553.885 Carbon monoxide alarm required.--



(1) Every building for which a building permit is issued for new construction on or after July 1, 2008, and having a fossil-fuel-burning heater or appliance, a fireplace, or an attached garage shall have an approved operational carbon monoxide alarm installed within 10 feet of each room used for sleeping purposes.

(2) The Florida Building Commission shall adopt rules to administer this section and shall incorporate such requirements into its next revision of the Florida Building Code.




The final rule



9B-3.0472 Carbon Monoxide Protection.

(1) Definitions: For purposes of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM. A device for the purpose of detecting carbon monoxide, that produces a distinct audible alarm, and is listed or labeled with the appropriate standard, either ANSI/UL 2034 - 96, Standard for Single and Multiple Station CO Alarms, incorporated herein by reference, or UL 2075 - 04, Gas and Vapor Detector Sensor, incorporated herein by reference, in accordance with its application. Both documents may be obtained by writing to: Codes and Standards Section, Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100.

(b) FOSSIL FUEL. Coal, kerosene, oil, fuel gases, or other petroleum or hydrocarbon product that emits carbon monoxide as a by-product of combustion.

(2) Every building for which a permit for new construction is issued on or after 7/1/08 and having a fossil-fuel-burning heater or appliance, a fireplace, or an attached garage shall have an operational carbon monoxide alarm installed within 10 feet of each room used for sleeping purposes.

(3) In new construction, alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring when such wiring is served from the local power utility. Such alarms shall have battery back up.

(4) Combination smoke/carbon monoxide alarms shall be listed or labeled by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory.

Specific Authority 553.885(2) FS. Law Implemented 553.72, 553.73(2), (3), (7), (9), 553.885(2) FS. History–New 11-18-07.

Thanks!

Everyone may want to note it states building permit issued on July 1, 2008 not date of application for building permit.

Thanks for keeping us updated Don!

You may want to note there is a DEC statement that is going to be discussion August 12 by the Mechanical TAC. It is dealing with existing structures. This is NOT the Official Dec questions but should be very close to what was finally submitted.

1. Does the rule apply only to new construction of a new building, or does it also apply to additions or alterations as defined in the FEBC?

2. If the rule applies to additions, does an addition require the complete existing structure to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and battery back up)

a. For Example: If an attached garage or a screen enclosure is added to an existing home, are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?

3. If the rule applies to all alterations, does it require the complete existing structure to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and battery back up)

a. Example #1: If a new gas furnace is installed in an existing home, whereas it was electric before, are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?

b. Example #2: If any type of permit is issued on the existing structure are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?

4. If the answer is yes to the questions 2 or 3 above, must hardwired CO detectors be installed with a battery backup?

5. Does the rule apply to repairs, as defined by the FEBC?

6. Does the rule apply to a change in occupancy to a change in occupancy, as defined by the FEBC?

Thanks again!

These are good questions. I would be inclined to treat CO alarms the same way smoke alarms are handled. This way enforcement of the two alarm types are kept consistent.

I also feel this matter will be resolved by the manufacturer of smoke and CO alarms. It will only be a matter of time before all alarms are combination type. This will eliminate the need for having separate rules for each alarm type and allow for one consistent rule for "alarms" in general.

Is there any question of placement? As far as I know CO at or near ambient temperature may not rise up to a ceiling mounted smoke detector. I would think "bed height" might be the most effective location and it is clear from our "smoke in the tray" discussions aesthetics are not important to the code

The reason the NFPA 720 and carbon monoxide alarm manufacturer’s installation instructions call for the location to be in the same vicinity of smoke alarms is due to the fact that most sickness and death caused by carbon monoxide is a result of the by-product of combustion. This heated air heavily diluted with CO tends to rise and follow the wall up to the ceiling.

I just think the heat condition is different. Smoke detectors are there to see the smoke from a fire in that vicinity. The CO could be coming in from quite a ways away. The classic Florida example is the generator in the garage. The exhaust heat is fairly quickly dissipated but the CO can travel the length of an at grade home pretty much at ambient temperature. In the northern scenario, a cracked heat exchanger will put the CO in the room as heated HVAC air but it will still be injected at or near floor level.

I do agree Greg.

Since CO poisoning can occurs over a significant period of time before the related symptoms become unbearable, you would think it would be best to have air samples taken at the plane of where people are.

A large number of CO Poisonings are likely going undiagnosed because the symptoms are like that of the flu or heat exhaustion. Most people can get through the headache, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue not realizing they are being poisoned.

It’s like having mold contamination in your home. You always seem to be sick at home, but feel fine at work or out of the house.

In short, I think the CO alarm rule is a good first step. Sort-of like the introduction of the gfci devices, eventually, there will be better methods and installation practices developed to best protect the public.

Anybody have any ideas how the meeting discussions went?

Below are the minutes from the conference call. Please note this has not been approved by the FBC and is subject to change at next week commission meeting. It is up for first hearing under legal report as DEC statement DCA08-DEC-207.

Florida Building Commission-Mechanical TAC

MINUTES
August 12, 2008
1:00 pm
By CONFERENCE CALL

1. Attendees: Chaired by Steve Bassett. Bob Andrews, Larry Banks, Joe Crum, Gary Griffin, Pete Quintela and Paul Stehle representing Dan Griffin. Staff: Ann Stanton, Mo Madani and Betty Stevens. Facilitated by Jeff Blair.

2. The committee reviewed and approved the agenda.

3. Reviewed and provided recommendations to the Commission on the request for declaratory statement DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony C. Apfelbeck, Fire Marshal/Building Official, City of Altamonte Springs, as follows:

Question 1: Does the rule apply only to new construction of a new building, or does it also apply to additions or alterations as defined in the FEBC?

Answer: The rule applies to all buildings for which a permit for new construction is issued. In this case, it would apply to construction of new buildings, additions and level 3 alterations as defined in the FBC-Existing Building.

Question 2: If the rule applies to additions, does an addition require the complete existing structure to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and battery back up)
For example: If an attached garage or a screen enclosure is added to an existing home, are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?

Answer: YES, existing buildings must be brought into compliance if the addition meets the requirements of Rule 9B-3.0472, such as fossil fuel appliances or attached garage. If not, NO.

Question 3. If the rule applies to all alterations, does it require the complete existing structure to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and battery back up)
a. Example #1: If a new gas furnace is installed in an existing home, whereas it was electric before, are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?
b. Example #2: If any type of permit is issued on the existing structure are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?

Answer: YES, it applies to the complete existing structure if it is a level 3 alteration (as defined in the FBC-Existing Building), or if a fossil fuel appliance or an attached garage is added.

Question 4. If the answer is yes to the questions 2 or 3 above, must hardwired CO detectors be installed with a battery backup?

Answer:
For additions (Question 2), YES.
For Level 3 alterations (Question 3), YES.

Question 5. Does the rule apply to repairs, as defined by the FEBC?

Answer: NO.

Question 6. Does the rule apply to a change in occupancy, as defined by the FEBC?

Answer: YES, if the change of occupancy meets the requirements or intent of Rule 9B-3.0472.

4. Reviewed and discussed proposed code changes to the Mechanical code and provided recommendation for consideration by the Commission.
Mod 2946: Proponent of comment deferred to Mod 3267.
Mod 3003: Not a glitch. NAR
Mod 3245: Section 508.1.1 was reserved in the 2004 code. FL specific. AS
Mod 3267: FL specific criteria in Sec. M1501.3 should be exception to M1502.6. AS

5. New business:
Staff reported that additional glitches were found in the following sections of the Mechanical code. Correction of glitches was approved unanimously.
403.1 Change to reference number.
406 Reserved in the 2004 code. Delete text and Reserve.
506.3.2.5 New IMC section in wrong place in FBC-Mechanical. Should be Section 506.3.3.1.
603.8 Fix reference numbers.
603.10 Fix reference numbers.
1206.9.1 Flood hazard. Florida specific. Should be referenced to 301.13.
1305.2.1 Flood hazard. Florida specific. Should be referenced to 301.13.
Steve Bassett reported that the definition of BOILER, HOT WATER SUPPLY in Sec. 202 of the FBC-Mechanical is wrong. The heat input should be changed to 400,000 Btus per hour and the water temperature should be changed to 210oF. The TAC approved changing the definition unanimously.

A Mechanical TAC meeting will likely be held in October, 2008 to consider changes that may to needed to the carbon monoxide legislation for a report to the Legislature.

6. Adjourned at 2:45 pm.

The FBC yesterday sent this DEC statement back to the TAC to reconsider. It appears from the discussions that the majority of the commission believes the law does not require existing buildings to comply.

Thank you for keeping us updated Don. It is greatly appreciated.

Good morning to all! Have the questions from post #5315 been answered by the Mechanical TAC yet?

Short answer: The dec statement was sent back to the tac to readdress because the commission disagreed with their answers.

Long answer: Oct 2008
DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelbeck, Fire Marshall/Building Official, City of Altamonte Springs

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association:
Mr. Glenn stated he took exception to a number of the answers given. He then stated the Legislation that was mandated which developed the rule for carbon monoxide detectors was clearly intended for new construction. He then stated the discussion before the TAC stemmed, to some degree; around the fact there was no definition of new construction. He argued there was a scope and definition in the existing Building Code for existing buildings which could be the basis for new construction. He stated if it was not an existing building it was new construction. He further stated the “scope of the existing Building Code shall apply to repair, alteration, change of occupancy, additions and relocations of existing buildings”. He then read the definition of an existing building “A building or structure or portion of a building or structure which was previously legally occupied or used for its intended purpose to extend the carbon monoxide installation requirements to additions, equipment change outs” goes well beyond the Legislative intent and is probably contrary to some other policies that have been established by the State. He stated the Florida Climate Change Energy Efficiency Action Team have encouraged, based on the carbon credits issue, the changeover from electric to gas powered appliances. He then stated this interpretation would discourage that provision simply because it would be much cheaper to replace an electric range with an electric range or a furnace with a furnace than to add the additional cost of having to hardwire carbon monoxide detectors in an existing building. He stated, having been present during the deliberations in both the House and the Senate, clearly the intent was to apply only to new construction, permitted after the date of the bill.

Mr. Glenn stated in this interpretation a number of the answers given goes back to houses or buildings that could have been built 40 years ago and because they are trying to make a change to the building that would improve its overall efficiency or usability would now have to add the additional cost of carbon monoxide detectors. He then stated testimony given in the meeting by a representative of Honeywell indicated that carbon monoxide detectors have a life expectancy of 3-5 years, which is further compounded by the fact every 3-5 years those detectors would have to be changed. He stated until such time as it’s been incorporated into the Code, the Commission should narrowly interpret this provision and only restrict it to buildings being built as new construction.


Keri Hebrank stated she had worked on the initial legislation, as well. She then stated initially the bill did include all buildings and the Legislature decided they did not want to include it in existing buildings and instead only apply it to new construction.


Jeff Householder, Florida Natural Gas Association and the Florida Propane Association.
Mr. Householder stated they appreciated the opportunity to speak on this subject before the Commission. He then stated he was in agreement with Mr. Glenn’s comments. He stated the belief it exceeds the scope of the existing statute and probably exceeds the scope of the Department or the Commission’s ability to interpret the statute in this rule. He continued by stating the gas industry had long supported the installation of carbon monoxide alarm devices. He stated they certainly have supported the devices with respect to the new construction language in 553.885. He also stated they had no problem with the hardwired requirements which made it to the Commission rule. He then stated where they take exception was the concern of the application that this declaratory statement seems to make expanding the application of the alarm requirements into existing buildings. He further stated, as Mr. Richmond had indicated this declaratory statement would apply to additions, existing buildings to which an addition is attached, a level 3 alteration in an existing building, a change of occupancy in an existing building, and a change-out of an electrical appliance to a gas appliance in an existing building. He stated he believed all of those would run afoul with the statutory enabling legislation.


Mr. Householder stated there was no problem with installing these devices. He further stated if the Commission was interested in adjusting the statute to go down the existing building trail his industry would be happy to go with it and assist in crafting the language which would make that possible. He continued by stating they believed there may be other participants in the Legislation who were around in 2007 and may not feel quite as expansive as his industry feels about it. He stated his industry was okay with the application of the devices in certain types of existing buildings, certain changes of occupancy, and in additions and Level 3 alterations. He further stated they had no problem applying them and no problem hardwiring them in those particular instances.
Mr. Householder stated the concern of his industry occurs when singling out gas change-out, which is taking out an electrical appliance and replacing it with a gas appliance and requiring a hardwired carbon monoxide detector in an existing building. He further stated it was a pretty tricky thing to deal with. He then stated he believed the Commission, in this particular instance, faces three fundamental issues: 1) the statute and the rule both applying in their view to new construction. He stated, based on their participation in Legislative process, they believe the Legislature did not intend to require the carbon monoxide detector alarms in existing buildings. He continued by stating there was every opportunity during the Legislative session and Legislature chose the language in the statute intentionally and with no malice or forethought. He stated his industry does not believe the Commission has the unilateral authority to expand the statutory scope of 553.885 to include existing buildings. He stated they believed it was the intent of the Legislature in 553.775 to enable the Commission to interpret the Building Code, not the statute. He further stated the interpretation of the statute is the purview of the court system and not the Commission. He then stated the Commission has a level of rule-interpretive authority under Chapter 120, but he does not believe it extends to a re-write of Florida Statutes. He concluded by stating the biggest concern was this is a fundamental change in public policy and he does not believe it is appropriate to be handled through a declaratory statement process. He stated there should be a fuller vetting of this issue before there is any substantive change.

Mr. Householder stated the fundamental issue is how cost prohibitive it is to install hardwired carbon monoxide detectors in existing residential buildings. He then stated some very unscientific surveying of electricians around the state had been done and found costs from $300.00 to $1500.00 to install those devices in a existing buildings depending on the number of bedrooms and the complexity of the layout of the house. He stated after adding that on to the top of changing to gas there would be no electric to gas conversions. He further stated it would be a virtual end to the conversion process for the gas industry. He stated his industry currently does significant economic impacts on the industry as tens of thousands are done each year. He stated it effectively eliminates a consumer fuel choice. He then stated it has some unintended effects on some state policies. The Florida Energy Efficiency Conservation Act currently depends on conversions of electric appliances to gas to meet certain electric demand reduction goals. He continued by stating both the Governor and Legislature have both instituted various carbon emission reduction requirements. He further stated these particular conversions apply to those emission reductions. 3) They do not believe there have been no real economic impact assessment and no full vetting of the issues for this declaratory statement. He explained an attempt to try to participate in the August teleconference call where the TAC approved this recommendation. He stated it was a tricky process to participate in and clearly do not believe the interest of the industry was represented. He then stated this was the first time they had gotten the opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

Mr. Householder stated there were a couple of recommendations the industry would like the Commission to consider: 1) Establish a carbon monoxide workgroup to provide input on the report the Commission will deliver to the 2009 Legislature. He stated with the appointment of the workgroup hopefully recommendation can be provided by December that makes sense enough to clear up some of the applicability issues in the statute. 2) The Commission should return the declaratory statement to the TAC for further consideration. He then stated alternately the Commission should modify the TAC recommendation to apply it solely to new construction 3) The Commission should consider the workgroup’s recommendations and hopefully move forward with the recommendation to the Legislature that provides some additional clarity on the application requirements of these alarm products in existing buildings.

Commissioner Greiner stated he had some fundamental problems with this declaratory statement. He stated he had read and believed he understood the rule. He then stated he could make the leap if an addition is being put on an existing structure it is new construction. He stated what he didn’t get was going back through the whole structure and putting in carbon monoxide detectors. He stated he also had a fundamental problem with getting from what it says in the rule to the existing Building Code. He stated he agreed carbon monoxide detectors are necessary, but felt like the Commission was getting into the same area it was in with pools regarding how to take care of all the existing stuff. He further stated this was not addressed in the rule as he understood it and he did not believe the Commission cold do that with this declaratory statement.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to send the declaratory statement back to the TAC with clarification from the Commission’s attorney. Commissioner Bahadori entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins stated several issues had come to light and he was in total agreement with Commissioner Greiner, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Householder and Ms. Hebrank. He then stated the results of this declaratory statement are it would cause many consequences, none least of which would hurt energy issues in the state. He further stated this is what happens when the Legislature puts a Building Code requirement directly into the law, then directs the Building Commission to adopt the rule. He continued by stating this separate rule which is Rule 9B-3.042 is not the Building Code rule. He stated the basic question was what the definition of new construction is. He then stated he was not sure the Commission could take the leap that goes into the Florida Building Code because it is a separate rule in response to a statutory requirement of the Legislature putting a Building Code in the law and then requiring the Commission implement that rule. He stated the rule should be amended or deleted and put into the Florida Building Code and dealt with as the Mechanical TAC decided in the form of a workgroup to do that properly. He then stated he believed another outcropping of this problem there should be a recommendation to the Legislature out of this to mix this type of problem and future problems created by this. He stated when the TAC had the teleconference all of this had not come to light and perhaps that was not the right approach. He concluded by stating it should go back to the TAC, but if it is changed here the answer to question 1 should be changed.

Commissioner Bassett stated Commissioner Wiggins made his exact motion therefore he moved the previous question.

Mr. Richmond stated several statements had been made concerning the Legislature proceedings. He asked anyone who claims this was extensively debated to bring a record of it because there was a lot of commentary in the early phase from affected folks, but it was not hashed out in any meetings and was not subject to debate or argument or flushing out on the floor of the Legislature. He stated it is standard for Legislature to work things out this way. He further stated it is not that simple and the language that made its way into the statute isn’t open to interpretation as it refers to every building for new construction for which a permit is pulled on or after July 1, 2008. He stated if that phrase were interpreted to mean only new buildings it could adversely affect a lot of other things in the Code in application of some other things. He concluded by stating ultimately the Commission is charged with being consistent. He then stated it would not really advocate for a particular result, however there is ambiguity in the statute subject to interpretation and the appropriate method for determination is via declaratory statements.

Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Dec 2008
DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelbeck, Fire Marshall/Building Official, City of Altamonte Springs Motion—The Commission voted 23 – 0 in favor, to defer action the petition, pending a review of legal sufficiency by DCA legal staff.

CO Detector Workgroup

The Chair noted that the CO Detector Workgroup was appointed between meetings to allow them to develop legislative recommendations in time for the Commission’s Report to the 2009 Legislature. The Chair indicated that the members appointed are as follows: Jim Goodloe, Dale Greiner, Bob Boyer, Hamid Bahadori, Steve Bassett, Jeff Gross, Matt Carlton, Ed Carson, Mark Turner, and Jeff Householder.

Thanks...I think.

real short answer: you are on your own in interpreting, since the FBC did not.

No wonder we don't have consistence code interpretations within FL. 24 Commissioners can’t agree on the meaning of a rule that they wrote!

Ha, that is funny!

There are a few other organizations like that here in Florida as well..

Why not just declare a moratorium on any more code changes of any kind until we have an unambiguous understanding of what we have now?
Code churn is so bad for the last decade or more that I doubt anyone can really say they understand it.

We would all be dead and buried before the moratorium could be lifted if we relied on everyone having an unambiguous understanding of the codes as they are written at this moment.

Not to offend anyone but I have heard far too often from Building Officials statement like “I don’t care what the Codes states or what another jurisdiction is enforcing this is my jurisdiction and you will comply with my interpretation of the codes”.

The real key in my opinion to having an unambiguous understanding of the codes within FL and across the nation is consistence education and training for all code officials on the codes and codes written in a language that clearly states what is need to comply.

Ever wonder why we have a code book that needs a 2 volume Commentary or a Handbook to explain to us what their intent was in the first place as written in the code book?

Why not make every other code cycle, simply a glitch fixer and only introduce new rules on the other one? Perhaps if we would let the codes settle down a bit and fix the language they wouldn't need so much additional material to explain what they mean.

Let take it a step further. How about taking the time and making the effort to write the code so that there are no glitches or at least very little of them? I have heard it stated by individuals on the FBC "Well let’s go ahead and place this in the code for now and later if necessary we can fix it during the glitch cycle or issue a DEC statement”.

BTW: here the link to the Draft 2007 Glitch Code Modifications
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/FBC/thecode/2007_Code_Development_Archive.htm
Enjoy them

So, according to page 4 of the EXISTING BUILDING-SUPPLEMENT "Chapter 27 of the Florida Building Code, Building" (Ch. 27 FBC-B) can take the place of those pesky code sections that we write on correction notices and plan review critiques. This will save a lot of time.