ICC Staff response to IAMPO evalaution services | Ask Mason Knowles - SPF Consultant | Spray Foam Technical Questions and Answers | SprayFoam Magazine Q&A Forums

Q&A Forums

ICC Staff response to IAMPO evalaution services Post New Topic | Post Reply

Author	Comments
mason Posted: Apr 21, 2009 08:58 PM	ICC Staff response to IAMPO evalaution services As promised, I wrote to ICC staff asking their opinion on the value of IAMPO evaluation service reports and how they would relate to ICC code compliance. The following is the response I received, "Dear Mr. Knowles: I am responding to your April 5, 2009 inquiry regarding ICC-ES and IAPMO ES evaluation reports. IAPMO ES is a competing organization that has historically been involved with plumbing and mechanical codes and listing of products under those codes. It has recently initiated a process of issuing evaluation reports on building products. When you compare the IAPMO ES program to the ICC-ES program please consider the following: • ICC-ES is a subsidiary of the International Code Council, the promulgator of the International Codes. ICC and ICC-ES have been involved with building codes and have evaluated alternative products since the 1930s. IAPMO and IAPMO ES have no connections to the building codes and no history of participation in development of building codes. IAPMO ES has been issuing reports on building products only since 2008 and its history as an organization has been exclusively with plumbing and mechanical codes. • ICC-ES is the only product evaluation organization created exclusively by building officials to help them evaluate new products, materials and designs for code compliance. • ICC-ES performs all of its review work with an in-house staff of licensed engineers, many of whom have more than 25 years of ES experience and are active in ASTM committee work and other standards organizations that create and revise product standards. IAPMO ES uses third-party consultants to do its technical reviews. • When an agency, such as IAPMO ES, relies on outside consultants to conduct technical reviews, how does it ensure consistency between reports? What is the potential to create an uneven playing field when the consultants may take a different approach than that used by ICC-ES in applying its own criteria? Is the code official left to evaluate the differences? • ICC-ES has a proven process for developing acceptance criteria for alternative materials that draws on the expertise of code officials, industry practicing engineers and academia to ensure a reasonable and technically sound approach to code compliance. IAPMO ES openly relies on acceptance criteria developed by ICC-ES. • When IAPMO ES relies on ICC-ES acceptance criteria, does it have the background to correctly interpret the requirements? Did IAPMO ES participate in development of the acceptance criteria and its continual updates to meet changing codes? There are already cases where other agencies have misinterpreted and misapplied ICC-ES criteria. • The IAPMO ES program has only a handful of evaluations; ICC-ES has more than 1500. Can IAPMO ES reports on alternative materials be considered credible with so little experience since 2008? • ICC-ES reports are structured for use by its members who are building officials with a long history of input from those building officials. While you may be hearing that an IAPMO ES report is equivalent to an ICC-ES report, the statements above reflect why ICC and ICC-ES considers its reports having far more credence. Who better to interpret the International codes and to properly use an acceptance criteria than the organization that created them? Yours very truly, Bohdan N. Horeczko, P.E. Director of Professional Services
Michael Fusco Posted: Apr 22, 2009 02:40 PM	Did you expect them to say yes? Their arguements are not specific. Especially the part about "a group of code officials". I would hope engineers would be a better source of interpretation. P.E.'s routinely sign off on, and virtually overrule local code officials. (better said, I've never seen a code official not approve plans signed by a P.E.) Even the ICC started on a given date.....lots pof legacy reports are covered in their statements. At best a thinly veiled sales letter. I'm done on this.....the arguement is moot. The IAPMO reports are being widely accepted. Yet to see one rejected.
travis fails Posted: Apr 23, 2009 11:38 PM	just wondering why we did not give IAMPO a chance to respond also?
mason Posted: Apr 24, 2009 07:12 AM	The question was would the ICC accept IAMPO evaluation services reports for compliance with the ICC building codes. As a member of ICC, I wrote to ICC staff for their opinion and printed the response. It is up to the individual code official to interpret the evaluation reports as they see fit. However, if they are working under the ICC building codes and ask ICC staff for their opinion, this is the response they would receive. So what would be the question to IAMPO? Would they accept an ICC evaluation report to be in compliance with the NFPA building code?
travis fails Posted: Apr 24, 2009 01:11 PM	I would like to hear what they have to say about the subject.So we can hear both sides not just yours and the people you work with. Atleast you could try to get both sides to help the contractors learn more about both. If we do not know all the facts from both sides then we have not learned anything but yours and ICC's opinon. Just because they are new does not mean they have no clue or creditablity. If that were the case no one could start up a new business of anykind.
mason Posted: Apr 24, 2009 01:37 PM	Again I am confused to the request. What question do you wish to address to IAMPO? I have previously stated that in order to obtain ICC approvals, ICC staff states that you would need an ICC ES report. However, if you are complying with NFPA building codes, then the IAMPO ES reports would be the appropriate ones. The queston to ICC was prompted by a post that said ICC would accept IAMPO evaluation reports. I deferred the answer and reported that I would ask ICC staff their opinion. The comments I received from them were given with the provision that the whole answer would be provided and not just sections of it. The authorization body determines which reports they recommend. As stated earlier, it is up to the code official to accept the information, reports, data sheets etc. that they feel comfortable with. So I am sure there are code officials in ICC areas that would accept IAMPO reports just as there are probably code officials in NFPA areas that would accept ICC reports. I have no bias on this subject. I am not paid by ICC or other code organizations. My clients include chemical producers, contractors, systems houses, insurance companies, building owners, othe consultants. I try very hard to be objective in my opinions and try to present just the facts. The views and facts presented here are based on my research, experience and discussions with folks who have more knowledge than I do on various subjects.

Author

Comments

mason

Posted: Apr 21, 2009 08:58 PM

ICC Staff response to IAMPO evalaution services

As promised, I wrote to ICC staff asking their opinion on the value of IAMPO evaluation service reports and how they would relate to ICC code compliance. The following is the response I received,

"Dear Mr. Knowles:

I am responding to your April 5, 2009 inquiry regarding ICC-ES and IAPMO ES evaluation reports.

IAPMO ES is a competing organization that has historically been involved with plumbing and mechanical codes and listing of products under those codes. It has recently initiated a process of issuing evaluation reports on building products.

When you compare the IAPMO ES program to the ICC-ES program please consider the following:

• ICC-ES is a subsidiary of the International Code Council, the promulgator of the International Codes. ICC and ICC-ES have been involved with building codes and have evaluated alternative products since the 1930s. IAPMO and IAPMO ES have no connections to the building codes and no history of participation in development of building codes. IAPMO ES has been issuing reports on building products only since 2008 and its history as an organization has been exclusively with plumbing and mechanical codes.

• ICC-ES is the only product evaluation organization created exclusively by building officials to help them evaluate new products, materials and designs for code compliance.

• ICC-ES performs all of its review work with an in-house staff of licensed engineers, many of whom have more than 25 years of ES experience and are active in ASTM committee work and other standards organizations that create and revise product standards. IAPMO ES uses third-party consultants to do its technical reviews.

• When an agency, such as IAPMO ES, relies on outside consultants to conduct technical reviews, how does it ensure consistency between reports? What is the potential to create an uneven playing field when the consultants may take a different approach than that used by ICC-ES in applying its own criteria? Is the code official left to evaluate the differences?

• ICC-ES has a proven process for developing acceptance criteria for alternative materials that draws on the expertise of code officials, industry practicing engineers and academia to ensure a reasonable and technically sound approach to code compliance. IAPMO ES openly relies on acceptance criteria developed by ICC-ES.

• When IAPMO ES relies on ICC-ES acceptance criteria, does it have the background to correctly interpret the requirements? Did IAPMO ES participate in development of the acceptance criteria and its continual updates to meet changing codes? There are already cases where other agencies have misinterpreted and misapplied ICC-ES criteria.

• The IAPMO ES program has only a handful of evaluations; ICC-ES has more than 1500. Can IAPMO ES reports on alternative materials be considered credible with so little experience since 2008?

• ICC-ES reports are structured for use by its members who are building officials with a long history of input from those building officials.

While you may be hearing that an IAPMO ES report is equivalent to an ICC-ES report, the statements above reflect why ICC and ICC-ES considers its reports having far more credence. Who better to interpret the International codes and to properly use an acceptance criteria than the organization that created them?
Yours very truly,

Bohdan N. Horeczko, P.E.
Director of Professional Services

Michael Fusco

Posted: Apr 22, 2009 02:40 PM

Did you expect them to say yes?

Their arguements are not specific. Especially the part about "a group of code officials". I would hope engineers would be a better source of interpretation. P.E.'s routinely sign off on, and virtually overrule local code officials. (better said, I've never seen a code official not approve plans signed by a P.E.)

Even the ICC started on a given date.....lots pof legacy reports are covered in their statements.

At best a thinly veiled sales letter.

I'm done on this.....the arguement is moot. The IAPMO reports are being widely accepted. Yet to see one rejected.

travis fails

Posted: Apr 23, 2009 11:38 PM

just wondering why we did not give IAMPO a chance to respond also?

mason

Posted: Apr 24, 2009 07:12 AM

The question was would the ICC accept IAMPO evaluation services reports for compliance with the ICC building codes.

As a member of ICC, I wrote to ICC staff for their opinion and printed the response.

It is up to the individual code official to interpret the evaluation reports as they see fit. However, if they are working under the ICC building codes and ask ICC staff for their opinion, this is the response they would receive.

So what would be the question to IAMPO? Would they accept an ICC evaluation report to be in compliance with the NFPA building code?

travis fails

Posted: Apr 24, 2009 01:11 PM

I would like to hear what they have to say about the subject.So we can hear both sides not just yours and the people you work with. Atleast you could try to get both sides to help the contractors learn more about both. If we do not know all the facts from both sides then we have not learned anything but yours and ICC's opinon. Just because they are new does not mean they have no clue or creditablity. If that were the case no one could start up a new business of anykind.

mason

Posted: Apr 24, 2009 01:37 PM

Again I am confused to the request. What question do you wish to address to IAMPO?

I have previously stated that in order to obtain ICC approvals, ICC staff states that you would need an ICC ES report. However, if you are complying with NFPA building codes, then the IAMPO ES reports would be the appropriate ones.

The queston to ICC was prompted by a post that said ICC would accept IAMPO evaluation reports. I deferred the answer and reported that I would ask ICC staff their opinion. The comments I received from them were given with the provision that the whole answer would be provided and not just sections of it.

The authorization body determines which reports they recommend.

As stated earlier, it is up to the code official to accept the information, reports, data sheets etc. that they feel comfortable with. So I am sure there are code officials in ICC areas that would accept IAMPO reports just as there are probably code officials in NFPA areas that would accept ICC reports.

I have no bias on this subject. I am not paid by ICC or other code organizations. My clients include chemical producers, contractors, systems houses, insurance companies, building owners, othe consultants. I try very hard to be objective in my opinions and try to present just the facts.

The views and facts presented here are based on my research, experience and discussions with folks who have more knowledge than I do on various subjects.

You need to login to reply to this topic. Please click here to login.