<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [GSBN] Straw Bale Code Appeal (+MH SB Code update)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Yes, great work Laura. Shining the light of straw bale knowledge into misguided corners of the globe. <BR>
<BR>
One could make an argument that the Grand County, Utah “Straw Bale Construction Policy of Requirements” was the first official straw bale “code”. It was adopted in April 1994, a year and a half before the Tuscon/Pima County, Arizona code that GSBN’s own Matts Myhrman and David Eisenberg developed (and which became the basis of 80% of the current US SB codes). However, both New Mexico and Arizona were years ahead in terms of buildings built and knowledge gathered, and sophistication of their subsequent codes. I didn’t call Grand County’s document a code when I did my research in 2006 and instead classified it as guidelines. It is a very skimpy 8-point document, that goes into detail about some relatively unimportant things (no ice maker boxes in SB walls), and completely ignores other things that matter a great deal. It also unknowingly created potential harm with the requirement you corrected. But to be fair, they wrote what they knew (or thought they knew) at the time, and they broke new ground. Thanks for continuing its evolution.<BR>
<BR>
Speaking of the evolution of straw bale codes, this morning I submitted to the International green Construction Code committee, a modified version of what I’ve developed over recent years (with the help of many) for the State of California. The proposed California SB code has hit a 2 year (minimum) standstill due to Housing and Community Development being overworked and understaffed, so they can’t/won’t devote the resources necessary to push it across the finish line. We made good progress in 2007, especially with the Fire section, but more work is needed to satisfy three important stakeholders, the California Building Officials Association, the Structural Engineers Association of California, and the California Seismic Safety Commission. Largely an education and documentation process, which, even if I did most of the work, HCD’s participation is still necessary to get it through. So that continues to be in limbo, but I poke them periodically to keep it alive.<BR>
<BR>
Regarding the IgCC, I came to it somewhat late in the process. For many months a 29 member committee (including GSBN’s David Eisenberg), with input from stakeholders and interested parties, has been forging the International green Construction Code (IgCC). An ICC senior staff architect made a request some weeks ago for code language addressing certain materials, including straw bale, rammed earth, and cob. I met this person in Philadelphia in October and have since participated in numerous tele-conference meetings with the materials subcommittee, including a 3-1/2 hour (!) one today. I’ve been hearing and commenting on many interesting issues other than straw bale, becoming familiar with the group and the process. The IgCC is an ambitious project. A stand-alone code applying to non-residential buildings that could be adopted by any jurisdiction to promote “green” design and building practices. It is interesting to hear the earnest, thoughtful, (occasionally industry self-serving), and sometimes spirited discussion that goes with it, and to contribute where I can. Forging this code is like wrestling 3 or 4 giant alligators to the ground. I’ll let you know how my personal (and our collective) alligator fares in coming weeks.<BR>
<BR>
If anyone wants to offer input on what I submitted, let me know and I can e-mail it to you. I didn’t have the time I wanted to put it out for comment within the GSBN community before submitting it. Assuming it goes forward, there is definitely still time for modification. The IgCC is not the ideal place for a strawbale section of the code, the IBC is. But this was an opportunity I couldn’t pass up, and it could provide a stepping stone to the IBC. The ICC staff architect and others are supportive in principle, but so are the State of CA and its various stakeholders. The difficulty is in the many details, and their understanding and agreement by people in positions of code authority, especially in the realms of structure, fire, and moisture. At one point in the California process there was a proposal to pull structural out of the proposed code. 75% of the resistance would have disappeared, but I and others decided it was too important to sacrifice for shorter term expediency. New Mexico’s code still doesn’t allow loadbearing, 14 years after its adoption (Derek R. and Catherine W., any progress there?).<BR>
<BR>
My goal with any SB Code is to keep it as simple and versatile as possible, but to adequately address all relevant issues of life safety and minimum building performance, based on best collective knowledge. In the code realm, which directs what can and can’t be built, it all must be rational and defensible. I continue to grapple with what it can, should, and must be.<BR>
<BR>
So, there’s a long e-mail that started as a simple acknowledgement of Laura’s good work. But I think I owed everyone an overview and update of what I know re: SB codes in California and the US.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks to all.<BR>
<BR>
Martin Hammer<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 11/30/09 8:40 AM, "Laura Bartels" <laura@greenweaverinc.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Dear GSBN'ers, <BR>
<BR>
First, let me say I am feeling very thankful again for this network, the value it offers, and the access it provides to so many good people doing excellent work. I don't write often, but I "listen" a lot and speak up as my schedule allows. <BR>
<BR>
And secondly, I was asked to share this by several of you. I was recently hired by a client to appeal a straw bale code in Grand County, UT that required a "weather barrier" or "sheet barrier" 32" up the exterior of the straw bale wall under the plaster. This code requirement has been in place for over 10 years, previously required a full sheet barrier and was unsatisfactory to many builders and owners in the jurisdiction. The client, who I applaud, was willing to put some resources into having a study of this and to create a hopefully successful appeal for the benefit of those following him. The head code official is on the board of the International Code Council and is involved at the state level as well. Thanks go to several folks on this list who I contacted individually for thoughts and data related to this issue. I collected data from the StrawSense systems that GreenWeaver makes and sells and wrote a report summarizing that data, the data in a study by Kris Dick, and a one-time moisture investigation I did of the Waldorf School campus in 2007. With that in hand, I met with the building official, the clients and their builder last week and at the end of a two hour meeting, he agreed to remove the requirement from the code and to look more deeply at the other straw bale requirements and opportunities to improve their code. The meeting helped me to see again some of the common misconceptions about drainage vs. storage wall assemblies, the role of plasters, and the properties of vapor permeance and capillary absorption. But, it also helped me to understand again the value of taking the educational approach, going in with an appreciation of the motivations for a code, and an attitude of wanting to work together. The building official was very conscientious and I applaud him as well in this change. <BR>
<BR>
Thanks again to those involved. <BR>
<BR>
Laura <BR>
<BR>
I will make available a .pdf of the data after I add some additional data that came in after the fact. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#50742B"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'>Laura Bartels<BR>
<I>P.O. Box 912, Carbondale, CO 81623<BR>
Ph 970-379-6779, Fax 970-963-0905<BR>
laura@greenweaverinc.com<BR>
www.greenweaverinc.com<BR>
</I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
<IMG src="cid:3342476233_718798" > <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>