COLLISION IN CODE TOWN, PART 1
BY BILL MANNING
A brilliant propaganda piece issued by the National Fire Protection Association claims, “By now, almost everyone in the fire protection community agrees that one set of national model building codes seems to make sense,” offering this to legitimize the association`s similar position on a single national fire code, which it believes it should publish, either exclusively or jointly.
We must ask, To whom does a single national fire code make sense? Is a single national fire code feasible, is it right? Are we capable of publishing a single national fire code that can solve fire protection needs in Mobile and Des Moines, Tacoma and Tonapah, Bangor and Bloomington? What is the basis for our continued insistence that we need and are capable of producing a global master plan for fire prevention? Will it have a positive effect on life safety in America? What would be its effect on the firefighter, the fire inspector, the property owner, the building occcupants? What are the ramifications for code enforcement?
It`s almost amusing that now there should be such a hot contest over ownership of a mythical, be-all-and-end-all national fire code, since for many years key elements of the fire service and fire protection communities treated the fire prevention codes as an ugly duckling.
The National Association of Fire Engineers, later known as the International Association of Fire Chiefs, began creating the first semblance of a building/fire prevention code in 1873 but let it slip into code coma, paving the way for the insurance industry to pick up the code torch after the Great Baltimore Conflagration in 1904. Even as late as May 1994, the IAFC maintained a hands-off policy with respect to the codes.
The NFPA`s NFPA 1L, Fire Prevention Suggested Ordinance, published in 1925, was not an impact document, and its 1971 edition of NFPA 1, Fire Prevention Code, sat for years as a mundane document of exit signs and fire extinguishers.
By the mid-1980s, the insurance industry was tiring of its involvement in codes publishing for lack of financial gain and sought an interested buyer of the National Building Code. The NFPA passed on it, missing its chance, as it were, for the whole enchilada. The Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) seized the opportunity instead. As the insurance industry faded from the fire codes publishing picture, the model building codes picked up the slack.
The first fire service organization to get involved aggressively in the fire prevention code mix was the Western Fire Chiefs Association, about 30 years ago. The Western Chiefs signed on with the International Conference of Building Code Officials (ICBO), publishers of the Uniform Building Code, to develop and support the Uniform Fire Code.
Following this lead, organizations and individuals within the fire service began to wake up to the fact that enforcers and end users of the fire codes should play an integral role in developing them. In 1988, the Southeastern Association of Fire Chiefs, and later the Southwestern Association of Fire Chiefs, entered into their own agreements with the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) to assist in development of the Standard Fire Prevention Code. Also that year, the Fire Marshals Association of North America (FMANA), an NFPA membership section, began revising NFPA 1, Fire Prevention Code.
The result of four distinct fire codes–three “regional” model fire codes and one “national” code–was an intensifying competition among them. Turf battles and threats of copyright lawsuits were rife.
NFPA 1 was published in 1992 amid controversy. NFPA 1 gave fire officials ultimate authority over occupancy approval, and the model code groups felt that these administrative provisions were an intrusion into local matters and heightened friction between building and fire officials. More important, certain elements in NFPA 1 were in direct conflict with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, a universally accepted document. (In 1994, the NFPA Standards Council directed that NFPA 1 be revised such that it be compatible with Life Safety Code and the model building codes.)
Meanwhile, the three model code groups began to move toward a partnership: They developed a common code format for the building, mechanical, and plumbing codes; BOCA and ICBO developed a joint model plumbing code; and they proposed a common format for the three model fire prevention codes. In December 1994, ICBO, BOCA, and SBCCI created the International Code Congress (ICC) to handle joint code efforts. In terms of the fire prevention code, the three groups were positioned, at least in a financial/managerial way, to move as one.
This was taken as a threat by the NFPA and some fire service groups–the IAFC in particular–anticipating that the model code groups would move ahead with a single national fire code without the fire service, even though significant blocks of the IAFC membership and individual fire service code officials already were involved in the model code process. The IAFC, in a 180-degree turn from its 1994 position, jumped onto the NFPA train in a hurry, along with the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) and FMANA.
In September 1995, the IAFC adopted a resolution on a single national fire code, which it would facilitate. Shortly thereafter, the IAFC and its regional divisions, NFPA, FMANA, and NASFM formed the Fire Code Council to develop and publish a single national fire code. The IAFC essentially would be in charge of this council and the NFPA would provide the “secretariat.”
Thus the sides were drawn, the hands forced in Code Town. Each side launched creative political power plays. Each side argued adamantly on the weight of its greatest strengths: the ICC on compatibility with the model building codes, the NFPA on its history as a consensus fire safety standards-making body.
In April 1996, in a surprise move, the NFPA and ICC agreed to joint ownership of a national fire prevention code copyright. Even so, the track ahead is fraught with as many problems and question marks as before.
So the code trains are rolling full-throttle on a collision course into Code Town, where all tracks end. Unless the brakes are applied, it appears certain that the fire service rank and file will once again be called on to pick up the pieces strewn in the wake of this impending disaster.
To be continued.
