SBTC Philadelphia Meeting Report

The SBTC, work group volunteers and staff gathered in Philadelphia on October 8-10, 2009 for its third meeting, marking the half-way point in development of the IGCC draft document. There was a very distinguishable difference in the air as Chairman Ravi Shah called the meeting to order: clear progress has been achieved in the evolution from a large and very diverse collection of individuals into an integrated team of dedicated professionals, with both commonly shared mission-specific goals and heightened clarity in terms of individual and group roles to achieve the targeted outcomes. In Philadelphia, most if not all individuals involved in this effort reported having spent 10 to 20 hours per week or more between the Denver and Philadelphia meetings addressing the tasks assigned to their work groups, juggling their work schedules and sacrificing much personal time in the process.

The Philadelphia meeting results were evident in terms of refined process, efficiency and the impressive new amounts of code language provisions presented by all work groups. The draft remains a work in progress at the midpoint in the development process, but both the Committee and the document are considered to be at the right stage at this point. Progress is readily apparent on all fronts, especially in the ability of the SBTC to tackle problem-solving. Big issues or problems, when they arise, are no longer permitted to remain big; by breaking each of them down to their smaller components, step-by-step answers are found that lead to ultimate resolution. When there are choices to be made between alternative approaches, the measuring stick consistently employed is the unofficial “mantra” of the SBTC: which alternative will best result in a code that is widely adoptable, enforceable, useable and ultimately effective.

Participants indicated the development of a green code represents a new day in the I-Code family of codes, or, as expressed by one, “This is not your father’s building code.” An overview of some of topics at the forefront of the Philadelphia discussions where effective versus adoptable and enforceable requires a fine balance includes:

Heat Island Mitigation – Decisions regarding to what extent solutions such as trees and landscaping should be captured as either regulatory mandates or elective alternatives. Looking beyond the building itself to site requirements is common in green programs, but largely outside the scope of traditional building codes.

Water and Natural Resource Preservation – One issue here is regional and the ongoing quest for code language that works for both conservation needs in drought-prone areas, and excess onsite water accumulation and management in regions where this represents the most pressing need. Other issues again deal largely with the site rather than the “box.”

Materials Conservation – With 60% or more of landfill waste attributable to construction, the need for post-construction waste management was a key discussion point. Discussions focused on the issue of how to regulate effective solutions including: measuring the recyclability/sustainability of materials (steel, concrete, wood, glass, etc.) at the end of a building’s life cycle; and, deconstruction/reusability as a separate measurement from demolition/recyclability.

Commissioning – This continues to be a work in progress within the four principles noted above, with tremendous effort going into finding a workable I-Code approach. As an overlay code, it was generally agreed that the IGCC provisions on commissioning should be formatted in much the same way as the Special Inspection provisions of Chapter 17 of the IBC. The IGCC provisions will require measures consistent with the need to drive effective outcomes in green and sustainable construction for the future.

For those interested in tracking the progress from one version of the draft to the next, understanding the color coding of text is key. The latest version is Version 3, which is based on the results from the Philadelphia meeting and has been posted. Black text represents language reviewed and accepted by the SBTC based on Meetings # 1 (Chicago) and #2 (Denver). Revisions approved in Philadelphia are noted in red. A cross comparison of black versus red text might lead to a mistaken impression that little progress was made in Philadelphia. The biggest challenge up to and including Philadelphia has been for the work groups to get language to the full SBTC; post Philly, this will begin to shift dramatically as the pressure will increase on the SBTC to make final decisions on submitted work group reports that will be considered at the December meeting in Ft. Meyers, Florida. This is very important because there is only one more drafting meeting after the December meeting – it will be at the end of January tentatively scheduled for Austin, Texas.

Additional information and updates on SBTC progress, is available here.