Why our building codes have to change.
I’ve heard smart people argue over
who will bear the cost of the new 2015 energy codes being adopted across the
USA. We have two choices in the St Louis area:
We can pay for them, and their health and safety benefits, by embedding
them at the lowest and earliest cost - when homes are being built. Or, we can fail
to adopt the 2015 ICC energy codes and pay a much higher health care, energy
and environmental price tag downstream.
Many people
do not realize the damage done to buildings and people by outdated codes and
practices. Sick Building Syndrome (SBS)
is caused by living in tight, poorly ventilated homes with a high content of
man-made chemical-based building materials. This includes most homes built in
the last 30 years. Research now shows that the off-gassing of these materials contribute
to endocrine disruption, auto-immune disorder, allergies, cancer, autism and
possibly Alzheimer’s, on a scale no one saw coming. Childhood asthma, as an example, has
skyrocketed in recent years as those chemicals are increased and locked into
our homes. St. Louis continues to be a leader in rising childhood asthma rates,
costing us millions. The St Louis area chose to weaken the 2009 codes, and is
considering a repeat with the 2015 codes, even though indoor air quality is now
among the EPA’s top five health risks, and these new codes help solve that
problem.
The cost of
the remedy is about $50/mo. per home for a typical 2000 sf home - and that consumer
uptick is paid for with energy savings, so it’s break-even or better. The
$6,000 hard cost to the builder, equates to less than $300 in actual additional
construction carry cost. The only reason there is opposition to the code is the
cost to builders, which is negligible. Certainly negligible in relationship to
the bragging rights they inherit for producing world class safer, healthier,
more efficient homes.
The new 2015
IECC energy code helps solve these environmental issues by requiring
ventilation and pressurization testing before occupancy. This reduces the
intake of polluted makeup air from gas fired appliance vents, attics, and crawl
spaces. It helps assure occupants are breathing oxygen instead of other VOCs,
particulates, high moisture and off-gassing. The cost is more than offset by
energy savings, and the non-energy health and environmental savings is projected
to be four times that, so it’s a win-win: It makes sense to make a safe product
at the manufacturing stage, to save us all energy and health dollars
downstream, every year, for every homeowner. If we do this, houses will last
longer, people will live longer and dollars will go farther by doing the right
thing and adopting the code without exceptions.
James Trout is a recognized building performance industry expert (Building Performance Institute), real estate broker (former Director, Mo. Assoc. of REALTORS) and designer/builder (former trustee, with the city HBA). James was also an ICC delegate, and certified indoor environmental assessor.
Are builders responsible for the effect of the product after inspection or does the responsibility lie with the final inspector (county, local etc.) that says all is up to code?
ReplyDelete