Appeal 34854

OPSC 710.14 (4)

Section (4) of the current plumbing code states, “A minimum 50 gpm (sump) pump per each elevator car.” The elevator pit houses three cars.

We request approval of the newly installed 50 gpm pump as approved by the elevator inspector and appeal from the decision of the plumbing inspector that the pump should have a 150 gpm capacity.

Keep the existing (just installed) 50 gpm, 120 volt, sump pump capable of overcoming 20 feet of head into the pit floor basin, and its connection to an existing four-inch sanitary drain line. The Association has been billed $14,133 for this installation after the elevator inspector approved the 50 gpm pump.

During the current elevator modernization project of Harrison West, a 60 year old affordable housing project built during the urban renewal of south downtown, it was discovered that the elevator pit had a cast sump pump “basin” in the bottom of the pit. Since no sump pump was ever installed in that basin, it is assumed that 1965 plumbing code did not require it as there is no sprinkler system in the hoistway. To the knowledge of the Board of Directors, there has been no water incursion requiring a pump. The real estate disclosure documents provided to buyers when the Portland Towers apartments were converted to the present condominium units, circa 2006, did not disclose any prior flooding in the elevator pit. Oregon State Elevator Inspectors, Matt Mathiesen and Chief Inspector Warren Hartung, agreed that a 50 gpm pump system was sufficient since there was no evidence of hydrostatic water incursion over 60 years and the hoistway was not sprinklered.

A suitable sump pump, 50 gpm and 20 feet of head, was installed. The Portland plumbing inspector, quoting OPSC 710.14, would not approve the permit even though the elevator code has identical language and the elevator inspector approved this change. Subsequent email conversation with the State elevator inspectors resulted in the option to require no pump for our installation. Our contention, under these circumstances, is that the smaller pump is better than no pump and the Association contracted for the installation of the 50 gpm pump. So the purpose of this appeal is to seek a variance under this specific situation to allow the already installed smaller pump to remain.

In addition, when the building was built, even though a basin was cast into the floor of the pit, no provision was made for plumbing or electrical to install a modern large pump. Two significantly higher quotations were received, one for 240v and one for a 480v 3-phase power which requires drawing a new power line from remote places in the underground garage. This was the primary reason we sought the lower gpm pump from State elevator inspectors. Current plumbing code is obviously targeting new construction, not 60 year old existing buildings since there are many of these older buildings in Portland. The inconsistency is that many of these older buildings are not required to have sump pumps. Plumbing code, as we understand it is to provide safe drinking water, safe sewer recovery and disposal, and to prevent damaging leaks from improper installations. Since our smaller pump is already installed, and the State elevator inspectors are in agreement with leaving in place, we respectfully request you grant this variance.