Anybody Interested ?

[bkerley]

www.iccsafe.org/cs/cc/sbtc/2009call.html

Dick,

I know you have probably already been following this. Do you think it has legs or will it be dying on the vine like the NAHB standards are?

[Dick Seibert]

Brad:

I'm waiting to see, standards are certainly in order since green building is all over the place, everybody involved having their own ideas and priorities, then pushing their own priorities. Of course once a green building code is written it will have to be adopted by the various AHJs, which can run from entire states to small municipalities. The first fight is writing the code, then the next fight is spread nationwide with adoption battles.

The ICC is a private corporation which writes model codes, notice in your Mississippi codes that you have adopted many of them; whereas, in our California codes we have only adopted the IBC and the IFC, rejecting the residential code in it's entirety and staying with the Uniform codes in areas like the IMC, IPC etc. ICC Code Adoption by state.

I think it will be a great number of years if not decades to bring uniform standards, as you can see from these fora the northeast is overly concerned with energy efficiency; whereas, the west is overly concerned with sustainability in the area of green building, to say nothing of the west's attempts to force structural compliance on the rest of the nation.

There are numerous agendae here and within each agenda one has to look at motivations, for instance whether the motivation is to save money or save the planet. In addition to all of these diverse agendae there are always the influence peddlers, commercial interests seeking to profit from code mandates, and political/governmental social interests seeking to socially engineer society by mandate. An example of this is this morning the inspector who posted that article by the architect about green building products creating "killing machines" bemoaned the fact that the thread didn't develop the interest that a concurrent thread about ADA compliance generated:

I was hoping for more members to chime in, the ADA/Church thread generated far more fanfare and 'discussion' than this has. But Rick & kil haven't weighed in on this yet!

Maybe that speaks volumes about our priorities... so preoccupied with providing for the minorities (be they racial/ethnic, H/C or whatever) that the majority (everyone INCLUDING those minorities) gets all but ignored.

I see his point as valid, political correctness dictates providing for minorities and green building, an attack on either will not generate the interest by mostly civil servants as a way to uphold the current politically correct positions.

Interestingly enough among the code/inspection community I see almost zero interest in green building or energy efficiency; whereas here, among contractors I see enormous interest, as a green building code starts being adopted I suspect I'll see a lot more interest, I suspect the reason I see so much interest here among normally capitalistic builders and contractors is many see a way to profit from it.

[m beezo]

Interestingly enough among the code/inspection community I see almost zero interest in green building or energy efficiency; whereas here, among contractors I see enormous interest, as a green building code starts being adopted I suspect I'll see a lot more interest, I suspect the reason I see so much interest here among normally capitalistic builders and contractors is many see a way to profit from it.[/QUOTE]

Dick,
I will someday maybe consider myself a contractor who is looking at this as a way to make a profit.

But I have also been interested in saving energy for years. Spent countless hours reading up on insulation, on sealing up areas, all types of things. My biggest complaint is that I just do not know if I can absorb it all. I mean, years ago it seemed like some of the choices were fewer. Now there are tons of things to learn about. Foam insulation is one. Until 5 or 6 years ago I did not know there was closed cell and open cell. Now I have to remember that stuff.

And the other thing that gets to me is all the stuff that you read from the manufacturer's. Each one has the best product and you should never even consider anyone else. Radiant barriers come to mind, the foam that someone said gives R29 in an inch. Can someone just be the Consumer's Report folks and tell us what does and does not work?

As far as making money, I hope to earn a little for some of the stuff I do and the knowledge that I have about different products. I think that most of my customers are looking at some of the little things that will give you some results. Things like adding some attic insulation, caulking up gaps and cutting down air flow, install weather strip on doors, CFL bulbs, low flow toilets. When the air conditioner goes out then they may consider getting a better one but none of my customers are so concerned that they are going to junk a AC unit that is working and 80% for one that is new and 90%. Probably the same with the toilet. They might get rid of the old one since it is a $300-500 deal but I think that would be about all most would spend without being forced to do so.

[warminup]

Off the topic I know, but here goes:

Speaking of making a profit, what about ICC ESR's? It seems that if you pay they will approve.

My issue: I am a contractor who wants to make a profit.

I use a lot of foam in buildings. Fire codes are a block to this for me. I will not argue that the code is necessary and accurate, and I don't mind living with it, I am not greedy, I just want good rules we can live with and are enforceable.

Problem with ICC ESR's:
Most every foam manufacturer sells a closed cell foam rated as FS 25, Smoke 450. The chemistry to make that is not too different from one manufacturer to another. Several firms make either an ignition barrier, or a thermal barrier intumescent paint for foam. The foam people and the intumescent people are not the same bunch.
ICC requires each manufacturer to get his product in combination with one intumescent tested and approved through an ICC certified lab. The approvals must be annually renewed with a significant certification fee attached, and they are brand specific.
That is a significant restraint of trade for me. I am in a small market area in the northeast. Foam manufacturers who have these approvals are not close, so the freight charges for their materials make them even higher priced than I am used to, and they add several days to shipping times, which impedes my cash flow as well as meaning we cannot get deliveries in winter. (foam cannot freeze during transit) Builders we work with are sheetrocking the underside of the rafters when we spray attics because local code enforcement will not look beyond the brand names and look at the specifications for the foam. Why doesn't the ICC allow an 'or equal' standard? Because that would completely destroy their cash flow.
I even have a code official asking me to prove that if I use foam to airseal bypasses, etc in an attic floor, then cover it with 12 inches of cellulose loose fill, I have an effective thermal barrier over the foam. How do I get my foam vendor and my cellulose vendor to spend the money to get that approved? Why bother? How likely is it that 1/2 inch sheetrock is a better thermal barrier than 12 inches of cellulose? Why do we insulate attics again?

[Dick Seibert]

Warminup:

The ICC is a for profit organization, because of a lawsuit the ICC is dominated by the NFPA, and the fire service as a whole is opposed to all foams, not only because of flammability but deadly off-gassing in the event of a fire. The codes do have an alternative method or material section available to AHJs; however, if an AHJ were to approve a product without an ES Report that AHJ would be liable for any injuries or deaths that might occur in the event of a fire, sovereign immunity only goes so far, it covers misfeasance but not malfeasance, and a strong case could be made that the allowance of a known dangerous product without an ES Report on file is malfeasance. Our AHJs have been requiring what were known as ICBO Reports, now ES Reports, to be filed with the plan submittals for over 40 years now on anything remotely a fire hazard, and that was before the NFPA took control of code approval. Energy efficiency is far down their list of priorities, fire safety is at the top of the list, they are in the process of developing an energy code, but energy will never trump fire safety, the code mandates are health and safety, not any form of conservation.

If your AHJ adopts the 2009 IRC fire sprinklers will be mandatory (unless they delete the requirement), once you give them sprinklers they will undoubtedly waive any fireproofing requirements, foam or otherwise.

[bkerley]

I didn't wander away on this issue never to return. I have been sidetracked for a few days and it slipped my mind.

I originally asked the question because I wasn't sure what your level of involvement with the committee was and I was interested to find out if you were that closely involved. I haven't been especially active with the ICC since I joined.

I agree with you on the fire dominance within the ICC. That may be one of the reasons I have not been as active as I might have otherwise.

Eventually there will be a code. The question is who will be driving the bus when the standards actually do evolve. Personally, I don't think it will be LEED.

[warminup]

Pardon m y ignorance, but what is an AHJ?

[Dick Seibert]

Authority Having Jurisdiction - city or county.

[Pete Engle]

I've been studying the ICC-700 National Green Building Standard and in general, I think it's pretty well laid out. It is certainly far more user-friendly than LEED, and I expect that it will result in houses with similar performance at far lower cost of compliance. Considering that it was designed from the start to be compatible with both the IRC and Energy Star, and that it has the ICC/NAHB imprimatur, I think it's got the potential to become THE standard for housing. The step from the Standard to a Code is a very small one, despite what the NAHB says.

[Bob Kovacs]

Pete-

Did you purchase the newly issued standard, or are you working from one of the PDF draft copies that I can't seem to find anymore? I'm looking for the draft, to get a better handle on what's in the standard before I plunk down 40 bucks for the final version.

[bkerley]

I have a printed draft copy from NAHB about 2 yrs ago and was looking for the .pdf also. If anyone has a working link post it up.

[Pete Engle]

No, I went ahead and bought the new standard as soon as it was issued. I hear they sold out and are currently doing a second printing. I've already been through the Verifier training, so I've got a reasonably good idea on what the standard is about.

I didn't review the .pdf standard, so I can't say if it's changed much. I don't think so, because the final standard is still pretty similar to the older NAHB guidelines. In fact, the older Guidelines are still considered "active" and they're still qualifying houses to that document. They expect that the new Standard will eventually replace the Guidelines, but there's no official date when the Guidelines will cease to be active. Right now, the verifiers are woprking to either document, which ever one the builder chose at the beginning of the process. As far as I know, you can still start houses to the NAHB Guidelines now. Not sure why anybody would want to, but i think you can still do it.

[RobinNC]

Is this what you're looking for?


http://www.nahbgreen.org/content/pdf...guidelines.pdf

[bkerley]

I guess that was my question. Are the two the same or what are the differences?

[Bob Kovacs]

I guess that was my question. Are the two the same or what are the differences?

Same here. I've got the NAHB guidelines, but was curious as to how intact they stayed. Per Pete's comments, it sounds like they're still pretty intact.