ICC-ES: The Alternate Path for Building Code Recognition - ACS

Chapter 19

Downloaded by VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on June 19, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): June 10, 2014 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2014-1158.ch019

ICC-ES: The Alternate Path for Building Code Recognition Craig R. McIntyre* McIntyre Associates LLC, P.O. Box 220, Dayton, Montana 59914-0220, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Building codes require that either specified products or their equivalents be used in a number of applications. Recognizing that not all products can be prescribed, the building codes allow for alternate materials. These alternates must be shown to be the equivalent to the prescribed material in a number of properties such as quality, strength, effectiveness and durability. This procedure allows for new products to enter the market and be used in building code applications. For preservative formulations, defined procedures discussed herein can be followed to obtain the designation of equivalency from the International Code Council-Evaluation Service.

Executive Summary U.S. building codes require that either prescribed products or their equivalents be used in a number of applications. There are a number of products that are considered to be “alternates” to the prescribed material and these alternates must be shown to be the equivalent in a number of properties including among others quality, strength, effectiveness and durability. For preservative formulations with promising efficacy, the first step is to propose a new Acceptance Criteria (AC) or amend an existing one that covers a similar product. Acceptance Criteria are developed for new and innovative products that are not recognized by the code thereby allowing for entrance of products into the marketplace. The AC is accepted at an open meeting of the International Code Council-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) committee. This meeting is the only public opportunity that opponents or competitors have to © 2014 American Chemical Society In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.


comment on a preservative system. The AC specifies certain testing regimes which are common to preservative development to demonstrate efficacy and usefulness. The testing must be done by an accredited institution or be accredited by an agency and once done, the test results are reviewed by independent experts and engineers hired by the proponent for completeness and correctness and that they comply with the relevant ACs. Then the reports are filed with the ICC-ES staff. The staff then reviews the data to ensure that it is satisfactory and that all issues are addressed. Upon approval, the staff issues an Evaluation Service Report (ESR) which indicates that the ICC-ES staff deems the material to be the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. Figure 1 summarizes the procedure.

Introduction Once a new preservative system is under development, consideration must be given to evaluations with appropriate bodies to allow building code uses. Both the International Code Council-Evaluation Service (ICC- ES) and the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) provide avenues to allow new preservative systems to be added to their respective domains. Both organizations require generally similar testing regimes but there are significant differences in the scope of and the time frames needed for such testing to be accomplished. Typically, the ICC-ES will accept accelerated tests or shorter time spans for the prescribed tests and the evaluation procedures are discussed fully in this paper. One question that should be addressed though is “Why is product recognition by the codes important?” In today’s open market, there are many treaters who sell wood treated with a non-evaluated preservative system. Yet almost all organizations pursuing new wood preservative systems choose to obtain evaluations from first the ICC-ES and then the AWPA. One must consider why the proponents of new systems pursue such evaluations if it is not absolutely necessary. Accessing larger markets is the first reason. Historically, non-evaluated preservatives have had very limited distribution in the marketplace. The systems may have a small, regional market or perhaps a small niche market but the major retailers (such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, etc.) typically consider non-evaluated systems as too “risky” and unvetted. The large retailers also prefer to have systems that have building code recognition which in turn requires evaluation. Avoiding some risk is a second reason. The fear is that non-evaluated preservatives would be used in an application where they are not suitable. For example, if the treated wood was used for structural purposes even though structural uses are not recommended, there may be a catastrophic failure. Therefore, non-evaluated preservatives are further confined to non-structural uses such as fences, mailbox posts and the like. Another non-structural use is for decks built close to the ground but generally this application is considered too hard to control. 332 In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.


Figure 1. ICC-ES Procedure to Obtain Evaluation Service Report.

A third reason is that in today’s litigious environment, producing or selling a non-evaluated product could leave one with a poor legal defense in the event of a catastrophic failure. The product could be deemed to be “not to industry standards” and the producer/seller would possibly have a variety of liability issues. Avoiding these liability issues is seemingly the major reason for evaluation.

The Building Codes The International Code Council (ICC) is the dominant national code issuing body in the USA and the various ICC codes are essentially the building codes used throughout the USA. For preservative treated lumber, the two codes of interest are the International Residential Code (IRC) and the International Building Code (IBC). Both the IRC and the IBC have various structural applications where treated wood is required to be used. Local jurisdictions typically adopt these codes in whole or augment them with local requirements that address specific issues. For example, earthquake provisions are frequently incorporated in California jurisdictions. 333 In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.


Of major importance, the building codes prescribe materials for specific uses. For example, the codes state that any structural lumber that touches the ground must be preservative treated or a naturally durable species. Other provisions require structural lumber used above ground such as in decks to be preservative treated as well. Furthermore, the preservative system must be listed in the AWPA Book of Standards to meet the prescribed portions of the building codes. However, the codes have provisions for alternate materials (i.e. alternates to the prescribed materials) to be used provided the alternates are deemed to be equivalent. For preservatives, the alternates must be of similar quality, effectiveness, durability and safety without meaningfully affecting the strength or fire properties. The issues then are what criteria are used to deem the alternate to be equivalent and what body considers the data to discern if the alternate is the equivalent. Fortunately, a well-organized, thorough process has evolved to address these issues within the ICC framework. This process is described further in the following sections.

ICC Organization In addition to the parent organization, the ICC has three subsidiaries: the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) which will be discussed in detail, the International Accreditation Service (IAS) which will also be discussed and the ICC Foundation. The Foundation sponsors building products research programs and is of no further interest here. However, ICC-ES and the IAS play major roles in the evaluation of new preservative systems.

International Code Council-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) The ICC-ES is the organization that provides a mechanism for evaluating new products that are then deemed as equivalents for code uses. Within the ICCES procedures, the proponent develops an Acceptance Criteria (AC) that defines the product in a generic manner, specifies the necessary tests used to document the performance of the product and specifies the limitations as needed for the product. The proponent then gathers the necessary test data and has it reviewed by independent experts. The reports then go to the ICC-ES staff for review. Once all issues are resolved, an Evaluation Service Report (ESR) is released. Upon the issuance of the ESR, the product has been evaluated and found to be in compliance with the code. That is, the product has been deemed to be the equivalent of the code recognized product. An important point is that a proponent has some choices in the performance tests for the product and can use tests that are already underway. For wood preservatives, the range of tests includes numerous efficacy tests as well as strength and fastener corrosion tests. The efficacy and corrosion tests are usually conducted by AWPA standard methods but similar test methods from other organizations such as ASTM or CEN can also be used. In-house testing is also acceptable if it is witnessed by an ISO 17025 accredited third-party agency. 334 In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.

ICC-ES Preservative Evaluation Procedures


Acceptance Criteria The ICC-ES now has a parent acceptance criteria AC326 (1) for preservatives that lists the generic testing requirements in the body of the AC and then the specific preservative systems are listed as daughter appendices. AC326 is patterned after Appendix A of the AWPA Technical Committee Regulations. Both documents specify the extent of the testing necessary for various uses and basically, the body of AC326 is equivalent to the AWPA Appendix A. As mentioned, the various preservative systems are defined in appendices to AC326. A draft of a new AC or a significant modification of an existing AC is typically submitted about three months prior to one of the three ICC-ES meetings per year which are held in February, June and October. An application fee is required at this time which covers most of the processing charges for an ESR but costs for testing and reviews are separate. The draft undergoes an internal ICC-ES review and then 30 days before the meeting, it is published on the ICC-ES web site (www.icces.org). During the 30-day period and at the ICC-ES meeting, public comments are welcome on the proposed AC. Often these comments are critical of the proposed AC and suggest more strenuous testing or that more restrictions need to be placed on the product. Sometimes, organizations supply their own test data on similar products. The ACs can be and frequently are amended on the floor to accommodate any comments and issues that are raised. It is absolutely critical that a representative of the proponent be at the meeting who understands the implications of changing the test or test criteria in terms of additional costs and time. The meeting debate is highly technical and there are many references to either code paragraphs or other ACs. The combination of test, code and AC references can sometimes be confusing to the uninitiated so it is best to have a representative who has weathered several AC meetings. Sometimes a seemingly simple change can radically increase the cost or lengthen the overall testing and such changes should be avoided if possible. After the comments are heard, the ES committee votes on approving the AC. Most of the time, the AC is approved with modifications but there are a few that are approved without change. An additional option is to table the AC for review and at some meetings a significant number of the proposals are tabled. If the AC is approved, then the proponent sets about conducting the various testing specified in the AC. Testing and Accreditation The testing specified in the AC that was initiated after July 2004 must be done at a laboratory accredited by the International Accreditation Service (IAS). The inspection agency must also be accredited by the IAS. Table 1 lists a few of the laboratories and inspection agencies that are accredited by IAS and commonly used for preservative efficacy and other wood products testing. Other laboratories can be, and frequently are, used for certain tests. 335 In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.


Table 1. Accredited Testing and Inspection Organizations Testing Organization

IAS Accreditation Number

Louisiana State University

TL-350

Michigan Technological University

TL-313

Mississippi State University

TL-301

Timber Products Inspection

TL-295

Inspection Organization Southern Pine Inspection Bureau

AA-680

Timber Products Inspection

AA-696

The IAS also has special provisions for one-time approvals for specific tests. This provision is usually reserved for accrediting long-term exposure tests that were started before the requirement for accreditation took effect in 2004. This special procedure requires an on-site inspection of the testing facility and the proponent is charged about $3000 to cover fees and travel costs. It may also be possible to accredit shorter term tests under certain circumstances. Reviews After the test data is collected, the test institution prepares a report that complies with AC 85 (2). Then the various test reports are submitted to critical reviews by wood preservation experts and professional engineers that are independent of the proponent organization. The reviews discuss the testing protocols, the data itself and the suitability of the data for the intended purpose. The reviewers must also state that it is their opinion that the proposed system would be suitable for the intended applications. Once the critical reviews are done, the reports and reviews are sent to the ICC-ES for their review. The data is first reviewed by the lead engineer assigned to the file who is typically a senior staff member. For preservatives, most of the reviews are handled by the Birmingham office of the ICC-ES and the lead engineer there has over 25 years of experience with treated wood and actively participates in the AWPA. Once his review is complete, there is a peer review of all of the data and reports by two other ICC-ES engineers at other locations. Usually the same “team” reviews preservative packages and the peer engineers also have 20+ years of experience in preservative matters. After the ICC-ES review is complete, the proponent is provided with a written response that encompasses all of the issues raised in the review. If there are any anomalies in the data, the proponent is asked for a plausible explanation and if satisfactory, the review is concluded. In some cases though, a test must be repeated or additional testing must be done. If field problems such 336 In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.


as early deterioration have been reported with a reasonably similar product, the ICC-ES may request additional assurances that such problems will not occur with the current product. If there are perceptual differences such as attempting to use southern pine as representative of all softwood, then a discussion is needed. And lastly, if issues surfaced during the ICC-ES meeting to adopt the AC, then these may require further responses from the proponent. In short, the proponent must address any deficiencies and all questions and all issues regarding the system. In general, the ICC-ES review process takes several months to complete after all the testing is submitted. The shortest review time span that is known was about six months. Other reviews have been ongoing for several years but no preservative systems have taken that long. A typical time frame would be 8-10 months. Quality Control and Inspection An integral part of the ESR process is that there must be a quality control manual submitted with the test reports and reviews that meets the criteria of AC10 (3). The quality documentation is also reviewed to ensure that the product produced will be essentially the same as that tested. As well, there must be a third party inspection agency that monitors the production. In 2014, the inspection agencies will be contracted by the ICC-ES instead of to the production facility which will provide another degree of independence to the inspections. There have also been a number of changes to preservative inspecting and reporting procedures made in recent years. Evaluation Service Report Once all of the above is in place and the review is complete, the ICC-ES prepares and issues an ESR. When this occurs, the product is deemed to be an equivalent of products recognized in the IBC and IRC. Each of the required properties has been evaluated and the product is considered acceptable to that specified in the code. In short, the product is recognized for building code uses. At the end of an ESR, there are typically several restrictions placed on the use of the product to prevent its misuse. For example, a product may have a restriction on the type of fasteners that can be used or on the particular use categories for which it is allowed. The initial ESR is issued with a one year expiration date. After the one year period, the ESR is reexamined for any deficiencies and then reissued with two year reexamination periods. If there are deficiencies, the proponent must address them and there are commensurate fees for the reexamination. Above Ground and Ground Contact Issues The ICC-ES makes clear distinctions in the testing required for above ground versus ground contact uses. It is possible within the ICC-ES framework to obtain an ESR that limits the wood to only above ground applications (AWPA UC3B and less). Since accelerated testing is accepted by ICC-ES for above ground uses, the evaluation process can be expedited and the proponent can enter the market in a 337 In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.

timelier manner. This above ground evaluation takes about 12 months from the onset of the testing. Typically, the necessary tests would be underway for ground contact uses and the ESR would be amended later when the supporting ground contact data is available.


Appeal Process The ICC-ES has an appeal process if say a competitor feels that an issue must not have been correctly addressed during the ESR process. The issue must be a technical one and a response is solicited from the proponent. The complaint and response are reviewed by the staff and the issue is resolved by staff actions to disallow the complaint, amend the ESR or in extreme cases, rescind the ESR.

Recent History In recent years, most preservative suppliers have first commercialized their systems with an ICC-ES evaluation since it allows for building code uses in a timelier manner. The extent of this approach by preservative suppliers is shown by consideration of the major companies that have or have had wood preservative ESRs as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. ESR Holders EASTMAN ES+WOOD (ENVIROSAFE) LONZA WOOD PROTECTION (ARCH) OSMOSE PACIFIC WOOD PRESERVING PLANETSAVER RIO TINTO RUTGERS VIANCE

Similarly, the wood preservative systems that have been or are covered in ESRs are listed in Table 3. These preservatives are essentially all of the commonly available formulations for residential uses and cover a wide range of applications. Some such as PTI are for above ground uses while others such as barrier wrap are primarily used in ground contact. 338 In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.

Table 3. Preservatives with ESRs ACQ ACETYLATED WOOD BARRIER WRAP BORATES CA-B, CA-C


EL2 KDS MICRONIZED CA (MCA) MICRONIZED CQ (MCQ) PTI

Summary Although somewhat intimidating at first glance, the procedures for obtaining an ICC-ES evaluation report for a new preservative system are reasonably structured and orderly. The critical aspects for success are to carefully plan the testing regime, select appropriate tests, select appropriate testing organizations and to start as soon as reasonable. The ICC-ES evaluation process requires that testing be done at accredited institutions and there must be an approved quality control manual. The evaluation process is an internal peer review process and competitor input is limited to comments at the AC hearing. The major preservative suppliers have all used the ICC-ES process to introduce new preservative systems in recent years. The preservatives are thoroughly reviewed in this process and deemed to be the equivalent to those recognized in the codes.

References 1.

2. 3.

AC326, Acceptance Criteria for Proprietary Wood Preservative Systems—Common Requirements for Treatment Process, Test Methods and Performance, available upon request to ICC-ES ([email protected]). AC85, Acceptance Criteria for Test Reports, available upon request to ICCES ([email protected]). AC10, Acceptance Criteria for Quality Documentation, available upon request to ICC-ES ([email protected]). 339 In Deterioration and Protection of Sustainable Biomaterials; Schultz, T., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014.

ICC-ES: The Alternate Path for Building Code Recognition - ACS

Recommend Documents