So what is right and what is wrong with the ICC?

[mtlogcabin]

I think every three years for "New" Codes is too often. I realize you can't make as much publishing money if you stretch the time between series' but 5-6 years should be good. If some incredible updates need to be done more frequently, publish an addendum (for free!)

The IBC & IRC could be split into 2 volumes each and then publish volume I and 3 years later volume II creating a 6 year cycle and the other codes could be published at different times based on the 6 year cycle. (NFPA does not update every standard every 3 years)

 

[FM William Burns]

The new policy worked for a few cycles, but then NFPA digressed into the same old patterns and code changes are now made with little or no substantiation. ICC should adopt this type of policy and stick to it.

No offence CD but I would personally disagree with that statement. After just recently completing our 101 committee meeting in June where over 300 proposals were made to our committee, an overwelming majority required empirical data and technical substantiation before even making it to a second and discussion. END

I can state with confidence that our document 101 and others are being developed to make enforcement and usage easier and there were at lease five sections in the code that I had the pleasure of trying to make clearer (or easier to interpret). I share similar issues with others concerning the ease of use of the I codes, which being an old SBCCI/NFPA person, I find more difficult and much easier for multiple interpretational issues. The whole idea of one code was nice but it's just not possible (be real) due to the many factors, interests, users and enforcement issues that differ from region to region. I would love to see ICC and NFPA combine forces on the or a building code though but also realize for now that their philosophical and ideologies don't mesh yet.

My hopes are that people like JP who are open to change can influence the leadership in moving forward to developing further partenrships with NFPA and not just one for financial interests.

I have been involved with both meeting processes and find the ICC process more influenced by industry and special interst than NFPA but that's just my opinion and by the way, I was also appalled by influence exhibited by my industry in two previous venues. Regarding remote voting; I would like to see that but think it will take at least five more years for them to get close.

 

[Coug Dad]

No offense taken, but were there really so many fire door failures resulting in deaths or injury that now every fire door has to have a formal inspection program annually as now requried in NFPA 80?

 

[FM William Burns]

Yep, got to agree with ya there! That's one document where the example is accurate and I remember debating that issue with the staff liasion regarding future costs and the performance based options and failure analysis before it passed the committee. Point taken buddy!

 

[jpranch]

FM, Thank you for the kind words and advice. Having been born and raised in Maryland and having worked as an inspector and plans examiner there for 16 1/2 years I also come from combined inspections and plan reviews with combined NFPA / BOCA and then NFPA / ICC codes and standards. I have been here in Wyoming now over seven years and still do combined reviews with the NFPA & ICC codes and standards for healthcare facilities. You did mention financial interests? I'm very concerned about that as well as industry influence, "partnerships" with the federal government, etc... Now with that said the major piece of the puzzle for me is that I have not been privileged to sit in the executive sessions and hear the discussions of the ICC board of directors. Just have not been there as nearly almost everybody. On the whole I can tell you that your current board members are good people doing their very best. A good example is Ron Piester who I’m sure will be our next President. I had the opportunity to get to know him last spring. Damn good man. Don’t get me wrong, I know there are issues and problems but from the membership to the committees up through the leadership I have seen a hell of a lot of good there. Some not so good as well but that seems to be very little. This concludes today’s sermon. Don’t forget the collection plate.

Post Script: I really do like the 101 standard. Been to many, many seminars over the years that Ron Cote and Greg Herrington have taught. Good stuff!

 

[brudgers]

Do we want the NFPA brand of codes as a model standard?.

Yes, please.

 

[FM William Burns]

JP I agree and also realize there is much good in the ICC and don't mean to hijack this important vehicle for information flow and potential change. I won't continue on the NFPA v. ICC stuff anymore since most of us realize the differences and personally, I did and would continue supporting greater collaborations between the two (hint) and have spoke that to regional directors/managers. Ron Cote indeed is an amazing guy who I am now honored to be working with as are many on the committee.

We have seen eye to eye for a few years now since meeting and like I said I support you. Our Gov. has been making me watch my spending since I'll be heading back 10 years in pay with the mandated healthcare and retirement taxes but I should be able to find you a little scratch (to send). I won't be in Portland but will advise our group to cast their votes for you.

 

[Mark K]

Regarding the comments by tmurray on the Canadian Code.

In the US Building Codes are a State issue thus the Feds stay clear of developing standards. In some states the state adopts the code while other states allow local jurisdictions to do almost whatever they want..

The voting by ICC members is to produce a proposed model code which does not have any legal standing until it is adopted by states or local jurisdictions.

Because of the due process requirements in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution a government agency cannot adopt regulations without offering the public a chance for comment. This is also why building officials cannot modify the code based on their own judgement.

 

[tmurray]

Regarding the comments by tmurray on the Canadian Code. In the US Building Codes are a State issue thus the Feds stay clear of developing standards. In some states the state adopts the code while other states allow local jurisdictions to do almost whatever they want..

The voting by ICC members is to produce a proposed model code which does not have any legal standing until it is adopted by states or local jurisdictions.

Because of the due process requirements in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution a government agency cannot adopt regulations without offering the public a chance for comment. This is also why building officials cannot modify the code based on their own judgement.

It is basically the same here, but it is the federal government and not an organization that creates the model construction code. Public comments are accepted for every new section and code change and then published. The provinces then have the choice to adopt as is or amend the code as they feel fit (or adopt nothing as one province has done up until a year ago) and then local municipalities have the option to adopt all or specific sections only or amend the code. It appears the only difference is that while your code changes are proposed and voted on by members of the ICC ours is done by employees of the federal government.

 

[mtlogcabin]

How did the codes go from trying to protect people and property to this agenda?

I wonder how easy a "Green Code" would have come about if we did not have the ICC and one code publisher in cahoots with the federal goverment and all of its outside influences writing drafts of laws and regulations.

When the legacy codes went away competition went away and a major plublisher was formed with an ability to wield a greater influence in the development of existing construction codes and the creation of new ones. The new codes are a result of agenda driven idea's and not limited to the protection of live and property in a specific building or use. The more I see ICC move in the development of enviromental codes and socially feel good codes the more discouraged I become with them.

When a business, make no mistakes ICC is a business, becomes the largest in its field and has limited competition, management's tendancy is to become arrogant and not listen to those who are not part of the managment team. Some are there just to build up their personal resumes, inorder for them to be able to move to a larger business when the oppurtunity arises.

 

[Alias]

So what are your thoughts on CDP Access? A.K.A. remote voting. Where do you see us right now, are we on track, the future?

Good question Jim. I haven't heard anything so, where are we? I really am for the idea.

Sue

 

[jpranch]

Please watch this video from July 11th on cdpaccess. It is 1 1/2 hours long but very much worth the watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRY75900KQw&feature=youtu.be

 

[Alias]

I think every three years for "New" Codes is too often. I realize you can't make as much publishing money if you stretch the time between series' but 5-6 years should be good. If some incredible updates need to be done more frequently, publish an addendum (for free!)

Agree with you mjesse. I think that 5-6 years is a good time frame for publishing and adopting new Codes. If it weren't for the link to this website -

http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/

- I wouldn't have access to the current codes due to budgetary constraints. Not every jurisdiction, person, etc. has $1000+ to purchase the latest adopted version of the Codes.

Sue

 

[peach]

I agree with you Sue.. (about everything); it seems like it's a "never ending" code change cycle (Charlotte, Phoenix, Dallas, Portland at least) just since some of us met in Denver. Very few of us have the time or money to attend them all, so it's a matter of picking the code and those issues we deem important enough to attend (and therefore.. remote voting would be a huge advantage). I can't afford to buy the codes everytime either.

Thanks for this topic!

 

[jpranch]

So if we did go to a 4, 5, or 6 year cycle how could we best adapt quickly to new industry products and technologies? Of course you know that I have an opinion but I'm phishing!

 

[incognito]

So how many new products or techniques are actually specifically identified and addressed by an ICC code? Feel free to use any code cycle since 2000 as an example.

 

[brudgers]

So if we did go to a 4, 5, or 6 year cycle how could we best adapt quickly to new industry products and technologies? Of course you know that I have an opinion but I'm phishing!

One of the problems with the ICC is that it decided to add a bunch of edge cases to the building code - particularly the IRC, e.g. masonry is 11 pages, ICF is 24 in Chapter 6, IRC 2006; wood is 23 pages, steel studs are at 36 pages. All of the ICF and steel stud requirements could be incorporated by reference - it doesn't take any more engineering knowledge to to read a table at the source than in the code. And, the format of the code is far more likely to lead to mistakes because it is not edited for clarity. The IRC is a horrible hodgepodge.

Of course, in the case of the IBC, it appears that the only new products introduced in the 2009 code cycle are found in section 2612 "Fiber Reinforced Polymer and Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer" and section 2613 "Reflective Plastic Core Insulation." Together, there are just over one page of new products (out of more than 700 total pages).

Again for an edge case.

One which could be handled by addenda.

 

[Gordon]

It may seem like a small thing, but I think it was a mistake to eliminate the paper veresion of Building Safety. I like having a paper copy that I can easily show to others, among other reasons.

 

[zigmark]

I would agree that extending the frequency of the publications would be a good thing. It seems that about the time we educate the local building industry of the newest conditions they change. I think the current frequency and type of change creates frustration for the entire industry. I understand that frequent publishing creates more revenue, but I say extend the publishing out to 6-8 years and charge me double.

ZIG

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

We can't afford the 3 year cycle, especially when it gets modified every 1.5 years anyway. We have mentioned this issue to our area representative as a key reason to our lack of member turn-out at national meetings, voting, and lags in AHJ code updates whenever they attend our Chapter meetings. The response we are given is a long-winded version of "i'm sorry to hear that, but we don't really care, and we have no intention of directly addressing your concerns." Or maybe I just read too much into it.

For us, a five year cycle is perfect, new technologies can qualify with ES reports or at a mid-cycle amendment releases/updates.

This isn't rocket science, it's a minimum prescriptive building sciences standard.

In my opinion, the current system doesn't work if a majority of the jurisdictions using the ICC are 6-9 years behind the current code cycle, and then they require significant departmental training just to play where's waldo with the bangers and mash portions of the code.

 

[Min&Max]

For years I have been advocating that code cycles run 5 years and ICC charge 75%-- 100% more for each code cycle. Their revenue would be greater and everyone would be less likely to skip a cycle. Start this in 2015 and any time the year ends in 0 or 5 it is time to adopt a new cycle. With all the different codes that ICC is now writing we could stretch out code hearings over 4 years and not have to endure the marathon hearings that everybody now hates.

This really does need to be brought to ICC attention and it is one reason that I am running for an ICC board director position in Portland.

 

[jpranch]

I was wondering when you were going to jump in here! Best of luck to you in Portland!

 

[AegisFPE]

What specifically is wrong with the process?

1. Discrimination against non-government employees. Only government employee members are entitled to vote. While elected officials cast votes for or against legislation on behalf of the public, the public can cast a vote for or against the official. The public has no such opportunity with government members of ICC, but such members vote on legislation that encumbers the public. Discrimination against non-governmental employees is wrong.

2. Inability to modify provisions in next code edition based on experience from current adopted and enforced code. Most jurisdictions adopt and enforce the model code several months after it is published. Consider how it is the middle of 2012, and jurisdiction X is still using the 2009 code. After a couple years with the 2009 code, the local users of the code may have developed thoughtful amendments they wanted to propose for the next code edition. So, the end of 2011 comes and the proposed code change is submitted...just in time to be considered for the 2015 edition, while the 2012 is already written and awaits adoption next year. Not allowing for incorporation of improvements based on user experience is wrong.

3. No absentee voting. Mandating attendance increases consumption of fossil fuels and places an undue burden on the time and money required for participation.

 

[jpranch]

1. Discrimination against non-government employees. Only government employee members are entitled to vote. While elected officials cast votes for or against legislation on behalf of the public, the public can cast a vote for or against the official. The public has no such opportunity with government members of ICC, but such members vote on legislation that encumbers the public. Discrimination against non-governmental employees is wrong.2. Inability to modify provisions in next code edition based on experience from current adopted and enforced code. Most jurisdictions adopt and enforce the model code several months after it is published. Consider how it is the middle of 2012, and jurisdiction X is still using the 2009 code. After a couple years with the 2009 code, the local users of the code may have developed thoughtful amendments they wanted to propose for the next code edition. So, the end of 2011 comes and the proposed code change is submitted...just in time to be considered for the 2015 edition, while the 2012 is already written and awaits adoption next year. Not allowing for incorporation of improvements based on user experience is wrong.

3. No absentee voting. Mandating attendance increases consumption of fossil fuels and places an undue burden on the time and money required for participation.

I hear you. Good post. This is the exact reason for starting this discussion. Thanks. I would ask all of you to consider Min&Max as a candidate for the board. All of us want the very best.