FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT WORKSHOP

December 8, 2009

Rosen Centre Hotel; 9840 International Drive, Orlando Florida 32819; 1.800.204.7234

Meeting Objectives

ü To Review Workshop Agenda and Scope

ü To Review FBC and ASCE 7 Wind Load Requirements for Roof Mounted Equipment and Issues Identified at October HRAC Meeting

ü To Hear Industry Report on Status of Compliance with Florida Building Code Wind Standards

ü To Hear Overview of Local and State Options for Demonstrating Compliance

ü To Hear Overview of Product Approval Registry System

ü To Identify and Discuss Needed Next Steps

All Agenda Times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment—Are Subject to Change

Meeting Agenda

1:00 Welcome and Introductions

Workshop Agenda Review and Scope

Presentation on FBC and ASCE 7 Wind Load Requirements for Roof Mounted

Equipment and Issues Identified at the October 2009 HRAC Meeting

Industry Report on Status of Compliance with Florida Building Code Wind Standards

Local and State Options for Demonstrating Compliance Overview

Product Approval Registry System Overview

Identification and Discussion of Next Steps

Adjourn

Contact Information and Project Webpage

Jeff Blair: jblair@fsu.edu ; http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/hrac.html

PROJECT SCOPE AND OVERVIEW

Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals (BORA) sent a letter to 59 air-conditioning manufacturers to ensure they were aware of the Florida Building Code's wind load requirements for mechanical equipment exposed to the wind. A copy of the Commission's final order on Declaratory Statement DCA-08-DEC-205 clarifying that pursuant to section 301.13 Florida Building Code, Mechanical Volume: "mechanical equipment, appliances and support that are exposed to wind shall be designed and installed to resist the wind pressures on the equipment and the supports as determined in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Building. This may be accomplished by design or by application of Section 301.13.1 Roof-mounted mechanical units and supports shall be secured to the structure. The use of wood "sleepers" shall not be permitted." was also sent. BORA reported that only three (3) manufacturers responded, none of which they felt demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the Code.

At the June 2009 meeting, Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals (BORA) requested that

the Commission address issues regarding the Mechanical Code's requirement for mechanical equipment

exposed to wind to be designed for wind resistance. The Commission issued a declaratory statement

(DCA08-DEC-205) addressing this issue and verifying that this provision of the Code applies.

BORA indicated that they contacted manufacturers none of whom have equipment that complies

with the relevant provisions of the Code and that building departments do not appear to be enforcing the provision. Representatives of BORA requested that the Commission contact manufacturers to ensure they comply with the Code on this issue.

Subsequently, Chairman Rodriguez sent a letter to the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. The letter stated:

RE: Florida Requirements for the Hurricane Resistance of Outdoor Mounted HVAC Equipment

You are aware, one of the major problems Florida must address is hurricane protection. Hurricanes have devastated areas of Florida, damaged its economy and created property insurance crises since the early 1990's. In response, the Florida Legislature enacted the state developed Florida Building Code (the Code) and used it to address hurricane damage to buildings. The Code in turn has addressed numerous building weaknesses including outdoor mounted WAC system components.

While the Florida Code has led the advancement of hurricane protection requirements it is not alone in addressing the potential damage to buildings resulting from equipment that breaks loose from its attachment to structures. The American Society of Civil Engineers, Standard 7 also currently provides criteria, which we understand will be even more directive in the next edition. Some WAC equipment manufacturers have responded to the codes and standards requirements however of concern are code enforcement jurisdictions' reports that most have not demonstrated their products meet appropriate standards. The Florida Building Commission is responsible for working with industries, building officials and other interests to develop and update the Code. A dialog with your industry, local jurisdictions and insurance industry interests would be a constructive approach to address the compliance concern. I propose that we arrange a meeting of the parties to discuss how industry and government can move forward together and request that you identify and coordinate participation of your manufacturer members' representatives.

The Commission referred this issue to the HRAC so they could work with stakeholders to

ensure that the wind-load requirements of the Code are being complied with and to evaluate issues and options for ensuring same.

At the October 2009 HRAC meeting there were multiple presentations on this topic as follows:

Jim DiPietro, BORA, summarized the issues contained in the letter sent to manufacturers from BORA. See Overview provided above for details.

Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director, provided an overview of the Commission's involvement with the issue to date. See Overview provided above for details.

Tom Smith, FEMA, provided an overview of hurricane damage assessments regarding roof mounted equipment, as follows:

Performance of Rooftop Equipment During Hurricanes Typically Poor

· Documented as far back as 1989 (Hugo)

· Documented in Numerous Hurricanes in Geographically Diverse Areas

· MAT Observations: No Significant Performance Improvement Since 1989

Ramifications of Poor Performance

· Loss of Equipment Function

· Water Leakage

· Puncture of Roof Membrane

· Windborne Debris (Property Damage, Injury)

· Loss of Building Function

FEMA MAT Reports

· Hurricane Charley: FEMA 488, Hurricane Ivan: FEMA 489, Hurricane Katrina: FEMA 549, and Hurricane Ike: FEMA P757. http://www.fema.gov

FEMA Design Guides

· Recommendations for Equipment Integrity & Attachment: FEMA 543: Critical Facilities, and FEMA 577: Hospitals

Mo Madani, FBC Codes and Standards, provided a summary of relevant code provisions and declaratory statements. Mo reviewed relevant provisions of the 2007 Florida Building Code: Building, Residential and Mechanical volumes. Relevant 2007 Florida Building Code Wind Resistance Requirements for Air Conditioning Equipment and Appliances are summarized as follows:

Florida Building Code, Mechanical

Section 301.12 Wind Resistance.

Requires equipment and appliances to comply with the Florida Building Code, Building.

Florida Building Code, Building

Section 1609.1.1 requires determination of wind loads in accordance with Chap 6 of ASCE 7-2005.

ASCE 7-2005

Section 6.5.15.1 establishes the method for determining wind loads on rooftop equipment.

The relevant sections of the codes and standards are provided below:

2007 Florida Building Code, Mechanical

301.12 Wind resistance. Mechanical equipment, appliances and supports that are exposed to wind shall be designed and installed to resist the wind pressures on the equipment and the supports as determined in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Building. Roof mounted mechanical units and supports shall be secured to the structure. The use of wood "sleepers" shall not be permitted.

2007 Florida Building Code, Residential

M1307.2 Anchorage of appliances. Appliances designed to be fixed in position shall be fastened or anchored in an approved manner. Strapping shall be at points within the upper one-third and lower one-third of the appliance's vertical dimensions. At the lower point, the strapping shall maintain a minimum distance of 4 inches (102 mm) above the controls.

M1307.3 Wind resistance. Mechanical equipment, appliances and supports that are exposed to wind shall be designed and installed to resist the wind pressures on the equipment and the supports as determined in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Building.

2007 Florida Building Code, Building

1609.1 Applications. Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be designed to withstand the minimum wind loads prescribed herein. Decreases in wind loads shall not be made for the effect of shielding by other structures. All exterior wall coverings and soffits shall be capable of resisting the design pressures specified for walls for components and cladding loads in accordance with Section 1609.1.1.

1609.1.1 Determination of wind loads. Wind loads on every building or structure shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 6 of ASCE 7. Wind shall be assumed to come from any horizontal direction and wind pressures shall be assumed to act normal to the surface considered.

Summary of Comments and Discussion from the October 2009 HRAC Meeting:

· JG: does FEMA have code proposals to ICC to correct this issue (wind requirements for equipment)?

· TS: no, the requirements are clear and adequate, issue is designers should specify the correct attachments and manufacturers should demonstrate that panels are attached correctly and meet the requirements of the code.

· Chuck Meyer: tie-downs are addressed, if manufacturers design equipment to withstand the wind, what happens if installers don't replace panel screws to the correct torque standards. This is the problem, we can certify compliance with how equipment is engineered, but we can't control and should not be responsible for what happens in the field.

· RR: all equipment/products have same issue, not unique to mechanical equipment. Policing unit once installed is always a problem.

· TS: panels that can't be removed are also lost, access panels are an issue too. Job site modifications creates problems, using carabineers on latches to keep closed is better than thumb screws.

· Do Kim: understand manufacturers issue, but no different for all manufacturers like window/shutter/soffit that have to meet wind-load requirements and they also have no guarantee the installer will do job correctly, manufacturer has to design equipment to the wind load requirements of the code, period.

· Few manufacturers responded to BORA's requests, they addressed only slab on ground mounting, not roof mounted equipment or unit integrity, and would not send test reports to verify equipment complies with wind-load requirements of the Florida Building Code.

· Larry Means: servicing of equipment is not done always by licensed contractors, policing workforce is not realistic. If you place straps over panels so they can't be easily serviced, they won't be replaced correctly by service workers, can't ensure the issue will be corrected by designing to code, so waste of time to design to the Code. The problem is the market determines manufacturers most cost effective equipment, can't design cooling towers to 150 mph winds.

· Rafael Palacios: cooling tower manufacturers have done good job, we know how to attach equipment, issue is the panels on the actual equipment aren't designed correctly.

· Do Kim: cooling towers manufacturers provide certified drawings no problem, so why should HAVC manufacturers not have to comply.

· Pat Laughlin: AHRI, how can manufacturers satisfy Florida that their equipment complies with code, we need to maintain control over our documents. The HRAC could develop standards, we do want to establish an avenue to communicate.

· Dave Stevens: there is a disconnect: manufacturers understand the issue is industry competition and don't want to give competitors documentation, sharing information is the problem. Also, levels and types of communications from locals is conflicted, what information is needed (calculations).

· We are willing to work with FBC, and not resistant to working this issue out.

· RD: proprietary documents/calculations are important and standards could help.

· Chris Schulte: package units are not subject to Rule 9B-72 requirements, so product approval won't completely resolve this issue.

· MM: stands approved by PA system, the units are not.

· DK: similar to PA for solar collectors, external equipment, but approved by product approval (PA), attachment to roof is issue: test standards or rational analysis, same as roof mounting of solar collectors.

· Ted: willing to comply with requirements, who do we certify to? Local, state, etc.. Comply with code, now more strict and requires documentation.

· RD: if equipment required PA, then state approval is accepted state-wide.

· RP: NOA not accepted by Coral Gables, needed engineers calculations.

· DK: manufacturers late to product approval, need to get equipment approved state-wide.

· CP: marketing issue, who wants to comply first and get it done, worried about competition, should use 9B-72, Product Approval, to address this issue.

· Jaime Gascon: PA is always required, calculations are reviewed by the structural reviews, PA could be solution from residential to commercial. This is not a testing issue, products are made with conventional materials, standards are already in the code.

WORKSHOP PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

PARTICIPANTS’ ROLE

ü The workshop process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it.

ü Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don’t agree.

ü Be focused and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.

ü Look to the facilitator(s) to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.

ü Speak one person at a time. Please don’t interrupt each other.

ü Focus on issues, not personalities. Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.

ü To the extent possible, offer options to address other’s concerns, as well as your own.

ü Represent and communicate with member’s constituent group(s).

FACILITATORS’ ROLE

ü Design and facilitate a participatory task force process.

ü Assist participants to stay focused and on task.

ü Assure that participants follow ground rules.

ü Prepare agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports.

GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING

ü Speak when recognized by the Facilitator(s).

ü Offer one idea per person without explanation.

ü No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.

ü Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions.

ü Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the discussion.

THE NAME STACKING PROCESS

ü Determines the speaking order.

ü Participant raises hand to speak. Facilitator(s) will call on participants in turn.

ü Facilitator(s) may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not spoken on an issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue.

ACCEPTABILITY RANKING SCALE

During the meetings, participants may be asked to develop and rank options, and following

discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested by participants or staff. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address your reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises:

Acceptability Ranking Scale

4 = acceptable, I agree

3 = acceptable, I agree with minor reservations

2 = not acceptable, I don’t agree unless major reservations addressed

1 = not acceptable

COMMISSION'S CONSENSUS PROCESS

The Commission/committee/workgroup will seek to develop a package of consensus-based recommendations for submittal to the Florida Building Commission. General consensus is a participatory process whereby, on matters of substance, the members strive for agreements which all of the members can accept, support, live with or agree not to oppose. In instances where, after vigorously exploring possible ways to enhance the members’ support for the final decision on a recommendation, and the Commission/committee/workgroup finds that 100% acceptance or support is not achievable, final decisions will require at least 75% favorable vote of all members present and voting. This super majority decision rule underscores the importance of actively developing consensus throughout the process on substantive issues with the participation of all members and which all can live with. In instances where the Commission/committee/workgroup finds that even 75% acceptance or support is not achievable, publication of recommendations will include documentation of the differences and the options that were considered for which there is more than 50% support from the Committee.

The Commission/committee/workgroup will develop its recommendations using consensus-building techniques with the assistance of the facilitator. Techniques such as brainstorming, ranking and prioritizing approaches will be utilized. Where differences exist that prevent the Commission/committee/workgroup from reaching a final consensus decision (i.e. with support of at least 75% of the members) on a recommendation, the Commission/committee/workgroup will outline the differences in its documentation.

The Commission's/committee's/workgroup's consensus process will be conducted as an open process consistent with applicable law. Commission/committee/workgroup members, staff, and facilitator will be the only participants seated at the table. Only Commission/committee/workgroup members may participate in discussions and vote on proposals and recommendations. The facilitator, or a Commission/committee/workgroup member through the facilitator, may request specific clarification from a member of the public in order to assist the Commission/committee/workgroup in understanding an issue. Observers/members of the public are welcome to speak during the public comment period provided at each meeting, and all comments submitted on the public comment forms provided in the agenda packets will be included in the facilitator’ summary reports.

Facilitator will work with staff and Commission/committee/workgroup members to design agendas that will be both efficient and effective. The staff will help the Commission/committee/workgroup with information and meeting logistics.

To enhance the possibility of constructive discussions as members educate themselves on the issues and engage in consensus-building, members agree to refrain from public statements that may prejudge the outcome of the Commission's/committee's/workgroup's consensus process. In discussing the Commission/committee/workgroup process with the media, members agree to be careful to present only their own views and not the views or statements of other participants. In addition, in order to provide balance to the Commission/committee/workgroup process, members agree to represent and consult with their stakeholder interest groups.

PUBLIC COMMENT FORM

The Florida Building Commission encourages written comments—All written comments will be included in the workshop summary report.

Name:

Organization:

Meeting Date:

Please make your comment(s) as specific as possible, and offer suggestions to address your concerns.

Please limit comment(s) to topics within the scope of the workshop, and refrain from any personal attacks or derogatory language.

The facilitator may, at his discretion, limit public comment to a maximum of three-minutes (3) per person, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.

COMMENT:

Please give completed form(s) to the Facilitator for inclusion in the workshop summary report.