First of all, there are an average of 1500 tornados reported each year, worldwide. But the Great Plains and Upper Midwest of the U.S. are considered the “Epicenter” of Tornados worldwide because the greatest concentration of tornadoes occur there.

The science of weather prediction has made significant advances in recent years. This includes the ability to spot a tornado, or potential weather patterns that could form a tornado, well before it hits. But the general public often does not respond to these warnings.

One reason, quite likely, is that when a tornado watch or warning is given, no indication is given of the potential magnitude of the event. Over the course of the past 5 years, 97% of the deaths due to tornados that occurred were the result of only 13% of the tornadoes.

In other words, for 87% of the tornados that occurred there were little or no fatalities. Only about 1 out of 10 tornadoes are deadly.

So the key would be to know when such a tornado is heading your way. That is what meteorologists are working on now. When they predict rain, or snow, they give an indication of the potential magnitude of the event. Our planned activity on any given day will be much different if 2 feet of snow is predicted instead of 2 inches.

Its not clear yet just what this new warning system will look like. In what way will the public be warned of the potential magnitude of a pending tornado? But hopefully it will be done in such a way that the public can have a greater indication of just when they need to take shelter. And hopefully they will.

But I want to talk about some people who have done much more than they could be expected to do, and who have done that not just for a few days or even weeks, but for decades.

I am talking about the code and fire officials of New Jersey who have dedicated their lives to preserving lives in that state.

And I am talking about three distinct individuals – John Terry, Stephen Jones and Bob Davidson, who doesn’t even live in New Jersey anymore, who were all in attendance at the International Code Council’s Annual Business Meeting and Final Action Hearings in Portland, OR a few days before the storm hit, but who changed their travel plans and scrambled to get home “while they still could”  so they could participate in what they knew would be an exceptionally demanding storm response effort. While others in attendance at the conference in Portland may have wondered “Why would they be in a hurry to get back home BEFORE the storm hits” these three were very adamant they needed to be there – for the sake of their families, and for the sake of other first and second responders that they refer to as “brothers”.

To me, that is the real story of this event – the efforts that they went through to be where they knew they would be needed, before they ever were.

By the way – John Terry received the ICC Code Official of the Year award while at the ICC conference. Stephen Jones is on the ICC Board of Directors. And Bob Davidson is a retired fire official who still teaches Continuing Education Classes to existing firemen for the state of New Jersey.

I find their story compelling. And I hope you do, too.

Most of you are probably aware of the Chick Fil A controversy. You may have heard it had something to do with the owner of Chick Fil A having made comments against same sex marriage. And Mike Huckabee declaring August 1 as “Chick Fil A Appreciation Day”. And people turning out in droves to show their support for Chick Fil A’s owner, Dan Chaney, and his right to say he does not support same sex marriage.

But what you may not realize is this all boils down to a code administration issue.

The reason is – what started the controversy in the first place, at least here in Chicago, and the reason I drove to my nearest Chick Fil A on August 1 to show support of the owners – was a decision made by Chicago alderman Joe Moreno to block the construction of a new Chick Fil A in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood due to Mr. Moreno’s concerns with Dan Chaney’s beliefs. Mr Moreno’s concerns are based upon his own speculation that Mr. Chaney’s belief may result in discriminatory practices at a Chicago based location.

Mr. Moreno’s efforts to block the construction of the new Chick Fil A was simply that he refused to allow them to be issued the zoning permit and traffic control permits they needed to construct their store in the Logan Square location.

Chicago Mayor Rahn Emmanuel has supported Alderman Moreno’s efforts. Mayor Emmanuel has stated “The beliefs of the owners of Chick Fil A are not consistent with the beliefs of Chicagoans.”

Now, construction codes establish specific criteria for construction. Zoning codes establish specific criteria for zoning. Those criteria are to be based upon concerns such as life safety, fire safety and what is good for the economic vitality of a community.

If any applicant for a permit meets the criteria of the code, officials representing that jurisdiction do not have the right to deny them their needed permits simply because they do not agree with their religious beliefs.

For the government officials to do that is a violation of freedom of speech.

This has been a very interesting issue because you have groups such as American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Times coming out on the same side as much more conservative groups who share the owner’s beliefs about same sex marriage.

I personally do not believe that a Chicago alderman and mayor have the right to deny zoning permits in the City of Chicago simply because the owner’s religious beliefs may not play out well with some of the people who put them in office.

And based upon the reaction I saw yesterday at the Orland Park, IL Chick Fil A, where I waited 2 hours and 15 minutes to get my sandwich, a fairly large number of Americans also agree with me, ACLU, the New York Times, and the religious right.

The reason for this difficulty was a very low height limit that was placed on the threhold of those doors as part of the “visitibility” requirements of HUD. 

A proposal from AAMA was approved during the ICC Group A Code Development Hearings that will permit the higher thresholds needed to resist water penetration under these doors. These higher thresholds can only be used when a permitted step down from the interior space to the exterior deck, balcony or patio is taken.

From what I have been able to determine, at least part of the reason was due to confusion on the part of at least one committee member with regards to what the requirements are for standards referenced in the International Codes.

A representative of the EIFS industry opposed one of the standards. She indicated that her industry had been unaware of the development of the standard, and that therefore its development was not consistent with ICC’s requirement that referenced standards be developed in an open and consensus manner.

In actuality, 5 members of the EIFS Manufacturers Association (EIMA) participated in the balloting of the standard in question (AAMA 714). So it would appear that her claim that the standard was not developed in an open manner was incorrect.

But the disapproval of AAMA 711 and AAMA 714 was only partly due to this partys claim that the standard was not developed in an open manner. The other factor was that at least one of the committee members thought the ICC required all standards referenced in its codes to either be developed through ASTM, or approved by ANSI.

In actuality, ICC Council Policy #28 requires standards to be developed through an open and consensus process SUCH AS ASTM or ANSI. It does not specifically require standards to either be ASTM or ANSI approved.

The more difficult question to answer is “Just what constitutes an ‘open and consensus’ process?”

The best answer is to look at the intent. The intent is to permit all interested parties the ability to participate in the development of the standard, and to have their opinions heard.

The process used by AAMA is an “open and consensus process”. We will need to revisit that with the ICC through Public Comment on AAMA 711 and AAMA 714.

There are a lot of questions about just how a remote voting process would work. This is amplified by the fact that it is anticipated it will include what is being referred to as “a flexible voting window” for those who are voting remotely.  Due to this, the results on any proposal or public comment will not be immediately known. We won’t know the final results of the voting until after the “flexible voting window” has closed and the total votes (from the voting members at the hearings plus those submitted remotely) have been tallied and presented to all those concerned.

The point was made during yesterday’s presentation that the ICC process has been an evolving process since its inception. 15 years ago each legacy code agency had their own independent process. Over those years the ICC process has come into being, as it is today. We can anticipate that in 15 years it will again look quite different than it does at this time.

Another topic that will be addressed in several proposals is the change of wind speed model in ASCE 7-10. There are several proposals to correlate the new provisions of ASCE 7-10 to existing referenced standards such as AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440.

I will be blogging the hearing results as the hearings proceed. A webcast of the hearings will also be available at www.iccsafe.org.

The prescriptive path will be limited to buildings less than 25,000 sq. ft. in area.

Since the outcome based compliance path was also deleted from the IgCC, buildings greater than 25,000 sq. ft. in area will need to be designed using the performance based path of the 2012 IECC.

There will not be a requirement for a 25 or 60 year BSLP for all buildings, as had been originally proposed for the International Green Construction Code. Also, the provisions for the BSLP will not specify minimum Component Design Lifes.

The originally proposed provisions for Minimum Component Design Life were vague. It was difficult to determine just what they would have required for fenestration products.

There was also a concern that the provisions might be interpreted as an implied warranty.

So it is fortunate that they will not be included in the 2012 IgCC.

According to the testifiers at the hearings scientists around the world agree on how to measure these characteristics. Unfortunately this information had not been shared in the form of proposed code text. Therefore requirements for their measurement were determined to be vague and unenforceable.