Florida Building
Commission
Mechanical Technical Advisory Committee
concurrent with
The Fire Code advisory council
and concurrent
with
The Fire Technical Advisory Committee
Wednesday, August 05th, 2015
Meeting Location: Teleconference Meeting from Tallahassee,
Florida
|
TAC/POC Members
and Objectives |
|
TAC Members Present Via
Teleconference:; Steven
Bassett, Chair; Larry Banks; Oscar Calleja; Joe Crum; Elizabeth Goll; Daniel
Griffin; Alex Hernandez; Don Pitmann; and Pete Quintela TAC Members not Present:
Gary Griffin Staff Present: Norman
Bellamy, Robert Benbow, Nick Duval, Jim Hammers, April Hammonds, Mo Madani . Facilitator: Marlita
Peters |
|
Objectives: To consider, discuss, and provide
recommendation for consideration by the Commission regarding DS 2015-075 by Sheila Oliver of the Town of Pembroke Park. |
|
Meeting
Minutes |
|
|
Objective |
Discussion of
objectives included the following: |
|
1) |
1:34 PM Welcome and Opening, Roll Call. Marlita Peters, facilitator for the
Florida Building Commission, provided a welcome and a brief overview of the
agenda items to be presented. |
|
2) |
The Agenda was approved unanimously by
the committee members. The meeting minutes for the June 9th
2015 Mechanical TAC meeting were approved unanimously by the committee
members. |
|
3) |
Objective: To consider, discuss, and provide recommendation for
consideration by the Commission regarding DS 2015-075 by Sheila Oliver of the Town of Pembroke Park. ·
Sheila Oliver was not present to present the Declaratory
Statement. Mo Madani of FBC Staff was present to give the Staff Analysis of
the Declaratory Statement. There was then discussion by the TAC Members. ·
There was discussion that each answer proposed by Staff
Analysis be voted on separately. A
motion was made to accept the staff analysis for answer 1. The motion was
made by Don Pittman and seconded by Oscar Calleja. This motion was accepted
unanimously. Question
#1: Section 606.1 is
requiring the smoke detectors to be placed in the return air of an a/c unit
over 2000 cfm and/or in the exhaust duct of a fan system. Section 606.3 is requiring me to utilize
NFPA 72 for installation which requires it in the supply side. Therefore, does 606.1 supercede 606.3? Answer:
Yes, with regard to placement of smoke detectors and as
per Section 102.4.1 of the 5th Edition (2014) FBC, Building,
Section 606.1 supercedes the provisions of section 606.3 of the 5th
Edition (2014) FBC, Mechanical. --- ·
As the answer for Question 2 proposed multiple options a query
was made as to which options should be accepted by the TAC. The following
options are as follows. Question
#2: If the answer is yes, then since the Florida Fire
Prevention Code also calls for it to be installed in the supply air (NFPA 72
and NFPA 90A) whose code takes jurisdiction, fire or mechanical? Answer: Option
#1: As per the definition of the
term “conflict” “see note above”, the project in question must meet both
codes. Option
#2: As per the 5th
Edition (2014) Florida Fire Prevention Code, NFPA 72 and NFPA 90A, placement
of smoke detectors in the supply air system provide for a greater degree of
life safety than placement of the smoke detectors in the return air system as
required by section 606.1 of the 5th Edition (2014) FBC,
Mechanical. Therefore, placement of
the smoke detectors in the supply air system takes precedence. Option
#3: As per the 5th
Edition (2014) Florida Building Code, Mechanical, placement of smoke
detectors in the return air system provide for a greater degree of life safety
than placement of the smoke detectors in the supply air system as required by
the 5th Edition (2014) Florida Fire Prevention Code. Therefore, placement of the smoke detectors
in the return air system takes precedence. Option
#4: Placement
of smoke detectors in either the return or the supply air system will provide
an equal degree of life safety. (See
Section 553.73 (1)(d), Florida Statues) ·
As the answer for Question 2 proposed multiple options a
query was made as to which should be accepted. It was decided to open it up
for a motion. ·
A motion was made to accept Option 2. The motion was made by Pete Quintela and
seconded by Alex Hernandez. After
further discussion by the TAC, public comments were taken. After all discussion a vote by roll was
called and did not pass by a 5 to 3 margin. ·
A motion was made to accept Option 1. The motion was made
by Joe Crum and seconded by Don Pittman. After discussion by the TAC, public
comments were taken. Afterwards a vote
by roll was called. The motion passed
by a 5 to 3 in favor of option 1. --- ·
Per discussion the answers for question 3, 4, and 5 of
Staff analysis was voted on together.
A motion was made to accept Staff Analysis of Questions 3, 4 and 5. A
motion made by Joe Crum and seconded by Elizabeth Goll. Question
#3: Since the original
intent of the installation of these smoke duct detectors was to protect the
building occupants if the fire and or smoke was to occur in the unit, is this
no longer the purpose? Answer: Not
possible. Addressing “intent” is outside the scope of the Dec. request. Question
#4: By installing the
smoke duct detectors in the exhaust duct of a fan system, is it now the
intent to stop the products of combustion from exiting to the outside? Answer: Not
possible. Addressing “intent” is
outside the scope of the Dec. request. Question
#5: By not installing
the smoke detectors in a supply fan system, is it the intent to keep these
fans operating, even if the fan is bringing in smoke from an adjacent area or
from the fan itself? Answer: Not possible. Addressing
“intent” is outside the scope of the Dec. request. The motion passed unanimously. |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Adjourn: Having no other |
Staff
Contacts: Norman
Bellamy, Government Operations Consultant (850) 717-1834 Norman.Bellamy@myfloridalicense.com
or Mo Madani, Manager mo.madani@dbpr.state.fl.us (850) 717-1825