NFPA 5000 vs ICC

[haynewp]

Just when I thought I would get to use one Code, now California will go and adopt this NFPA 5000. It's great that engineering has advanced so much yet we still can't decide on what Code to use.

Anybody else have anything they would like to express about this, positive or negative?

 

[denoid]

My $0.02 ===> Unfortunately, it's all about "turf" and "politics", and not about which code is better.

 

[haynewp]

I talked to a guy out at CA board and he said it all has to do with the Fire Marshall out there. Well, if he doesn't like the fire protection in the IBC, then why not have "CA Amendments to the IBC Fire Protection Provisions", instead of adopting a whole new Code.

 

[JedClampett]

The City of Phoenix city council was all hot to adopt a "consensus" code. The only consensus code is NFPA. However, somehow the local press got involved. There were some surprisingly well written editorials that must of got someone's attention. Now everything is stalled.
Actually the structural part is just references to common codes (ASCE-7, ACI 318, etc.), but the architectural chapters (classifications, egress, definitions) are different. That is where the conflicts occur.
For a multi-city/state company, it becomes a bookkeeping nightmare to follow these changes. We have master specifications that need to be edited to reference codes. If State "A" uses NFPA and City "B" uses IBC, its a major pain to just make the specs consistent, much less the calculations.

 

[haynewp]

http://www.nfsa.org/news/articles/NFPA5000.html

 

[damstructural]

This looks more like a conflict of interest than a strong Fire Marshal. Actually, about half of the Fire Chiefs who testified recommended the ICC over the NFPA. The only other support for the NFPA came from firefighter unions and the plumber-mechanical union.

Its not over yet. The adoption date has slipped to 2007 and the pressure is building to fix this mess.

Here's a quote from one of the links listed below.

http://www.aiacc.org/publications/focus/3_2/regulations.html

Yet the CBSC chose to adopt the NFPA 5000, an untested, one year-old building code used only in Pasadena , Texas (approx. population 150,000).

A close look at the current CBSC suggests it did not consider this issue with impartiality. The CBSC is made up of 11 members, all appointed by the Governor, and required by California law to represent specific areas of expertise. However, many of the commissioners have relationships with the NFPA or their codes partner, IAPMO. For example, the local building official position is held by a plumbing inspector, the licensed contractor position is held by a plumbing contractor, a public position is held by a union lobbyist, and an engineer position is held by an individual with a long history of working with the NFPA. Joining with the labor and local fire official positions, this group formed the majority that supported the NFPA codes. Only architect member Steven Winkel, FAIA, and public member James Barthman supported the ICC.

Furthermore, the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times have reported that supporters of the NFPA codes, and those organizations that will gain financially from their adoption, have contributed millions of dollars to Governor Davis over the past several years, causing speculation that political consideration may have been given more weight than public policy.

Also check out:

http://www.aia.org/gov/codes/nfpa.asp

http://www.csemag.com/magazine/articles/cse0312lCode.asp

 

[JedClampett]

It looks like the City of Phoenix will not implement the NFPA 5000. See the editorial below:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0614mon1-14.html