Report To The
Florida
Building Commission
Energy Technical
Advisory Committee
Teleconferenced Meeting 3/26/2012
Tallahassee, Florida
Ron Bailey, Brent Caldwell, Bob Cochell, Philip Fairey, Jan Geyselaer, Larry Maxwell, Roger Sanders, Drew Smith and Dale Greiner, Chair.
Staff Present: Mo Madani, Ann Stanton, Joe Bigelow, Leslie Anderson-Adams, Ila Jones.
Facilitated by: Jeff Blair
Committee Objectives
1. To Approve the Agenda and Minutes of the
3/7/2012 meeting
2. To review the REScheck UA Alternate to Section 402 of the FBC, Energy Conservation.
3. To review and make recommendations on DEC statement request DS 2012-019.
4. To review and make recommendations on DEC statement request DS 2012-020.
5. To review and make recommendations on DEC statement request DS 2012-021.
6. To consider development of a guidance document for replacement of existing systems
Agenda Review
and Approval
The meeting was opened by Chairman Dale Greiner at 1:10 pm with a quorum of eight, a ninth member joining later. The agenda was amended to move Objective 2 to after Objective 5. The TAC unanimously approved the amended agenda and the minutes of the March 7, 2012 meeting. Facilitator Blair went over the policies for conducting a teleconferenced meeting.
Overview
DEC requests DS2012-019 and DS2012-020
were then reviewed by Mo Madani and discussed by the TAC, both of which point
out typographical errors in the code.
TAC members wanted to know if an errata sheet will be provided; Madani
indicated that it would. Fairey
questioned the U-factors used in both calculations, and pointed out that the
code should be corrected to use the right factors. Swami stated that DS2012-019
was a straight conversion from R-value because only the insulation R-value
would be known. Fairey stated that the U-factor derivation in Item 7 of the
staff analysis of DS2012-020 should be corrected for code equivalency. Madani stated that the only issue under
consideration was whether the terminology in footnote b to Table 402.1.1.3 needed
to be corrected to read “exterior”.
Discussion of DS2012-021 ensued after Madani went over the DEC request questions, background and options. Discussion was tabled when a member of the public, Eric Lacey of RECA, brought forth arguments concerning the provisions of Florida law and requested that his letter of March 23 be provided to the TAC for consideration. This was done because he could have provided the material to the TAC directly if the TAC had been meeting in person. After it was taken off the table, the TAC further discussed the issue, and asked for a legal opinion on provisions of Florida law. Anderson-Adams stated that she could not provide an opinion at this time. The TAC then took action on the issue.
The TAC discussed the REScheck computer program that would implement the UA Alternate of Section 402. Madani stated that it has some things that needed to get corrected, including results of DS2012-020.
Madani described the many questions staff is receiving about existing buildings and presented a draft set of guidelines for code officials with the code references for said positions. New code criteria for duct sealing, hvac equipment sizing, window replacement and pool filtration pump replacement have caused considerable public confusion. The TAC provided input on what constitutes “complete system replacement”, namely a common set of ducts, and noted that licensure/professional registration issues are beyond the scope of the code. The concurrent needs for sizing prior to equipment installation and not extending the time required to get a new system installed were discussed. The need for uniformity in forms and enforcement procedures was also strongly emphasized. (See attached guidelines)
Committee Actions
On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC unanimously found that the answer to the question, In Table 502.1.1.1(2), which is the correct insulation level for Roofs, an R-value of 38 or a U-factor of 0.033, which equates to an R-value of 30? If the correct answer is R-38, then the corresponding U-factor should be 0.025, the answer is that the R-38 roof insulation value is correct; the corresponding U-value should be (U≤0.027).
2. Regarding the disposition of
DS2012-020, Lorraine Ross, petitioner:
Question
1.
a. On a seconded motion from Geyslaers, the TAC found in a vote of 8 to 1 that the
answer to Question 1, Are the U-values for mass walls incorrect as listed
in Table 402.1.1.3 (reference by prescriptive path Section 402.1.1.2) and its
applicable footnote b? the answer is Yes. Table
402.1.1.3, Equivalent U-Factors, was intended to reflect the R-values in Table
402.1.1. Table 402.1.1.3 now compares the U-factor for insulation located on
the interior of mass walls to that specified for insulation located on the
exterior of mass walls in Table 402.1.1.
Thus, footnote b should be corrected to read: “When more than half the
insulation is on the exterior interior, the mass wall factors
shall be a maximum of 0.165.”
b.
On a
seconded motion from Geyslaers, the TAC found unanimously
that the answer to the question, Are the U-values stated in Table
402.1.1.3 in violation of Florida Law, because these values contradict the
value of thermal mass by requiring more insulation on the exterior of the wall
than the interior side of the wall? the answer is that this question is beyond the scope of this DEC
statement.
Question
2.
On a
seconded motion from Geyslaers, the TAC found
unanimously that the answer to the question, If only the insulation for
mass walls, as shown in Table 402.1.1 and Table 402.1.1.3 meets the applicable
R-factor or U-factor, does this alone constitute “compliance with the Florida
Energy Code”, or must all footnotes contained within Table 4021.1.3 also be met
in order to use the prescriptive path? the answer is that all other prescriptive criteria of Table 402.1.1,
the prescriptive criteria in Section 402.1.2.4 and footnotes to Table 402.1.1.3
shall also be met.
Question
3.
On a
seconded motion from Geyslaers, the TAC found unanimously
that the answer to the question, How has the compliance software
and applicable reports derived from this software addressed the discrepancies
in the insulation values for mass walls using the prescriptive compliance path
as well as the requirement that ALL footnotes shown in Table 402.1.1 and Table
402.1.1.3 must be met before compliance with the Florida Energy Code can be
claimed? the answer is that this
question is beyond the scope of this DEC statement.
Question
1.
On
a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC found
unanimously that the answer to the question, Regarding
replacement fenestration, are replacement of windows or doors required to meet
the provisions of FBC-EC at Section 402.3.6 where the windows or doors replaced
within a twelve month period do not meet the code definition of renovation?, the answer is NO, not unless the cost
of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed
value of the structure.
Question 2.
On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC
found unanimously that the answer to the question Regarding replacement fenestration, are replacement of windows or doors
required to meet the provisions of the FBC-EC at Section 402.3.6 where the windows
or doors replaced within a twelve month period do not meet the statutory
definition of renovation?, the answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job
(calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the
structure. The definition in Florida
Statutes has been appropriately clarified by the code.
Question 3.
On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC
found unanimously that the answer to the question, Is Note d to Table 101.4.1 intended to codify
Chapter 553.902 Florida Statute?, the answer is YES, when Florida law was superimposed upon the language in the
base document (the International Energy
Conservation Code), the renovations clause was included under Section 101.4
of the Florida Building Code, Energy
Conservation, Applicability, as footnote d to Table 101.4.1.
Question 4.
On a seconded motion from Geyslaers, the TAC
found unanimously that the answer to the question, Regarding the conflict between Sections 101.4.1 and 402.3.6, does
101.4.1 prevail since it reflects statutory requirements?, the answer is
YES, the criteria of Section 101.4, including footnote “d” to Table 101.4.1,
take precedence to the requirements of Section 402.3.5 because they determine
applicability of the code to existing buildings as determined by Florida law.
Adjournment
The meeting
was adjourned by Chairman Greiner at 3:30 p.m.
Actions
Needed
The Commission needs to approve the REScheck computer program for residential energy code compliance by Section 402.1.1.3, the Total UA Alternative, as recommended by the Energy TAC action below and with corrections as shown.
On a seconded motion by Cochell, the TAC unanimously recommended that the REScheck UA Alternative program be accepted with corrections provided by staff and clarifications from DEC statements. Fairey abstained on grounds of conflict of interest.
Duct and Air handlers: Construction, Insulation and Testing:
□ Building framing cavities are not used as supply ducts.
□ Ducts and aAir handling
units are not installed in the attic. inside both the thermal
and air barrier of the home.
□
Ducts are insulated to R-6. Supply ducts, air filter
enclosures, air ducts and plenums located in attics or roofs are insulated to a
minimum of R-8. All other ducts in unconditioned spaces or outside the building
envelope are insulated to at least R-6.
Exceptions:
Ducts
or portions thereof completely within the building thermal envelope
Exhaust air ducts
Factory installed plenums casings or ductwork furnished as part of tested and rated HVAC equipment.
□ Duct tightness test has been performed by a
Class 1 BERS rater according to Florida code section 403.2.2.1 and meets one of
the following test criteria: Test report is attached.
□ Qn ≤ 0.03.
[Other
4 options ok]