Building Code Council previews split amendments to embodied‑carbon appendix, flags technical review

The State Building Code Council spent the bulk of its Aug. 4 work session reviewing proposed edits to an embodied‑carbon appendix and agreed to split policy choices from technical clarifications before bringing amendments to the full council.

"When we're done with this work session, have a package of amendments that we take for the full council for action," Jay Arnold said as he summarized a set of changes compiled after July 21. Members repeatedly stressed that some items were policy decisions — not mere editorial fixes — and should be considered separately. "I'll split out Vikram's, 100% into a separate amendment so we can discuss it separately," Arnold said.

Council members debated definitions for a "covered project," with several urging use of existing IBC defined terms such as "additions" and "alterations" to avoid ambiguity. Roger Haringa pushed for language that ties new construction, additions and alterations to the IBC definitions, saying the proposed wording should "dial into existing definitions within the code." Haringa also recommended italicizing defined terms so readers see they are statutory code terms.

Angela Hopps, who raised concerns about the scale of the language changes, urged additional code‑language review. "This is a lot of language change ... I would just be concerned that we may need to take this back down a level to open it up for language discussion," she said, suggesting a BFRW or expert review before final action.

Council staff and members agreed on a path forward: separate the policy element (the question of whether to include a 100% product‑compliance option) into its own amendment and collect technical edits into a packet for review by code‑language experts and the BFRW committee. Staff was directed to prepare the consolidated package and identify at least two technical reviewers (members named Micah and John were suggested) to confirm the text is enforceable as code language.

The work session is advisory; the council reiterated that final adoption requires the full council process and compliance with notice periods. Members asked staff to prepare materials so the council could consider a final adoption vote by the end of August, subject to the rulemaking notice requirement that final code language be available seven days before adoption.