. 3 MR. AGRE: Well, it's -- I mean, all our 4 operators are all licensed, they have CCOs, they're out 5 there working, they have their state license. 6 But the fact is that they have to be -­ 7 take both written and practical training to get their 8 license. 9 At this point if they don't have a 10 license, there's -- you can see outside how many -- well, 11 I guess you could see that way -- how many cranes there 12 are, and -- because they are mostly the City of 13 Philadelphia that have licenses. 14 But if you go to, you know, some places, 15 there's no license. The guy just drove the crane out of 16 the lot that day. 17 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you. 18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: We have some 20 questions. 21 Representative Galloway. 22 REPRESENTATIVE GALLOWAY: Good afternoon, 23 everybody. And I would like to thank the chairmen -- all 24 the chairmen that are here today. I'd like to thank 25 everybody for being here today, but specifically Chairman 29 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Keller, who I think put an excellent proposal to the 2 board to put forth to address the problem. 3 I would like to talk about two things that 4 were discussed today briefly, training and enforcement. 5 I would like to get a couple of things 6 straight. I'm kind of incredulous to a couple of things. 7 Are you saying that as a 8 member of the Philadelphia Building Trades your workers 9 complete mandatory OSHA training? 10 MR. DOLLARD: It's our requirement. So 11 it's mandatory in IBEW Local 98, yes, Representative, and 12 throughout the building trades. 13 REPRESENTATIVE GALLOWAY: And it's not 14 mandatory from a standpoint I guess it would be from L&I? 15 MR. DOLLARD: No, that is correct. You 16 could take a look at -- nationwide, and you can actually 17 look into the Northeast Corridor of the United States -­ 18 Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island up there -- they 19 do require an OSHA 30. As a matter of fact, they 20 require, you know, continuing CEUs for all trades. 21 REPRESENTATIVE GALLOWAY: Do they require 22 through a state level? I mean, we're looking at a 23 bill -- and I understand it, it's a great idea to mandate 24 things from the State, but you talked about negligence 25 from the Department of L&I, and I would like to stay 30 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 there for a second. 2 Do you feel it was their responsibility to 3 mandate training and enforcement? 4 MR. DOLLARD: Yes, I do. They are the 5 governing body. 6 You know, when you take a look at codes 7 and standards, they would be recognized as the AHJ. They 8 are the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 9 And I'll give you an example of how they 10 get the electrical inspections done. They do it through 11 third party. 12 So there are seven or eight third-party 13 inspection agencies that are recognized in the City of 14 Philadelphia. An electrical contractor has to identify 15 one of those third-party inspection agencies on the 16 permit. Then that third-party agency has the 17 responsibility to do rough-in inspections and then final 18 inspections on the electrical. 19 You don't have that anywhere else. I 20 mean, absolutely nowhere else do you have that. 21 And I would also like to emphasize that 22 the number of phone calls and e-mails that we send to L&I 23 to try to get them to come to correct some deficiencies, 24 they just don't come. 25 And I don't think that it's because in 31 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 their heart they don't want to do it. It's because they 2 don't have the funding. They don't -- and in many cases 3 they don't have the competency in the inspectors 4 themselves. 5 Because, you know, I guess it's hard to 6 hire somebody that has all of those competencies; because 7 if they do, they could probably get a job somewhere else. 8 REPRESENTATIVE GALLOWAY: 9 So you are saying it's more than just training and 10 enforcement, it's funding. 11 MR. DOLLARD: I think funding has to be 12 there before you get training and enforcement. It has to 13 be a precursor so that we can have the money to get those 14 people training, and then money to pay additional feet on 15 the street to be out there to do the enforcement. 16 So, yes, sir, I think that the funding has 17 to be there first. 18 It's our opinion that -- and as I 19 mentioned earlier, Chairmen, I mentioned that, you know, 20 everybody looks at L&I as a revenue generator. 21 What I mean by that is the money that's 22 generated by all of those building permits, et cetera, 23 that should be going into a pot, a fund if you will, to 24 hire more inspectors, to train inspectors. 25 And there's another big, big problem, and 32 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 we saw it with 22nd and Market. I think the guy put a 2 $10,000 value on that. That should have been 200,000. 3 We see electrical installations that we 4 know are a million point five, but we see them listed at 5 $40,000. 6 So you are only paying a permit fee on 7 $40,000 versus a million and a half, and nobody goes and 8 looks at it. 9 REPRESENTATIVE GALLOWAY: Thank you. 10 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 MR. GILLESPIE: That job for $10,000, you 12 couldn't have gotten rid of the asbestos in that building 13 for $10,000. So I don't know what the real price was, 14 but that was -- for someone -- that should have raised a 15 red flag right there. 16 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative Truitt. 17 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, 18 Mr. Chairman. 19 Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. 20 I would just like to clarify something 21 that I saw in the IBEW report here. It says that, 22 Permits are far too easy to obtain in the City of 23 Philadelphia, particularly demolition permits. 24 And I just wanted to be sure that I 25 understand correctly. 33 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Does anyone go out -- if someone had 2 requested a demolition permit, does someone go out and 3 inspect the site ahead of the project at the beginning to 4 determine if there's anything unusual that would create a 5 risk? 6 Because you can imagine a lot of people 7 would think how hard can it be to tear a building down. 8 And if they are not experienced at it, they wouldn't 9 realize -- they don't know what they don't know about 10 what could be a problem here. 11 Whereas an experienced inspector could go 12 out and look at the site at 22nd and Market and know to 13 ask that contractor, Well, what are you going to do to 14 keep stuff from the building you're tearing down from 15 falling on this building next door? 16 Are you saying that they don't go out and 17 do any preinspection at all at this time? 18 MR. DOLLARD: Well, what we learned after 19 this investigation -- and I am not a subject matter 20 expert with demolition. I have partners in the building 21 trades here that are. 22 But what we learned with the tragedy at 23 22nd and Market is that when you did get a permit from 24 the City Department of L&I, they did two inspections. 25 They went out and looked at it before you started work, 34 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 and then they went out to make sure you cleaned up. 2 That's it. That's all that they did. 3 I'm certain that -- you know, maybe Pat 4 wants to comment on that -- but that's all that the City 5 did. 6 And you didn't have to be a safety 7 coordinator for IBEW Local 98 to figure that out. All 8 you had to do was be watching the news. 9 Because, you know, they were getting 10 grilled, and they said, Look, we do two things. We look 11 at it before you knock it down and after you knock it 12 down. 13 So, I mean, if you are looking at a 14 four-story structure, wouldn't you think -- wouldn't 15 common sense tell you that you had to be there after they 16 got maybe 10 percent into it, 20 percent into it, 30 17 percent into it to make sure that they were doing it 18 right? 19 And, you know, we keep talking about six 20 dead. You know, there's really seven dead, and it was 21 the inspector that was the seventh death. 22 And maybe he knew. Maybe he knew that he 23 should have been looking at it. Maybe he would have been 24 reprimanded if he went and looked at it. I don't know. 25 I don't know what was going through his head. But that's 35 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 another part of this tragedy. 2 And, you know, I think that what happened 3 there bears out that these inspectors, whether it's 4 demolition, building, whatever it is they are doing, I 5 think they want to do the right thing. I really do. I 6 think that we all want to do the right thing. 7 MR. GILLESPIE: Representative, what we 8 mean by establishing protocols for this work is similar 9 -- exchanging our four-page requirement, which talks of 10 what Jim just spoke to, to a 90-page requirement similar 11 to New York; the way things should be done, the steps 12 that have to be taken, the common sense kind of things 13 that have to be done. 14 And when you are in a community where you 15 have a lot of neighbors, where you have a lot of foot 16 traffic, accommodations have to be made. It's not like 17 you are out in a cornfield where you knock down the old 18 barn; you know, things fall and people know enough to get 19 out of the way. People don't know what's going to fall. 20 Of course, we had a judge killed here from 21 a slum landlord allowing a piece of property to go to 22 seed, and the parapet fell. The parapet could have been 23 fixed easily. And we had a judge killed. So that caused 24 a whole lot of attention, and that may have been 20 years 25 ago. 36 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 So we have this issue now, and there are 2 seven people dead because of it, and hopefully they 3 haven't passed in vain. Hopefully we can attach 4 protocols to this to prevent this from happening again. 5 And, by the way, this isn't building the 6 Tower of Babel. This is just a commonsense thing that 7 normal contractors and normal citizens and respectable 8 people do every day in this business. 9 Regardless of whether they are union or 10 nonunion, normal contractors know how to do this stuff. 11 They are not going to expose their men or their profit 12 margin to some kind of a lawsuit. 13 Because that's what's coming. The 14 lawsuits on this thing are going to be tremendous. There 15 will be people who won't see the light of day because of 16 this financially. I mean, this is going to be very, very 17 expensive for somebody. 18 But we want to try to get something done. 19 And the beauty of the proposal that's out there, this 20 legislative proposal, is that it has a dedicated funding 21 stream right to L&I for training and enforcement that 22 will go to -- come from an increase in -- a modest 23 increase in permitting fees, which are manageable from 24 what we believe. 25 MR. AGRE: If I may. 37 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 A 90-page document is great, but unless 2 there's somebody to enforce it and willing to enforce it, 3 there's no -- it doesn't matter if it's a 9-page or a 4 9,000-page document. There has to be a will and there 5 has to be funding to enforce it. 6 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 7 Neilson. 8 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: Thank you, 9 Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this hearing down in 10 my hometown and bring me back to light a little bit. 11 I must put a disclaimer in. I am out of 12 Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades, and I am a 13 member of IBEW Local 98. 14 I've worked on these codes with Jim for 20 15 years myself trying to get these issues brought to the 16 forefront so that everybody hears them. 17 And I don't want to speak for Jim, but I 18 know Jim as a person. If anybody on the committee would 19 like to have more information, please feel free to use 20 him. He's a pro. He's a little modest on his 21 qualifications there, but he is nationally recognized in 22 the field of code making. 23 Jim, something you brought up was the -- I 24 don't think people understand -- is the third-party 25 permitting and the 1099s, and the ability for someone to 38 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 walk in and get a permit from the City of Philadelphia 2 and not step one day on that job site. 3 Can you explain to the committee a little 4 more about that and how that works? 5 MR. DOLLARD: Yes, I can. Thank you, 6 Representative. 7 There was two points. There are really 8 three: third-party permits, 1099s, and where you need to 9 be. 10 For example, to get a permit you could be 11 licensed -- you could be in California, and you could 12 still get the permit through an expeditor. 13 And then once you have that permit -- you 14 are still in California -- you could look in the Yellow 15 Pages or just call anybody that you want, or multiple 16 players, and now that's what we call third-party permits, 17 the third-party players. 18 The guy that took the permit never set 19 foot on the job. In many cases the licensed individual 20 -- even for electrical -- never sets foot on the 21 project. We don't have licensing of journeymen wiremen 22 or licensing of all tradesmen like some states do. 23 And when that happens -- and we see this 24 all the time. We see third-party permits. One guy takes 25 it -- he's got a license. He takes it up, and he splits 39 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 the job into three pieces, and now we have got third- 2 party permits. 3 And then when he splits the job into three 4 pieces, sometimes each of those pieces will hire six or 5 eight people and they are all 1099s. 6 There's no way to track who's on the job, 7 who paid taxes, where money went, whether they are 8 trained in the trade that they are performing, whether 9 they have any safety education whatsoever. 10 It's one of the biggest problems that we 11 have, because the third-party permit process just breeds 12 the 1099s. 13 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: And to comment on 14 that, Mr. Dollard, just so we're clear, Pennsylvania is 15 one of seven states in the country that doesn't regulate 16 contractors or its work force in some type of manner, if 17 I'm correct in that. 18 We did some studies when I was at Labor & 19 Industry for Governor Rendell, and we're one of seven 20 states across the country that do not regulate 21 contractors or individual workers in the construction 22 industry. 23 Hopefully this law will start changing 24 some of that. 25 MR. DOLLARD: Yeah. And we are actually 40 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 working on -- and I don't know where it's at; I know I 2 was involved in helping put it together -- but trying to 3 come up with a bill that would license electrical 4 contractors and journeymen electricians and recognized 5 apprentices on job sites as long as they were registered 6 in the Pennsylvania Bureau of Apprenticeship and 7 Training. 8 And that's the right thing to do, because 9 then any time you hire an electrical contractor you know 10 that even though he may not be on the job, the 11 individuals that are there -- journeymen and apprentices 12 -- are trained in their trade as well as in safe work 13 practices. 14 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: And if anybody is 15 interested in that, Representative Taylor and myself have 16 a co-sponsorship memo. We plan on introducing that in 17 the fall. So I got that little plug in on electrical 18 licensing. 19 But on some other issues, Jim, the 20 training, are you aware of any state construction site 21 that has unregistered apprentices working on them? I 22 mean, we require that as the Commonwealth. Isn't that 23 correct? 24 MR. DOLLARD: That's correct. It's 25 rampant. In Pennsylvania it is absolutely rampant. 41 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 What happens is a young guy gets into the 2 business, wants to break into the business. If he's 3 fortunate enough to get into a company that has an 4 apprenticeship program or a local union that does have an 5 apprenticeship program, he's lucky. 6 Because I could tell you the majority of 7 the small -- smaller contractors out there -- and even 8 some of the mid-sized contractors -- they don't do that. 9 They hire basically what they call helpers and call them 10 apprentices. 11 In Pennsylvania they are only an 12 apprentice if they are registered with the Pennsylvania 13 BAT and they are in some type of a registered training 14 program, because you have to be registered in the state 15 to give that training. 16 So, you know, examples of that would be 17 IBEW Local 98 and other union apprenticeship programs, as 18 well as vo-techs and other programs that are out there 19 that are recognized by the State. 20 MR. AGRE: I've also seen that, 21 Representative Neilson, I've also seen that as a way to 22 circumvent the requirements of minimum wage by saying 23 someone is an apprentice or classify them as an 24 apprentice when they're not really in an apprenticeship 25 training program, paying them at an apprentice wage 42 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 instead of a journeymen wage in order to circumvent the 2 minimum wage requirements. 3 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: Mr. Agre, while 4 you're at the microphone, you talked about the no 5 enforcement on the operator's licensing that you have in 6 the Commonwealth. 7 Is there some agency or some person that 8 you call if you personally find someone? I mean, you 9 can't even call the police or anything like that, to my 10 understanding. 11 MR. AGRE: We're constantly turning over 12 unlicensed crane operators to the Bureau of -- there's a 13 crane bureau, that would be Occupational -­ 14 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: Labor Law 15 Compliance. 16 MR. AGRE: Are they Labor Law? I 17 apologize. 18 Well, we are constantly -- I mean, we 19 always get the State form letter, Thank you for turning 20 this in. We appreciate it. We'll monitor it, but at 21 this time we're not going to go -­ 22 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: Do you know how 23 many people across the state are on that, by chance? 24 MR. AGRE: I know we were keeping tabs of 25 it for a while. I don't know if we're in five figures 43 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 yet, but we're getting close. 2 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: As inspector-wise 3 in this Commonwealth that are supposed to be enforcing 4 that, there's 14 statewide inspectors that could actually 5 enforce that law, as well as the prevailing wage law. 6 They're the ones that are charged with it. There's only 7 14 statewide, and I'm sure we have more cranes than that 8 across the Commonwealth. 9 MR. AGRE: Well, we also trained every 10 inspector from the occupational -- the people that 11 register the occupation -- I apologize. And they are 12 also trained in crane safety and crane laws and 13 enforcement. 14 REPRESENTATIVE NEILSON: Thank you, 15 Mr. Chairman. 16 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you, 17 Representative. 18 We have four other representatives with 19 questions. I would appreciate if you keep them brief 20 because we are running behind. 21 Representative Gillen. 22 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Thank you very 23 much, Mr. Chairman. 24 Thank you, gentlemen. 25 We heard a lot about permits, codes, 44 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 inspections, and as I understand it it's based on media 2 counts. 3 A particular inspector who is involved 4 with the oversight had recently been nominated through 5 L&I for a top safety award. 6 When I think of this whole situation -- I 7 guess common sense is something that came out during the 8 course of the testimony here -- I reflect on what people 9 in this community say, my own family who lives in the 10 community. And they look at an operator since 1994 who 11 was arrested on 11 occasions, everything from theft to 12 weapons offenses, to last year, if I'm not mistaken, 13 aggravated assault, the fundamental question that people 14 in the community have is, what role does screening or 15 character or ethics play? 16 I know that IBEW Local 98 -- perhaps this 17 is a question for Jim. What role does integrity play in 18 this process in terms of people that are actual operators 19 of equipment? 20 Can you give us some insights, some ideas, 21 some of the things that you are currently doing, the 22 practices that you engage in, so that we can keep these 23 bad operators out of situations where they are going to 24 hazard the community? 25 MR. DOLLARD: Thank you, Representative. 45 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 I'll be brief, and then I'll let Pat get into the 2 operating piece. 3 But I can tell you that IBEW Local 98, if 4 you are lucky enough to be accepted as an apprentice, one 5 of the first things that happens is you are drug tested. 6 And then you are randomly drug tested over a period of 7 four years. 8 We don't tolerate that in the construction 9 industry, and that goes with all of the trades. It's not 10 something that we allow to happen. 11 And I know that in this particular case, 12 you know, one individual, you know, came up hot for 13 drugs, had a horrible arrest record; but how many other 14 jobs did he knock down and we were lucky enough that no 15 one was killed. 16 MR. AGRE: If I may. 17 In Operating Engineers Local 542, if you 18 test positive for drugs, you are not referred out for 19 work until you've completed a rehabilitation program. 20 MR. GILLESPIE: We have all saints in the 21 construction industry. 22 Listen, the point of all of this is that 23 in our industry, in the union construction industry, 24 there are systems. You work for employers who pay their 25 taxes. You work for employers who know how to do things. 46 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Also, they know how to discipline people. 2 If you show up impaired, you're gone. If 3 you show up not ready for work, you're not in the crew. 4 You're not going to jeopardize anybody else's life or the 5 project's life. 6 That's -- these are the fundamental rules 7 of construction. They are pretty much the fundamental 8 rules of any employment opportunity, including the State 9 House. I mean, if you're impaired, you can't do your 10 job. 11 This was a breakdown. The sobering thing 12 about this breakdown is when you look to see what the 13 protocols are, there aren't any. And that's the point. 14 That's what we're offering to the City, to 15 help develop -- through our experts to help them develop 16 it. And now through this -- the initiative that has been 17 offered legislatively to fund it so that there's a 18 funding stream so it can be enforced. 19 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Thank you, 20 gentlemen. 21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 22 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 23 Brownlee. 24 REPRESENTATIVE BROWNLEE: Thank you, 25 Mr. Chairman. 47 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Gentlemen, I have a very simple question. 2 Have your organizations supplied any workers that -- for 3 work that has been overseen by the PA Department of Labor 4 or DGS on state buildings? 5 And, if so, what is the difference between 6 the administration and enforcement of the UCC on the 7 state level and on the local level concerning the 8 inspections and enforcement of particular rules and 9 regulations? 10 MR. DOLLARD: That's a very interesting 11 question, Representative. 12 One of the things that happens is the 13 State -- the UCC sets codes and standards. But one of 14 the things that we find out when we're building, you 15 know, something that is a governmental structure, you 16 know, those rules don't necessarily apply there. 17 So as far as electrical goes, our 18 contractors will hire a third-party inspector. But 19 typically, you know, those rules don't apply, and we 20 can't even get the City Department of L&I to go there; 21 because if it is, you know, a government structure, then, 22 you know, they actually -- through the codes and 23 standards, you know, legally, you know, you guys are off 24 the hook. 25 And -- but they are built. They are built 48 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 -- as long as you have contractors that, you know, dot 2 their I's and cross their T's, they do it right, then you 3 are getting things built right. 4 And the UCC codes and standards, the RAC 5 Commission decided to stay on the 2008 codes and 6 standards until after 2016. That's a completely other 7 issue. 8 But, I mean, we're missing the boat on all 9 of the requirements -- the permissive requirements and 10 other requirements that allow emerging technologies to 11 take off and advancing safety. But they are not even 12 going to look at that again until 2016. 13 MR. GILLESPIE: Just to add 14 parenthetically, the largest construction project that 15 the State has ever commissioned was done here in 16 Philadelphia, the expansion of our Convention Center. 17 That's close to $8 hundred million that was spent by the 18 State for that project. 19 It was done without an accident -- without 20 one reportable accident, and it was done with all the 21 proper protocols in place, and ahead of schedule and 22 under budget. So much for bureaucracy. 23 REPRESENTATIVE BROWNLEE: Thank you, 24 Mr. Chairman. 25 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 49 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Evankovich. 2 REPRESENTATIVE EVANKOVICH: Thank you, 3 Mr. Chairman. 4 I was going to waive off in the interest 5 of time, but I think I have a pretty simple question. 6 You know, as I was listening to your 7 testimony, gentlemen, I couldn't help but think about one 8 primary area that you were talking about with independent 9 contractors being on the job site. 10 And would the fact that these independent 11 contractors being on the job site, perhaps, as you're 12 saying, maybe not trained, maybe not being in the job 13 that they were trained for, what have you, would it make 14 the case for some type of uniformity in the job 15 classification definitions? 16 MR. GILLESPIE: Well, if I may. 17 These aren't independent contractors. 18 These are misclassified employees that they were 19 misclassified as independent contractors. They are just 20 a way for unscrupulous employers to avoid many labor and 21 immigration laws. 22 Would it make sense to classify them? 23 Classify them as employees, which is what 24 they are. 25 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you. 50 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Representative Helm. 2 REPRESENTATIVE HELM: Thank you, 3 Mr. Chairman. 4 As soon as I heard the 1099, kind of a red 5 flag went up in my mind. And I just -- I think this 6 House Bill 1591 is a good bill, but could you tell me, 7 could this correct the problem with 1099s? 8 MR. DOLLARD: No. 9 REPRESENTATIVE HELM: Tell me, then, how 10 we could control them. 11 MR. DOLLARD: I think we need to get a 12 structure within the City of Philadelphia that eliminates 13 third-party permits; a structure that somehow has the 14 Construction Department, the Electrical Department, the 15 Revenue Department, have them all talking so that they 16 know that an employer doesn't really have employees. 17 And that's one of the biggest problems. 18 We have -- you know, the City gives a permit to an 19 individual that doesn't have any employees now. 20 And we've got documented -- I think we 21 could give it to you -- long documentation stacked about 22 this high just on one individual that would get 23 electrical permits in the City of Philadelphia and hadn't 24 had an employee in 3 0 years. 25 MR. GILLESPIE: Make it a criminal offense 51 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 for abusing the 1099 system. I mean, if there's a 2 legitimate reason for it to have a 1099 person on your 3 job, then that should be scribed into the rules. 4 This is just to avoid taxes -- avoid state 5 taxes, avoid obligations for unemployment compensation 6 payments and worker compensation payments. 7 It puts the burden on all the other 8 legitimate employers. This should be a Republican cause, 9 to stop this 1099 business. And it will also help with 10 getting a lot of the undocumented workers off of job 11 sites. 12 So -- but it's not just reserved for the 13 City of Philadelphia. This is a statewide problem. 14 REPRESENTATIVE HELM: I agree, and thank 15 you very much. I think it's something we definitely need 16 to look into. 17 MR. DOLLARD: Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you, gentlemen, 19 for your testimony. 20 Our next testifier is J. Scott Robinette 21 from -- the Deputy Secretary for Safety, Labor-Management 22 Relations, Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry. 23 DEPUTY SECRETARY ROBINETTE: Chairman 24 Scavello, Chairman Keller, Chairman Gillespie, Chairman 25 Harhai, and members of the Labor & Industry and Urban 52 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Affairs Committees, my name is Scott Robinette and I do 2 serve as the Deputy Secretary for Safety & 3 Labor-Management Relations for the Department of Labor & 4 Industry; what we often call L&I in Harrisburg and what 5 is not called L&I so much in Harrisburg -- or in 6 Philadelphia. 7 On behalf of Secretary Hearthway, thank 8 you for the opportunity to testify today on the subject 9 of building demolition and the provisions of House Bill 10 1591. 11 I am here to discuss in a general and 12 broad way the legislation that has been proposed in that 13 bill. 14 Before I get into that, there's a couple 15 of items, random items, I just want to comment on in 16 response to the testimony that just concluded. 17 I think -- it's clear to me -- I hope it's 18 clear to all of the representatives here -- that there's 19 just some general confusion about what L&I means 20 depending on where you are. 21 The Philadelphia Department of Licensing & 22 Inspections enforces the Uniform Construction Code in 23 Philadelphia. 24 The Department of Labor & Industry 25 enforces the UCC in state buildings across the 53 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Commonwealth and in municipalities that have chosen not 2 to enforce the code themselves. Those are the minority 3 of municipalities, but the Department of Labor & Industry 4 enforces the UCC in those places. 5 And I want to assure you that the 6 Department of Labor & Industry very seriously enforces 7 the UCC in state buildings whether they are in 8 Philadelphia or Harrisburg or anywhere in the 9 Commonwealth. 10 Again, with respect to who enforces the 11 crane licensing law in Pennsylvania, it is not the 12 Department of Labor & Industry or the Bureau of Labor Law 13 Compliance. That's the Department of State that enforces 14 that. 15 So it is true that the Bureau of Labor Law 16 Compliance enforces the Prevailing Wage Act with about 30 17 investigators, but we don't handle the crane operators 18 licensing law. That is the Department of State. 19 Part of my job as Deputy Secretary is to 20 the extent that the Department of Labor & Industry has 21 statutory oversight to ensure that workplaces are safe, 22 secure, and that state laws are enforced. 23 In November 1999, the General Assembly 24 passed legislation known as the Pennsylvania Construction 25 Code Act. We call it the PCCA. 54 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 The primary purpose of the PCCA is to 2 provide standards for the protection of life and property 3 in the environment by promoting the safety and welfare of 4 consumers, the general public, and the owners and 5 occupants of buildings and businesses. 6 The department in general supports 7 attempts to promote and increase safety for the general 8 public, particularly in the area of building demolition, 9 and appreciates the effort that the authors of House Bill 10 1591 have made to further this shared objective. 11 And we do have some thoughts on particular 12 aspects of the bill that we think merit further review 13 and consideration. 14 Before I get into that, I would just 15 again, as was done in the opening, like to provide my 16 personal and on behalf of the Secretary our condolences 17 to those who suffered a loss as a result of the tragic 18 events here in Philadelphia when the building collapsed 19 on June 5th, 2013. 20 The proposed legislation addresses a 21 number of different areas, and I would like to talk about 22 those just as general areas of discussion. 23 First, the area of demolition. Under the 24 PCCA, the Department of Labor & Industry is charged with 25 developing regulations that would become the Uniform 55 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Construction Code, what we have heard described today as 2 the UCC. 3 In so doing, the department specifically 4 included demolition within the scope of the UCC. This 5 means that the requirements of the UCC and the 6 International Building Code apply to the demolition of 7 commercial buildings in the Commonwealth. 8 Included in the current adoption of the 9 UCC are standards for such things as construction 10 documents, pedestrian protection, and protection of 11 adjoining property when a building is demolished. 12 House Bill 1591 would add the term 13 "demolition" to the statutory scope of the PCCA 14 harmonizing it with the regulations adopted by the 15 Department of Labor & Industry. 16 The department supports adding demolition 17 explicitly to the scope of the PCCA. 18 In the area of building code review, 19 Section 105(a.1) of House Bill 1591 would require the 20 department to conduct an annual review of code 21 enforcement activity in cities of the first class. 22 In addition, the section would authorize 23 the department to seek compliance through proceedings in 24 Commonwealth Court. 25 The department, we would note, already 56 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 conducts periodic audits of enforcement of accessibility 2 provisions of the UCC for all municipalities that have 3 elected to administer the UCC, including Philadelphia. 4 The department also investigates 5 complaints against individual code administrators for 6 possible disciplinary action. 7 The department believes that a cooperative 8 system of enforcement, rather than one that places it in 9 a potentially adversarial relationship with the City, 10 would better advance and promote the objective of public 11 safety. 12 With respect to demolition permits, 13 Section 502(d) of House Bill 1591 creates additional 14 requirements for demolition permits in cities of the 15 first class. 16 Of particular note is the requirement that 17 the building code official who issues the permit must 18 evaluate the site safety plans to determine compliance 19 with safety standards set forth by the Federal 20 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA. 21 Code administrators, though, may not have 22 the training, expertise, or knowledge to adequately 23 enforce OSHA standards as required in the bill. 24 The department's view at this time is that 25 enforcement of federal OSHA standards is best left to the 57 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 federal government. 2 This term -- this section of the bill also 3 uses the term "multiple single-family dwelling," which is 4 a term not currently recognized in the PCCA and UCC or 5 any other adopted codes. The department recommends that 6 this term be defined within the statute. 7 With respect to training, Section 5 of 8 House Bill 1591 provides for training and enforcement 9 programs for cities of the first class. Undoubtedly, 10 well-trained code administrators are critical to 11 successful enforcement of the UCC. 12 The department is supportive of training 13 and educational opportunities for those charged with the 14 administration and application of the UCC and related 15 codes. 16 Finally, with respect to the applicability 17 of the legislation, we certainly understand the intent of 18 the legislation is to prevent another tragic building 19 collapse. 20 However, as you know, House Bill 1591 21 would apply, at this time as I understand it, the cities 22 of first class. The department suggests that if these 23 committees are interested in reforms to the UCC with 24 respect to demolition, those reform measures be applied 25 statewide to ensure safety and security of all 58 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Pennsylvania workers and residents. 2 So to all of the chairmen here and 3 committee members, thank you for the opportunity here to 4 testify on behalf of the State Department of Labor & 5 Industry. 6 I will be happy to try to answer any 7 questions that you might have. 8 I would also like to introduce to the 9 committee the woman sitting to my right, Kelly Smith. 10 She is with the Office of General Counsel and assigned to 11 the Department of Labor & Industry, and she is much more 12 of an expert on the UCC than I am. 13 So you can direct your questions to me. I 14 may not be the one who answers them. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Questions, 17 Representative Keller? 18 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 Thank you, Deputy Secretary. 20 According to OSHA, 25 states have OSHA 21 programs that work in conjunction with the federal 22 program. 23 Why has Pennsylvania chose not to be one 24 of those 25 states? 25 DEPUTY SECRETARY ROBINETTE: I'm not 59 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 familiar exactly with what's going on in those other 2 states or how it is that those cooperative programs work. 3 I wonder if Ms. Smith might be able to 4 address that further. 5 MS. SMITH: Representative Keller, it's my 6 understanding, first of all, that we've never had 7 authorizing legislation to develop the State run OSHA 8 program, primarily likely due to the expenses associated 9 with that. 10 In recent years there were proposals for 11 various similar programs that would cover public sector 12 employees that were considered probably in the last five 13 or six years, but that legislation was not enacted. 14 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Would you have objection 15 to that legislation if it was proposed? 16 DEPUTY SECRETARY ROBINETTE: I think, like 17 any other piece of legislation, Representative Keller, we 18 would welcome the opportunity to review it and consider 19 it, and be happy to provide you feedback on how we think 20 that would work. 21 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Okay. Thank you. Good 22 dodge. 23 How many municipalities have enacted 24 ordinances that increased demolition standards and 25 safeguards beyond their required -- beyond those required 60 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 by the UCC? Do you have any idea? 2 MS. SMITH: It's difficult for us to 3 comment on that, Representative Keller, because as you 4 I'm sure are aware, the PCCA allows municipalities to 5 retain ordinances that exceed the UCC that were in place 6 prior to its enactment. 7 So I couldn't give you an accurate number 8 because we would not be aware of all of those ordinances. 9 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Okay. 10 Thank you. 11 Do the increased standards for demolition 12 proposed by the mayor for Philadelphia require L&I 13 approval? 14 MS. SMITH: If an ordinance is currently 15 being considered that would meet or exceed the UCC, yes, 16 it would require L&I approval. 17 Our approval is limited to determining 18 whether it meets or exceeds the code. As long as it 19 meets or exceeds the technical requirements of the codes 20 adopted under the UCC, we would give it our approval. 21 However, there is a challenge process that 22 exists in the legislation that would allow any interested 23 party to challenge the adoption of that ordinance. 24 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 61 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Donatucci. 2 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: I think I'm 3 going to waive off. 4 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Okay. Representative 5 Saccone. 6 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Just very 7 quickly. 8 When you said a little while ago that the 9 oversight of the crane operators is the Department of 10 State, why would that be? Why would they -- that seems 11 like an unlikely bureaucracy to oversee that. Could you 12 explain that a little bit? 13 DEPUTY SECRETARY ROBINETTE: Generally I 14 think, Representative, that most licensing boards within 15 the State of Pennsylvania are housed within the 16 Department of State. That's just generally been their -­ 17 you used the word "bureaucracy." That's been their 18 bureaucratic turf, I think, for a long time. 19 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Is that a good 20 idea that it's over there? Shouldn't it be -- wouldn't 21 it more be better served to be under your bureaucracy? 22 DEPUTY SECRETARY ROBINETTE: The 23 legislative wisdom was to place it in the Department of 24 State, Representative. 25 And, frankly, I mean, that's -- we don't 62 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 have the experience of setting up those kind of boards or 2 monitoring that kind of activity which the Department of 3 State does in a variety of different professions. 4 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 6 Saccone, Representative Civera's legislation created the 7 licensing a few years ago and it was placed in the 8 Department of State. We had something to do with it. 9 Thank you very much for your testimony. 10 DEPUTY SECRETARY ROBINETTE: Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: The next testifier is 12 Michael Taylor, CAE, Executive Director of the National 13 Demolition Association. 14 MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, ladies and 15 gentlemen, I am Michael R. Taylor, the Executive Director 16 of the National Demolition Association, the trade 17 association for the demolition industry in the United 18 States and Canada. 19 I am a graduate of St. Joseph's 20 University, Temple University, LaSalle University, all 21 located here in the City of Philadelphia, and I also have 22 done my graduate work in environmental planning at 23 Drexel, which is also in Philadelphia. 24 I am the principal author of the 25 association's Demolition Safety Manual, which is the 63 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 bible of safe work practice for the demolition industry 2 around the world, and the current chairman of the 3 American National Standards Institute's A10.6 committee 4 on demolition operations. 5 I have been executive director of the 6 association for 22 years, and was a demolition contractor 7 here in Philadelphia, with offices in Chicago, San 8 Francisco, and Anchorage in the 1980s. 9 I've also served as a municipal manager in 10 the State of New Jersey in the 1970s. 11 The National Demolition Association was 12 founded 40 years ago this year. It is headquartered in 13 Doylestown, Pennsylvania, which is the county seat of 14 Bucks County, just north of Philadelphia. 15 The organization has over 800 member firms 16 from around the world providing a wide range of services 17 including structural dismantlement, environmental 18 remediation, recycling, specialized rigging, industrial 19 recovery, hazardous materials handling, landfilling, 20 scrap processing, and general contracting, all part of 21 the demolition process. 22 The industry grosses between four and five 23 billion dollars a year annually, which represents one 24 percent of the nonresidential construction economy in the 25 United States. 64 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 We have 4 0 -- over 4 0 member companies 2 based in Pennsylvania. There are no publicly held 3 companies. If he has a partner, it's his brother. 4 More than a third of the NDA member firms 5 choose the family name as the company name. There are no 6 large boards of directors. Even the biggest firms that 7 work nationally are entrepreneurial entities that are 8 managed by one or two individuals. 9 The industry is extremely productive and 10 very capital intensive. Even in good economic times the 11 industry employs less than 22,000 people nationally. 12 A typical demolition job in the United 13 States lasts about three weeks. You simply do not see 40 14 or 50 demolition workers with sledge hammers and wrecking 15 bars on a demolition project site anymore. 16 Demolition contractors use a team of 17 highly skilled equipment operators and laborers manning 18 hydraulic excavators and loaders with a host of 19 demolition-specific attachments. 20 The industry in the United States is 21 highly regulated on the federal, state, and local level. 22 29 CFR 1926, the OSHA construction standard, has a 23 separate section, Subpart T, specifically regulating 24 demolition. 25 In addition, more than half the states and 65 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 a great number of municipalities have demolition-specific 2 regulations and licensing procedures. 3 The demolition industry is also highly 4 regulated by a variety of environmental statutes on the 5 federal, state, and local government. 6 Founded by demolition contractors for 7 demolition contractors, the association is the repository 8 of safe work practice for the industry. 9 It provides its members with a 10 comprehensive safety program that includes the Demolition 11 Safety Manual, a demolition-specific hazard 12 communications program, a demolition safety talk used to 13 educate workers on the job sites, an OSHA funded lead-in- 14 construction training program, a new employee orientation 15 program, a disaster site and worker training and 16 certification program developed in concert with OSHA, and 17 a host of other valuable training and educational media. 18 During the recent tragedy here in 19 Philadelphia, the board of directors of the National 20 Demolition Association was meeting in Santa Monica, 21 California, for its quarterly board meeting. 22 And assembled at this meeting were some 50 23 or 60 demolition contractors with literally hundreds of 24 years of experience in the demolition process. 25 None of them, not one, could remember an 66 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 incident where a member of the general public was injured 2 on a demolition site. It simply doesn't happen. 3 The NDA and the entire demolition 4 industry, like everybody in this room, extends its 5 deepest condolences to the families and friends of the 6 people lost in this tragedy at 22nd and Market. 7 The terrible losses here in Philadelphia, 8 while horrific, were pure and simple unprecedented, 9 unique. We must do all that we can to assure that this 10 never ever happens again. 11 It's important for the committees here to 12 consider the impact, in addition to the association's 13 goal, that the insurance industry's loss committee -­ 14 loss control requirements play on the demolition process. 15 To remain competitive in 16 the highly entrepreneurial demolition industry, a 17 contractor must maintain a safe work environment to 18 guarantee competitive insurance rates. 19 It is important for the committees to 20 understand that all of the materials and programs that I 21 have discussed have been successful in producing an 22 incredibly safe industry. 23 Accidents on demolition sites, which are 24 perceived to be very dangerous work environments, are 25 extremely rare. Most of them are similar to general 67 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 construction industry accidents such as hit-by, 2 struck-by, falls and the like. 3 Statistics from the Bureau of Labor and 4 Statistics and OSHA itself reveal that on average a 5 typical demolition contractor will incur one workplace 6 fatality every million man hours, well below the general 7 industry -- general construction and transportation 8 industry statistics. 9 The reason for this excellent safety 10 record are simple. First, the industry doesn't employ 11 that many people nationally. The use of highly 12 sophisticated demolition-specific equipment means there 13 are simply less people on demolition job sites. 14 Second, demolition contractors know the 15 value of safety for their workers and their companies. 16 They know the importance of protecting their most 17 valuable resource: their highly skilled work force. And 18 they understand the need to maintain a safe work 19 environment to remain competitive, to manage their 20 insurance costs, and to protect their clients. 21 Third, any investment they make in 22 ensuring a safe work environment guarantees a loyal, 23 diligent workforce and repeat business from their 24 clients. 25 It also assures them of compliance with 68 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 the myriad government regulations that regulate the 2 demolition process. 3 As to proposed House Bill 1951 (sic), the 4 National Demolition Association supports many elements of 5 the proposed law. 6 It seems to us a wise idea to include a 7 system of review of construction codes, administrators, 8 and third-party agencies that are charged with the 9 enforcement and administration of the proposed law. 10 As OSHA 29 CFR 1926.850, the demolition 11 subsection of the agency's construction standard, 12 requires a written engineering survey shall be prepared 13 by a competent person of the structure to determine the 14 condition of the framing, floor, walls and the 15 possibility of unplanned collapse of any portion of the 16 structure. 17 It seems practical to us to provide this 18 kind of information as part of the proposed House Bill. 19 Requirements concerning the maintenance of 20 liability insurance of at least a million dollars could 21 have some economic impact on certain smaller demolition 22 projects, as well as the proposed provision providing for 23 a cash deposit or surety bond in the amount of $2 per 24 square foot for properties. 25 Companies new to the demolition industry 69 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 -- for companies new to the demolition industry these 2 additional costs could have an impact on them getting 3 started in the industry. 4 Other elements in the proposed House Bill 5 concerning the training of code enforcement personnel in 6 first class cities certainly seems like an idea with some 7 merit to us. 8 The National Demolition Association is 9 opposed to the requirement of House Bill 1951 (sic) to 10 require a demolition plan and schedule to be prepared by 11 a licensed architect or professional engineer. 12 While in no way impugning the value of 13 these professions and the role they sometimes play in the 14 demolition process, they simply lack the training and 15 education in the demolition process to oversee the work 16 being performed by a competent demolition contractor. 17 The NDA strongly recommends the use of a 18 professional engineer when an association member is 19 confronted with a challenging structural issue on a 20 project. Their expertise can prove invaluable. 21 However, few, if any, architectural or 22 professional engineers, unless they have worked in the 23 demolition industry, have the training or experience to 24 knowledgeably comment on the work plans for a demolition 25 project. 70 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Simply put, they were never trained in the 2 demolition process, which is decidedly different from the 3 design or erection of a building. 4 Additionally, why would a licensed 5 architect or professional engineer risk their valuable 6 license or certification to review a demolition plan when 7 they know very little about the demolition process or the 8 work practices of a modern demolition contractor? 9 It's important also to remember that the 10 liability for the success of a specific demolition 11 contractor rests with the contractor performing the work. 12 The third-party reviewer such as those 13 proposed in House Bill 1951 (sic) are unlikely to assume 14 any of this liability for a demolition project. Why, 15 therefore, let them review the plan to conduct this 16 demolition? 17 It is the position of the National 18 Demolition Association that the best way to ensure the 19 safety of a demolition project is to provide for a 20 regulatory system that promotes professional competency 21 and execution by a knowledgeable, experienced demolition 22 contractor. 23 The mission of the NDA is to provide its 24 members with the tools necessary to be leaders in 25 environmental stewardship, safety, education, 71 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 professional competency, and government adequacy. 2 We welcome the opportunity to work with 3 the Commonwealth to guarantee the safety of the general 4 public and the industry personnel. 5 The association is grateful for the 6 opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. 7 I should add that the association -- I 8 have met with people from the Office of Licenses & 9 Inspections here in the City of Philadelphia and with 10 City Council President Clarke to discuss ways in which 11 the association can help the City. 12 We will be providing some training to L&I 13 people in the demolition process, and we will provide 14 whatever assistance Council President Clarke desires from 15 the industry to move this issue forward. 16 Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. 18 Was the contractor on this particular job 19 a member of your association? 20 MR. TAYLOR: He was not, sir. 21 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: He was not. That 22 answers the question. 23 Representative Keller. 24 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 Thank you, Mr. Taylor. 72 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 You mentioned the insurance industry is 2 integral in your industry, in the demolition industry. 3 Does the insurer have any responsibility 4 to investigate a contractor's credentials or those of his 5 work force in order to issue liability insurance or 6 bonding coverage? 7 MR. TAYLOR: Absolutely. He certainly 8 does that, Mr. Keller. 9 Getting insurance is not as easy as you 10 would think. And the risk that the people in Hartford 11 take when they insure a contractor, any contractor, is 12 significant. So obviously there's some due diligence on 13 their part. 14 My concern about the million dollar 15 insurance -- you had commented on this earlier. It makes 16 perfect sense -- the issue is, I don't know, what if you 17 were a kid just back from Iraq, Afghanistan and you 18 wanted to start a business, it might be hard to get that 19 million dollar insurance certificate, you know. 20 And you would say to your insurance 21 broker, I would like to go into the demolition business. 22 I need a million dollars' worth of insurance. 23 Well, I can't give you any insurance 24 unless you have some experience. 25 Well, I can't get any experience unless I 73 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 have some insurance. 2 We will leave the amount of money that you 3 guys would want to include in the proposed bill up to the 4 committees. 5 CHAIRMAN KELLER: That's admirable that 6 you are worried about people getting into the industry, 7 you know, but -- I'm not sure, but it appears to me that 8 that contractor on 22nd and Market fits that bill. It 9 looks like he was just getting in, not knowing what to 10 do. 11 And having that insurance, maybe that 12 insurance hurdle, having him to jump that, would prevent 13 people like him getting in and ruining your industry. 14 I mean, this is a black eye not only to 15 the City and all of us, but to your industry. 16 MR. TAYLOR: It is. 17 CHAIRMAN KELLER: So making them have a 18 requirement that, as you say, makes -- you know, you have 19 to have it, you have to have some experience, you have to 20 have some equipment, you have to know what you're doing, 21 I don't think that's too much to ask when the public 22 safety is involved. 23 MR. TAYLOR: I think I would leave that 24 call up to the committees. It seems prudent to me, 25 Mr. Keller, if that's what you decide to do. 74 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 The million dollars is doable. It's just 2 a challenge for entry-level companies. 3 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Such as the one we're 4 talking about. 5 Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I appreciate your 6 testimony. 7 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Chairman Gillespie. 8 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Thank you, Chairman 9 Scavello. 10 Thank you for your testimony. 11 In here you talk about the NDA strongly 12 recommends the use of a professional engineer when an 13 association member is confronted with a challenging 14 structural issue. 15 But then in your next paragraph you talk 16 about why would a professional engineer put their license 17 on the line to get engaged in this thing. 18 MR. TAYLOR: Right. 19 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: I just feel there's a 20 little bit of a conflict there. Maybe you could -- and 21 you also make note about you're very much in favor of 22 providing a regulatory format. Maybe you could talk a 23 little bit about that. 24 MR. TAYLOR: Sure. 25 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Thank you, sir. 75 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 MR. TAYLOR: Let me talk about the 2 dichotomy between the two issues. 3 The first is we recommend highly to our 4 members, and anybody in the demolition process, that if 5 you are presented with a structure and you don't have a 6 real good handle on how you are going to actually bring 7 the structure down because of the unique nature of it, 8 let's say, you would be very foolish not to try to get as 9 much expert advice as humanly possible. 10 A really good example, Mr. Gillespie, is 11 the pre-stressed and post-tension concrete. Those 12 buildings were built mostly after the Second World War, 13 most of them west of the Mississippi. 14 But these are structures where if you 15 don't have a real good handle on how to do these things, 16 when you begin the demolition of them, there can be 17 instantaneous collapse. 18 So it would be prudent of you as a 19 contractor to get the services of a knowledgeable 20 structural engineer to come in and say, This is how you 21 do it. You kind of crank the pre-tension, the post­ 22 stress concrete down a little bit. Then you should be 23 able to remove the structural members. 24 In those sets of circumstances we strongly 25 advise our members to do that. 76 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 What we're opposed to is the concept where 2 every demolition plan under the law, 1951 (sic), would 3 have to be reviewed by a structural engineer or an 4 architect. 5 I don't think there are very many of them 6 that know very much about the demolition process. I 7 doubt if any of them have received specific demolition 8 about -- education about demolition. 9 The only course in the country that is 10 currently offered is at Purdue University. It's funded 11 by us. 12 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Which is a great 13 segue way to my next point, that you're advocating that 14 there is a regulatory system -­ 15 MR. TAYLOR: Right. 16 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: -- that promotes 17 professional competency. 18 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. 19 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Can you just comment 20 on that for a moment, please? 21 MR. TAYLOR: Sure. 22 I would think that some sort of a system, 23 which Mr. Keller talked about, would be a 24 prequalification system. 25 In the bill there are requirements for 77 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 insurance. There are requirements for notification of 2 surrounding people, buildings, tenants. There are 3 notifications to city agencies, state agencies. 4 I would think that the State could 5 consider the possibility of requiring the contractors to 6 present his experience, what level of experience he has 7 in there as part of this. 8 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Thank you, sir. 9 Thank you, Chairman Scavello. 10 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: I know this was said 11 earlier, but I need to clarify this in my mind. 12 The gentleman -- the contractor on this 13 particular job, was he a licensed demolition contractor? 14 MR. TAYLOR: It's very difficult, 15 Mr. Chairman. More than half the states don't have 16 licenses. 17 As an example, the City of Boston does; 18 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not. The City of 19 Indianapolis does; the State of Indiana does not. 20 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Okay. 21 MR. TAYLOR: The State of Florida has a 22 general contractor's license, which every contractor -­ 23 electrical, mechanical -- has to take. 24 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Yeah, but, you know, 25 building a building and taking one down is a completely 78 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 different job. 2 MR. TAYLOR: Amen, sir. 3 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: You know, there's an 4 art to it. 5 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, there is. 6 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: And if you don't know 7 what you are doing, you've got problems. All right. 8 CHAIRMAN KELLER: We heard testimony from 9 the labor guys -­ 10 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. 11 CHAIRMAN KELLER: -- that said all you 12 need to do in Philadelphia is apply for a $300 permit, go 13 rent equipment. That qualifies you to take down a 14 building in Philadelphia. 15 Does your association have any more 16 requirements than that to join your association? 17 MR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Keller, our 18 association is a trade organization. It's regulated 19 under the IRS rules for a trade organization. 20 If you say you are a demolition 21 contractor, you can join the association. 22 It's different to represent the industry 23 segment than it is to be a regulatory setup. 24 We do not have requirements for you on how 25 you proceed. We have recommendations. The safety 79 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 program is a recommendation. The demolition textbook 2 that we use at Purdue, and soon at Texas A&M, are 3 recommendations. And that's the role of a trade 4 association in our economy. 5 CHAIRMAN KELLER: I understand that. 6 But as a trade association do you think 7 there should be more requirement than putting down $3 0 0 8 to pull a permit and go rent equipment to start knocking 9 down buildings? 10 Especially in an urban environment, 11 which it has to be different than other environments; 12 a four-story commercial building in Center City 13 Philadelphia. That's the only requirement you need. 14 MR. TAYLOR: I'm not smart enough, 15 Mr. Keller -­ 16 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Oh, yes, you are. 17 You're smart enough not to answer. 18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 20 Donatucci. 21 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you, 22 Mr. Chairman. 23 And thank you, Mr. Taylor. 24 I want to go back to L&I. I mean, I want 25 to preface my remarks by saying that in a past life I 80 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 worked for the Redevelopment Authority. I kind of have a 2 knowledge. 3 I'm going to go back to when Bennett Levin 4 was the commissioner of L&I. 5 MR. TAYLOR: Yep. 6 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: And under him 7 you had a guy named Tony Caiazza. And this gentleman, 8 day in and day out, all he did was review the monetary 9 amounts on these permits. 10 Now, there is a controversy right now that 11 this permit may have been -- $10,000 on it. In this day 12 and age I would say it would cost 2 0,000 just to knock 13 down a row home, a two-story row home. 14 Is there anybody in L&I that is reviewing 15 this? And if something is underestimated, are there 16 fines in place for a contractor presenting that to do, 17 you know, a four-story building for $10,000? Are there 18 fines? 19 MR. TAYLOR: The last time I applied for 20 an L&I permit was 1988. I simply don't know. 21 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Okay. I think 22 these are questions that we need to get answered in the 23 City of Philadelphia. And I think fines -- and maybe we 24 need to put it at the state level, I don't know, to do 25 this. 81 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Okay. Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 3 Donatucci, in the borough of Mount Pocono, approximately 4 13 years ago it cost me $10,000 to remove a one-family 5 house, a two-floor structure. Just to give you an idea. 6 And that -- and nothing like we're describing here. 7 And when you say L&I, it's Philadelphia, I 8 believe it was explained to us, and not the state, but 9 the local folks. 10 And in the City of Philadelphia I believe 11 -- and I hope there's someone out there listening -- they 12 need to license it in some way that someone just can't go 13 and get a, what, a $3 0 0 permit to rent the machine like 14 the Chairman and Taylor said and start taking down a 15 building. It just can't happen. 16 Representative Truitt. 17 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, 18 Mr. Chairman. 19 And, Mr. Taylor, for your testimony. 20 My question is about the PE requirement. 21 I happen to be a PE. I think I'm the only one in the 22 General Assembly who is. 23 And when I read this -- you asked a 24 question why would a licensed architect or a professional 25 risk their license. I wanted to answer that question for 82 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 you. 2 Anyone who is not qualified -- as a PE, I 3 have people coming to me all the time, they want me to 4 sign off on a design for their deck and things like that. 5 MR. TAYLOR: Right. 6 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: And I don't do it 7 because I'm an electrical engineer. I know that I'm not 8 qualified to do that. Ethically I'm obliged to only 9 consult in fields in which I have expertise. 10 And when I was looking at this requirement 11 in the law, I was wondering if there was some kind of a 12 middle ground that we couldn't achieve whereby you are 13 required to hire a licensed architect or engineer unless 14 you have someone on your company staff who is similarly 15 qualified. 16 Like you mentioned that a lot of these are 17 small family businesses where -­ 18 MR. TAYLOR: Uh-huh. 19 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: And I wonder, 20 well, are they going to have somebody on their staff who 21 has got expertise in demolition or not. 22 Perhaps if they didn't, maybe we could 23 restructure the wording of the law to say they either 24 have to hire a licensed architect or professional 25 engineer, or provide some evidence that they have 83 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 equivalent competency. 2 How does that sound to you? 3 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think that you have 4 that already. The OSHA standard -- which admittedly is 5 designed to protect the workers; it doesn't say anything 6 about the general public -- the OSHA standard requires a 7 competent person. 8 And that's pretty well-defined, what 9 a competent person is, especially in the demolition 10 process. It's somebody with the knowledge, with the 11 experience to actually make these sort of judgments. 12 That's kind of what we're saying. 13 What the Chairman just mentioned -- and 14 the problem that we have with the architectural and 15 engineering community -- is simply that we don't 16 necessarily believe they have a real good understanding 17 of the demolition process. 18 So why would you have them review 19 something that they have no education in and no training 20 in? It's a risk for them, for your license, for your 21 certification if you are an architect, and I don't think 22 it would necessarily benefit the Commonwealth in terms of 23 guaranteeing that the demolition job would be done safer. 24 The elements that keep a demolition job 25 safer are what I had discussed in my testimony and what 84 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Pat Gillespie talked about. It's the simple economics of 2 the demolition process. If you make a mistake, you are 3 probably going to be out of business. 4 So most of these guys are pretty careful. 5 They do a really good job. And what you see is 6 demolition accidents are extremely rare. 7 The one here in Philadelphia where six 8 people tragically lost their lives is unprecedented in 9 the world. 10 I was in Milan two weeks ago and we asked 11 the European association if any of their members could 12 remember a member of the general public injured on a 13 demolition job site, and they couldn't. And that 14 organization was formed right after the Second World War. 15 So the balance may be some sort of a 16 regulatory system that the industry can live with and 17 safeguards the needs of the general public, and the 18 Commonwealth would need to look at how should the bill be 19 structured. 20 We just don't think that involving a third 21 party without the experience or the education would meet 22 the goals that the bill hopes to achieve. 23 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Okay. I don't 24 know that, again, hiring a PE doesn't necessarily mean 25 you are hiring somebody without -- I mean, if they are 85 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 going to take the job, they should be someone who does 2 have that experience and expertise. 3 But on -- like this job in Philadelphia at 4 22nd and Market Street, who was the responsible person? 5 I know you may not know that -­ 6 MR. TAYLOR: I don't. 7 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: -- to answer that 8 question. 9 But obviously there wasn't somebody there 10 who had the skills and expertise. 11 So if this contractor didn't have it 12 himself, we should perhaps have required him to hire an 13 outside person who did have that expertise. 14 MR. TAYLOR: I really don't have the 15 wisdom to comment on what happened at 22nd and Market. I 16 just don't know. 17 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Okay. Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative Gillen. 19 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Mr. Taylor, good 20 to see you. I worked at one point in my life at the 21 Bucks County Prison on Pine Street in Doylestown. 22 MR. TAYLOR: I took the asbestos out of 23 that building. 24 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: You did? 25 MR. TAYLOR: I did. 86 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: I have a lung 2 problem right now. I'll talk to you afterwards. 3 MR. TAYLOR: Please do. 4 (Laughter.) 5 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: No, I'm fine. 6 I notice that there are lawyers out there 7 who actively solicit to litigate cases where there's 8 demolition accidents, so I am assuming that accidents do 9 happen. They may not always result in death or injury. 10 Of course, these could be starving 11 lawyers, I'm not sure if they are out there groveling, 12 but clearly they are advertising. And you are the author 13 of the bible on safety. 14 So if we could glean just for a moment 15 diagnostically what you studied about this particular 16 accident from a personnel basis -- I think you've learned 17 a little bit of something from the media accounts of the 18 gentleman who was the operator there -- and what are some 19 of your practices to insulate against these kind of 20 tragedies occurring. 21 MR. TAYLOR: It would be very difficult 22 for me to comment. I wasn't there. I don't know the 23 work practices that were used on the site. 24 When the event took place, I was 3,000 25 miles away. I don't know what procedures were being 87 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 used. I don't know the experience of the people. 2 It's rare for any association executive to 3 comment on the specific acts of his members or members of 4 the industry. 5 Beyond that, I'm not smart enough to know 6 what happened at 22nd and Market. I'm really not. 7 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Let's step back 8 away from that specific incident for a moment. 9 What kind of excellence in character are 10 you looking for from your operators? 11 MR. TAYLOR: I'm looking for competence, 12 for training, for education, for somebody who knows their 13 way around the machine, somebody that has experience in 14 demolition. 15 There's a lot of issues now in the 16 industry as it changes. Since the end of the Second 17 World War, the demolition industry, like every other part 18 of the construction industry, has been participating in 19 the hydraulic revolution. So you don't really see any 20 cranes anymore in our industry. It's very rare. 21 You don't see wrecking balls. Our logo is 22 a wrecking ball, but nobody uses a wrecking ball anymore. 23 You all saw the Spectrum come down. It 24 was used with highly sophisticated excavators that have 25 super-long boom bars that kind of chewed the building 88 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 down with specialized attachments. 2 Interestingly, those pieces of equipment 3 used in the demolition process are not regulated under 4 the current crane standard that OSHA is wrestling with 5 right now. There is no rule to kind govern them, and 6 OSHA realizes that. 7 So what I'm looking for in terms of an 8 equipment operator is basically what the operating 9 engineers here in Philadelphia say: Is a trained, 10 competent person who knows his way around the piece of 11 equipment he's operating and understands the demolition 12 process. 13 REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Thank you, 14 Mr. Chairman. 15 Thank you for your testimony. 16 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 17 Saccone. 18 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chairman. 20 And thank you, sir, for your testimony. 21 I worry a little bit about state mandates, 22 as you say, on a problem that doesn't really exist 23 worldwide, and our tendency to overbureacratize in 24 government already. We get complaints from every aspect 25 of industry and business on state mandates. 89 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Addressing the professional engineer, 2 again, I think his point was -- you correct me if I'm 3 wrong, sir -- that asking as an industry that by law they 4 would have to review this when they don't as an industry 5 get the training, and sure they could hire somebody, but 6 then why don't they just -- why don't we just require 7 that -- somebody from the industry to review it rather 8 than have a professional engineer hire somebody on his 9 staff so that he could take the contract. 10 I'm thinking that's where you are going 11 with this. 12 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. 13 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Is that right? 14 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. 15 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: You said that 16 there certainly are accidents in the demolition industry. 17 Absolutely there are, but they're not related to the 18 public. We haven't had any people from the public hurt, 19 in your memory -­ 20 MR. TAYLOR: None. 21 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: -- on a 22 demolition. 23 MR. TAYLOR: No. 24 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: That was the 25 qualifier. 90 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 MR. TAYLOR: Exactly. 2 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: I just want to 3 make sure I was clear on that. 4 MR. TAYLOR: Absolutely. 5 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you very much. 7 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you very much 9 for your testimony. 10 And the next presenter is Mr. Robert 11 Brehm. And he is a professional engineer, Associate 12 Teaching Professor, Drexel University, Civil, 13 Architectural, and Environmental Engineering. 14 Mr. Brehm, if possible, we have your 15 resume here. It's exclusive. It's absolutely the top of 16 the line. 17 If we could address the questions to the 18 legislation, your comments to the legislation as 19 proposed, I truly would appreciate that. 20 PROFESSOR BREHM: Let me just -- I 21 actually didn't intend to talk about myself. 22 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Good. 23 PROFESSOR BREHM: I'll let other people do 24 that. I feel uncomfortable. 25 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: I am very impressed. 91 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 PROFESSOR BREHM: First of all, I'm sure 2 I'm here in part today because of the views I expressed 3 in the Op Ed that was published June 2 0th in The 4 Philadelphia Inquirer. 5 Before I start, I would like to thank the 6 committee for the opportunity to offer my views on such 7 an important issue to the community. 8 I would like to read some of my prepared 9 remarks and then answer -- try to answer any questions 10 you might have. 11 We all are aware of the tragic events that 12 occurred in Philadelphia on June 5th on a four-story 13 building when a demolition collapsed onto an adjacent 14 structure, ending the lives of 6 people and injuring 14 15 more. 16 I wish I could tell you that this type of 17 occurrence was rare. But with our aging building 18 infrastructure in urban cities and indiscriminate 19 demolition processes, there is a real and reoccurring 20 threat to both persons and property. 21 I applaud the Legislators for their 22 willingness to tackle this vexing problem. It is not one 23 that can be solved easily, and it will take some 24 commitment and political courage as there are always 25 those that are averse to change. 92 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Demolition has been going on for thousands 2 of years without much change. We find something bigger 3 and heavier to knock down something smaller and then cart 4 away the rubble. 5 It has always been treated as a task, 6 often an undesirable task, and certainly without glamour. 7 Yes, we see large structures brought down 8 using high explosives and it looks exciting and we are in 9 awe. 10 But these demolition operations are 11 performed by highly skilled practitioners with careful 12 planning and choreographed to produce the desired 13 outcomes with extensive safeguards to protect the 14 surrounding environment, the workers, and the public. 15 Unfortunately, these events are the 16 exceptions and the practices they employ to ensure the 17 safe demolition of the structure are not the model for 18 the industry. 19 Instead we treat most demolitions as a 20 task that requires minimal supervision, compared to a 21 process that requires layers of planning and management. 22 Demolition needs to be designed as a 23 process requiring the collaboration and skills of a 24 competent engineer or architect, a qualified contractor 25 with the prerequisite skills, and municipal governments 93 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 and their agencies to ensure the safety of the public. 2 I want to offer this committee some 3 concrete proposals which I believe will assist the 4 committee as it deliberates during the debate on House 5 Bill 1591. 6 But before I do that, I want to tell you a 7 little bit about myself and why I have such a passion for 8 the purpose and intent of Bill 1591. 9 I have been in the architectural, 10 engineering, and construction industry for all of my 11 life, spanning more than 40 years, mostly designing and 12 constructing buildings, and, yes, at times tearing them 13 down. 14 Even now as I have moved into academia, I 15 am teaching courses of value to the AEC profession 16 bringing both my educational and industry experience to 17 the classroom. I still find myself more comfortable in a 18 hard hat and work boots than I am in a cap and gown. 19 But to the point of this hearing, what can 20 we do? House Bill 1591 includes some important 21 requirements that, if implemented, will significantly 22 improve how we approach demolition in the future. 23 My comments: One, the requirement to 24 submit building plans prepared by a licensed architect or 25 professional engineer. 94 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 This is a necessary and welcome first 2 step. Only an architect or engineer has the training and 3 experience to evaluate the complex variables that create 4 stability in the structure and the measures necessary to 5 ensure a controlled demolition. 6 Two, provide a site safety plan. 7 This should be done in coordination with 8 the adjacent property owners, first responders, and 9 municipal agencies to close off sidewalks and streets 10 where safety considerations dictate. 11 Three, maintain liability insurance in an 12 appropriate amount. 13 I am reluctant to codify the $1 million 14 currently in the bill, although I support a minimum 15 amount. There are small structures that pose minimal 16 risk during demolition due to their lack of proximity to 17 adjacent structures. This amount might freeze smaller 18 qualified contractors out of the market. 19 Four, provide a cash deposit or bond by a 20 surety authorized to do business in Pennsylvania. 21 This is the provision in the current draft 22 of Bill 1591 that I have offered the most comment. 23 First, a minimum amount that will act as 24 an incentive to cause the proper vetting of a contractor 25 should be established. I am concerned that the current 95 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 $2 per square foot of property may not do this. 2 There are a significant number of smaller 3 structures in municipalities where the $2 per square foot 4 may yield less than $10,000 and not provide the necessary 5 incentive to properly vet a contractor. 6 I am also uncomfortable with cash 7 deposits. Cash deposits allow contractors to bypass the 8 vetting by a surety. 9 I've been a consultant to many sureties 10 over the years and have formed the opinion they are well 11 equipped to evaluate a contractor's organizational 12 structure, experience, safety record, and financial 13 resources. This is simply too critical to ensure we have 14 qualified contractors doing demolition to allow a pathway 15 around. 16 Five, provisions for training and 17 enforcement programs. 18 I will stay out of commenting on the fees 19 portion of the bill as it pertains to training and 20 enforcement since this is not my field. 21 But without a thorough and comprehensive 22 review of the documents supporting the demolition plan 23 and strict enforcement by experienced personnel, nothing 24 hereinabove has meaning. 25 I applaud the committee for taking this 96 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 step and it has my strongest support. 2 Before I close, I would like to add one 3 more thought. The use of drugs that have the potential 4 to impair a machine operator's reflexes or judgment. 5 This should not simply be limited to the broad category 6 of recreational drugs but also prescription drugs. 7 I recognize the complexities of drug 8 testing. And it may be a bit of an overreach at this 9 point in time, but it should not slip from the 10 discussion. I feel ultimately we will need to address 11 this issue. 12 In closing, I would like to again thank 13 the committee for this opportunity and wish to emphasize 14 that my views are that of an individual who cares deeply 15 about the industry. 16 Architects, engineers, contractors, 17 organized labor, municipal code officials, and certainly 18 the public through their elected officials should be 19 heard. 20 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 21 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you, Mr. Brehm. 22 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Professor. 23 First, I want to give you a chance to 24 defend yourself and your profession. 25 I do believe that engineers, as 97 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Representative Truitt says, have the ability to assist, 2 especially in projects like the one at 22nd and Market. 3 In your classes do you provide any course 4 that would assist in demolition, and not just in 5 construction, to do away with the fact that we don't need 6 engineers or architects to demolish buildings? 7 I believe, with you, it's probably a safer 8 way to go. 9 PROFESSOR BREHM: Absolutely. I mean, the 10 key is stability of the structure. When we build -- I 11 mean, we sit here today in a stable environment. And I'm 12 comfortable that the engineers have got bracing in place, 13 beams, joists that provide lateral support so that the 14 building is in equilibrium, if you will. 15 As it goes up as it's built, it goes 16 through stages of instability. And we use temporary 17 bracing and such and other methods to ensure the 18 stability of the structure as we build it. 19 When we bring it down, it's very similar. 20 As we start to remove the bracing, as we start to remove 21 the joists and the beams that provide that lateral 22 support, there needs to be a plan in place to provide 23 that stability to the structure. 24 That's one of the things that happened on 25 22nd and Market Street. We had a four-story masonry wall 98 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 that was basically -- it was not braced laterally. It 2 was coming down. In which direction I'm not sure anybody 3 could predict, but it was predictable that it was coming 4 down. 5 I watched a video where they were just 6 literally tearing out a cross bracing. And I'm thinking 7 to myself, What's replacing the function of that cross 8 bracing to provide lateral stability? 9 That's what we teach in structures in 10 civil and architectural engineering. 11 CHAIRMAN KELLER: So there is a -- there 12 is a -- part of the skills that engineers have would be 13 to be able to demolish a building in a safe way? 14 PROFESSOR BREHM: Absolutely. You want a 15 controlled demolition. You want it to come down in the 16 fashion that you've planned for. 17 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Also in your testimony I 18 see about the surety bond. I'm not asking -- I mean, 19 we're trying to find out information, and you may not be 20 able to say. 21 But what would be a reasonable minimum 22 amount for a surety bond on a demolition project? 23 PROFESSOR BREHM: I'm going to leave that 24 up to the committee. I think the importance of my 25 comments on the surety is that a surety -- surety 99 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 companies have the expertise, really, to evaluate the 2 financial resources of a company, the safety record of 3 the company; things that are really beyond municipal 4 regulators to get into. They are very sophisticated in 5 that regard. The key is getting a qualified contractor. 6 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Very good. Thank you 7 for your testimony. 8 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 9 Saccone. 10 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Thank you, 11 Mr. Chairman. 12 And thank you for your testimony, sir. 13 And this is not to denigrate professional 14 engineers. Both of my sons are engineers and I've worked 15 with engineers all my life. I have a great respect for 16 engineers. 17 I think the clarifying question here, 18 though, is, is an engineer necessary -- should we put 19 him, by law, in charge of making -- approving a plan for 20 a demolition as opposed to what you were saying, which is 21 assisting? And what your previous testifier had said, 22 sure it makes good sense to ask an engineer when I have 23 questions about certain stability problems for advice and 24 so forth and maybe he could even sign off on it.

25 That's different from putting the engineer 100 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 in charge as opposed to putting the demolition expert in 2 charge of providing the review and providing the 3 oversight for the plan itself. 4 Can you -- do you want to comment on that 5 at all? 6 PROFESSOR BREHM: Honestly, as a 7 professional engineer I have a bias. The question was 8 why would a professional engineer -- the previous 9 question was why would a professional engineer put his 10 license on the line. 11 That's what we do. Our job as 12 professional engineers is to protect the public. That's 13 our number one responsibility. 14 We as professional engineers, licensed 15 architects, have the skills, the prerequisite skills, to 16 ensure the safety of the public during the demolition of 17 a building. 18 Does that mean that's an absolute 19 statement? No. 20 If you are dealing with a one-story 21 structure that's out in a more suburban area that -­ 22 where there's no adjacent structures at risk, you 23 probably don't need a licensed professional engineer and 24 the costs associated and the regulations associated with 25 that. So there is probably some middle ground. 101 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 But when we're talking about four-, 2 five-, six-, seven-, twenty-story buildings, a licensed 3 engineer or an architect or the individuals that have the 4 prerequisite skill sets to be able to evaluate a plan 5 that provides for a controlled demolition. 6 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: I think we should 7 proceed carefully with that and make sure we're really 8 clear on that. 9 My other question is -- and this may be my 10 own ignorance, so please don't take this as a judgmental 11 question -- but it just seems like are we trying to 12 mandate something across the state that maybe is a 13 problem that Philadelphia should be handling? 14 It seems like the local authorities here 15 might not have been doing everything they should have 16 been doing in the inspection and oversight. 17 Does that mean we should make a state law 18 that applies across the state where there may be not a 19 problem? 20 I don't know. It just seems like maybe 21 we're -- this is going to the wrong level. Maybe there 22 should have been -- they should correct this problem at 23 the local level in Philadelphia and not across the whole 24 state. 25 PROFESSOR BREHM: Well, I'm not going to 102 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 speak to Philadelphia's practices because I'm not as 2 versed in it as I might like to be. 3 But certainly in an urban environment it's 4 more critical as opposed to a rural -- I have a house up 5 in the Poconos and, trust me, I could knock my house down 6 and it's not going to affect anybody. 7 In urban areas we don't have that luxury. 8 We have buildings that are basically attached to each 9 other or within feet of each other, and that proximity 10 creates the risk. 11 We can talk about insurance and sureties. 12 We're not talking about financial losses. 13 We're really here today because 6 people 14 lost their lives and 14 people were injured in an urban 15 environment where a structure that is being demolished is 16 in close proximity to the public. Whether that be 17 physical structures or persons themselves, the issue 18 becomes far more critical. 19 So, you know, maybe there is some room 20 there to -- maybe one size doesn't fit all depending upon 21 the proximity of the structure to other structures. 22 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative Truitt. 23 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, 24 Mr. Chairman.

25 I'm going to continue kind of where I was 103 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 with the last testifier, but I'm going to take his side 2 of the argument. 3 As we're both professional engineers, you 4 and I both know the way the wording is in the bill right 5 now, it would say that you have to hire a professional 6 engineer or an architect to sign off on the plans or be 7 involved in the project. 8 Well, that means I could do it. And, 9 again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I'm not qualified 10 to do it. 11 And I'm wondering if you might have any 12 suggestions on ways that we could refine the wording to 13 ensure that if they do hire an engineer or an architect, 14 that we make sure they get one that is actually qualified 15 to do that work. 16 PROFESSOR BREHM: Well, I think you know 17 as a professional engineer under your Code of Ethics and 18 Code of Conduct you are not allowed -- it is 19 self-policing to a certain degree -- to practice in an 20 area in which you don't have competency. 21 You know, say I'm a professional engineer 22 but there's certainly things -- I would never attempt to 23 put my name after a design of a nuclear containment 24 vessel, taking the absurd situation. 25 So to a certain degree it is up to the 104 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 professional engineer to practice in areas in which he or 2 she is competent. 3 You know, I don't know how else you're 4 going to be able to define it. 5 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: I mean, could we 6 do something like say it has to be a civil engineer or a 7 structural engineer? 8 Any way that you could think of that we 9 could narrow it down to ensure that we're not just 10 transferring the responsibility from one group of people 11 who may or may not be qualified to determine what's safe 12 to someone else who doesn't follow his ethical code who 13 may or may not be qualified to determine what's safe? 14 PROFESSOR BREHM: You know, we can -- and 15 I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to try to practice as 16 one today -- but, you know, to a certain degree it comes 17 down from the professional standpoint to your 18 professional conduct. 19 I don't know how you mandate or write laws 20 that force someone to act ethically. That is the 21 responsibility of the individual. 22 I think in my Op Ed I had said a licensed 23 professional experienced or practiced in the field of 24 demolition, you know, but those are words. 25 You know, if somebody wants to -- if a 105 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 professional engineer is irresponsible enough to want to 2 sign his name to something that he doesn't feel that he 3 has the competency to do, I'm not sure how the language 4 in the bill is going to avoid that. 5 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Representative 7 Donatucci. 8 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you, 9 Mr. Chairman. 10 It's always been my experience that the 11 most knowledge and efficiency for a head of a department 12 would be somebody that worked their way up the ranks 13 because they have had field experience, and being out 14 there on the job, they would realize that maybe 80 15 inspectors are more important than 40, and maybe there 16 really needs to be certain criteria in place to run a 17 department. 18 And I'm really asking your opinion on 19 this. 20 Can somebody go to school and take courses 21 and be able to run a department like this? 22 Because there seems to have been a lot of 23 inefficiencies in what happened here. There were red 24 flags that happened to have been missed. 25 And I'm just wondering -- I'm looking at 106 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 the city side because this is my city. I don't know what 2 they need to do to not allow something like this to 3 happen again and what they need to have in place in rules 4 and regulation when we have somebody doing a demolition 5 in our city. 6 PROFESSOR BREHM: Certainly -- I mean, you 7 can't replace experience. Right now I practice in the 8 classroom, but I think one of the things that I bring to 9 the classroom is 40 years of experience. 10 Obviously if I have my druthers, I would 11 want the director or the head of the department to have 12 worked his or her way up and gain the experience. A lot 13 of the knowledge that I have, or lack thereof, is due to 14 making mistakes and learning from my mistakes as I've 15 worked my way up the ladder. 16 I started out literally as a laborer and 17 became a carpenter, and went to school and decided I 18 should wear a coat and tie and became a project manager, 19 and now look what I'm doing. 20 So I don't think you can replace them. 21 It's certainly desirable. That becomes a matter of 22 recruiting practices. 23 I do not know what the practices are of 24 the City of Philadelphia, so I don't want to comment on 25 those other than from a generic sense if I'm looking to 107 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 hire a head of my department, I'm looking to hire 2 somebody who has experience in the area in which he has 3 to supervise. 4 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you. And 5 I'm not criticizing the present commissioner. Thank you. 6 I think he had a mess dumped into his hands. 7 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you, Professor, 8 for your testimony. 9 PROFESSOR BREHM: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Our next testifier is 11 Bill Harvey, Construction Codes Superintendent, Bureau of 12 Standards and Safety, City of Allentown. 13 MR. HARVEY: Good afternoon, Honorable 14 Committee Members. 15 First, on behalf of the City of Allentown, 16 I'd like to offer our condolences to the victims and the 17 families of this tragedy. 18 I would like to thank you for the 19 opportunity to be here today to offer support for 20 PA House Bill 1591 of 2013. 21 Many of the amendments in the bill are 22 practices already in place in our city. During the past 23 year, the City of Allentown has issued permits which 24 oversaw the demolition of over 40 properties.

25 Many of the properties demolished were to 108 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 accommodate the arena project and Two City Center, an 2 eight-story office building in our downtown. 3 The City has in place demolition 4 procedures and policies which act as a guide to the 5 applicant and to the City during these projects. 6 It advises the applicant of their 7 responsibilities, including the proper disposal of 8 debris, including asbestos. 9 It also requires notification to owners of 10 adjoining properties prior to demolition. 11 A demolition release form must also be 12 completed prior to the issuing of a demolition permit. 13 Our projects improvement inspector, Kevin 14 Klingborg, who is here with me today -- this is Kevin -­ 15 has compiled a demolition manual, which we do have copies 16 here for a review of the committee members if they are 17 interested. 18 And I'll show you a copy of the actual 19 manual itself. It's somewhat extensive. But if anyone 20 would like a copy, we can provide it. So that's here 21 too. 22 Kevin also monitors all city demolition 23 projects and observes all permitted demolition projects 24 also.

25 Our city building inspectors also monitor 109 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 demolition projects, and our plumbing inspectors will 2 verify that all sewer lines have been properly 3 terminated. 4 While the economy in our state is 5 improving, many municipalities still struggle to recover 6 from the recession of 2008. The proposed increase in 7 funding for training and increased staffing of code 8 officials will provide much needed assistance to 9 municipalities. 10 The success our city has maintained in the 11 demolition process would not be possible without the 12 teamwork and dedication of our Building Standards 13 employees, including our building, plumbing, and 14 electrical inspectors, Kevin Klingborg, our project 15 improvement inspector, and our zoning officers and permit 16 technicians. 17 And our mayor, Ed Pawlowski, managing 18 director, Francis Dougherty, and Building Standards 19 director, Dave Paulus, have provided the support and 20 resources necessary to accomplish our duties. 21 And our city council has always been 22 supportive of our efforts. 23 And I would like to recognize that 24 Mr. Mike Schlossberg, who is a sponsor of this bill, was 25 also a former city council member and supportive of our 110 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 efforts. 2 While House Bill 1591 is addressed to 3 first class cities, the measure should also, I believe, 4 be considered for adoption by all municipalities 5 throughout the state; that is, it is clearly an attempt 6 to enhance and improve public safety and warrants serious 7 consideration. 8 It has been an honor to be here today 9 representing the City of Allentown, and Kevin and I would 10 be happy to answer any questions you may have at this 11 time. 12 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Mr. Harvey, you 13 initially -- I would like, if possible, you offered us a 14 copy of the book there. If you could get us a copy -­ 15 MR. HARVEY: Sure. 16 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: -- and I will get it 17 shared with the members, especially with Philadelphia 18 legislation. 19 MR. HARVEY: Okay. 20 And I do have excerpts that I did take out 21 of it. 22 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Now, you also made 23 comments and you've adopted some of the regulations that 24 are in that -- in the bill. Am I correct?

25 MR. HARVEY: Yes. Some of the amendments 111 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 that are in this bill are practices that we do use; 2 specifically notifying the adjoining property owners, the 3 abatement of the debris, the asbestos. 4 So many of the items we -­ 5 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: When the process -­ 6 the demolition process is going on in your city, is one 7 of your representatives at that site? 8 MR. KLINGBORG: Yes, constantly. If it's 9 a City-initiated demolition, it's every day, multiple 10 times a day. Just, you know, that you know what's going 11 on, no surprises. 12 If it's an outside-initiated demolition, 13 I go on. I introduce myself to the general contractor or 14 the demo contractor, whoever. I tell them, If you need 15 anything, I'm here, here's my card, and that I will be 16 checking. 17 It could be simple as dust control. But I 18 will -- you know, we let them know it needs to be done. 19 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Inform them so they 20 know there's a pair of eyes watching them. 21 MR. KLINGBORG: Yes, sir. 22 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Any questions from the 23 members? 24 CHAIRMAN HARHAI: Quick question. 25 Do you have any problems with the 1099s 112 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 that they are experiencing here in Philadelphia, or 2 similar situations? 3 MR. KLINGBORG: We probably did on -- in 4 the demo. And when we do it -- I've compiled a list of 5 qualified demo contractors. 6 We want demolition contractors doing 7 demolition, not somebody that has been mentioned, you 8 have an excavator and a dump truck, and now you are a 9 demo contractor. 10 It's funny, in my neighborhood somebody 11 moved in and there's a truck that says Concrete, 12 Excavation, Roofing, Demolition on it. And I was going 13 to take a picture, but I'm not up for a libel suit. 14 We've had some, but if we really get on 15 them -- and through the bid process on a City job, it's a 16 little tough. 17 But if we -- we made a prequalified list, 18 you must be a demo contractor. And, you know, it's 19 giving us your liability insurance, your past job 20 history, entire job history I wanted, equipment list -­ 21 CHAIRMAN HARHAI: It eliminated a lot of 22 your problems involved in that process? 23 MR. KLINGBORG: Yes, sir. 24 Because in the bidding process if they 25 were the low bid, I would have to on just -- I would have 113 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 to prove -­ 2 CHAIRMAN HARHAI: You would have to 3 justify they are not the lowest responsible bidder. 4 MR. KLINGBORG: Correct. Right. 5 CHAIRMAN HARHAI: Right. Got you. 6 I think that's a good code, and personally 7 I feel we could adopt that across the Commonwealth. 8 Coming from the western half of the state 9 and being a former mayor, believe me, we went through 10 everything. So I feel your pain a little bit. 11 MR. KLINGBORG: All right. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 13 Mr. Harvey, thank you. We really 14 appreciate your testimony, and you have everybody's 15 attention. It looks like you really have it down in 16 Allentown and you're doing it the right way. 17 MR. HARVEY: Thank you. 18 MR. KLINGBORG: Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN KELLER: The UCC code allows code 20 officials to issue stop work orders if a contractor 21 violates a UCC or work is being performed in an unsafe 22 manner. 23 Have you ever had to do that on a job; 24 that's, stop a contractor from proceeding with the work?

25 MR. HARVEY: Yes. Yes. 114 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Once you stop him, how 2 long does it take to correct the violations and get the 3 job completed? 4 MR. HARVEY: It depends on the severity of 5 the issue. Usually once this happens, the corrections 6 come real fast. 7 CHAIRMAN KELLER: They understand. 8 MR. HARVEY: They understand what's going 9 on. 10 MR. KLINGBORG: In Allentown probably 98 11 percent of every demolition we do is a row home. And in 12 our code you must restore the adjoining property walls, 13 waterproof them and everything. 14 And that's usually where the problem is. 15 There is some unique engineering feats in Allentown. 16 CHAIRMAN KELLER: And as the Chairman 17 said, 15 years ago it cost him $10,000 to take down a row 18 home probably 900 square feet. 19 MR. HARVEY: Yes. 20 CHAIRMAN KELLER: And to do a four-story 21 commercial building, that should have been a red flag. 22 And you guys would have caught that right away if they 23 made an application to say that that's what they were 24 going to charge for them. 25 In Allentown, if you seek a demolition 115 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 permit, does the person doing the work have to apply or 2 can subcontractors come in? 3 MR. HARVEY: The permit applicant's 4 responsible for the work, to do the work. 5 CHAIRMAN KELLER: They have to come in. 6 MR. HARVEY: Right. 7 MR. KLINGBORG: On our city demolition, we 8 have a no subcontractor built into our contract that we 9 can put in, take out, whatever. 10 CHAIRMAN KELLER: So you guys are really 11 above that UCC code. You've advanced. 12 MR. HARVEY: Yes. 13 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you. You guys 14 have done a great job. 15 MR. HARVEY: Kevin has ensured a lot of 16 the work to get this to where it's at. 17 MR. KLINGBORG: I like easy, so, you know, 18 it's -­ 19 CHAIRMAN KELLER: You don't mind if we 20 plagiarize a lot of your work, do you? 21 MR. KLINGBORG: Go for it. 22 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Chairman Gillespie. 24 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Thank you, Chairman 25 Scavello. 116 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Thank you, both of you gentlemen, for your 2 comments in answering the questions. 3 What prompted the City of Allentown to 4 adopt this into their code? 5 MR. HARVEY: Well, a lot of this goes back 6 to 2004 when the State first passed the UCC. Not only 7 demolition, but there are several other areas that the 8 City has adopted amendments stronger than the UCC. And 9 any municipality can do that, and that's what the City 10 has done. 11 Specifically one of the amendments, as 12 Kevin has said, is to make sure that the adjoining homes 13 in a row that are taken down are stabilized and secured, 14 and that is in there. 15 Also, there are certain requirements in 16 the plumbing code that are different from the 17 International Plumbing Code. They are local amendments 18 which are stricter. 19 So all the municipalities in the state 20 were given the opportunity to do that. 21 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Thank you. 22 Thank you, Chairman Scavello. 23 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Gentlemen, thank you 24 very much, and I'd appreciate those copies.

25 MR. HARVEY: Thank you. 117 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: The next testifier is 2 David Fleisher. He's a professional engineer, Fleisher 3 Forensics, Pennsylvania Society of Professional 4 Engineers. 5 MR. FLEISHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 6 ladies and gentlemen, for inviting me here today to 7 represent not only for the professional engineers of the 8 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but the Pennsylvania state 9 professional engineers as well. 10 I want to tell you a story. I listened to 11 the representative of the National Demolition 12 Association, and he forgot to tell you something. 13 The story began on September 15th, 2005. 14 It was a Thursday. It was between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. 15 in the morning. It happened at 1910 Spring Garden Street 16 in Philadelphia. 17 A site was being demolished, and a 18 building -- a brownstone building was being underpinned 19 to allow for construction of a new commercial building. 20 The brownstone building collapsed. 21 We were lucky that day. Nobody lost their 22 lives. People were at work. 23 Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, what 24 would have occurred if this brownstone building fell 25 before people went to work, after they came home from 118 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 work, or on a Saturday or Sunday? How many lives would 2 have been lost? 3 Thank God none were lost and we just lost 4 a building and there was property damage there. 5 And then we come to June 5th, 2013. Six 6 people lost their lives at the building and one lost 7 their life -- took his own life later on. We can't let 8 these things continue to happen. 9 These things are happening because of the 10 lack of overall supervision on sites, lack of safety, the 11 lack of proper interaction between trades, and inadequate 12 use of professional engineers. 13 To give you a little bit of background on 14 myself, I'm a professional engineer. I've been one since 15 1975. My firm investigates these types of accidents, and 16 I've been doing it since 1986. 17 One life lost is too many. One person 18 injured is too many. 19 Normally it's a construction worker who 20 gets injured. If they're lucky, it's something that's 21 not severe. But many become paraplegics, quadriplegics 22 or even die. And then we have the public exposed when 23 we're in urban areas. 24 So, you know, I personally support House 25 Bill 1591. I think it's going in the right direction, 119 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 and I applaud you for taking these measures. 2 One of the goals of engineers in the 3 Commonwealth is not only to protect the public, but also 4 to protect workers in these types of environments. 5 Falling buildings are a recurring problem. 6 Adjoining properties become damaged, and, as I mentioned, 7 sometimes workers or the public become injured or die. 8 When you do demolition work, ladies and 9 gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, there is uncertainty as to the 10 building structure. 11 Why is there uncertainty? It's an older 12 building. The drawings and plans may not be available. 13 Even if they are available, was it really built according 14 to the original plans? Is the steel beam that you are 15 about to expose deteriorated or not? Was it properly 16 connected originally? Is the masonry wall that is 17 exposed and standing up properly supported? Will the 18 wind blow it over in a certain direction or not? What is 19 the strength of the mortar in that wall? 20 Floors are made of concrete or wood. How 21 well are they supported? Will it support a demolition 22 worker standing on the floor as another part of the 23 structure is demolished? 24 These are things that structural 25 engineers, professional engineers can answer. 120 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 One of the things in the bill that you 2 have to make a decision on has to do with the mention of 3 registered architects and professional engineers. And 4 why do I say this? 5 OSHA has regulations for demolition. They 6 are under 1926 CFR Subpart T. And they require that an 7 engineering survey be done by a professional engineer. 8 Yet this is the only measure we have so far of some type 9 of engineering insurance that there's some degree of 10 safety along the way. 11 You'll have to answer the question whether 12 you want to have architects in the act or not. There are 13 some very competent architects, as well as engineers, to 14 do this type of work; because OSHA calls for engineers, 15 not architects. 16 And there was some discussion earlier by 17 the Department of Licenses & Inspections or Labor & 18 Industry in Harrisburg. And the point being, why should 19 we enforce OSHA regulations? They're really a federal 20 requirement. 21 And my question to you is, where in the 22 building code does it call for an engineering survey to 23 be done to -- which is to protect the workers, but also 24 has the dual role of protecting the public as well? 25 This is why the OSHA regulations, which 121 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 are primarily oriented to worker safety, should be 2 adopted in your act, and also enforced by the public code 3 officials and made applicable to the safety of the public 4 as well, so that they have at least the same protection 5 that workers have. 6 During the demolition process, there was 7 some discussion about having engineers retained and do 8 you really need an engineer to be involved in the work. 9 Engineers are specially trained and 10 educated to understand the strength of materials and to 11 be able to do calculations and make details on how to 12 support structures safely during a demolition process. 13 It's the same thing that's done during the 14 construction process. Except during the demolition 15 process, there are heavier forces or weights or loads 16 that can be imposed upon structural members that they 17 can't carry. 18 Unless you have a registered professional 19 structural engineer involved in the process, you're in 20 jeopardy of having parts of the building fail and break 21 and fall down on people and hurt people. 22 There's really a common theme in terms of 23 the cases that we have evaluated in the City of 24 Philadelphia; and that is, a building unintentionally 25 collapses onto adjoining property and people get hurt or 122 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 property gets damaged. 2 What are the corrective measures that we 3 can implement? Well, some of them I mentioned -- I heard 4 the word "common sense" earlier, and I think there is a 5 bit of common sense that we could do. 6 There are critical parts of the demolition 7 process where protective measures can be taken to 8 safeguard the public and the workers, and one of them 9 that has to be considered is the evacuation of adjoining 10 buildings at critical demolition stages. And this is 11 something that you may want to consider in your act. 12 There are two phases that adjoining 13 structures can be damaged that are prevalent. And there 14 are others as well, and they could be evaluated by 15 professional engineers. 16 One is when you have a higher building 17 adjoining a lower building being demolished. Can parts 18 of that building fall on the lower building? Should you 19 really have that building occupied during that time? 20 Are there periods of time that the 21 demolition can occur when the building isn't occupied so 22 that if there is falling debris or a wall, the people of 23 the building are protected? 24 Another area is on the underpinning of a 25 building. And that is when you support the adjoining 123 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 building and the structure, when you want to go lower 2 with a new building to make sure it doesn't fall down. 3 With engineering assistance this could be done safely and 4 reduce the risk of failure. 5 However, too many structures do fall 6 during this stage, such as the brownstone structure at 7 1910 Spring Garden Street. 8 I would like to thank you for the 9 opportunity to speak here on behalf of engineers, and I 10 welcome any questions that you may have. 11 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Chairman Keller. 12 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 13 Thank you, Mr. Fleisher. You were the 14 first one here and you're the last one to testify, so I 15 know it's been a long day for you. 16 You heard, and we keep repeating, in the 17 bill we want to see a professional engineer or an 18 architect review the plans. You've heard testimony that 19 say that's unnecessary. 20 Would you like to comment on that? 21 Because I don't believe that -- I mean, that's why I put 22 it in the bill. I think we should -- that we could have 23 avoided this terrible tragedy if we would have had 24 somebody look at the plans.

25 Apparently no one looked at it and the guy 124 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 didn't know what he was doing, and it caused, you know, 2 this loss of life. 3 MR. FLEISHER: Thank you for your 4 question. 5 Professional engineers are trained to 6 protect the safety of the public. There's a Professional 7 Engineering Act adopted in the Commonwealth that -- and 8 this is within the first paragraph -- professional 9 structural engineers are trained, Mr. Chairman, to 10 evaluate the safety of structures as they are being built 11 and as they are being taken down. 12 With regard to this particular building, 13 there should have been an engineering survey done prior 14 to the building being taken down to ensure and identify a 15 job hazard analysis and to work with the general 16 contractor to come up with a safety program so it could 17 be done safely as well. 18 CHAIRMAN KELLER: And I've asked this 19 question before. 20 A red flag should have been the $10,000 21 cost to take that building down. That's -- that's 22 ridiculous. It's impossible to take a building down of 23 that size for $10,000 in this day and age. 24 If we had a professional engineer look at 25 the plan, that would have been the first thing he would 125 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 have seen. 2 MR. FLEISHER: I would think that would 3 have been flagged if that information was available to 4 the engineer. It seems that it is a low amount of money 5 to do that type of job. 6 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you. Thank you 7 for your testimony. Thanks for waiting. 8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Chairman Gillespie. 10 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Thank you, 11 Mr. Chairman. 12 You just mentioned a term, it's the second 13 time I've heard it today, called a job hazard analysis. 14 MR. FLEISHER: Yes. 15 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Is that something 16 that's done initially so that, you know, safety protocols 17 and so forth can be laid out as you are going into the 18 thing or is it done as the job is progressing or as 19 things may come up? Or maybe is it both? 20 MR. FLEISHER: Actually, it's both, 21 Mr. Chairman. 22 Prior to the job starting, a job hazard 23 analysis should be done to identify what the safety 24 issues are as the job progresses. 25 As the job progresses on a day-to-day 126 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 basis, new things are going to be uncovered that you 2 weren't aware of before. You may not be aware that this 3 wall was weaker than it was originally thought. 4 How are you going to take it down? What 5 type of safety measures do you need to implement to 6 prevent it from falling over onto somebody as well? 7 So it has to be a fluid thing, especially 8 during the demolition process because of all the unknown 9 things that we engineers do not know about. 10 We're not Superman and we don't have x-ray 11 eyes to be able to look through the structure of the 12 building and see if that beam is rusted through up there; 13 or see if that masonry wall over there doesn't have 14 enough mortar in it, or the mortar has weakened to the 15 point that the building blocks, the concrete blocks, are 16 about to come apart; or the floor may be too weak for 17 somebody to stand on and you have to build a guard rail 18 around it to protect people from potentially falling in. 19 So this is something that not only needs 20 to be done at the beginning of the job but as the job 21 goes on. 22 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Again, I'm not an 23 expert on this particular case and I'm not going to think 24 that you would be either. 25 But as I recall something reading about 127 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 this, this particular component that collapsed was 2 supposed to be taken down by hand when actually the 3 machine was being used. 4 Do you know that enough to comment on? 5 MR. FLEISHER: I read that in the 6 newspaper, but I do not know if that's a fact or not. 7 CHAIRMAN GILLESPIE: Okay. I understand. 8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative Truitt. 10 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, 11 Mr. Chairman. 12 And thank you for your testimony. 13 I'm just looking at the language here. As 14 a PE, I'm sympathetic, again, with your position, but I 15 am also concerned about writing a piece of legislation 16 that produces unintended consequences of forcing people 17 to hire engineers in cases where it's just not necessary. 18 And one of the things that jumped out to 19 me in the language of the legislation said that you must 20 submit building plans and documents, including a 21 demolition plan and schedule, prepared by a licensed 22 architect or professional engineer. 23 And I'm wondering if that means if you are 24 trying to knock down a hundred-year-old building that 25 doesn't have any drawings, does that mean we have to go 128 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 in and reverse-engineer the building and come up with a 2 set of drawings for it? Would that be your 3 interpretation of that? 4 MR. FLEISHER: I think that's something 5 that needs a better definition because you will be likely 6 not to find drawings on a building like that. 7 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: And I'm wondering 8 if there's any, again, middle ground. 9 Some of the -- the prior testifier had 10 suggested that we shouldn't apply this only to the City 11 of Philadelphia. And I generally agree with that. I'm 12 not a big fan of legislation that applies only to certain 13 areas. 14 But if we applied it to every municipality 15 as was suggested, sometimes -- you know, if you have a 16 building that's a hundred feet away from the nearest 17 sidewalk and there's no risk to the public, do you think 18 it would still be necessary for a professional engineer 19 to look at -- to be involved in the project? 20 It's you are either concerned about the 21 safety of the workers or concerned about the safety of 22 the public. Do you think it's necessary for both cases 23 or just to protect the safety of the public? 24 MR. FLEISHER: I think it's necessary in 25 both cases to have a professional engineer involved in 129 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 both products -- projects. 2 The reason is is that even though you may 3 be 150 feet away from a sidewalk, and even assuming that 4 you will have a fence around the site to prevent the 5 public from going in, you are still at risk for the 6 building falling down while workers are there. 7 And not evaluating a building from an 8 engineering standpoint and having a proper job hazard 9 analysis in place to safeguard the workers as the process 10 is going on is going to jeopardize their safety and their 11 lives. 12 REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Okay. Very good. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Representative 15 Donatucci. 16 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you, 17 Mr. Chairman. 18 I want to touch on what my other chairman 19 mentioned. 20 If there is an adjoining building, should 21 it be hand-demoed as opposed to being machine-demoed? 22 That's me. I'm sorry. 23 MR. FLEISHER: I was looking to my right. 24 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: That's okay.

25 MR. FLEISHER: Okay. I think the question 130 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 is should a building be hand-demolished? 2 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Well, the 3 section that is attached to an adjoining building, should 4 that part of it be hand-demoed? 5 MR. FLEISHER: It has to be looked at on a 6 case-by-case basis as to the means and methods that you 7 are going to be doing the work. 8 There are different protections that you 9 could provide for the adjoining building while the wall 10 was being demolished, and it's up to the construction 11 forces to decide which method they want to choose. 12 Do they want to take every brick down hand 13 by hand? Or do they want to place potentially a safety 14 net over the other building so if debris falls it can be 15 caught along the way? 16 Do you want to have protection -- a 17 protective screen erected along that wall so that if 18 anything falls it will be protected? 19 So there are different ways of doing it. 20 There's different ways of skinning the cat. 21 And it's up to the construction forces to 22 ultimately decide which is the safest way of doing it, 23 along with the engineers and the municipalities as well. 24 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: And our final 131 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 question, Representative Saccone. 2 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Thank you, 3 Mr. Chairman. 4 Again, I just -- it seems that we're 5 tempted to add laws where they may not be necessary. 6 In the case of Philadelphia -- of course 7 I'm not an expert on that -- but it seems like the local 8 building inspectors, there were many red flags that they 9 could have caught. You didn't need a professional 10 engineer to review this for them to have caught that. 11 I've listened to my colleagues here from 12 York who also said that in certain areas we allow 13 building code officials the discretion to determine 14 whether an engineer would be warranted on a project or 15 not. 16 Might that be a possible compromise, to 17 say, you know, there are certain areas where obviously a 18 professional engineer isn't needed. 19 I've taken down buildings. I have a small 20 farm. I've taken down my own buildings. I don't need to 21 hire a professional engineer to come and do a survey for 22 that. 23 You're in an urban setting where you are 24 touching adjoining buildings, maybe you do. 25 Is there some compromise where you could 132 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 say, you know, we could outline, we could define and give 2 the local building code inspectors the discretion to 3 determine whether an engineer might be needed or an 4 engineering study might be needed for demolition? 5 MR. FLEISHER: Under OSHA a engineering 6 study is required. So under the federal government 7 regulations you need to have an engineering survey before 8 demolition takes place on any commercial building. So 9 that's a given. 10 The question is, how much additional 11 engineering assistance do you need along the way after 12 that survey is done? 13 My view on it is that it's good to have an 14 engineer available when changes occur, when unknown 15 conditions occur, to run conditions past that engineer to 16 see how that will affect the demolition process. 17 Too often during the demolition of a 18 building this is not done. The contractor hires an 19 engineer to provide the engineering survey to satisfy 20 OSHA regulations, and the engineer is not heard of after 21 that because the contractor doesn't want to spend the 22 money or the resources for those professional services. 23 And then if the great judgment is not made 24 by the contractor, the workers and the public are at 25 risk. 133 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Thank you very much. 3 And safe trip back to Harrisburg, I'm assuming, correct? 4 MR. FLEISHER: Ambler, 5 Montgomery County. 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Mr. Keller. 8 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Mr. Chairman, I want to 9 thank you, another excellent job with all the testifiers, 10 and you're only 15 minutes over. 11 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: Not too bad. 12 CHAIRMAN KELLER: Not bad at all. 13 And, as always, I want to thank the staff 14 for all the work they put in in doing this, and 15 apparently we found a lot more work for you guys to do 16 over the summer. 17 Hopefully, you know, we'll have a better 18 product because of this hearing, and I want to thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN SCAVELLO: It's a pleasure to be 20 here in Philadelphia, and unfortunately why we're here is 21 not a good reason. 22 But we want to make sure that it doesn't 23 happen again, and hopefully it won't happen anywhere in 24 the Commonwealth and we put the right rules in place to 25 make that happen. 134 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 Thank you. 2 Call the meeting to order. 3 (Proceedings concluded at 3:37 p.m.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 PUBLIC HEARING, 07/09/13

1 CERTIFICATION 2

3 I, JANICE D. BURNESS, Registered Professional 4 Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter, certify that the 5 foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the 6 foregoing deposition, that the witness was first sworn by 7 me at the time, place and on the date herein before set 8 forth. 9 I further certify that I am neither attorney 10 nor counsel for, not related to nor employed by any of 11 the parties to the action in which this deposition was 12 taken; further, that I am not a relative or employee of 13 any attorney or counsel employed in this case, nor am I 14 financially interested in this action. 15 16 17 18 19 JANICE D. BURNESS 20 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER 21 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 22 (NJ) XI00225900 23 NOTARY PUBLIC 24 25