Florida Building
Commission
Fire Technical Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Location: Teleconference Meeting from Tallahassee,
Florida
|
TAC/POC Members
and Objectives |
|
TAC Members Present Via
Teleconference: Hamid
Bahadori, Chair; Brad Schiffer; Tony Apfelbeck;; Robert Hamburger; Charlie
Frank; James R. Schock; Jeffery Gross; Joe Holland Bobby Dewar for Peter T.
Schwab TAC Members not Present:
Joe Belcher; Staff Present: Mo
Madani, Marlita Peters, Robert Benbow,
Norman Bellamy; April Hammonds, Nick
Duval 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. Ø
To consider, discuss, and provide
recommendation for consideration by the Commission regarding DS 2015-081 by
Clifford A. Schulman, Esq. of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole Bierman, P.L. Ø
To recommend and discuss potential research
topics for consideration by the Building Commission. Ø
To discuss and provide comments to the rule
development for Rule 61G20-1.003 Second Emergency Elevator Effective Date. |
|
Meeting
Minutes |
|
|
Objective |
Discussion of
objectives included the following: |
|
|
1:30 PM
Welcome and Opening, Roll Call. A quorum was present |
|
|
Agenda
and Meeting minutes. The Agenda for today’s meeting and the meeting minutes for
the June 09, 2015 Fire TAC meeting
were approved unanimously by the committee members. |
|
|
To consider, discuss, and
provide recommendation for consideration by the Commission regarding DS
2015-075 by Sheila Oliver of the Town of Pembroke Park. The Declaratory
Statement was introduced by the chair. The declaratory statement was
presented by Mo Madani. TAC
Actions: 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 supersede 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 supersedes the provisions of
section 606.3 of the 5th Edition (2014) FBC, Mechanical. 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? The TAC was
given several options from staff to choose from for the answer to Question 2: 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) The TAC selected as an answer “option
#4” which states: 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) Per TAC discussion the answers for questions
3, 4, and 5 were voted on together. A motion was made and seconded to accept
staff analysis as answers to the questions. 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: The Answer is 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: The Answer is 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:
The Answer is not possible, Addressing
“intent” is outside the scope of the Dec. request. |
|
|
To consider, discuss, and
provide recommendation for consideration by the Commission regarding DS
2015-081 by Clifford A. Schulman, Esq. of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole Bierman,
P.L. The Declaratory
Statement was presented by Clifford Schulman. Staff then presented the answers proposed by the petitioner and was
requested by the TAC to present a staff analysis on the subject. TAC
Actions: Question 1: Is the building,
including the system, regulated by the FBC? Answer: Yes Question 2: If yes, is the
System governed by Chapter 30 ALI Standards? Answer: No Question 3: If not, does
the FBC require that the entire System (including the lifting structure
itself) be certified by an OSHA approved NRTL? Answer: No |
|
|
To recommend and discuss
potential research topics for consideration by the Building Commission. Jim Schock proposed a research project to evaluate
an approved method for achieving a 1 hour Fire rating on the underside of the
soffit focus on the zero lot line and to come up with details that are tested
and evaluated. Evaluate alternative to the zero line provisions. A motion was
made by Jim Schock and seconded by Brad Schiffer to recommend this topic for
consideration by the Commission for a research project with unanimous
approval. Brad
Schiffer proposed a research project which covered a comparison between the
Florida Fire Prevention Code and the International Fire Code. No action was
taken by the TAC. Tony
Apfelbeck proposed that staff conduct a literature review on the delay of the
Firefighter’s elevator lobby issue and coming forth with some background
information to present to the Commission and the State Fire Marshall’s
Office. The TAC took no action on this issue. The TAC then voted to direct
staff to work with the Fire Marshall’s office on addressing the issue of the
second fire emergency elevator. |
|
|
Discuss and provide
comments to the rule development for Rule
61G20-1.003 Second Emergency Elevator Effective Date. April Hammonds reminded the TAC that there is no
further rule development needed because the one year delay provisions have
been given by the legislature. After further
discussion, a motion was made by Tony Apfelbeck and seconded by Jim Schock
and the TAC took action to recommend to the Commission that there is no need
for further rule development. |
|
|
Other TAC Business. Tony
Apfelbeck noted concern for staff not giving recommendations and analysis of
all Declaratory Statements. April Hammonds noted to him that Staff gives
recommendations on Declaratory Statements if the Petitioner has not presented
their proposed answer to the Declaratory Statements for themselves. |
Staff
Contacts: Robert Benbow
Planning Analyst (850) 717-1828 Robert.benbow@myfloridalicense.com
or Mo Madani, Manager mo.madani@dbpr.state.fl.us (850) 717-1825