by Thom Zaremba, shareholder at Roetzel & Andress
My last few blogs have all examined the resilience of our existing building stock in the face of the many natural disasters, from hurricanes to wildfires that have struck our country over the last year or so. I was going to finish this resiliency series of blogs by exploring recycling, specifically whether and how glass is recycled when buildings end their useful lives. Instead, I’ve decided to return to a subject we looked at in several earlier blogs, namely, school safety.
Why? Because I want to report my efforts presenting to the International Code Council (ICC) committee responsible for approving and disapproving proposed changes to the International Building Code (IBC), a potentially viable solution to forced entries into our schools by armed intruders.
In past blogs, I indicated that the building codes hadn’t acted to make entry into schools safer because no “standard” existed for building code officials to evaluate the “forced-entry resistance” of materials used in school construction. However, recent ICC committee hearings prove I was wrong about why the building codes haven’t yet acted.
On May 2 of this year, I presented proposed code change G88-25 to the ICC committee. That proposal would have added a new standard, ASTM F3561, to the IBC. The title of this new standard explains why I proposed adding it to the building code: “Standard Test Method for Forced-Entry-Resistance of Fenestration Systems after Simulated Active Shooter Attack. However, after explaining to the committee that the standard would provide an objective, reproducible, mechanical test to evaluate glass windows, doors and other types of glass entryways into schools for their ability to resist forced entry, the committee unanimously disapproved the proposal. Why?
To my surprise, about a half-dozen current and former building and fire code officials testified against my proposal that the building code incorporate ASTM F3561 glazed assemblies into the construction of new school buildings.
Here are some of the reasons they gave for opposing the proposal. Some testified that while “egress,” or getting out of a building, is within the scope of the IBC, “entry,” or getting into a building, is not. A former fire service official testified that only a “few” assailants have used gunfire to shoot out glass in locked doors to enter schools, and, therefore, requiring glass tested to this standard wasn’t warranted. An Ohio building code official testified that using this standard to “harden” glass entryways into schools would make it harder for police to break the glass to enter in emergencies. Finally, some testified that to use the standard, parts of G88-25 required a “forced entry resistance assessment.” Currently, only one state certifies specialists to assess forced-entry resistance.
The 13-member committee agreed with one or more of these arguments because they voted 13 to 0 to disapprove G88-25. Disappointing? Absolutely! But what happens now?
Right after the vote, I left the hearings to call in the loss to one of my sponsors. As I did, a fire chief from a township in Michigan followed me out. He said, “Whatever you do, don’t give up! Your proposal is significant for school safety.” I told him I wouldn’t give up. So, what’s next?
In October of this year, the same committee will reconvene in Cleveland to consider comments and proposed changes to the same proposals they heard this month. I’ll be there armed with some proposed changes to G88-25.
While I haven’t fully formulated those changes yet, one I’m likely to make is to delete references to “forced-entry resistance assessments” due to a lack of state certification of experts. Additionally, rather than make ASTM F3561 rated assemblies mandatory in some locations and requiring a “forced-entry resistance” assessment for others, I’m likely to ask the committee to approve a simplified proposal that says ASTM F3561 rated glazed assemblies “shall be permitted” 1- in exterior walls, doors, windows, 2- in interior classroom walls, windows, doors, and 3- in other areas of the school where there’s a perceived risk of forced entry.
Some opponents raised the “scope” issue, but I’m hoping that hurdle has already been jumped. In a different part of G88-25, I proposed adding “ingress” to the code’s scope, and a different committee approved that change by adding “entry” to the building code’s scope.
Wish me luck as I develop modifications to G88-25 for presentation to the committee in the continued pursuit of safer school buildings for our kids and grandkids! I’d also love your thoughts about incorporating ASTM F3561 into the building code.