I am not a disinterested party in this debate but I would like to add my two
There will be a national building code. If it isn't done by the three model code
groups it will be done by some other consortium. I believe that in terms of
partnership the structural engineers have always been respected as experts
during the code development process at ICBO.
SEAOC's Blue Book is widely respected as technical document even though it
represents only a small portion of the expertise and knowledge of that group.
I appreciate Roger Turk's comments. I know that his interest is in doing quality
work so I have a great deal of respect for his concerns. But I have to go back
to my prior comment.
California does need to be the leader in getting the nation to a single national
set of model codes. It will be a struggle. We will need technical experts to
tell us when things need improving. There will be times when in retrospect
changes were needed and we failed to notice.
The alternative to a model code process may be state agencies amending codes
through a regulatory process we may not like.
We do need qualified individuals bringing their concerns to the meetings of the
Codes 2000 Partnership in California and to FEMA's Interagency Seismic Safety
Council (which will probably make recommendations to FEMA, which will have the
net effect of heavily penalizing states which do not adopt codes compatible with
the 1997 NEHRP Standard). It seems highly likely that the 1997 NEHRP Standard
will be adopted in the 2000 IBC.
I would like to encourage everyone to get involved to improve the process