Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Alaskan Engineers read ->RE: IBC vs NFPA5000 (Was IBC 1617.6.2...)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I was under the impression that Alaska had already adopted the 2000 IBC.


What is the "uniform codes" issue about. I am under the impression that
ICC has developed a uniform code with the IBC etc.

Barry H. Welliver

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M. [mailto:HaanSM(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:46 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: Alaskan Engineers read ->RE: IBC vs NFPA5000 (Was IBC
1617.6.2...)


Alaskan Engineers:

IAPMO is in the process of derailing the state IBC adoption process by
lobbying the Alaska state legislature. I can't remember the Rep that is
spearheading it but she is framing the IBC adoption as being pushed down
the
throats of Alaskans by big government leftist bureaucrats.  Any Alaskan
engineer that thinks IAPMO is in left-field and thinks the IBC needs to
be
adopted should e-mail their state senators and representatives now.

IAPMO is trying to get a bill rewritten, I think it is HR399, so that it
reads the state can only use "uniform codes".  It is a delaying tactic
until
the NFPA5000 comes out in 2003. IAPMO and NFPA just want to make money
selling books.  What is the difference going to be for structural
engineering anyway? -- buy more adopted standards with the NFPA5000?  I
feel
no loyalty to ICC but come on IAPMO and NFPA - write your own sewer pipe
code and fire code and leave the structural code alone.  Avarice.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yousefi, Ben [mailto:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:51 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: RE: IBC vs NFPA5000 (Was IBC 1617.6.2...)


Very good explanation of the process. My biggest beef with the so called
"consensus" process is that this is actually a selected group of private
sector or higher education professionals that pretty much decide on
everything. For example, public officials, who are the ones actually
enforcing these provisions, are virtually shut out of these processes.
Until
we make a change and include equal representation from all sectors on
these
consensus process groups, and ensure that everyone's voice is heard, the
current democratic process of code hearings is a much preferred medium
in my
opinion.

Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Scott Maxwell [SMTP:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
	Sent:	Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:34 PM
	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
	Subject:	RE: IBC vs NFPA5000   (Was IBC 1617.6.2...)

	The intent for both codes (IBC and NFPA 5000) is to adopt by
reference
	various material/load codes.  That is, both codes intent to
adopt by
	reference ASCE 7, ACI 318, ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402 (the MSJC),
AISC
specs,
	NDS, and others with little or no modifications.

	The primary difference is how the two codes go about adopting
the
	referenced codes.  NFPA's plan is to basically adopt the
reference
codes
	with no modifications, except some very minor things to get the
whole
	thing speaking the same language.  As I understand it, they will
NOT
have
	public hearings were any single person/entity can propose a
change
to one
	of the referenced codes.  The NFPA relies heavily on the
consensus
process
	that are built into the various material/load codes.

	The IBC, on the other hand, does hold public hearing where an
	individual/entity can propose and get accepted a suggested
change
that may
	not have a consensus view.  The IBC, like the NFPA 5000, will
basically
	adopt the consensus based material/load codes, but there is more
	opportunity for significant modifications that result from the
hearings.
	The potential downside is that someone with an agenda can get a
code
	modifcation through that may not be something that the industry
considers
	to be a good consensus solution.  In theory, however, the fact
that
the
	hearings are public should be a good thing.

	BTW, the hearings for the 2003 IBC will occuring shortly.  It
appears that
	the heering will be in mid April in Pittsburgh, PA according to
the
ICBO
	website.

	HTH,

	Scott
	Ypsilanti, MI


	

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********