Panel splits on plumbing enforcement bill; industry seeks clearer limits on new authority
Loading...
Summary
Testimony on HB 2513 split between contractors and industry groups who support increased enforcement against repeat violators in nonresidential plumbing work, and trade groups who oppose an ambiguous subsection (4(b)) they say creates undefined administrative authority that could harm compliant contractors.
The Labor and Workplace Standards Committee heard House Bill 2513 on Jan. 27, which amends plumbing enforcement statutes to differentiate residential and nonresidential infractions. Under the bill as described by staff, residential service plumbing would remain subject to a three‑infraction/three‑year suspension threshold, while nonresidential work could trigger suspension after five infractions in five years. The staff briefing also outlined civil penalty ranges for infractions, including minimum fines ($100 for individuals, $500 for contractors) and a maximum penalty up to $5,000 for subsequent infractions.
Sponsor Representative Schmidt said the bill, brought by the plumbing industry, is intended to give the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) clearer enforcement tools to address repeat violators who undermine public health and safety while protecting those who follow the rules. "It limits current law authorizing the Department of Labor and Industries to suspend a plumber's license or certification after 3 violations in 3 years to only violations involving residential structures," Schmidt said, and authorizes suspensions for nonresidential violations under a five‑in‑five rule.
Contractor and union witnesses including Michael Transu (Mechanical Contractors Association) and Jason Hewitt (UA Plumbers & Pipefitters) supported the bill as a compliance measure that would address bad actors who treat fines as a cost of doing business and undermine safety. Antonio Cruz, a journeyman commercial plumber and member of the governor’s plumbing advisory board, cited frequent infractions for unlicensed work and inadequate supervision.
Several trade groups — the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors (PHCC) of Washington, Associated Builders and Contractors, and other contractor associations — opposed the bill as written because of subsection 4(b). Witnesses said 4(b) introduces undefined administrative authority and process triggers without clear limits on scope, duration, or exit conditions and could effectively burden or disable contractors. PHCC asked the committee to adopt an amendment striking subsection 4(b) to rely instead on existing statutory enforcement tools.
Department of Labor & Industries staff said the department is not taking a policy position but requested additional time for rulemaking and a later effective date to implement any changes.
The hearing record shows broad industry engagement and a narrow but persistent dispute about the technical drafting of enforcement authority. The committee closed the hearing without recording a vote or amendment in the transcript.
