BOMA International Supports Adoption of the International Mechanical Code and the International Fuel Gas Code
BOMA Policy
The International Codes, which BOMA International has strongly supported since their inception, are facing significant challenges around the country. The adoption and use of the International Codes is essential in order to bring consistency to the nation’s building regulatory system. An important component of the International Code Council (ICC) family of codes is the International Mechanical Code (IMC), together with its companion document, the International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC).
Background
For decades, state and local governments have adopted one of three model mechanical codes developed by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). In 1994, these three organizations came together to form the International Code Council, with the express purpose of promulgating a single set of model codes that would be in the best interest of the building community and the public.
The first edition of the ICC International Mechanical Code was published in 1996. The IMC is designed to protect public health and safety through provisions that do not unnecessarily increase construction costs or restrict the use of new materials, products or methods of construction, and do without giving preferential treatment to particular types or classes of materials, products, or methods of construction.
The International Fuel Gas Code, a companion document, is developed in cooperation with the American Gas Association.
Opportunity for Improvement
In broad terms, the International Mechanical Code is superior to any other mechanical code, such as the Uniform Mechanical Code. Specifically, the IMC focuses on scientifically-based health and safety concerns, while the UMC mandates traditional, labor-intensive mechanical systems and methods that serve to promote the interests of the mechanical and plumbing unions. The International Mechanical Code, on the other hand, promotes advanced, cost-effective technology prohibited under the Uniform Mechanical Code.
Opposition
Opponents of the International Mechanical Code include the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, the Plumbing Heating and Cooling Contractors Association, the Mechanical Contractors Association and most importantly their silent partner, the United Association of Apprentices and Journeymen of the Plumbing and Piping Industry, more familiarly known as the UA or the Plumbers Union.
Much of the political clout behind the UMC, which is developed by IAPMO, comes from these sources. An extraordinary amount of money is being spent to promote the UMC with these organizations’ vested interest in mind, at the peril of public health, safety, and welfare.
Arguments Supporting the IMC and the IFGC
Following are three major points that can be used in favor of jurisdictions adopting the International Mechanical Code and the International Fuel Gas Code, as opposed to the Uniform Mechanical Code:
1) The process that develops and maintains the IMC is far superior to that underlying the UMC.
The IMC and the IFGC were developed through the International Code Council, an organization comprised of the three model code groups: Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA), International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). Input is received from a diverse, nationwide body of building, mechanical, and fire officials, as well as industry representatives such as BOMA and the GSA.
In contrast, the UMC is developed exclusively by the plumbing and mechanical industry and plumbers' union representatives, along with a few self-selected plumbing and mechanical officials from the western region.
2) The International Mechanical Code is designed to work harmoniously with the International Building Code and others within the family of International Codes.
Having codes that are incompatible and conflicting is the most frequent complaint voiced by those responsible for interpreting, applying, and enforcing the codes. Entities that are subject to the codes deserve a fair opportunity to understand those requirements without protracted appeals, hearings and multiple interpretations from different agencies in the same jurisdiction.
The provisions in the IMC are coordinated with other International Codes in order to eliminate conflicts. Jurisdictions that adopt conflicting codes will not only have to deal with internal conflicts within their code structure, but also ‘turf’ battles arising within the code enforcement agencies. Such unnecessary, counterproductive, and costly battles must be avoided.
3) The UMC contains provisions that are unnecessary and unworkable.
The UMC contains provisions that, if adopted, would require mechanical materials and methods that are unnecessary from a safety and sanitation standpoint and add unnecessary costs to construction. As its content is exclusively controlled by the plumbing and mechanical unions and related interests, the UMC places the interest of union members above that of public health, safety, and welfare.
Action Requested
Adoption of the International Mechanical Code and the International Fuel Gas Code, in conjunction with the International Building Code, will go a long way to simplify the current building regulatory system in the United States. Governments adopting the IMC and the IFGC will be setting a precedent for other jurisdictions that will be considering the International Codes.
Given the resulting benefits, it is strongly recommended that BOMA members undertake an intensive effort to influence your state legislature to adopt the International Mechanical Code and International Fuel Gas Code rather than the Uniform Mechanical Code.