[Building Codes] The Unseen Regulator

You have your state pest management regulations under control. You have checked and checked and even your state inspector has given your company a clean bill of health. Your OSHA regulations are in place and your safety program is in place. Even your DOT requirements can be checked off as "in compliance." Technicians and even office staff have attended excellent training sessions. Suddenly you get a call from your pretreat crew. They are being stopped on the job site by a local building code official who says that the pretreat program that your pest control company has used for years is not permitted according to their interpretation of the building code. After a little checking, you find that the code is not just a few paragraphs about pest management, but pretreats are tied into huge volumes of complex code language that is almost impossible to understand because of references and cross references.

This horror story is all too common today. As professionals, we need to understand the code and how it fits into our daily operations.

REGIONAL CODES. Until several years ago, there were four powerhouse code bodies. These code bodies were made up of local and state building officials who periodically would review and revise the codes. Revisions were frequently based upon needs in the region, such as earthquake protection in California or hurricane force wind protection in Florida.

The four main code bodies were:

• Council of American Building Officials (CABO), serving the Northeast;

• Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA), serving the Midwest;

• International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), serving the West; and,

• Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), serving the South.

Until the mid 1990s, these code bodies remained independent. Each group promulgated model codes. For example, the Standard Codes were under the jurisdiction of the Southern Building Code Congress. Builders, who are most affected by the codes, had some input, but code bodies operated independently.

In 1996, three of the four regional codes worked with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) to develop a concept of a uniform code. This joint effort by SBCCI, ICBO, BOCA and NAHB led to the concept of the first International Code Council. A uniform code, produced by the ICC, would be broad enough to include geographical differences and construction types in these regions.

In 1997, CABO, the last of the "big four," joined the International Code Council. The intent is to have one model code nationwide that states can adopt or adopt with unique local need modifications.

WHAT IS A MODEL CODE? A model code is a carefully considered series of standards for building. By itself, a model code has no real power or value. The intent of a model code is to provide building code jurisdictions at the local, state or even international level that can be adopted as is, adopted with some changes or rejected and replaced by a state or local code. Most code officials prefer to adopt a model code as a starting point and may have some provisions in place to suit local needs.

The model code is extremely important because most jurisdictions adopt the model code as the force of law with little or no change. In addition, local officials may have latitude to accept or reject certain products or techniques outside of the realm of the code.

IMPLEMENTATION. Code officials are generally senior level administrators in local or state jurisdictions. They are generally very well educated, have professional designations administered by the International Code Council and have many years of experience in their field. They are much more than "building inspectors." These groups have finalized the International Building Code (IBC), which is an umbrella for all buildings. Beyond that, there are residential-specific provisions in the International Residential Code (IRC). Other codes include fire, electrical, plumbing, etc.

Existing construction codes are in the early phase. Each discipline also has a presence in the IRC. The pest management industry is most interested in the IRC, since the IRC addresses new construction and has provisions for pretreats as well as other pest management-related issues such as use of rigid foamboard below grade.

The objective of the International Residential Code is a code whose provisions "adequately protects public health, safety and welfare; provisions that do not unnecessarily increase construction costs; provisions that do not restrict the use of new materials, products or methods of construction; and provisions that do not give preferential treatment to particular types or classes of materials, products or methods of construction."

INDUSTRY AFFECTS CHANGE. The professional pest management industry is well aware of the importance of the codes. Several years ago, the industry, including regulators, manufacturers and researchers, led the charge to address the increasing problem of termites found in rigid foamboard.

That effort, led by Clemson University professionals, resulted in a code change prohibiting the use of foamboard in areas of very heavy termite infestation. After that experience, it was obvious that other provisions of the code needed to be modified. As currently written, the code addresses termite prevention and accepts such archaic technology as metal termite shields. This was the beginning of a joint industry effort to "work" the codes.

The code change process is complex at best. Lead time can be years for final changes to take effect. The lengthy process involves first understanding the code language and selecting provisions to change. A proposal must be submitted to make a change to the code. That change must have technical merit and must be supported with justification so it must be thoroughly researched prior to submission. The proposal is then presented before a committee at a large and formal public hearing.

In addition, it must be acceptable to the builders as they now control a minority stake on the committee. The proponent or group proposing the change testifies as to the merits of the proposal and opponents are also heard. At this point, proponents learn of their opposition, frequently groups with vested interest in the outcome.

For example, if a group proposes eliminating pressure-treated wood in sills, it is a sure bet that the pressure-treated wood representatives will be there in force to oppose the proposal. The vote is taken and any voting member in the hall may challenge the vote on the floor.

If there is a challenge, the entire hearing process starts again, with a final floor vote taken to determine the proposal’s fate. Therefore, the floor can reverse the decision of the committee. The proposal is then sent to the final floor vote, some eight months later, where the entire membership of ICC may vote. Commonly there can be 1,200 people voting. If the proposal passes, it becomes effective as part of the model International Residential Code more than six months later.

CURRENT PROPOSALS. As of press time, the ICC was considering a key provision. Methods of pretreats are spelled out in the code but are limited to methods that fall short of all Environmental Protection Agency products labeled for pretreats.

A current proposal on the agenda, proposed by Nisus Corporation and supported by the National Pest Management Association, the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials and manufacturers, is to allow all EPA-registered products to be allowed by code. The results of the hearing and final action will be published this summer.

Editor’s note: Stay tuned to PCT magazine and www.pctonline.com for further developments about code changes.

The author is technical director for the National Pest Management Association. He can be reached at gbaumann@pctonline.com.