Robert Petrucelli – ‘Win for the Industry’

In a blow to the Quincy-based National Fire Protection Association, the Massachusetts board overseeing building regulations has opted against basing the state’s building code on a new standard that NFPA is developing.

Instead of the NFPA proposal, the Board of Building Standards and Regulations voted last week to adopt the so-called International Building Code being championed by three codes groups that previously had operated independently. Known as the International Code Council, the trio has been working for seven years to create a unified code that proponents hope will become the norm across the country.

Efforts to have the single set of codes unraveled following a dispute between NFPA and the ICC, with the NFPA and another codes group choosing to break ranks in 1998 and formulate their own set of codes. That split widened into a national controversy, with such groups as the Building Owners and Managers Association International among those which tried to negotiate a compromise. As time has gone on, however, it seems apparent that no such agreement is in the offing, leading industry trade groups to essentially choose sides on which standard should be adopted.

Thus far, the IBC seems to be getting the most support. It has now gained backing in 19 states, according to Robert Petrucelli, executive director of the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts. His group joined together with the Boston Society of Architects to lobby for the ICC position.

“It’s a win for the industry,” Petrucelli said following the unanimous board vote. “This is something we identified several months ago as a priority to achieve, and now that we’ve seen our work come to fruition, we are very pleased with the result.”

While some have charged that NFPA is merely looking at developing its own code to generate revenues from that process, spokesman Gary Keith insisted last week that it was more a philosophical difference in how codes should be created. NFPA wants the building code based on life-safety issues, he said, whereas the IBC version focuses on engineering factors.

Another difference, according to Keith, is that the NFPA building code will be in line with numerous other codes issued by the 105-year-old organization. NFPA has a range of fire and life-safety codes it produces for the built environment. Keith maintained that the group’s experience in the codes arena makes it more qualified to promulgate the building standard.

“We have a proven track record in the service and support of these documents,” said Keith, noting that certain elements of the IBC code even refer to NFPA standards such as life safety. In training industry professionals on the NFPA building code, Keith said his group would be better able to explain those reference points than the ICC experts would.

Keith said it is likely the Massachusetts board would have been more amenable to the NFPA plan if it were completed, but to date, the codes are still in draft form.

“I’m sure that weighed in their decision,” he said, adding that it does appear Massachusetts’ next version of the building code will be relying on the IBC model. Nonetheless, Keith also stressed that his group hopes that the ruling body will revisit the matter once NFPA’s code is finalized later this year.

“I’m confident we will have an opportunity to continue to demonstrate the progress of our code development to the board,” Keith said. He also expressed optimism that the group will win support in other states, and even in overseas countries where the NFPA is becoming increasingly active, such as Mexico, Hong Kong and Brazil. The NFPA has been successful in convincing Wisconsin and California to hold off until the NFPA code is completed, offering the group a measure of hope in those states.

‘Frustrating’ Fight
Vernon Woodworth, chairman of the Boston Society of Architects’ Codes Committee, called the ongoing imbroglio “frustrating” for building professionals. Especially as companies expand into other states and regions, the need for a standard code becomes increasingly important, he said. Such standardization offers a greater chance that a project will be completed faster, better and less expensively than if the contractor or architect is forced to evaluate which rules apply in a given jurisdiction, said Woodworth, a registered architect and principal with the Sullivan Code Group of Boston. Those concerns led the BSA to become actively involved in the codes issue, said Woodworth, adding that he believes the Massachusetts board vote last week was a significant step in their year-long effort.

“It’s huge,” Woodworth said. “It’s now clear that we are going to use the International Building Code” in Massachusetts. New York State has already approved the IBC model, he said, while Connecticut and Rhode Island are reviewing that proposal.

Even if the Bay State remains loyal to the IBC, it will not mean that the state’s building code will change overnight. The seventh version would be phased in during 2002, Woodworth said, with the new standards going fully into effect at the beginning of 2003.