COMPARISON OF NFPA & ICC
Final Report and Recommendation
Prepared by: Code Review Committee
Building Codes Division of Department of Business and Consumer Services
Oregon State Fire Marshal Office – Division of the State Police
Date: December 20, 2002
Executive Summary
The Code Review Committee, appointed jointly by the State Fire Marshal and the Administrator of the Building Code Division, met monthly over the last two years to conduct an in-depth review and comparison of new model codes with the existing State codes. The new model codes are published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the International Code Council (ICC). The purpose of the review was to analyze each code, the process used to create and maintain each code and the support services available in order to provide a recommendation for adoption of the next model codes for the State of Oregon. The Committee, with the assistance of other standing code review committees, reviewed the technical provisions of the codes. The Committee considered various factors including: the provision of safe buildings; the cost of construction and maintenance of buildings; training and ease of understanding and use; impact on state and local governments; impact on the private sectors of the building construction and use industry; national use and adoption; ease of adaptation to use in Oregon and the national process for creation and amendment.
The Committee concluded that it is essential that the selected building and fire codes be from the same set of published codes. The Committee found that the ICC codes are more consistent with existing Oregon codes with respect to organization, occupancy classification and use of terminology. Both the NFPA and ICC codes reflected improvements in technology expected in new code editions. Both sets of codes allow greater flexibility in providing fire safe buildings. However, with respect to structural standards, the NFPA code would impose standards for seismic and wind resistance that would add significant costs to construction. Both sets of codes rely more extensively on referenced standards, however the NFPA codes do so to a greater degree. For the various factors compared, the Committee found that transition to, and long-term use of, the ICC codes would have less impact on state and local jurisdictions and on the private sectors of the building industry. Transition to the ICC codes would be comparatively smoother and would not require reconsideration of other existing codes adopted in Oregon. Finally, the Committee found that the national process for amending and maintaining the ICC codes is more accessible and more appropriate for the adoption of regulatory codes.
The Committee recommends that the International Building Code and the International Fire Code be the base model codes for the next Oregon Structural Specialty Code and the Oregon Fire Code, respectively.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Committee Composition and Charge
The Code Review Committee (CRC) was established in the fall of 2000 by the Administrator of the Building Codes Division and the State Fire Marshal. The purpose of the Committee was to review and compare the new national model fire and building codes with the existing Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and the Oregon Uniform Fire Code (OUFC) and to provide to the Fire Marshal and Administrator a recommendation regarding the adoption of the next model codes in Oregon.
The members of the CRC were jointly appointed by the Fire Marshal and Administrator. The list of committee members is attached to this report.
The Code Review Committee commenced with monthly meetings in February of 2001. Over the following two years, the committee conducted the following comparisons:
International Building Code (IBC) to Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC)
International Fire Code (IFC) to Oregon Uniform Fire Code (OUFC)
NFPA 5000 Building Code to OSSC
NFPA 1/Uniform Fire Code to OUFC
An in-depth technical comparison was either conducted by one of the committee members or by another committee assisting the CRC. The CRC was assisted in comparison of structural provisions of the two new national building codes by the Structural Engineering Committee of the Building Code Structures Board. The Oregon Fire Code Committee assisted the CRC in review of the provisions of the two new national fire codes. For each chapter of the four codes reviewed, a detailed comparison of the technical provisions was conducted. The provision by provision comparisons were recorded in tables which noted similarities or differences in requirements contained in one of the new codes in comparison to the OSSC. Those tables are provided as appendices to this report.
In addition to the technical comparison, the CRC reviewed the process by which each of the new national codes was developed as well as the ongoing process by which these new codes are maintained. The CRC also received detailed presentations and information from representatives of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the International Code Council (ICC) regarding their codes, their code adoption processes and the various support services that would be available from the organizations.
B. New National Model Codes – The Reason to Review
Codes and standards which regulate the built environment continue to evolve. Most are reviewed on set schedules and then are republished every three to five years. The current adopted codes in Oregon are based on model codes published in 1997. The OSSC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The OUFC is based on the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). These codes were written by cooperating organizations so that all provisions remained consistent between the building and fire codes. This link is important because a building code regulates new building design and construction and a fire code, which contains some provisions for new construction, also regulates the ongoing use and maintenance of that building. The codes evolve to reflect new technologies in building design and construction, as well as improvements in systems designed to protect the occupants of a building during emergency situations.
A review of the national model codes (listed above) for intended use in Oregon was necessary because of many changes in the national model code environment. The UBC currently in use in Oregon is no longer being published. The publishers of the UBC and two other national model codes have merged to become the ICC and have produced a series of International Codes including the IBC and the IFC reviewed by the CRC. The State has already adopted two of ICC codes, the International Mechanical Code and International Fuel Gas Code, and will soon finalize adoption of a third, the International Residential Code. The UFC is the currently adopted fire code in Oregon. The publishers of the UFC have joined with NFPA to make a new fire code entitled NFPA 1/Uniform Fire Code as part of the NFPA set of codes. NFPA has developed a new building code - NFPA 5000 - as part of their set of codes. These two new NFPA codes have been reviewed by the CRC. The State currently adopts two other codes which are part of the NFPA set of codes, the National Electrical Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code. For the Oregon code adoption process to stay in step with current building technology and with codes being developed and adopted nationally, new model codes must be selected.
The following discussion summarizes key issues and findings resulting from the CRC review and comparison. The issues are not presented in any order of importance. Each has influenced the recommendation of the committee.
II. BUILDING CODE
A. Organization
The International Building Code (IBC) is organized in the common code format established in the early 1990’s by the International Code Council (ICC) organizations. The topic areas are in the same chapters as found in the current Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). There are minor changes in location for specific topics, but the major topics are in the locations familiar to OSSC users.
Similar to the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) NFPA 101 code, the NFPA 5000 code is organized by occupancy classification, with each separate occupancy in its own chapter. Other topics (e.g., Exits, Accessibility) are broken down into chapters along similar lines as the common code format, however, the location in the code differs significantly from the OSSC chapters. (The OSSC and the IBC have 35 chapters each, NFPA 5000 has 55 chapters.) The administrative chapter and other provisions of the NFPA 5000 are substantially different and contain provisions, such as maintenance requirements, which may be in conflict with Oregon State Statute. Because of this, the administrative chapter of the NFPA code would likely need to be completely rewritten before it could be adopted in Oregon.
The NFPA 5000 code has an occupancy-based organization. This means that the provisions regulating an occupancy that are unique to that occupancy, are in the occupancy chapter. For example, special provisions for exit systems in hospitals are found in the hospital chapter. However these must still be coordinated with general exit provisions for all buildings found in the Exits chapter. In comparison, the IBC integrates unique provisions within the topical chapter. For example, if hospitals have a special provision for corridors in the exit system, that specific provision is found in the corridor provisions of the exits chapter. The organization and format of the IBC is similar to that contained in the OSSC. The organization and format of the NFPA code system will not be familiar to Oregon code users and will take additional training, cost and experience to know how to coordinate such provisions.
Both codes extensively reference to other construction /installation standards contained in separate nationally recognized publications. In comparing the two documents, the Committee found that the NFPA 5000 code is more extensive in referencing and is more dependent on those standards for key construction standards. This will make use of the NFPA 5000 building code more challenging to users.
Familiarity is an important consideration for use of a new code. The IBC, which is based on a nationally recognized common code format, will make transition to a new code easier than the NFPA 5000 format. Training associated with the IBC will be take less time and be less costly for all parties (designers, jurisdictions, contractors and others). The IBC code will have the lesser impact of the two on the Building Codes Division (BCD) in providing services to its many constituencies.
B. Occupancies
The IBC is written using the same 10 occupancy groups (e.g. B - Business, E - Education, M- Mercantile…) as are contained in the OSSC and uses the same occupancy abbreviations. There are some changes within an individual occupancy group. For example, the Assembly (Group A) occupancies in OSSC are based on number of seats, whereas IBC Assembly occupancies are broken into sub-categories reflecting the actual use of the space such as theater versus restaurant. Both the OSSC and IBC use the same letter codes to designate each occupancy group. These letter codes facilitate communication.
NFPA 5000 has 15 occupancy classifications. These classifications, while similar to the OSSC categories, are organized differently and only identified by a title (e.g. Assembly, Lodging and Rooming Houses, Residential Board and Care). No occupancy abbreviations are used. Most of the NFPA occupancies are very similar to OSSC occupancies, merely organized differently; however the NFPA 5000 code does not include a distinct Hazardous (Group H) Occupancy, as contained in the current OSSC and IBC. The NFPA 5000 code does provide regulation of hazardous materials, that are substantially similar to the standards in the OSSC. The NFPA hazardous materials provisions can be applied to any building regardless of occupancy. This may appear to be more flexible than the current OSSC or IBC. however, for certain facilities such as a semi-conductor manufacturer, there would not be the convenience of a distinguishing occupancy group containing flexible standards for the occupancy.
In the OSSC hotels and apartment houses are the same subcategory (Group R, Division 1) of the Residential occupancy. The IBC splits the two into two subcategories of the Residential occupancy (Group R, Division 1 and Division 2, respectively). The NFPA 5000 code has two separate occupancy classifications (Hotels and Dormitory Occupancies versus Apartment Occupancies)
For many years the OSSC has been amended to create the Special Residential Occupancy (Group SR). Regardless of the new model code adopted, the SR standards will need to be revised substantially to comply with new categories of the occupancy classifications.
The CRC also would like to emphasize the importance of the relationship between the building and fire codes in the occupancy discussion. The IBC and International Fire Code (IFC) have coordinated occupancy groups. The NFPA 5000 and NFPA1/UFC have coordinated occupancy groups. Mixing adoption of an ICC Building/Fire code with an NFPA Building/Fire code would either result in a building being considered under one system for design and construction and a different for maintenance, or would require extensive modification of one of the codes.
Regarding the topic of Occupancies, transition to the NFPA 5000 code versus the IBC code will have greater impact on state and local governments, the design and construction communities, as well as building owners. While, in the long term there may not be significant cost in terms of administration, enforcement or cost of construction and maintenance of buildings, transition to NFPA 5000 and NFPA 1 would be more demanding on all code users and the citizens in the State. For those buildings now classified as a Group H – Hazardous occupancy, future classification is unclear and would likely result in inconsistent treatment and classification around the State.
C. Construction
1. Construction Type
Both the IBC and the NFPA 5000 codes have slightly different construction type designations than the current OSSC. Construction types address the materials used in building construction (wood, concrete, steel) and the degree to which a building is considered combustible or non-combustible. The NFPA 5000 includes an additional construction type not found in either the IBC or OSSC. This additional construction type will provide greater design flexibility for high-end construction. It should be noted that these represent a small percentage of all buildings constructed in the State.
The changes in construction types are fairly minor from the current OSSC. Both codes will have similar impacts regarding training for those using the codes and long-term understandability.
2. Seismic, wind and other structural engineering standards
The CRC did not review these chapters but relied on an in-depth review by the Structural Engineering Committee (SEC) of the Building Code Structures Board. Both new model building codes use updated seismic and wind resistance standards in the engineering requirements. A critical difference between the two codes is the expectation of the condition of the building after an earthquake, flood or fire. The IBC more closely resembles the OSSC in that the IBC requires a building to maintain sufficient structural stability to allow the occupants to safely escape. The NFPA 5000 requires a building to be designed so that there is "a high probability that the building continues to perform the function for its intended purpose following a fire, earthquake, flood and other internal or external event." – Section 4.1.6.3.1 of the NFPA 5000.
The SEC recommendation dated October 2, 2002, (see attachment) "is to adopt the IBC as the next Oregon State Building Code." The SEC further stated that adoption of the NFPA 5000 at this stage and time would not be in the best interests of the citizens of Oregon. The committee stated four reasons that contributed to this conclusion. These include:
1. Greater training needs over the IBC;
2. The NFPA 5000 does not mesh with other codes in the state;
3. The language of the code is not consistent with common usage in the state; and,
4. There are copyright issues regarding standards adopted by the NFPA 5000, that could hinder adoption of Oregon specific standards regarding seismic, snow and wind loads.
Not mentioned in the SEC report, but discussed at the meeting of the CRC is the cost impact of requiring buildings to be designed and constructed to remain usable and functioning after an earthquake or fire. The SEC found that this standard would increase the cost of construction of a wide selection of buildings by 5 to 8 percent. The reason for the range of the estimate is that some buildings such as hospitals and police and fire stations have to meet a similar standard under the OSSC. However the NPFA 5000 code would impose the standard on all buildings including storage facilities, retail stores, hotels, and houses and apartment buildings. The SEC based this determination on testimony it received during hearings for the increase in the seismic zone requirements for the Oregon coast.
3. Other construction provisions.
Both codes have adopted key changes in other basic construction standards. For example, the allowable areas of a building (or between fire separations) is greater in both codes; separations between occupancies, when used, are more stringent in both codes; and both codes encourage more use of fire sprinklers by allowing more tradeoffs or exceptions when sprinklers are used. There is significant difference in both codes from the current OSSC, that will reduce some construction costs and improve the life safety of building occupants. However, there is little difference between the IBC and the NFPA 5000 in this regard.
D. Referenced Standards
In comparison to the OSSC, both new codes rely more heavily on adopting construction and installation standards by reference. The greater reliance on referenced standards has been a growing factor in model codes for many years. For example, the 1997 UBC referenced more standards than the 1994 edition of the UBC. The Committee found determined that the NFPA 5000 code references a greater number of standards. While both codes rely on standards for specific construction or installation requirements, the NFPA 5000 does so with greater frequency.
In looking at either code, it is anticipated that the Oregon Energy Conservation code will continue. The CRC did not review the energy conservation chapters of either the NFPA 5000 or IBC, but relied on the review conducted by the Energy Committee.
Greater use of referenced standards rather than inclusion of provisions in a code impacts usability in two ways. The first is the cost of adoption. Each referenced standard is a separate document and must be purchased separately. Secondly, the greater use of referenced documents reduces the usability of a single document. This applies to both codes, but as stated above, since the NFPA 5000 code uses more referenced standards for construction requirements, it is the lesser "user friendly" of the two.
E. Other Building Code Considerations
In addition to the language differences noted by the SEC, the CRC noted additional differences in key words and phrasing in the new model codes, as compared to OSSC. Two examples follow.
Both the IBC and OSSC refer to the "building official" as the key person holding the responsibility for administering the code. The NFPA 5000 code refers to the "authority having jurisdiction"(AHJ). This could lead to a greater diversity of responses by enforcing jurisdictions as to who holds the responsibility for administering the code under the NFPA 5000. On balance, the committee also found that the NFPA 5000 appeared to have more situations where code provisions are ambiguous. This would result in greater reliance on case-by-case decisions by the AHJ for determination of appropriate construction standards than currently occurs now under the OSSC, or would occur under the IBC.
Both codes use a phrase that is different than the OSSC. That phrase is " shall be permitted." In the IBC, that phrase has replaced the use of the word "may" in exceptions to general requirements. In the NFPA 5000 the phrase is frequently used where a requirement is established in one chapter and then is referenced in a different chapter. This is most clearly demonstrated in exiting requirements. In the NFPA 5000, general exiting requirements are established in Chapter 12. In chapters for specific occupancies, requirements in the exiting chapter are referenced by the phrase "shall be permitted". This shift in phrasing from one chapter to another leaves the minimum requirements of the code unclear.
F. Creation of the New Model Codes
The IBC was created by a melding of requirements from three existing model codes previously used regionally throughout the nation The development occurred over a five year period through a public process. These three existing model codes were the predominate codes used throughout country. The development process of the IBC was to incorporate the best and most practical requirements from each code. When regulations of the same subject differed among the codes, generally the least restrictive of the regulations was adapted into the IBC. This IBC development process reflected a philosophy that when a regulation had proven successful in one part of the country, it should be adequate for parts of the country. Each of the three codes used as the basis for IBC has been individually published and refined over the past 75 years.
NFPA also has a considerable history in writing standards to improve fire and life safety in buildings and facilities. NFPA publishes many of the standards referenced in both the NFPA and ICC codes. While NFPA has created standards for more than 100 years, the NFPA 5000 code is their first complete building code. The NFPA 5000 was developed from two key sources. The building code of the Reedy Creek Improvement District and various NPFA codes and standards. The process to develop the NFPA 5000 code covered a span of approximately two years. The primary area of Reedy Creek’s jurisdiction is the Disney World Complex in Florida.
Like Oregon, all states and local jurisdictions have had to consider adoption of new model codes because none of the former model building codes are still being published. In approximately half of the states, either the state or jurisdictions within the state have already adopted the IBC. Regionally, the adoption has occurred in Utah, Alaska and Idaho. The remaining states are still in the review, selection or adoption process for a new code. The State Building Code Council of the State of Washington has recommended adopting the IBC and IFC, but it is waiting for authorizing legislation. The NFPA 5000, which has just been published in its first edition, has not yet been adopted by any jurisdiction.
II. FIRE CODE
The Code Review Committee (CRC) did not directly review the International Fire Code (IFC) or the NFPA 1/Uniform Fire Code. For comparison of both codes to the current Oregon Uniform Fire Code, the committee relied on the Oregon Fire Code Committee (OFCC). This OFCC regularly reviews proposed codes and code amendments for the Oregon State Fire Marshal. Like the CRC review of the building codes, the OFCC conducted a detailed, chapter-by-chapter, requirement-by-requirement comparison of these codes. Their review also addressed how the codes were promulgated at the national level, the availability of training and certifications offered. In their memorandum dated October 22, 2002, the OFCC concluded "that both codes could be made usable for the State of Oregon, the members felt at this time the International Fire Code would best serve the citizens of Oregon." The committee reasons included:
The OFCC memo is attached to this report. The complete review documents are available for viewing at the Office of the State Fire Marshal in Salem.
III. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. "Family" of codes
The relationship between the various construction codes adopted by the state is an important factor. Most buildings are constructed utilizing building, mechanical, plumbing and electrical codes. Those buildings must be maintained through the enforcement of the fire code. Dwellings are constructed under the One and Two Family Code. A fully integrated set of codes would be ideal. This is sometimes referred to as a "family of codes". Neither organization has a complete set, or family, of codes.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), with its partner organizations, has developed a set of codes. NFPA’s partners include the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Mechanical Code) and the Western Fire Chiefs (NFPA 1/Uniform Fire Code). However, NFPA has not created a separate residential dwelling code. Requirements for one and two family occupancies are incorporated within the NFPA 5000. The NFPA 5000 also references the International Code Council’s (ICC) International Residential Code (IRC). There are different standards for residential construction in the NFPA 5000 and the IRC. This NFPA 5000 reference sets up a conflict in residential standards.
The ICC has developed a set of codes with the exception of a complete electrical code. In order to provide an electrical code, ICC references the NFPA 70 – National Electrical Code. The ICC does publish a separate residential code which is referenced in the IBC.
The State of Oregon has historically operated under an assembly of codes from different organizations. This will need to continue in the future. However, the Code Review Committee (CRC) believes that it is critical that the building and fire codes adopted in Oregon be developed as integrated documents by the same national organization and that the national organization have a process that assures that the coordination of those documents is maintained over time.
B. Residential code
State statute requires the Building Codes Division (BCD) to adopt a nationally recognized model code for the construction of one and two family dwellings. Historically that code has been the Council of American Building Officials (CABO) One and Two Family Dwelling Code. In 1998, that code was retitled the International One and Two Family Dwelling Code, reflecting the fact that its development and publication was transferred to the ICC. CABO no longer exists as an organization. Like the other model codes from separate organizations, the One and Two Family Code is no longer in development but has been succeeded by the IRC. However, the International One and Two Family Code was the primary source document for creation of the IRC.
Review of the IRC was an initial charge of the CRC. Subsequently, the BCD proceeded with the adoption of the IRC. The Oregon edition of the IRC is scheduled to become effective April 1, 2003 as the Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Specialty Code. The process of development of the specialty code included coordination with the State-adopted versions on the International Mechanical and International Fuel Gas Codes, the National Electrical Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code.
C. Integration with other codes
While a fully integrated set of model codes would be ideal for state adoption, such a set does not exist. The committee believes that it is key for the building, fire and mechanical codes come from the same set of codes. Generally the building code provides how buildings need to be constructed, the mechanical will provide how heating and cooling systems are provided. The fire code primarily regulates how buildings need to be maintained once built. If the state were to adopt these key codes from different sets, the impacts to building construction industry and to long term users of those buildings would be significant. A simple comparison would be to construct a car from a General Motors design/blueprint and then trying to maintain it with a Volkswagen maintenance manual. While it may be possible, it would be slow, confusing and filled with trial and error.
The State has already adopted the International Mechanical Code as the Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code (OMSC). The International Fuel Gas Code was included in the OMSC as appendix chapter C. The OMSC that went into effect on October 1, 2002 was the second edition in which the OMSC used the IMC as the base model code. The OMSC, as currently adopted has been adapted to work with the existing OSSC. The format of the IRC allowed easy integration of provisions consistent with State’s plumbing, mechanical, fuel gas and electrical codes.
It was not the CRC charge to look at the "performance" codes of the two organizations. A performance code is a new concept that is anticipated to see greater use in the future for large and unusual buildings. Such an approach may see use in the Portland metropolitan area and for a few structures in other jurisdictions such as Eugene, Salem, or Bend, but is unlikely to be useful for most of the state.
The ICC is developing a separate performance code within its set of codes. The NFPA included a performance-based approach within the NFPA 5000 building code. While the NFPA 5000 performance standards are provided in a separate chapter in the code, the effect of combining them in the same code results in the integration of performance "goals" within the NFPA 5000 code. The relationship between the performance goals and the prescriptive standards in the NFPA 5000 was not clearly distinct. The CRC believes that these goals would add confusion and perhaps avenues for legal challenge in the day to day administration of a prescriptive standards of the building code.
D. Process of Code Development
The development processes by which each new code (IBC and NFPA 5000) were discussed previously in this report. Also reviewed by the CRC was the processes by which the codes are updated and maintained by the national organizations. The ongoing development process for each set of codes is similar, with some key differences. Both sets of codes are published every three years, reflecting the changes approved. ICC has two – 18 month review cycles between each publication. NFPA’s code change process is a two year-long cycle. This seems to be out of sequence with NPFA’s three year code publication schedule.
In both processes, proposals are accepted from any source, assigned to a committee for review and decision, followed by an opportunity for future review by the full membership of the organization. Both organizations publish proposals and results of committee actions for interested parties to review and consider. In both processes, representatives of the design, construction, materials and regulatory communities are represented on the various committees. Members of committees are appointed from various interest groups. In both processes, the final vote of the membership can be appealed to another level. For ICC, it is the board of directors of ICC; for NFPA it is a Standards Council which has been appointed by the NFPA board of directors.
There are distinct differences in the processes:
At the committee level, ICC includes members from both the regulatory and industry communities. There are only four committees used for maintaining the IBC and all committees for the IBC and the other ICC codes meet concurrently and in one location. There is no second step to the committee process.
Both processes are referred to by these two organizations as "consensus" processes. Neither meets a dictionary definition of the term "consensus". Despite the differences in the voting process, it should also be noted that industry representatives are heavily involved in both process.
Of the two, the ICC process is the more familiar to the majority of the CRC members. The ICC process is very similar to the processes followed for years by the International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire Chiefs for maintaining the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code, respectively. It is this process that is the more familiar to the building officials, designers and other industry representatives involved in code development in Oregon. On the other hand, the CRC was not as familiar with the NFPA process. As a result we asked for considerable information from the NFPA representatives in order to more fully understand their process. On balance, the ICC process appears more accessible and, therefore, easier in which to participate. Except for the National Electrical Code, it was the process by which the codes currently adopted in the state have been developed. The CRC was greatly concerned that the NFPA process allows for a single interest group to dominate a final vote on a code or standard. Where such an interest group can benefit from the effects of a new code or standard, the potential to dominate a vote is inappropriate.
E. Support for Training
Both organizations have training departments that can support Oregon’s need to train the staff of jurisdictions as well as designers, builders, building owners and others. There is also staff within each organization to support requests for information or interpretation of a code provision.
There is a cost to training. That cost is both in the time needed for staff to be trained and in the direct costs to those providing training. Both organizations require payment for their training programs. NFPA has stated they will provide free code documents and training for building departments in jurisdictions adopting their codes. ICC has not made such an offer, but continues to provide training and other resources traditionally provided by their organization.
The CRC’s expressed concern that the training required for either of these codes will be greater than a typical code change cycle involving the UBC and UFC. During the review process, the CRC discovered many examples in which the transition to the NFPA 5000 and NFPA1/UFC will require more extensive training. This is because the NFPA codes differ from the OSSC and the OUFC more substantially than the IBC and IFC. While this may be balanced, somewhat by NFPA’s offer to jurisdictions, there other segments of the building industry in Oregon would not directly benefit from this offer. Further, there is a growing trend for integrating training of the regulators and "regulated". The effect of the NFPA offer on such integrated training is unclear. It is also unclear whether the offer of free training from NFPA could be accepted in Oregon because of the State’s ethics regulations.
The CRC is also concerned about the ability of NFPA staff to fully support their code documents in the manner that code officials have come to expect from the International Conference of Building Officials (now the ICC). This concern centers on the fact that the NFPA 5000 code is essentially a new document and NFPA will need to add new staff for support in the interpretation and information area where as ICC already has that staff in place.
F. Transition
Transition to either of the codes will be more difficult than a simple adoption of a new edition of the same code. Because of various factors discussed in this report, a transition to a comfortable implementation of the NFPA codes require more time and expense than the ICC codes. The CRC also noted that the State has already transitioned to two ICC code documents and is moving into a third. Continuing with the ICC codes with the adoption of the IBC and IFC would be relatively easy compared to an adoption of the NFPA 5000 and NFPA 1/UFC. Moving to the NFPA codes would require reconsideration of the mechanical code and extensive revision to the IRC to allow coordination with the NFPA 5000.
The Code Review Committee, by a unanimous vote on December 12, 2002, recommends that the International Building Code and the International Fire Code be adopted as the next base model codes for the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and Oregon State Fire Codes, respectively. The review of the past two years has provided key information regarding these codes and those of National Fire Protection Association. The International Code Council codes will best serve the citizens of Oregon for the following reasons:
The Code Review Committee recommends that the Building Codes Division and the Office of the State Fire Marshal work to coordinate the adoption of the International Building Code and International Fire Code so that they become effective at the same time. That adoption must ensure that the codes are consistent with each other and with State Statutes, through appropriate amendments.
The Code Review Committee wishes to acknowledge the thousands of hours invested by the members of the various committees that assisted in review and comparison of these codes. Without the unselfish contributions of these citizens of Oregon, this review would not have been possible. In addition to the previously mentioned work of the Structural Engineering Committee and the Oregon Fire Code Committee, portions of the review were assisted by the Energy Committee and the Structural Code Committee. The Code Review Committee was also assisted to a great extent by national and local representation of the National Fire Protection Association and the International Code Council. Finally, the Code Review Committee could not have completed its mission without the great work of the staff of the Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Building Code Division.
Abbreviations -
AHJ Authority having jurisdiction
BCD Building Codes Division
CABO Council of American Building Officials
CDC Code Review Committee
IBC International Building Code
ICC International Code Council
IFC International Fire Code
IMC International Mechanical Code
IRC International Residential Code
NEC National Electrical Code
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NFPA 5000 National Fire Protection Association Building Code
NFPA 1/UFC National Fire Protection/Uniform Fire Code
OFCC Oregon Fire Code Committee
OMSC Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code
OSSC Oregon Structural Specialty Code
OUFC Oregon Uniform Fire Code
SEC Structural Engineering Committee
UBC Uniform Building Code
UFC Uniform Fire Code
Attachments
1. List of committee members
2 Chapter review tables
3. Recommendation of the Structural Engineering Committee
4. Recommendation of the Oregon Fire Code Committee