Subscribe to USGNN!

USGNN Original StoryEC18 Approved as Modified by Public Comment One

Code change proposal EC18 parts one and two were approved as modified by public comments one, respectively, at the recent International Code Council hearings. Proposed by Craig Conner, Building Quality, representing himself, as submitted EC18 part one would have lowered fenestration U-factor ratings, as found in table 402.1.1 insulation and fenestration requirements by component, from 0.75 in climate zone two and 0.65 in zone three, both to 0.55. The same changes were proposed for table 402.1.3 equivalent U-factors. EC18 originally was disapproved by committee action. Part two originally proposed changing table N1102.1 insulation and fenestration requirements by component, fenestration U-factor ratings to 0.55 in both zones two and three. Part two applied the same changes to table N1102.1.2 and was previously approved as modified adjusting only zone two to 0.65 in tables N1102.1 and N1102.1.2.

Arguments for and against EC18 parts one and two centered around product material usage and aligning hurricane protection and energy conservation needs.

"EC18 is a much better option for addressing energy efficiency along with hurricane safety issues," said Tom Culp, representing the Aluminum Extruders Council in a previous session.

One attendee suggested that EC18 would allow for adjustments to zones two and three without what he viewed as a possible negative impact on zone one, as suggested by other proposed changes.

Public comment number one as pertaining to EC18 part one, also submitted by Conner, changed fenestration U-factor ratings for zone one to 0.65, to 0.50 for zone two, and from 0.40 in zone four to 0.35 for insulation and fenestration requirements by component. The same ratings were applied to equivalent U-factors. Public comment one for EC18 part two adjusted only zones three and four to 0.50 and 0.35, respectively, in table N1102.1 and to the same ratings in table 1102.1.3.

"I believe almost everybody will coalesce around this public comment," Conner stated. "It is the most efficient left. We can align both the ICC and IRC. This considers hurricane needs and I believe it has the best of what's left for almost everyone who has spoken."

Many who came in support of other public comments, eventually agreed with Conner's statement.

"This is how the process is supposed to work," said Bill Koffel representing GICC and one of the submitters of public comment number two. "Yes, my membership would like something different, but we got together with interested parties here and worked out a resolution. We're behind public comment number one."

Need more info and analysis about the issues?
CLICK HERE to subscribe to USGlass magazine.