# 6-Year Code Cycle Proposed in Washington State



## righter101 (Feb 27, 2013)

SB 5378 - 2013-14

HB 5378.

I will be contacting representatives and working on campaining heavily for this.

Anyone else want to be included in the efforts? Send me a PM for contact info and I will keep you in the loop.

I have put the question out to our legislative body if we can publicly and strongly advocate, in an official capacity, for this change.

Hope everyone is doing well.

I have been away from the board for a while and miss the discussions.

I do have a good excuse though.


----------



## Mark K (Feb 27, 2013)

This is one of thse things that is attractive because it appraently makes life easier but in the bigger picture it makes things worse.

What it does do is to allow you to ignore changes for 6 years but then you will likely have larger more disruptive changes.

This ignores the fact that there are problems with the codes and that we are constatly introducting more products and technologies.  Putting our heads in the sand will ot solve the problem.  In California it now takes 5 to 8 years from the time a change is submitteed to the IBC before it is an enforcable regulation.  If California were to adopt this approach we would be looking at 8 to 11 years.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 27, 2013)

I agree with Mark K, putting off the changes that the newest code cycle brings will only make the pain worse when it is finally adopted..........JMHO....


----------



## Rider Rick (Feb 28, 2013)

Keep the wheels greased.


----------



## 97catintenn (Feb 28, 2013)

I like it.  So, the vote is even 50-50.

In my area we are on the 06' IRC which over rules the NEC2008.  The updates and changes are coming, but there is no rush.  This gives everyone plenty of heads up, the inspectors and contractors alike.


----------



## 97catintenn (Feb 28, 2013)

well didn't see ricks post...


----------



## Rider Rick (Feb 28, 2013)

97catintenn said:
			
		

> well didn't see ricks post...


That's OK you get the point.


----------



## gjmaia (Feb 28, 2013)

In PA, we have a panel that reviews changes in the code for each 3 year cycle,...........the problem with the last review was that they did not make any recommendations, and further, kept us in the 09 set of codes................IMO, when they look at the 15 set of changes, the 09 changes will be code, with no ability to review those changes, just the 15 set,..............to me, that is problematic............


----------



## steveray (Feb 28, 2013)

I don't see the problem with 6 years as long as you have a mechanism in your state (or AHJ) for modification to use a later code or alternatives (materials and methods) per 104.11 to handle newer technology or information....


----------



## Mark K (Feb 28, 2013)

The authority to make changes will depend on state laws.

You cannot have a provision that says that you can automatically use a later code.  All such changes, assuming you have the legal authority to amend the state code if there is one, have to be approved by a legislative body such as the city council.

IBC 104.11 was intended to be used for unusual situations.  It is not proper to use it to implement changes that are indistinguishable from code changes.

In addition most jurisdictions do not have the resources or the expertise to evaluate all of the new products and systems.


----------



## steveray (Feb 28, 2013)

Our State Office has the authority to issue individual modifications on a case by case basis, to any part of our state codes! (Currently they are Down to 6'2" headroom for obstructions in a finished basement).....They have also allowed use of later electrical and sprinkler codes at least a half a dozen times in the last year..



			
				Mark K said:
			
		

> The authority to make changes will depend on state laws.You cannot have a provision that says that you can automatically use a later code.  All such changes, assuming you have the legal authority to amend the state code if there is one, have to be approved by a legislative body such as the city council.
> 
> IBC 104.11 was intended to be used for unusual situations.  It is not proper to use it to implement changes that are indistinguishable from code changes.
> 
> In addition most jurisdictions do not have the resources or the expertise to evaluate all of the new products and systems.


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 28, 2013)

Reading the fine print of the bill, the proposal is not to ignore the code every other cycle. There remains a mandate to continually monitor upcoming editions of the code. What is explicitly added is a provision to limit "substantial amendments to the code" to not less than 6-year intervals.

Therefore, I do not see the State Building Code Council going away for the 3 off-years. I would expect that the SBCC would continue to maintain Technical Advisory Groups and public hearings for every ICC code cycle. The debates in the middle of the 6-year cycle may shift in part to focus on whether proposed amendments are "substantial" or not.

So, what are the actual savings if there are still amendments and hearings every 3 years? Surely we're not cutting the costs in half, but there may be some savings and efficiencies to be recognized.


----------



## righter101 (Feb 28, 2013)

Thanks for the replies.  Here is a draft response to the published PRO and CON position FWIW

Opinion on extending code change cycle from 3 years to 6 years:

Currently a Senate Bill in the State of Washington (SB 5378) proposed to extend the code change cycle from every 3 years (current) to every 6 years.

This is an issue I am very passionate about.  I have discussed this very topic with a large number of inspectors, plans examiners, building officials, contractors, architects, and engineers, and the support for an extended code cycle was wide spread.

In reviewing the “Staff Summary of Public Testimony” (PRO position), they main point is the cost to the public and private sectors (and potential for savings).  I feel this point could be addressed and even stronger evidence of costs presented.  First, there are the direct costs.  This includes new books and training courses every 3 years.  These costs could be sufficiently estimated using data available about staffing levels at every county and city building department.  The direct costs do not stop here, however.  Architects and engineers involved in the design of structures falling under the purview of the codes must stay current and purchase these materials and attend training courses.  Typically their total purchase volume would be considerably less, as they are able to purchase a select few books for their specialty, whereas building departments are required to possess the entire set of adopted codes.

What are not as easy to compute are the indirect costs.  When a building department is mandated to update the codes, substantial resources are required to update literature, forms, and websites.  Furthermore, a considerable amount of time is spent explaining changes that are often subtle or nuanced.  These changes and the efforts involved in detailing them extend to the construction, architecture, and engineering community as well, resulting in additional indirect costs borne by the public.

In reviewing the “Staff Summary of Public Testimony” (CON position), I find a several flaws and misrepresentations.  The premise, that a 6-year time frame is “not sufficient to keep our codes contemporary, coordinated, and also meet with modern technologies and standards”, is fundamentally incorrect.  The State of Washington, through the SBCC, has the authority and processes in place to enter in to “emergency rule making”, and has demonstrated an ability to do so in the past, as warranted.  The existing mechanisms already exist to adapt and incorporate changes involving emerging technologies.  Furthermore, all of the adopted codes grant authority to Building Officials to consider and approve “alternate methods and materials”.

Next, in the CON argument, the issue is raised that “The greatest liability to the state if this bill is adopted is on the issue of accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act…”  I find this statement to be quite baseless and rather misleading.  The current working version of the ANSI standard (IBC adopted standard for Accessibility) is the 2003.  It will be updated with the newest code cycle to the 2010 version.  The ANSI standard does not follow the same adoption cycle as the I-Codes. Furthermore, the changes that have occurred were minor in nature.  Future changes could be easily addressed through the existing amendment, addendum, and emergency rule making procedures in place with the SBCC.

Given the current and continued SBCC authority and emergency rule making provisions, nothing in these proposed changes makes “the codes less safe, less flexible, and less workable”. I find this statement, coupled with a mention of “school safety” to be entirely disingenuous.  During the transition from the 1997 Uniform Building Code to the 2003 International Building Code, a decision was made not to adopt the 1st edition 2000 I-Codes.  This represented a period in Washington history when a 6 year cycle for code change effectively occurred.  During that time, there is no instance or occurrence of these hypothetical problems identified by the CON position.  The exiting authority in the old UBC allowed modification, just as today.  New technologies are not being denied simply because they are not addressed in the code.

The statement “This bill would put Washington out of sync with the national codes and its neighboring state” is entirely misleading.  A number of states use older versions of the I-Codes, some under 2006, and some even under 2003.  Furthermore, “neighboring states”, such as Oregon and California have their own codes entirely.  Additionally, several states have moved to or are considering a 6 year cycle for similar reasons, Pennsylvania and Wyoming being good examples.

The statement that “It would be harder for national firms to work in Washington”, is entirely without basis.  Engineering and architecture firms that work in states, counties or cities outside of their home routinely perform due diligence to see what local regulations apply and what codes will govern the project they are designing.  To claim that an architect working in, for example, Idaho, under the 2009 I-Codes, would have a more difficult time designing a project in Washington, as compared to Oregon or California, is on its face and at its core, absurd.   To illustrate the absurdity, we will envision a scenario that the Idaho architect is familiar with the current adopted version of the I-Codes, in his home state.  Currently these are the same as Washington, aside from the Washington State Amendments.  When making an inquiry to the jurisdiction in Washington about codes and design requirements, they would be directed to the State Amendments.  In the case of designing in California or Oregon, they would be directed to an entirely different code book, specific to those states.  Taking this one step further, imagine the bill has passed and Washington is on a 6 year code cycle.  When the architect is told what code to use, in the Idaho example, and any other jurisdiction that implements 3-year adoption, simply would be using the previous edition of their codes.  Further examples or iterations are available; however, I do not feel they are necessary to solidify this point.

On a closing note, I would offer my personal opinion, as a representative of a jurisdiction, charged with administering the codes, I believe in them entirely, understand their value, and support their continued existence and change.  An important issue not being raised is that the codes have grown in to a large industry.  The ICC is essentially a quasi-government agency that is in the business of code production.  Frankly, they will be the biggest opponents of this as it represents a direct threat to their financial interests.  I accept that code changes are a necessary part of the evolving codes.  The extent and nature of changes, in recent cycles, has been viewed by some, as change for the sake of maintaining the cycle and lobbying by industry representatives.  Comments on the 2015 code changes were due Jan 4th of 2012.  At that time, realistically, code officials, design professionals, and contractors alike had not even seen the codes.  The Final Action hearings then often have an overriding of committed changes and recommendations based on voting blocs brought in by industry lobbyists.  Although they are a non-profit, ICC is a large, growing bureaucracy that has a steady and growing revenue stream by virtue of a monopolistic grasp on the codes.  That they have substantial financial stake in this bill should not be over looked.  One example that could be used as a test of this hypothesis is the case of IAPMO.  Currently the ICC publishes most of the codes for the State of Washington.  The notable exception to this is the Uniform Plumbing Code.  IAPMO has maintained a strong lobby to keep their plumbing code in the State, rather than the logical transition to the I-Code version, which is fully integrated and referenced within the other codes.  If you posed the question to them in this way, you would gain clear picture of motives.  “Would you support a 6 year code cycle if the UPC was guaranteed to be the plumbing code for Washington State in perpetuity?”

I urge WABO to advocate strongly for passage of this bill.  It demonstrates acknowledgement by a reputable organization that we have significant mechanisms in place that will allow and recognize emerging technologies, that we understand the price of code changes is ultimately paid by citizens and tax-payers of our jurisdictions, and that this bill in no way represents any compromise of safety to the public which we serve.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 1, 2013)

I agree with much of the comments on ICC and their process but I still do not see the answer is to lengthen the cycle.  We need to shorten the lag between development of the model code and local adoption.

It is one thing to skip a cycle but if you pick and choose which provisions it will create more confusion.  There will be state amendments but discretion should be used.

While strictly speaking the design professional should do due dilligence regarding the local amendments in reality there is a great tendency to use the latest code.  This may be the case for many in state architects and engineers as well as those from out of state.


----------



## incognito (Mar 8, 2013)

Please identify the ten most significant changes, brought about by products and/or technology, that made the three year cycle crucial for our job performance. Pick from the following code cycles; 2003---2006, 2006--2009, 2009---2012



			
				Mark K said:
			
		

> This is one of thse things that is attractive because it appraently makes life easier but in the bigger picture it makes things worse.What it does do is to allow you to ignore changes for 6 years but then you will likely have larger more disruptive changes.
> 
> This ignores the fact that there are problems with the codes and that we are constatly introducting more products and technologies.  Putting our heads in the sand will ot solve the problem.  In California it now takes 5 to 8 years from the time a change is submitteed to the IBC before it is an enforcable regulation.  If California were to adopt this approach we would be looking at 8 to 11 years.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 8, 2013)

Are you asking me to list what I think is important so you can then say they are not important to you.  If so nothing I say will change your position.

If there really is no reason to adopt the changes then why do so many people spend so much time developing and promoting the changes.  Just because you believe that the changes are not important for  what you deal with does not mean that everybody agrees.

I will give two examples of items where I believe it is important to get the code changed as fast as possible.

1)  The code now allows us to use concrete expansion and adhesive anchors.

2)  The changes to Chapter 22 in the 2012 mean that there are no design provisions for the design of steel stairs and other steel that is not considered structural steel.  A strict reading of the code would lead to the conclusion that you cannot design steel stairs.  These changes also eliminated any special inspections associated with these steel members.

AISC recognized that this this was a problem and they sponsored a code change that was accepted for the 2015 IBC.  With a 6 year cycle it would take twice as long to correct the problem.


----------



## righter101 (Mar 8, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> With a 6 year cycle it would take twice as long to correct the problem.


Or in the case of the State of Washington, issues such as these can be addressed each year, using currently established procedures for addedums and emergency rule making.

We print the state amendments on orange paper and insert them in to our books.  If new pages come out, even every year, it's a fairly easy process to make the change.

I also thought of something else.  If several more states go to a longer code cycle, the ICC will need to address it at some point.  One easy solution is where the long vertical black lines appear in the code text, indicating a new or revised code section from the previous cycle, they could simply have a single and double line referencing the previous 2 editions.

I agree that a 4 or 5 year cycle would be optimal, but with the current 3, the only smooth extension under that constraint is to double it.

Have a good weekend everyone.


----------



## Architect1281 (Mar 8, 2013)

What no planned accelerated obsalesence?


----------



## Architect1281 (Mar 8, 2013)

To Mark on the inverse it would take twice as long to create the problem.

aqn then there is the other hand ...Bills introduced to ease R.I. fire code law | Breaking News | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal


----------



## 97catintenn (Mar 8, 2013)

I thought they meant they were going to stay 6yrs behind the newest version.  Not skip over any years.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 9, 2013)

Most of the changes are to tweak the verbiage, which comes at the risk of unintended consequences elsewhere, or to move something where nobody can find it, or to make structural (especially seismic) requirements even more complicated.  Every now and then a useful change accidentally slips in.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 9, 2013)

Paul

I must admit that my cynicism is not as advanced as yours.

I infer that you believe that the code covers every issue adequately, that there are no errors in the code, and that changes are not needed to address new products and building systems.  Based on this perspective then the question should be why do we ever need to amend the building code.

The dig on seismic requirements was noted.  I appreciate that individuals on the east coast often do not share the concern of those on the west coast and thus often do not see the need for the requirements.  A major reason for changes regarding seismic design requirements is because the field of seismic design is maturing and we have realized that if the code provisions are to be based on science they need to change.

Building codes exist to allow the government to prevent unsafe practices, provide uniformity of the requirements, and to facilitate the introduction of new products.

Thus if we do not want to update the building codes we can either freeze the products used and the type of design allowed or we can ignore the codes and let the building official do whatever he wants.  I do not believe that either is feasible.

Change is not fun but the reality is that when you stop changing you become irrelevant and die.  I realize that some individuals can create a bubble where there appears to be no change but for that they pay a price.

People who have looked at change have found that change is less disruptive and more sucessful when it is the result of frequent but small changes.


----------



## conarb (Mar 14, 2013)

It looks like North Carolina is going to be adopting an interesting approach, note that it's opposed by the environmental fanatics in the Sierra Club, since they are targeting the energy code and "social change":



> The legislation – House bill 120 – prevents local governments from requiring inspections for one- and two-family houses other than the eight types delineated in the state building code. Any additions would require approval from the N.C. Building Code Council, a board appointed by the governor.
> 
> It also postpones any updates to the state’s home building code to every six years – twice as long as the current revisions that occur on three-year cycles to match national standards.
> 
> ...


¹ Bill to ease restrictions on NC homebuilders moves to Senate - Winston-Salem Journal: State Region


----------



## Mark K (Mar 15, 2013)

I have a bias for codes that focus on safety because the more you try to impose additional criteria the more unintended consequences there are.  It is also hard then to make changes because it is often not clear what the original intent was.

Still if we have fuel efficiency standards for automobiles why not have energy requirements for homes?

It appears that the concern about frequent updates would be less if all of the jurisdictions had the same requirements.

A large part of the change appears to related to the concerns of contractors who do not want the local building department in their way.


----------

