Allen Inlow
IAPMO Senior Director
The Plumbing and Mechanical Code Wars – Part 5:
Maps, Math and Myths – Part 2
After an extended period of relative quiet, during which a Joint Venture for IAPMO and ICC to co-produce plumbing and mechanical codes was discussed, approved and then killed by the ICC, it appears to me that the Plumbing and Mechanical Code Wars are back on in full force. It was not unexpected and in many ways it was apparent that both IAPMO and ICC had been preparing new initiatives. I think everyone really knew the adoption wars were coming but there were no overt signs.
The sign for me came in the form of an article written by my friend Jay Peters, and published in the ICC Building Safety Journal, December 2007. In his article, Jay did his best to put IAPMO and the Uniform Codes in a bad light and make the multitude of ICC codes look as good as possible. I don’t begrudge him for doing that; it is his job to put IAPMO out of business and win all the adoptions for the ICC. However, in my opinion his article contained a lot of that “fuzzy math” of which politicians speak and some adoption maps of questionable virtue. As I looked at them, memories of the adoption wars of the early parts of this decade came flooding back into my mind. I recalled an article I had written for OFFICIAL magazine for the March/April 2002 issue, titled Maps, Math and Myths. It appears we are about to relive that history and portions of it remain pertinent today. In the following paragraphs I will share some of it with you.
Maps, Math and Myths
A long time ago (although it really doesn’t seem that long ago) I had a math teacher who was fond of saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars will figure!” That thought came to my mind recently when I was at the Iowa State Department of Health at a hearing of the State Board of Health. The Department staff and the Board were charged with conducting an analysis of the plumbing codes, Uniform Plumbing Code versus International Plumbing Code. The staff did an analysis and presented it to the Board. A public hearing was held. Lobbying was intense by all sides, with everyone supplying all of the information they could muster. The process went on for almost two years and it was thorough and complete.
Now, it has all come down to this day, for this was the day of the final public hearing by the Board, concluding with their vote on the plumbing code that will serve the State for the next three years, perhaps longer. It was then, as I sat there listening to the testimony of both sides, that the statement of my math teacher came back into my mind. It seemed very appropriate at that moment. Everyone who presented testimony was throwing out figures on the number of states that use their codes. None of the figures matched! Not even from people who were on the same side! Up to that point, as nearly as I could figure (there’s that math teacher again), there were 66 states that had adopted one or the other code, all of which were extremely happy with it, and 5 additional states that had their own state written codes. That did not take into account the other 3 or 5 states that have home-rule and no state code at all.
How can this be? Well, I don’t think that anyone was deliberately telling falsehoods, but the bounds of providing misleading figures were stretched to their limits. What happens is when a state or even part of a state adopts one of the codes; the publisher of that code counts the whole state as “their territory.” It does happen, obviously with some frequency, that codes from both groups are adopted in a state or jurisdiction. Both count it and publish the figures. In some cases, the code counted doesn’t even have to be part of the one under consideration.
It gets even better! Now, the code publishers are including beautiful graphic maps of the adoptions throughout the United States, all color-coded to reflect geographic adoptions. Naturally, most suffer from the same flaws.
The Plumbing and Mechanical Code Wars – Part 5
In my mind the plumbing and mechanical code wars go back about 20 years now, and can be broken down into five distinct parts:
Part 1 began when ICBO and IAPMO dissolved their joint marketing agreement, IAPMO continued the Uniform Plumbing Code, ICBO published a code based upon the National Standard Plumbing Code (NSPC), and both organizations began marketing differing versions of the Uniform Mechanical Code (as was allowed by the provisions of a contract). It was a bitter, ugly period and some of the bruised and battered feelings live on today. It is time both sides work to heal those wounds.
The plumbing and mechanical code wars – Part 2 began with the formation of the ICC and its immediate creation of the IPC out of the provisions of the SBCCI and BOCA Plumbing Codes. Part of the impetus for this was the ICBO need for a plumbing code, as its effort with the NSPC was not successful. The code adoption wars were renewed, largely throughout the western United States.
IAPMO and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) entered into a joint marketing effort and soon thereafter meetings were held with the new ICC about all working together. After a promising beginning, the meetings failed and Part 3 of the plumbing and mechanical code wars kicked off in full force. Now, the adoption wars were expanding to be nationwide in scope and often involved all construction and fire codes in a jurisdiction. The ICC actively promoted the International Mechanical Code during this period, stating that these documents were the direct replacements for the Uniform Mechanical Code, BOCA Mechanical Code and SBCCI Mechanical Code. It was a strategy that largely worked, especially in the old ICBO area where they exchanged their version of the UMC for the IMC, resulting in major market losses for IAPMO with the Uniform Mechanical Code.
Part 4 of the code adoption wars was a relatively quiet period, largely due to the fact that IAPMO and the ICC were meeting to discuss a joint venture on the plumbing and mechanical codes, and both sides had agreed to continue “without rancor” as the talks progressed. Both sides complied with the “without rancor” agreement with only a few rare exceptions. Due to the fact, at least in my opinion, that the participants all thought the effort was going to end in success, few plans were made for continuation of the adoption wars. The ICC death notice of the joint venture resulted in both sides beginning preparations and budgets to resume the code wars, and that leads us directly to the beginning of Part 5 – plumbing and mechanical code adoption wars.
Jay’s article was setting the stage, preparing ICC for the plumbing and mechanical code adoption war that will surely transpire in the future. IAPMO is ready to respond with what we believe is a winning nationwide strategy and we will respond vigorously, diligently and without rancor. We believe the ANSI-accredited Uniform Codes to be the best choice and we believe that given the choice, the industry and jurisdictional decision makers will agree. IAPMO will be working to give everyone that choice.