COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON BOROUGHS PUBLIC HEARING ON HOUSE BILL 1677 HERSHEY PUBLIC LIBRARY 701 COCOA AVENUE HERSHEY, PENNSYLVANIA SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 9:26 A.M. BEFORE: HONORABLE MARK S. McNAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HONORABLE JOHN D. PAYNE HONORABLE BERNARD T. O'NEILL HONORABLE LAWRENCE H. CURRY HONORABLE MICHAEL K. HANNA HONORABLE SEAN M. RAMALEY ALSO PRESENT: CHRISTINE GOLDBECK, RESEARCH ANALYST SHERRI A. REITANO, RPR NOTARY PUBLIC

2 1 I N D E X 2 TESTIFIER PAGE 3 Chris Lammando 5 4 Lee Milligan 12 5 Christopher J. DeFlitch, MD 26 6 Thomas Foreman 38 7 Frank Thompson 43 8 Mark W. Tebbets 51 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

3 1 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Good morning, 2 everyone. This being the time and place advertised 3 for the public hearing, we're going to call this 4 public hearing to order. 5 We're here to discuss House Bill 1677 6 which has been referred to the House Local 7 Government Committee, Subcommittee on Boroughs. I'm 8 Representative Mark McNaughton, the Chairman of this 9 subcommittee. 10 This bill requires new single family 11 dwelling units and new and existing college 12 university rooming units to have CO2 alarms. 13 At this time I'd like to give 14 Representative John Payne, the bill sponsor, a few 15 minutes to talk about his legislation. 16 Representative Payne. 17 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: Thank you, Mr. 18 Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to have the 19 hearing today in Derry Township. I want to thank 20 you. I want to thank my colleagues from the House 21 for attending, the public for attending today, and 22 two important people to thank, groups to thank, the 23 library itself for allowing us to have this room and 24 opening up about half an hour earlier than they 25 normally do to the public and all those who helped

4 1 set this up. There are multiple groups who 2 participated in assisting me and my staff in making 3 this hearing happen. I want to thank them very much 4 from my staff to them. 5 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: I'd like to also 6 thank everyone for being flexible with my schedule. 7 I apologize. The previous hearing had to be 8 post-poned plainly because of my calendar. So I 9 apologize for that. The other members that are in 10 attendance if they would please introduce 11 themselves, I'd appreciate it. 12 REPRESENTATIVE CURRY: Lawrence Curry 13 from Eastern Montgomery County. 14 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: Bernie O'Neill 15 from Bucks County. 16 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: I'm Representative 17 Mark McNaughton from Dauphin County along with my 18 colleague John Payne from Dauphin County. 19 Each testifier will have 10 minutes to 20 address the committee. Members who have questions 21 are welcome to address the inquiries as we go. 22 Meaning if a question comes to mind, please feel to 23 ask it and not necessarily have to wait until the 24 end of testimony. 25 I want to thank the committee members for

5 1 their attendance and the testifiers for their 2 interest in this legislation. What we hear from you 3 today and what we read in the written testimony that 4 we have been supplied by a few of you will help us 5 make an informed decision about this legislation as 6 it goes through the process. With that said, we 7 will begin with our first testimony. Here on behalf 8 of First Alert, Chris Lammando. 9 MR. LAMMANDO: Good morning. 10 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Good morning. How 11 are you? 12 MR. LAMMANDO: Good. I just wanted to 13 first of all introduce myself. My name is Chris 14 Lammando. I work for Wolf Block Government 15 Relations, and we represent First Alert. 16 First Alert is a manufacturer of home 17 safety products; fire extinguishers, escape ladders, 18 carbon monoxide detectors, and alarms. 19 Unfortunately, our client Debbie Hanson who is the 20 director of External Affairs was unable to get to 21 Pennsylvania for the day. 22 After a number of planes, trains, and 23 automobiles, she is stranded out in the Midwest. So 24 her testimony is included in your packet of 25 information as well as some letters of support

6 1 regarding the legislation as well as the general 2 concept of promoting public health and safety by 3 advocating for the placement of carbon monoxide 4 detectors in homes and specifically in sleeping 5 areas. I don't want to take too much of your time. 6 But first of all, I just wanted to thank 7 the committee, thank the subcommittee, and thank 8 Representative Payne for introducing this 9 legislation. 10 First Alert is very much in support of 11 these initiatives. It has been an active 12 participant in legislative and regulatory matters in 13 other states. 14 As a little bit of background, the issue 15 of carbon monoxide and exposure to carbon monoxide 16 and the health benefit is gaining attention in 17 states across the nation. 18 Unfortunately where our client has seen 19 some legislative successes has been on the heel of 20 some tragedy or deaths of individuals. 21 Just a little bit of background. Carbon 22 monoxide exposure is recognized as the number one 23 cause of accidental poisoning in the United States 24 by the American Medical Association. And as a 25 result, just this spring two states had to have

7 1 passed new laws and now we are up to I believe it is 2 a total of 12 states that have laws or regulations. 3 And when you factor in the number of cities and 4 townships across this nation, large cities such as 5 New York City, we're starting to see a growing 6 trend. 7 Again, before you is a copy of Debbie's 8 testimony. Unfortunately, you know with her 9 absence, I wish there was more information that I 10 could provide to you but would certainly be happy to 11 work with Debbie to answer whatever specific 12 questions that you may have about First Alert, its 13 brands, or what is happening in other parts of the 14 country. So with that, I will sit back down and let 15 the hearing get started. 16 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: I had one question 17 for you, Chris, that just came to mind today. If 18 you're trying to get this adopted as a standard in 19 the code, why not go to the building trades and/or, 20 you know, those who write the codes, the BOCA Code, 21 to have them adopt it as a criteria? 22 MR. LAMMANDO: Sure. There have been 23 initiatives at the national level working with 24 building codes officials. You know just like what 25 was started back in the days when smoke detectors

8 1 were first being introduced, it takes a while to 2 change the public perception and to do some 3 education. So the industry, the national safety 4 groups that have written letters in support of the 5 concept, including some home builders as well are 6 furthering that initiative. 7 Obviously, the education that goes into 8 this issue has occurred in other states; and our 9 client is interested in starting that dialogue, 10 working with legislators, working with local 11 governments, and working with all of those officials 12 to proceed that way in Pennsylvania as well. 13 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: As a follow-up 14 question -- 15 MR. LAMMANDO: It has not been adopted as 16 a national standard yet. And as part of that 17 process, you will see again in Debbie's testimony 18 there are various things that are underway in terms 19 of creating minimum standards for the manufacturing 20 of such devices. 21 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: As a follow-up, do 22 you know how much a mandated cost this would be on 23 say Penn State University to retrofit all of their 24 dorms? And does that include apartments rented by 25 students at a State University or University of

9 1 Pittsburgh for that matter or any dorm? 2 MR. LAMMANDO: We have not, you know, 3 sort of done an analysis from the standpoint of the 4 manufacturer. I mean obviously, you know, our 5 client is a business. You know, they see it as good 6 policy. But they also see a potential business 7 opportunity. And that has been, you know, a result 8 of what has occurred in other states as well. 9 So no, Representative, we have not done a 10 fiscal analysis like that. I would suppose that I 11 would leave that up to the others. As you know, the 12 cost of these devices range anywhere from, you know, 13 $15 to $50 based on what type of device that you 14 buy, whether it is hard wire, whether it talks to 15 other units in the home. 16 And so it's not, you know, a terribly 17 expensive device for the safety and the peace of 18 mind that it can bring. We'll look to that and see 19 if there is estimates from other states that have 20 passed laws. 21 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: That's a tremendous 22 mandated cost on all of the public universities and 23 private universities. That's a huge cost to go back 24 and retrofit. 25 I'd like to welcome Representative Hanna

10 1 and Representative Ramaley for attending. Those are 2 the two that just joined us today. Any other member 3 of the committee that has a question for Chris? 4 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: Just a question or 5 a statement, Mr. Chairman. Particularly on Penn 6 State the question was asked. State College has 7 already adopted an ordinance effective January 1st, 8 2006 that required carbon monoxide detectors in a 9 dwelling defined as a facility with one or more 10 persons who are sleeping, eating, cooking, and 11 living can occur. 12 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Is that retroactive 13 or is that for the future? 14 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: My information has 15 that it is future, not retroactive. Just all future 16 dwellings. As I think mine is for single but it 17 requires retroactive over 5 years for college dorms. 18 MS. GOLDBECK: Chris, I have a question 19 for you. You mentioned that several large cities 20 and now Representative Payne has just told us State 21 College, is it a trend that local government units 22 are not waiting for state or federal mandates to 23 come down and local governments are doing this on 24 their own? 25 MR. LAMMANDO: I don't know that issue.

11 1 I mean where we see local governments taking some 2 action, you know, it could be in a state that does 3 not have a state law and a state that does have a 4 state law. So it is sort of all over the map. 5 New York, for example, has passed a state 6 law and then New York City had passed an ordinance. 7 And the city ordinance was to take effect after the 8 state law became effective. 9 So there isn't sort of a relationship 10 that the state passed the law and city does or a 11 city or township does and, therefore, a state comes 12 in and does something to preempt. It is kind of all 13 over the map. 14 But I could get the committee a listing 15 of cities and townships in addition to the states 16 that Debbie's testimony has. 17 MS. GOLDBECK: Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Representative 19 O'Neill. 20 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: Do you know how 21 many states actually have it? 22 MR. LAMMANDO: There are about 12 states 23 that have it. A number of pieces of legislation are 24 pending in the legislative process, you know. Like 25 Pennsylvania, they have been introduced, haven't

12 1 been acted upon yet or have made it, you know, at 2 some point in the process. 3 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: But there are 12 4 with current laws? 5 MR. LAMMANDO: Twelve current laws, yes. 6 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Any other questions 7 from any members? Okay. Thank you. 8 MR. LAMMANDO: Thank you, Representative. 9 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Our next testifier 10 will be Lee Milligan or is it C. Lee Milligan? 11 MR. MILLIGAN: It's just Lee Milligan, 12 sir. 13 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Good morning. 14 MR. MILLIGAN: Good morning. 15 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Mr. Milligan is the 16 Building Code Official Planning and Zoning 17 Administrator, Upper Providence Township 18 representing the Pennsylvania Association of 19 Building Code Officials. 20 MR. MILLIGAN: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Welcome. 22 MR. MILLIGAN: First of all, I'd like to 23 thank Beth Ann for facilitating this today and 24 keeping me informed on what was going on and the 25 opportunity to speak today.

13 1 I have a prepared statement which 2 shouldn't take too long and hopefully I'll get this 3 over with quickly. 4 Honorable Chairman and members of the 5 House Local Government Committee, my name is Lee 6 Milligan, and today I'm representing the 7 Pennsylvania Association of Building Code Officials, 8 Incorporated. 9 I serve on PABCO's board of directors and 10 I'm chairman of the governmental affairs committee. 11 I'm the building planning administrator for Upper 12 Providence Township in Montgomery County and have 13 over 20 years of building and fire code enforcement 14 experience. 15 PABCO represents over 900 municipal and 16 third-party agency code officials throughout 17 Pennsylvania. Our members provide building code and 18 UCC enforcement services in more than 1700 of the 19 Commonwealth's municipalities. 20 I'm here today to speak in opposition to 21 House Bill 1677 and all other bills that have been 22 introduced in the Pennsylvania House or Senate that 23 would require the installation of carbon monoxide 24 detectors in various types of structures. 25 I'm sure that this may seem a bit

14 1 paradoxical that an association of building code 2 officials all of whom are driven by profession and 3 training to protect the public welfare and safety of 4 the building occupants speaking in opposition to the 5 mandatory installation of a device that many people 6 associate with the safeguarding of human life. 7 First of all, PABCO is not speaking 8 against any individual or building owner that may 9 choose to voluntarily install a carbon monoxide 10 detector in their dwelling unit or place of 11 business. We believe that an individual or property 12 owner should have the right to make that choice. 13 Secondly, my purpose here today is not to 14 argue for or against the relative merits of carbon 15 monoxide detectors whether they are effective or not 16 in saving human lives. There is an abundance of 17 scientific and technical information as well as 18 research relative to carbon monoxide detectors that 19 I'm certain that others who will be presenting 20 testimony today will address. 21 The reason that PABCO does not support 22 the mandatory installation of carbon monoxide 23 detectors in any structure in Pennsylvania is 24 simple. The building codes that we've adopted for 25 residential and commercial construction and

15 1 alteration do not require the installation of carbon 2 monoxide detectors. The mechanical codes that we 3 have adopted do not require them. And finally, the 4 fire codes we have adopted do not require the 5 installation of carbon monoxide detectors. 6 PABCO has taken a very clear and 7 consistent public position in opposition to all 8 legislation introduced in the Pennsylvania General 9 Assembly that would modify the codes that we have 10 adopted in Pennsylvania. 11 PABCO is opposed to modifying any of the 12 ICC codes for the requirements by passing 13 legislation in Pennsylvania. Our position stands 14 firm regardless whether the legislation modification 15 would be less restrictive or more restrictive than 16 the codes we have adopted. 17 In this case, the mandatory installation 18 of carbon monoxide detectors would be more 19 restrictive. Imposing a requirement does not exist 20 in any of the codes or standards that we have 21 adopted in Pennsylvania. 22 Our opposition is not being taken with a 23 blind eye to the world around us. We know that 24 there have been numerous proposals over years to 25 incorporate a requirement into the national model

16 1 building codes for the installation of carbon 2 monoxide detectors in residential and commercial 3 structures but principally in one and two family 4 dwellings, townhouses, dormitories fraternity 5 houses, apartments, et cetera. Since the 6 International Code Council was formed in 1998 7 through the merger of three national model code 8 organizations, proposals have been presented during 9 each code change cycle for the mandatory 10 installation of carbon monoxide detectors. 11 New editions to the code are published 12 every three years. There are two code change cycles 13 during each three-year period. So just in the last 14 six years, we've had four code change cycles each of 15 which have seen various proposals for the required 16 installation of carbon monoxide detectors. 17 I would just like to deviate from my 18 presentation a second and point out that beginning 19 this coming Saturday, the ICC Code Council convenes 20 their conference in Orlando again. 21 And there are additional proposals that 22 will be heard during this code change cycle for the 23 inclusion of carbon monoxide detectors in 24 residential construction. 25 The International Code Council modifies

17 1 the code by what is known as a governmental 2 consensus process. Anyone can present a proposal to 3 the ICC for code change -- code officials, fire 4 officials, architects, engineers, as well as 5 manufacturers are also actively involved in the code 6 change process. But ultimately it is the 7 governmental members of the ICC that vote during 8 each code change cycle for proposals that are 9 adopted into the codes and reject those that are 10 not. 11 These votes come at the conclusion of 12 many months of presentations and debates before 13 special code development committees that have 14 oversight for specific areas within the adopted 15 codes. 16 Those who develop the proposals for code 17 changes have an opportunity to present their case 18 and their documentation and those that oppose those 19 changes have an equal opportunity to present their 20 case and documentation. 21 In the end, the political jurisdictions 22 throughout the United States that comprise the 23 voting membership of the ICC decide which proposals 24 have merits and which do not. This is the 25 governmental consensus process.

18 1 While not perfect, it does seek to 2 prevent code changes from occurring that would 3 benefit a particular industry, proprietary interest, 4 or manufacturer without demonstrating that there is 5 significant evidence that would enhance the 6 protection of human life and property in a 7 cost-effective manner. 8 I've included a brochure that describes 9 the governmental consensus process of ICC. It is 10 attached to your testimony today. 11 Just as recently as last September, the 12 code technology committee of the ICC once again 13 reviewed proposals for the mandatory installation of 14 carbon monoxide detectors in various structures. 15 And once again, the committee recommended 16 to the full voting body of the ICC that there was no 17 compelling evidence presented that should result in 18 the mandatory installation of carbon monoxide 19 detectors as required by any of the ICC codes. 20 A copy of that committee's communication 21 to the ICC membership is included as part of my 22 testimony today. I will not read it at this time 23 but would ask that it be made part of the record of 24 my testimony for your review at your leisure. 25 In closing if and when the ICC membership

19 1 through the governmental consensus process votes to 2 incorporate the mandatory installation of carbon 3 monoxide detectors in particular structures, then 4 PABCO and its membership will wholeheartedly embrace 5 the new requirement and will enforce it diligently. 6 Until such time as the International Code 7 Council feels that the argument and evidence for 8 mandatory carbon monoxide detectors are sufficiently 9 compelling to incorporate that requirement into its 10 family of codes, PABCO will stand in opposition of 11 House Bill 1677 and any other legislation that seeks 12 to modify the ICC codes that we have adopted as part 13 of the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act, Act 45 of 14 1999. Thank you for your consideration, and I'd be 15 happy to entertain any questions at this time. 16 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Thank you for your 17 testimony. I'd like to point out that the letter he 18 refers to that shows the rejection of the CO 19 detector installation was dated August 22nd, 2005. 20 We had a lot of discussion on reliability of the CO 21 detectors. One of the foundations for the 22 rejection, the first one is the reliability of the 23 installation and the reliability of the functioning 24 unit itself. 25 So I thank you very much for your

20 1 testimony today. Do members of the subcommittee 2 have any questions? Anyone down there -- Larry, 3 Sean, Bernie? Bernie. 4 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: I have in my 5 house a CO2 device that you're telling me based on 6 this thing from August 22nd, 2005 that what I have 7 is not reliable or there is no proof of its 8 reliability that it is being sold on the market? 9 MR. MILLIGAN: Initially when the 10 technology first came out, they had some issues 11 concerning reliability. There was not an 12 established technical standard that these units 13 could be manufactured to. 14 Some of them would detect CO at very low 15 levels, some would detect at very high levels. Your 16 exposure and the impact to your health is a time 17 versus exposure level ratio. And they had problems 18 with that. 19 As a result, they were getting a lot of 20 false alarms. Some municipalities jumped on board 21 very early on in the process before the technology 22 advanced, it was burdensome on their fire 23 departments. They were getting these false alarms. 24 It is my understanding -- although I 25 haven't had a chance to review the information --

21 1 that there are some new technical standards that 2 these units are being manufactured to that if all of 3 the units meet that technical standards that are 4 being sold, it may solve that problem. But I'm not 5 totally informed on those new standards yet. Those 6 are being considered by the ICC in their review 7 next -- over the next two weeks. 8 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: One other 9 question. You referred to the ICC and their 10 process. You said if they -- if through their 11 process they mandate CO2 detectors or whatever, then 12 you would comply with that. Excuse me for my 13 ignorance. But if the ICC -- and I know we go by 14 the BOCA codes -- recommends it, does that 15 automatically mean that every state has to go by 16 that or does every state have to basically adopt 17 through some process the new ICC recommendations or 18 codes to the BOCA code? 19 MR. MILLIGAN: Under Act 45, the 20 Department of Labor and Industry -- Pennsylvania 21 Department of Labor and Industry required within a 22 year of their publication to adopt the latest 23 standards. 24 We anticipate that by December 31st of 25 this year we will be adopting the 2006 codes which

22 1 were published back in March or February. So we 2 anticipate that by the end of this year, we will be 3 adopting the 2006. Legislatively you don't have to 4 do anything because it is an automatic rollover 5 within the Department of Labor and Industry. 6 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: So when people 7 call my office and complain about the BOCA codes and 8 the building inspector and blame the state, I can 9 blame you now? 10 MR. MILLIGAN: Yeah, that's fine. 11 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: That's all right 12 with me. 13 MR. MILLIGAN: If I have the time, I do 14 want to point out that there is a mechanism within 15 Act 45 that allows local municipalities to amend the 16 code. And certainly there are -- 17 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: Not to a lesser 18 degree, a degree more stringent? 19 MR. MILLIGAN: More stringent degree. 20 And there are provisions there that if you have 21 unique and compelling circumstances in your 22 community, you can adopt these more stringent 23 standards. 24 I would suggest that if I lived in an 25 area around Centralia where I know I have coal fires

23 1 under the ground in those areas, that those 2 municipalities would be perfectly sound in their 3 logic in adopting carbon monoxide detectors as part 4 of their code. I don't know that I necessarily need 5 them in Valley Forge in the area that I'm in, you 6 know. We're building a lot of new construction. 7 Particularly new construction using very high 8 efficiency equipment, that it is much less likely. 9 If you're in a borough with an older 10 housing stock and you know that you have problems 11 with older heating appliances that may not be as 12 efficient as today's modern units, you may want to 13 consider it as part of your property maintenance 14 code. Not necessarily an amendment to the building 15 code, but you may want to consider this type of 16 ordinance as part of your property maintenance code. 17 MR. O'NEILL: Thank you. 18 MS. GOLDBECK: You mentioned that 19 municipalities can have more stringent requirements 20 than is in the ICC. Is that what I heard? 21 MR. MILLIGAN: They are allowed to adopt 22 them, yes. 23 MS. GOLDBECK: Were those changes made 24 about two years ago in November? I'm trying to 25 trigger the Act or Bill.

24 1 MR. MILLIGAN: This goes back to the 2 original Act 45. Those provisions were always 3 available in the Act that allowed you to modify 4 provisions under Section 501 of Act 45. 5 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Did those adoptions 6 have to go through L&I? 7 MR. MILLIGAN: Yes. There is a 180-day 8 process that you must go through and that includes 9 submission to L&I. L&I makes a determination as to 10 whether or not this is more restrictive or whether 11 it is less restrictive than the International Code. 12 And then it goes back to L&I after the adoption 13 process. And there is a 30-day appeal period that 14 allows my good friend Doug Meshaw to appeal my 15 changes. 16 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: I assume then State 17 College went through the process to get the adoption 18 of -- 19 MR. MESHAW: They did not. 20 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: They did not. 21 MR. MILLIGAN: I'm not aware of State 22 College. 23 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: That raises another 24 question. Okay. I'll just omit that question. 25 I'll move on. I have one other question for you.

25 1 Just because the code does not mandate it, if it is 2 not -- if it is showed to be a clear benefit, it 3 would be opposed even though the code wouldn't 4 mandate it if there is something that came on the 5 marketplace? Because the reason for not supporting 6 this is this code doesn't mandate it, the new fire 7 codes don't mandate it. 8 But clearly if it is not mandated but it 9 is a tremendous benefit, I can't believe that you 10 would be so staunch in your position that you would 11 say I'm not going to support it just because it has 12 not been mandated in our code. 13 MR. MILLIGAN: PABCO has taken the 14 position that we will oppose technical amendments to 15 the code through the legislative process. The 16 reason being is since Act 45 was enacted, we've 17 already had six amendments to it. If we continue at 18 this pace, we're going to end up with a law in the 19 state that is going to be as cumbersome as the IRS 20 regulations. That's what we fear. 21 We support the ICC governmental consensus 22 process for code changes. What we hope to see in 23 the State of Pennsylvania -- and you'll see it in 24 many more organized states -- we're still in our 25 infancy in this whole statewide building code thing.

26 1 But you see it in more organized states where the 2 state's organization through PABCO or through other 3 statewide code official organizations take that code 4 change to the ICC code change process and put the 5 weight of the state organization behind it. And 6 we're just getting to that point where the state 7 organization is going to have some weight. 8 We have a very large membership in the 9 ICC. So if collectively we take that code change to 10 the ICC and we can send people to those hearings, 11 those committee hearings, and push that through the 12 process, we will be heard. 13 And certainly if something was just 14 overwhelmingly a benefit to the public, you know, we 15 wouldn't oppose it. But it would be an unusual 16 situation. 17 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Any other 18 questions? Thank you very much for your testimony. 19 Our next testifier is Christopher J. DeFlitch; is 20 that correct? 21 DR. DeFLITCH: DeFlitch, that's correct. 22 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: M.D., Director and 23 Vice-Chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine, 24 Penn State University, Milton Hershey Medical 25 Center, College of Medicine.

27 1 DR. DeFLITCH: Thank you, gentlemen. I 2 appreciate the opportunity. A life-long 3 Pennsylvanian, growing up in Pittsburgh and going to 4 college up in Erie and medical school here in 5 Hershey and back here as a Director and Vice-Chair 6 of the Department, I appreciate the opportunity to 7 address the committee. 8 I do have a prepared statement. I think 9 you all have a copy of it. I'll just go through it 10 if you don't mind. Please feel free to ask 11 questions. 12 Chairman McNaughton, I appreciate it. My 13 name is Chris DeFlitch. I'm Director and Vice-Chair 14 of the Department of Emergency Medicine here at Penn 15 State Hershey Medical Center. I serve as Director 16 of Life Lion Aeromedical Services and Physician 17 Champion at Penn State's Integrated Clinical 18 Information System at the Penn State Hershey Medical 19 Center. 20 I appreciate you inviting me to talk 21 about carbon monoxide exposure, danger, and 22 treatments as you consider this bill. 23 Carbon monoxide is an odorless, 24 colorless, and tasteless gas that emanates from 25 appliances, fireplaces, car engines, cigarettes,

28 1 anything that burns gas, petroleum, or other fuels. 2 And this carbon monoxide accumulates in high levels 3 in your home or car, garages, basement or other 4 poorly ventilated areas. Portable generators, 5 stoves, fireplaces, fires especially during change 6 of seasons in the winter are very high risk times. 7 They are very notorious for producing carbon 8 monoxide even though you can't taste it, you can't 9 smell it, and you don't know it is around. 10 The chemical compound if I can digress to 11 a little bit of high school chemistry here, the 12 chemical compound, the CO is a simple carbon oxygen 13 compound. In a very simplistic way it is similar to 14 oxygen, O2. There are carbon and oxygen, two 15 oxygens. And we breathe that every day and need it 16 to stay alive. 17 And the reason why people get sick 18 related to carbon monoxide is that it is a very 19 similar chemical compound. And that chemical 20 compound then binds to hemoglobin which is the 21 chemical in your red blood cells that carry the 22 oxygen around to different tissues in the body. 23 So instead of carrying oxygen around, it 24 carries around carbon monoxide instead of the 25 oxygen. And that causes lung tissue damage. It

29 1 causes brain tissue damage. It causes heart tissue 2 damage. And you may not even know that it is 3 occurring. An interesting note, carbon monoxide 4 actually bonds stronger to the hemoglobin than the 5 oxygen does. So if you've got lots of oxygen around 6 and lots of carbon monoxide around, the body is 7 going to bind the carbon monoxide even stronger than 8 it is the oxygen. 9 So when you have a normal amount of 10 oxygen around and you have an abnormally high level 11 of carbon monoxide, the red blood cells and the 12 hemoglobin specifically are going to grab at that 13 carbon monoxide which means your tissues aren't 14 going to get oxygen. 15 It can cause all types of symptoms. And 16 to the Nth degree, it can cause permanent tissue 17 injury and death. 18 Over the years working in a number of 19 hospitals across the state, I've seen a number of 20 cases; adults, children, elderly, college students 21 all suffered acute chronic problems with carbon 22 monoxide poisoning. It can be a pretty devastating 23 disease when you see it at its Nth degree. 24 You should also know that smokers have 25 levels of carbon monoxide in their system because

30 1 they are constantly breathing smoke and will 2 maintain a certain level of carbon monoxide in their 3 system. How do we go about treating carbon 4 monoxide? 5 When a person presents in the emergency 6 department, timeliness of presentation is essential. 7 Effectively what you have to do is be aware that 8 there was an exposure. 9 So because it is odorless, tasteless, 10 colorless, you sometimes can't tell that you've been 11 exposed. And you may just have something as simple 12 as a headache and be a little bit confused. The 13 only way to detect that is through very complex 14 neuro testing. So you may be getting damage to your 15 body and you may not even know it. 16 The only way to test is through complex 17 neuro testing. But many of the common symptoms that 18 we will see associated is a dull, nonspecific 19 headache. 20 As the level of carbon monoxide exposure 21 and absorption into the system rises, you get 22 worsening and worsening symptoms that can include 23 dizziness, nausea, chest pain, shortness of breath, 24 and vomiting. 25 So as the levels of carbon monoxide that

31 1 you are breathing in climbs, the less oxygen in your 2 tissue combine causing more and more damage to the 3 body including visual loss, complete confusion, and 4 even death. 5 People who are at high risk related to 6 this are numerous. And as we have an elderly 7 population in Pennsylvania, folks that have dementia 8 or are confused may not know that they are having 9 symptoms related to carbon monoxide poisoning 10 because at their baseline they are confused. 11 The same way with people that are 12 sleeping. You're sleeping. You're breathing in 13 carbon monoxide. It is odorless, tasteless. You 14 can be exposed for a long period of time without 15 even knowing that you're being exposed even though 16 you're young and healthy. 17 As well as the intoxicated patient, we're 18 talking about some dormitories. Realistically we 19 know a couple college students may drink 20 occasionally. And they may be laying there 21 intoxicated and breathing in carbon monoxide. So 22 this is a real risk inside a real life clinical 23 situation. 24 Treatmentwise what do you do? Well, 25 obviously you want to decrease their exposure to

32 1 carbon monoxide. You want to get them out of that 2 environment. You want to be able to ventilate the 3 area and effectively increase the number of -- 4 increase the amount of oxygen and decrease the 5 amount of carbon monoxide. So what you want to do 6 is remove them from the area. When they are seeking 7 medical attention, our quality first responders in 8 the state would provide oxygen for them immediately. 9 And that increasing level of oxygen in the system 10 combats the higher level of carbon monoxide. They 11 will usually put on a facemask and you will see the 12 mask and breathing large amounts of oxygen. 13 As you get to a hospital to try to detect 14 this, there are blood tests that make that 15 determination of carbon monoxide. Again, smokers 16 may have a small low level of carbon monoxide. But 17 as the levels get higher, you will have more and 18 more tissue damage. 19 So you want to give them as much oxygen 20 as humanly possible. Now you can only deliver so 21 much oxygen. 22 So when it gets to really high levels 23 where you have significant neurologic symptoms, 24 confusion, passing out, that sort of stuff, you can 25 consider giving what we call hyperbaric oxygen which

33 1 is putting them in a diving chamber and putting more 2 pressure inside and around the body. That can 3 provide them higher levels of oxygen. 4 There are only a few places across the 5 state that can provide that service. Interestingly 6 enough, there are two subsets of the population that 7 are at even higher risk. And these are infants and 8 pregnant women. Because of the way that this thing 9 called fetal hemoglobin -- there are different types 10 of hemoglobin in infants and as a mother carrying an 11 unborn child can circulate in with the rest of the 12 body. 13 That fetal hemoglobin grabs that carbon 14 monoxide even stronger than the regular hemoglobin. 15 So even at very, very low levels, the infant, the 16 unborn baby can actually have significantly more 17 damage. So even at lower levels they are at 18 significantly higher risk. 19 You know, key to this is prevention. I 20 mean if you don't have the exposure, you don't have 21 all of the complexities of the disease. So, you 22 know, as we again assist in any way to decrease 23 carbon monoxide exposure and subsequent injury 24 related to this, I think as a medical profession we 25 would endorse that. Thank you for allowing me to

34 1 testify. Please if there are any questions. 2 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Thank you for your 3 testimony. In your years of practice, how much 4 exposure have you had to CO poisoning? 5 DR. DeFLITCH: Hopefully, none 6 personally. 7 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: You can't tell by 8 talking to you. 9 DR. DeFLITCH: There you go. That's 10 good. Actually, I've seen a number of them. And I 11 did my training up in Massachusetts. So during the 12 weather changes in around there, we see a bunch. 13 Every year at the Penn State Hershey 14 Medical Center we see a number of patients that 15 present lots of times with their portable 16 generators, with their portable heaters that they 17 put in their basements or put in their garages. 18 And, you know, they will come in with 19 confusion, headaches. I've seen it anywhere from 20 very low levels to exposure to people who have 21 nearly died that we had to take to hyperbaric 22 chambers. It is a very common presentation in the 23 emergency room. 24 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Questions? 25 MS. GOLDBECK: Believe it not, I live

35 1 20 minutes from Centralia and I document abandoned 2 mines for personal historic purpose. So I probably, 3 you know, have a low level running around my system 4 at a consistent level which explains a lot. 5 So if you have a CO alarm in the house -- 6 and that's the other thing, I burn fossil fuels and 7 don't have one in the house. 8 Would a heavy sleeper -- how -- say this 9 is happening, how will you be triggered medically if 10 you're -- if it is going on? 11 DR. DeFLITCH: You wouldn't be. That's 12 really the key. You may have -- as your levels 13 climb, you may have dull, aching headaches. And if 14 we all didn't have our cup of coffee in the morning, 15 we all have our dull, aching headache. Can you tell 16 if it is do I need a cup of coffee or am I having 17 permanent tissue damage related to carbon monoxide? 18 And I can't tell you that without a blood 19 test or without being able to detect the amount of 20 carbon monoxide in the area or in the system. So it 21 is very difficult to tell until you get to really, 22 really high levels. That is why this is very 23 difficult. 24 Even as a medical profession, you'll see 25 elderly patients that come to the emergency

36 1 department that present with mild headaches, a 2 little bit confused, and it could be anything under 3 the sun causing it. If you're not thinking of 4 carbon monoxide, you're not thinking that, jeez, 5 they could be in a house that has a portable heater 6 or has been burning fossil fuels or happens to be 7 next to Centralia or whatever happened to be where 8 they have that exposure and you don't know. And 9 that's the challenge with this disease. That you 10 really don't know because the symptoms are so 11 subtle. It is not like you're having chest pain, 12 shortness of breath, and you think you're having a 13 heart attack. It is a very subtle symptom. 14 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: And the only thing 15 that you can do from a medical profession is reverse 16 the amount of toxins in the system. You cannot 17 reverse the damage that has been created by the 18 toxins? 19 DR. DeFLITCH: There is some literature 20 out there that suggests that you can't when you have 21 permanent brain injury. It is very difficult to 22 reverse some of these things. Some of the findings 23 are very subtle and can only be detected by a very 24 complex neuro test. So your advanced cognitive 25 function, you can't think as well. That may be an

37 1 effect. 2 Again, we've seen people who have had 3 exposures at high levels for a period of time that 4 are permanently neurologically disabled. 5 MS. GOLDBECK: How long does it take 6 generally? Is there a specific exposure? 7 DR. DeFLITCH: Sure. It is variable. 8 The longer you're exposed at higher levels, the 9 worse that you are, you know. So could you have a 10 little bit of exposure for a long period of time and 11 be okay? Well, I guess that's a possibility. I 12 mean smokers do it all of the time. 13 Smokers have this low level of carbon 14 monoxide in their system all of the time, you know. 15 So I'm not aware that that low level would be -- 16 would be permanently neurologically disabling. But 17 very quickly you can get high levels within the 18 system. So if you have very, very high levels in a 19 closed, nonventilated area, you can very quickly get 20 it. 21 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Thank you, Doctor, 22 for your testimony. Is Mark Tebbets present? Mark, 23 you're next. 24 MR. TEBBETS: I thought the order was 25 reversed. It shows Thomas Foreman is next.

38 1 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Mr. Foreman can be 2 next. That's okay with me. I'm easy going today. 3 Hey, you got me on a good day. I probably have a 4 little bit of poisoning affecting my reasoning. 5 Thomas Foreman is our next testifier, EMA 6 Coordinator, Bureau of Middletown. How are you 7 doing? 8 MR. FOREMAN: Good morning. Thank you 9 for inviting me here today. 10 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Thanks for coming. 11 MR. FOREMAN: I'm the emergency 12 management coordinator from Middletown Borough and 13 Royalton. I'm also on the board of directors for 14 the Red Cross and Health Department for the health 15 and safety in the borough. 16 I'm here to support this bill. 17 Middletown has a lot of apartments, new 18 construction, schools, elderly. Dauphin County this 19 year so far ran 75 fire alarms in Dauphin County for 20 CO alarms. Middletown was 12. 21 We responded with ambulance. And South 22 Central ambulance, that covers Middletown as well 23 responded to 22 and transported 2 to the hospital. 24 I'm also concerned about the firefighters 25 in the Commonwealth. They also can be affected by

39 1 the carbon monoxide. We do have a lot of 2 reconstruction of buildings. We have a lot of 3 apartments. We have a lot of growth coming up in 4 the near future with the borough. We have a complex 5 of 311 homes going into the borough. They are on 6 the outskirts of Middletown Borough. 7 There will be 300 homes, some single 8 family and other homes. We have high-rises. We 9 have elderly high-rises and have over 150 special 10 needs patients in the borough that we take care of. 11 So we are really supportive of this bill 12 along with the smoke detectors that we adopted in 13 the borough. The borough is also supportive of 14 carbon monoxide detectors in the borough. I'm new 15 at this. I'm sorry. 16 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: That's okay. 17 You're doing fine. Do you know how many total 18 responses there were by Dauphin County EMA? You 19 have 75 CO alarms. 20 MR. FOREMAN: That was fire department 21 responses to 75 alarms. 22 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Do you know how 23 many total responses in Dauphin County there were by 24 all of the fire departments? 25 MR. FOREMAN: That's the 75.

40 1 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: That's for CO, 2 correct? 3 MR. FOREMAN: Yes, CO. 4 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Do you know how 5 many total responses there are for other activities? 6 MR. FOREMAN: No, I don't. 7 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: I'm trying to see 8 what percentage of CO alarms as compared to total 9 responses. 10 MR. FOREMAN: I can supply that for you. 11 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: How many total 12 calls? 13 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Yeah. Were there 14 25,000 total calls and 75 were CO calls or were 15 there a hundred total responses and 75 were CO 16 alarms? That's what I'm trying to get at. What's 17 the percentage of responses? If you could obtain 18 that information, I'd greatly appreciate it. 19 MR. FOREMAN: Yes, I can. 20 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: John, do you have 21 questions? 22 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: No. But that was 23 a good question though. 24 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Anyone? Christine. 25 She always has a question.

41 1 MR. FOREMAN: I'm sorry. What is her 2 title? 3 MS. GOLDBECK: Research analyst. 4 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: You mean official. 5 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: You're on a roll. 6 You'll get him later. 7 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: Paybacks. 8 MS. GOLDBECK: You receive a call, find 9 that it is valid and you're transporting victims. 10 What do you do to the house then -- to the 11 residence, to the building to, you know, get rid of 12 the carbon monoxide? 13 MR. FOREMAN: That isn't my 14 responsibility. That's the fire department's 15 responsibility. I'm just emergency management. 16 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: I can answer that. 17 I can answer that with my 25 years in the fire 18 department. We would ventilate. First you try to 19 find the source. We carry detectors and meters on 20 the equipment to verify what the levels of the 21 carbon monoxide are in the building. 22 The firefighters themselves may have to 23 wear SCBA, self-contained breathing apparatus, so 24 they are not inhaling the same carbon monoxide. And 25 you go into the building and look for the source of

42 1 that carbon monoxide, standard things like whether 2 there is a furnace or portable heater or fireplace 3 or whatever. Shut it down, even if you have to kill 4 power to the house, and then you ventilate the 5 property. 6 You would not let somebody back in that 7 property until the problem was fixed, not that you 8 brought the carbon monoxide down and let them back 9 in. You have to fix the source, what was the reason 10 that you had the carbon monoxide in the building in 11 the first place. 12 MR. FOREMAN: I just found out yesterday 13 there is a new mechanism for checking firefighters 14 for carbon monoxide. A new thing that when they 15 come out of the building, they clip it on their 16 finger and make sure that the firefighters aren't 17 overcome with the carbon monoxide also. 18 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Thank you. 19 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: Thanks, Tom. 20 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Are you ready, 21 Frank? 22 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. 23 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: I apologize for 24 skipping ahead. 25 MR. TEBBETS: You're the boss.

43 1 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Mark, welcome. 2 International Code Council, Regional Manager. 3 Frank, of course, should I give your title? 4 MR. THOMPSON: I don't have one. 5 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: You have numerous. 6 Welcome, Frank. Go ahead. 7 MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, Mr. 8 Chairman, and committee members. I'm Frank 9 Thompson. I am testifying here on behalf of the 10 Pennsylvania Builders Association. I, myself, am a 11 fourth generation home builder from the Pittsburgh, 12 Pennsylvania area, President of Sweetwater Builders. 13 Act 45 of 1999 established construction 14 standards statewide for the first time in 15 Pennsylvania. And it based those standards on 16 internationally recognized construction codes. 17 Construction codes where producers, 18 builders, consumers, building code officials meet -- 19 in this case it is the International Code Council 20 which was the consolidation of three regional model 21 building code organizations. The one we're most 22 familiar with is BOCA which has served Pennsylvania 23 very well in the past. 24 BOCA doesn't exist anymore. It is part 25 of the International Code Council. As you heard

44 1 earlier from Lee Milligan about the process that the 2 International Code Council goes through every 3 18 months to consider changes to those codes, the 4 codes that have been adopted in Pennsylvania. 5 And where they see that there may be 6 improvement to the safety of buildings, residential 7 or commercial, they are considered first by code 8 development committees and then by just building 9 code officials. If they have a majority, they are 10 adopted into the codes. 11 I am very involved in that process. I've 12 served as a member and later as chairman of the ICC 13 International Residential Code Building and Energy 14 Code Development Committee. 15 The scope of that committee is all 16 changes that would be involved to building and 17 energy provisions for one and two family dwellings 18 and townhouses. 19 Over the period of time I served on that 20 committee since 2000 -- actually, I was on the 21 drafting committee before that -- we've had numerous 22 opportunities to consider carbon monoxide alarms. 23 Very impassioned arguments by proponents and 24 opponents. 25 Each time we have opposed including them

45 1 in the IRC. There have been similar proposals that 2 have also gone before other code development 3 committees being the International Building Code 4 General Code Development Committee which would 5 consider high-rise residential as well as commercial 6 and industrial dwellings and also the International 7 Fire Code Development Committee. The IBC and the 8 International Fire Code are also part of the family 9 of codes that Pennsylvania has adopted. 10 The fire code is primarily made up of 11 fire code first responders, fire marshals, as well 12 as a few building code officials. So it is a 13 different composition of the committee. But each 14 time a code change proposal that would mandate 15 carbon monoxide alarms was proposed, it was rejected 16 by these committees. 17 And then at the final action hearing 18 where just building code and fire marshals can vote, 19 the ICC in its wisdom has kept carbon monoxide 20 detectors out of the code. 21 In 2003 the IRC Building and Energy Code 22 Development Committee requested that the ICC set up 23 a committee to study the issue in great depth. Mark 24 Tebbets who is sitting here with me of the ICC is 25 going to talk to you more about the Code Technology

46 1 Committee which reviewed the subject in great detail 2 and released a report last September. 3 In our deliberations of the IRC 4 Committee, we found that carbon monoxide detectors 5 were often unreliable. They would fail to sound in 6 the presence of high levels of CO and erroneously 7 sound when the home had no carbon monoxide danger. 8 Unlike a smoke alarm once that alarm 9 sounds, you can't look for the smoke. You can't 10 look for the fire. As we heard, this is a 11 colorless, odorless, tasteless gas. You evacuate 12 the building. You let the first responders come to 13 the building and determine at some point that is 14 then safe to go back into the building. 15 A 2003 laboratory study evaluating 16 performance of residential CO alarms commissioned by 17 the Gas Research Institute tested 70 commercially 18 available CO alarms from ten retail brands and found 19 only three performed well and that two of these had 20 since been withdrawn from the market. 21 79 percent failed to detect at least one 22 dangerous situation in 5 percent relative humidity, 23 and 47 percent failed to detect in a 50 percent 24 relative humidity. 25 30 percent gave false alarms when exposed

47 1 to another gas such as acetone, ammonia, ethenol, 2 toluene, trichloroethene, CO2, nitrous oxide, sulfur 3 dioxide. And 8 percent actually give a false alarm 4 in clean air. 5 Digital displays were inaccurate by 6 30 percent of the true concentration in all but 7 three brands. 8 Given the poor reliability of these 9 devices, mandatory installation is not justified. 10 The US Fire Administration, Department of Homeland 11 Security, National Fire Incidents Reporting System 12 which is a very broad-based system that provides 13 statistics on all fire incident reports from 1999 to 14 2002 show that 94.2 percent of the incidents where a 15 CO alarm activation was reported, that there was no 16 carbon monoxide detected where the CO detector 17 malfunctioned. 94.2 percent. 18 Most deaths from carbon monoxide 19 poisoning, however, result from negligence and often 20 occur in older homes with poorly maintained 21 equipment. Some recent cases of carbon monoxide 22 poisoning happen when people use generators and 23 grills intended for outdoor use indoors without 24 proper ventilation. 25 Similarly, other negligent incidents

48 1 resulted from people using hibachis and space 2 heaters indoors without proper installation -- I'm 3 sorry, proper ventilation. 4 Problems with monitoring devices are 5 compounded by the lack of installation standards. 6 Finding the most appropriate places to locate a 7 carbon monoxide alarm is a greater challenge than 8 placing a smoke detector. 9 And finally, today's new homes are far 10 less likely to present carbon monoxide dangers than 11 older homes. Ironically, this bill only requires 12 them in new homes, not in those older homes where I 13 think everyone would agree the greatest risk occurs. 14 New homes are well-insulated, have 15 efficient central heating system and the mechanical 16 equipment; the water heater, the furnace, they are 17 better ventilated so the incidents of a carbon 18 monoxide incident being likely is greatly reduced. 19 Instead of using unreliable carbon 20 monoxide alarms, today's builders reduce the 21 potential for carbon monoxide poisoning by meeting 22 high standards in mechanical ventilation. 23 Builders now install furnaces, water 24 heaters with improved technology. Quite simply, 25 these units are far safer than old or poorly

49 1 maintained equipment. 2 Fireplaces in new homes are required to 3 have an outside air supply. Energy and fire 4 protection requirements in new homes minimize 5 airflow from an attached garage into the house. 6 Even if you overlook the compelling data 7 of all of the problems with today's CO alarms, House 8 Bill 1677 has numerous other shortcomings. It 9 doesn't reference any standard that might provide 10 for a lower incidence of failure or false alarms. 11 It merely requires you to have an approved CO alarm. 12 There is no direction provided or any 13 standard referenced as to where to place the alarms 14 or whether to interconnect them which would provide 15 the greatest protection to all of the inhabitants. 16 And there is clearly no requirement that 17 they be installed in existing homes where the risk 18 is proven to be higher and no exclusion in homes 19 without any fossil burning fuel appliances which is 20 where you have a greater risk. 21 I also heard comments about local 22 municipalities having the ability to mandate CO 23 alarms. And this is a process that the Pennsylvania 24 Builders Association has watched very closely. And 25 since Act 45 took effect in April of 2004, I am not

50 1 aware of a single municipality that has proposed 2 requiring CO alarms. 3 There are a lot of other things that they 4 try to do, but I haven't seen a single one that 5 tried to propose that. 6 In closing, I thank you for the 7 opportunity to testify about why the Pennsylvania 8 Builders oppose the idea. I encourage you to rely 9 on the wisdom of knowledgeable building code and 10 fire code officials across the country who have 11 disapproved adding CO alarm requirements to the 12 model building and fire codes. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Frank, a question. 14 You listed I assume on the front third or fourth 15 paragraph on the first page of your testimony, 16 fourth paragraph, I assume that all of those are 17 subcommittees and meet independently, render their 18 own decision, and come to the full committee meeting 19 with their recommendation for whatever change is 20 possible. 21 So I assume you're not in the room when 22 the firefighters are discussing this, you're not in 23 the room when the code officials are discussing this 24 issue. Is that a bad assumption? 25 MR. THOMPSON: Well, to answer your

51 1 question, Mr. Chairman, the committee hearings -- 2 subcommittees is a good term for them. There is a 3 couple of tracks. So I might be able to attend the 4 fire code hearing if it is not conflicting with the 5 committee that I sit on. But oftentimes I do have 6 that opportunity to attend those other hearings. 7 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: And to participate? 8 MR. THOMPSON: To participate either as a 9 speaker or proponent or opponent to a particular 10 thing. 11 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: If they came up 12 with an independent recommendation and they all came 13 together with the same independent recommendation, 14 it would give a level of credibility to the 15 foundation of their independent recommendation. 16 MR. THOMPSON: There is a world of 17 opponents and proponents to each code change. 18 That's why it takes them two weeks to go through 19 this process. We'll start next week. The 20 residential, IRC Building and Energy is four days 21 and they will hear about 350 proposed changes to the 22 code. 23 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Mark, do you have 24 anything that you would like to add? 25 MR. TEBBETS: Yes. What I would like to

52 1 do is to read the report of the committee. And then 2 I have some background information too. 3 Mark Tebbets on the International Code 4 Council. I'm also a code professional. I've been 5 with -- I started out with BOCA which now is the 6 ICC. 7 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: I can tell you're 8 from this local region too. 9 MR. TEBBETS: My accent was coming 10 through. I've also been a contractor and I've been 11 a building official for 11 years also. So I've 12 filled all of those different hats. I've also been 13 a volunteer firefighter for 33 years. 14 The Internation Code Council, ICC, the 15 Code Technology Committee reported the CTC area of 16 study carbon monoxide alarms. This was done 17 September 22nd, 2005 at the Detroit, Marriott 18 Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan. 19 The CTC held a public hearing to receive 20 written and verbal comments regarding CTC 21 recommendations for the ICC board-approved area of 22 study entitled carbon monoxide alarms. 23 This report includes the final 24 recommendation for this area of study approved by 25 the CTC upon the conclusion of public hearing on

53 1 September 22nd, 2005. 2 The recommendations contained in this 3 report will be forwarded to the ICC chief executive 4 officer in accordance with ICC Policy No. 5. 5 Scope: As noted in the CTC approved 6 scope and objectives statement, the scope of this 7 activity is to study the necessity of requiring 8 installation of carbon monoxide alarms in 9 residential-type occupancies. 10 Recommendations: The CTC recommendation 11 is there has not been sufficient justification 12 presented to the CTC to mandate carbon monoxide 13 alarms in new or existing residential-type 14 occupancies. 15 In making this recommendation, the CTC 16 notes the importance of and need for compliance with 17 the applicable code provisions for equipment 18 maintenance and compliance with equipment 19 installation instructions to control the hazards 20 associated with CO emissions. 21 Considerations: The CTC bases for this 22 recommendation include the following: Requiring 23 functional and reliable CO detection in all new and 24 existing dwelling units would potentially reduce 25 fatalities. However, the technical analysis on

54 1 expected effectiveness and cost impact as submitted 2 to the CTC is not adequate to justify a mandate at 3 this time. 4 A number of elements impact the 5 effectiveness of a mandate including breadth of 6 building stock covered, performance of alarms and 7 compliance with use, installation, and maintenance 8 instructions. 9 The data presented to the CTC indicates 10 that the number of CO-related deaths in dwelling 11 units is reduced by about 5 percent per year and 12 only non-fire, unintentional deaths -- 625 in 1979, 13 decreasing to 325 in 1996 -- could be avoided by a 14 CO alarm mandate. 15 Insufficient data was presented to assess 16 the potential impact of CO alarms with respect to 17 preventable injuries. 18 Laboratory and field data presented to 19 the CTC indicate that conflicting performance data 20 of CO alarms across the range of currently listed 21 products. 22 Insufficient benefit/cost data has been 23 presented to mandate CO alarms. The view of the 24 Environmental Protection Agency as presented to the 25 CTC states: Carbon monoxide alarms are widely

55 1 available in stores and you may want to consider 2 buying one as a backup but not as a replacement for 3 proper use and maintenance of your fuel burning 4 appliances. 5 However, it is important for you to know 6 that the technology of CO alarms is still developing 7 and that there are several types on the market and 8 they have not generally been considered to be as 9 reliable as smoke alarms found in homes today. 10 Some CO alarms have been laboratory 11 tested and their performance varied. Some performed 12 well, and others failed to alarm at very high CO 13 levels, and still other alarms even at very low 14 levels that don't pose any immediate health risk. 15 And unlike a smoke alarm where you can 16 confirm the cause of the alarm, CO is invisible and 17 odorless. So it is harder to tell if the alarm is 18 false or a real emergency. 19 US EPA Fact Sheet, Protect Your Family 20 and Yourself from Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. It 21 gives you the web address. I have also included the 22 Consumer Product Safety Commission on Carbon 23 Monoxide. 24 And I didn't copy the whole thing but at 25 the bottom of the page in their report it says, A

56 1 carbon monoxide detector alarm can provide adequate 2 protection but is no substitute for proper use and 3 upkeep of appliances that can produce CO. And I 4 also have the EPA's report in that packet too. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: I have two 7 questions for you. Maybe Frank can help. I noticed 8 in your testimony 180 deaths in 1997, do you have 9 current data of deaths from CO? 10 MR. TEBBETS: That's the latest data that 11 I have. 12 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: 180 deaths in 1997. 13 MR. TEBBETS: Yes. 14 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Do you know when 15 the next report will come out? 16 MR. TEBBETS: That I don't know. 17 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Do you know of the 18 180 deaths that occurred, how many of them were due 19 to persons using hibachis or persons using portable 20 heaters and those types of things? Are they just 21 listed as deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning? 22 MR. TEBBETS: They don't always say what 23 caused the carbon monoxide. That's one of the 24 things that came out real clear on the report. It 25 is very important that we stress the proper

57 1 maintenance of all of these solid fuel burning 2 appliances. That's really the important part. 3 The CO is kind of like an afterthought. 4 We really need to concentrate on directing people to 5 properly maintain these appliances. 6 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Pretty much 7 answered my next question. Has there been a 8 discussion or is there a discussion here on 9 complacency and dependency on the alarm itself? You 10 know, I know how folks get with smoke alarms. Some 11 don't change the batteries. That's why they went to 12 hard wire. Some take the batteries out because they 13 chirp. They don't understand it means to replace 14 the battery. Is there ever a discussion of the fear 15 of laziness or dependency on the CO alarm so people 16 don't properly maintain a building? 17 MR. TEBBETS: I don't think it says it in 18 those words. But certainly the tone of the CTC 19 committee is saying we don't want people relying on 20 these instead of doing what they should be doing. 21 And, of course, then you have the thing 22 if you're not maintaining the fuel boiler, are you 23 going to really maintain that CO detector and is 24 there a test for it? Do you know when it is working 25 properly or when it is not working properly?

58 1 The other thing I want to bring up on 2 smoke detectors, how many people have smoke 3 detectors in their home right now? Okay. And how 4 many people have a smoke detector that is older than 5 7 to 10 years? Because there is a life expectancy 6 on all of these appliances. 7 And when you go home tonight, you should 8 really check your smoke detector to see if it is 9 beyond its life expectancy. In fact, you can stop 10 at CVS -- I don't know what kind of drug stores you 11 have -- and pick one up. Just pick up the back of 12 it. You will see there is a life expectancy. 13 That's the kind of problem we could run into. 14 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Questions? Mike. 15 REPRESENTATIVE HANNA: Do the CO2 16 detectors also have a life expectancy? 17 MR. TEBBETS: Yes, they do. 18 MR. THOMPSON: One of the things that 19 they were working on, there is a UL standard they 20 are trying to build them to. And they are trying 21 incorporate some requirements in there to give them 22 a greater life expectancy. But there is no 23 standardized test for it yet. 24 REPRESENTATIVE HANNA: It is noted on the 25 package?

59 1 MR. TEBBETS: I believe it is. 2 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: On the unit 3 itself? 4 MR. TEBBETS: Someplace in the 5 literature, yes. 6 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: On the 7 literature but not on the unit? 8 MR. TEBBETS: Physically on the unit? I 9 don't think it is physically on the unit. It is on 10 the box that it comes in and the paperwork that goes 11 with it. 12 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: The box goes in 13 the trash. 14 MR. TEBBETS: But the year of manufacture 15 would be on there. If you got one older than 7 to 16 10, I've not seen one that lasts -- speaking of 17 smoke detectors -- that last longer than that. So 18 you can be pretty well assured that one out lived 19 its life. 20 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: Mine out lived 21 its life if it works at all. 22 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: I have closing 23 comments. No questions. 24 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Thank you very much 25 for your testimony. That concludes our testifiers

60 1 for today's hearing. 2 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: I have a 3 question for the gentleman that was here speaking on 4 behalf of Ms. Hanson. 5 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Mr. Lammando. 6 MR. LAMMANDO: Yes. 7 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: Out of 8 curiosity, do you have any comments you want to make 9 based on the testimony and comments we've heard 10 that, A, the products you can buy on the market may 11 not be very reliable and testing to prove that? 12 MR. LAMMANDO: Sure. I will -- we will 13 in our follow-up to some of the Representatives 14 questions about have other states looked at fiscal 15 impact when they passed legislation, we will -- I 16 will have that documentation provided to you. 17 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: I'll be honest 18 with you. John is a friend of mine and I'm a former 19 fireman. And I'm not going to support this to force 20 people to put something in if the testimony is 21 showing that it may not work. 22 We're sitting here talking. I have one 23 in my home because I have a propane heater. And now 24 I'm finding out the thing may not even work or if I 25 have it in the right place for that matter.

61 1 MR. LAMMANDO: We will provide it in 2 follow-up to the entire committee through 3 Representative McNaughton's staff, the reference to 4 the UL standards testing, standards in place, and 5 reports of documentation. 6 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: I think it is 7 important to do that. 8 MR. LAMMANDO: I think there might be 9 some information from the National Electronic 10 Manufacture Association. I'm not sure how detailed 11 that information is, but we will provide more 12 detail. 13 REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: Great. Thanks. 14 MR. LAMMANDO: Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Anything else? 16 John, closing remarks. 17 REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE: Thank you for 18 closing comments. I will say that I appreciate all 19 of the input today. I appreciate the people coming 20 to talk on both pros and cons. 21 I'd love to talk to somebody who was here 22 in the '60s when the smoke detector laws were trying 23 to go through code enforcement or legislative 24 process. I would imagine similar testimony was 25 given on both sides of the aisle for that issue.

62 1 Being a firefighter in the late '60s and 2 '70s, we were pushing smoke detectors. And pretty 3 much the same groups that were opposed to the CO 4 were opposed to smoke detectors at that time 5 claiming they shouldn't be the first line of 6 defense, they are not reliable, they don't work, 7 they are too costly. 8 Hence, every dwelling today built has a 9 smoke detector in it. Many of the homes, mine 10 included, has a full residential sprinkler system in 11 it. And I too have a carbon monoxide detector in 12 it. It isn't because the builder isn't capable. It 13 isn't because the vendor that makes the appliance 14 isn't capable. It is because I, the consumer, make 15 mistakes. 16 I don't maintain it. I fail to do 17 something. I use the appliance for what it wasn't 18 intended for. We constantly in the state 19 legislature pass laws to protect dumb acts. That's 20 what it is about. 21 We don't have speeding laws because of 22 common sense. We don't have air bags in cars 23 because of common sense or seat belts. 24 We don't have smoke detectors in homes 25 because that's the first line of defense and nobody

63 1 will have a grease fire because they left their 2 stove unattended. To paraphrase a phrase, stuff 3 happens. 4 A carbon monoxide detector is not meant 5 as a first line of defense. It is not meant as 6 something that the builder should be responsible 7 for. In fact, my legislation says the bill requires 8 the owner is responsible for ensuring that the 9 detector is installed and operational. I know it is 10 not the contractor's job. 11 Number two, there has been a lot of talk 12 about exposure. The danger of CO exposure depends 13 on a number of variables; the victim's health, 14 activity level, their age, infants, pregnant women, 15 and people with physical conditions that limit their 16 body's ability to take in oxygen; ie, emphysema, 17 heart disease are more affected by carbon monoxide 18 than a healthy individual. 19 A person can be poisoned by a small 20 amount of CO over a long period of time or a large 21 amount of CO over a short amount of time. There is 22 no time limit or time frame that you can pin it on. 23 There's been a lot of numbers thrown 24 around today by different presenters from 1996, 25 1997. They all said that's the latest data. There

64 1 is a neat device called the computer. I used it 2 this morning. 3 According the NFPA, over 650 people died 4 from carbon monoxide poisoning in 2001. That's the 5 most recent data that the NFPA has. 6 There is information from the US Center 7 for Disease Control that carbon monoxide poisoning 8 is the least -- or the most -- let me rephrase it. 9 Carbon monoxide poisoning is the number one leading 10 poisoning in the United States accounting for more 11 than one in five unintentional deaths, one in five. 12 One incident that came to light from a 13 firefighter, they just had a furnace installed, 14 brand new. A brand new home, new furnace, 15 everything was new. And they became sick from 16 carbon monoxide poisoning. The furnace vent hose 17 had become disconnected and carbon monoxide was 18 pouring into the house. 19 Nobody's fault. Did it become 20 disconnected from the kids down there? Was it not 21 hooked up in the beginning right? Again, things 22 happen. There is lots of information in the book 23 from Pennsylvania families that have experienced 24 carbon monoxide poisoning. 25 I do not my expect my legislation to pass

65 1 and become law as written. I am very open for 2 amendments. 3 I'm open for inclusion in the building 4 codes. I'm open for a process that eventually at 5 the end of the day whether that is a year or two 6 years or five years will mandate carbon monoxide 7 detectors in dwelling units. Because I think carbon 8 monoxide detectors are where smoke detectors were in 9 the '60s. At some point in time we're going to need 10 them. 11 My final closing comment I have is I 12 respect everybody's input today. I will say -- and 13 the Chairman asked a very good question from the one 14 person from PABCO on will you not take any 15 amendments. The response was no. Our act is there. 16 We prefer not to have any outside amendments. 17 The institution of this country was 18 written by our forefathers and has amendments to it. 19 Thank God it does. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 CHAIRMAN McNAUGHTON: Thanks, John. 21 Obviously, there is a lot of information we're 22 waiting to receive. 23 Chris, you're going to provide that 24 information to us statics-wise. I appreciate 25 everyone's comments today.

66 1 I thought the testimony from the experts 2 was tremendous. I gained a lot of insight into this 3 issue as to why this hasn't been mandated as yet. 4 We're going to take everything under advisement and 5 let you know how this proceeds through the process. 6 This is the first step through a long 7 process for John and, you know, we're going to take 8 everything that you provided to us into 9 consideration when we make our determination as to 10 how this legislation should proceed. Thank you very 11 much. This concludes our public hearing for today. 12 (The hearing concluded at 10:47 a.m.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

67 1 I hereby certify that the proceedings and 2 evidence are contained fully and accurately in the 3 notes taken by me in the proceedings of the above 4 cause and that this copy is a correct transcript of 5 the same. 6 7 8 ___________________________ Sherri A. Reitano 9 Notary Public 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25