English to Spanish Translator specializing in subtitling and other transltions

Working languages:

Spanish to English

Andrés Galliano
Over 20 years translating

Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Local time: 01:07 -03 (GMT-3)

Native in: Spanish

Send email

Feedback from
clients and colleagues
on Willingness to Work Again

1 rating (5.00 avg. rating)

What Andrés Galliano is working on

Feb 8, 2020 (posted via ProZ.com): Just finished subtitling The Valhalla Murders, for Netflix! ...more »

Total word count: 0

Freelance translator and/or interpreter

This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.

This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.

Translation, Editing/proofreading, Subtitling, Software localization, Website localization

Specializes in:
Accounting	Finance (general)
Computers: Software	Telecom(munications)
Cinema, Film, TV, Drama	Management
Medical: Health Care	Advertising / Public Relations
Gaming/Video-games/E-sports

Spanish to English - Rates: 0.04 - 0.06 USD per word / 60 - 80 USD per hour

1 entry

Sample translations submitted: 1

Spanish to English: Technical Hearings General field: Social Sciences Detailed field: Government / Politics
Source text - Spanish Hablante 1: La audiencia técnica con relación a los códigos, la primera propuesta de enmienda, es la 5S1, proponente Scott Desac. Tenemos… (ininteligible) Hablante 2: Yo estuve con la compañía Duberry en la presentación de FEMA. I'm going to speak in English, but if anyone has a question in Spanish, as you wish. Also representing Desac, sitting chair of the ICC (inaudible). He was part of the mitigation assessment team for Hurricane Georgia and Hurricane Maria. He was also part ot the assessment team for…(ininteligible) We have the next two proposals that are related to storm shelters, and the reason for submitting these two proposals is that when we did the mitigation assessment team all over the island, we didn't identify a single shelter that met the standards of FEMA and ICC 500. So the next two ammendments are intended to make them stronger, to make stronger shelters. So, the first one, I'll just read it, it says, on section 423.3, Critical Emergency Operations: In areas where the shelter designed windspeed for hurricanes is 190 miles per hour for (ininteligible) on island states or territories where vehicle access to the Continental US by roadway is not available, 911 call stations, emergency operations centers, and fire, rescue, ambulance and police stations shall comply with table 1604.5 as a risk category for structure. And so we provided with a storm shelter constructed in accordance with ICC 500. I just wanted to point out that these applies only to new structures, and the intent for this is that when there is a storm, there's emergency operators, you know, the fire department, police departments, that, they cannot evacuate. So, the intent of this is to provide a shelter for them, a safe room for them so they can be protected from the storm. And then, the last thing is… the cause related to this amendment… Estimates show that for new construction is only an increase of 1 to 2 percent. To… For metro fit buildings, in order to make them compliant with FEMA ICC 500, you could expect an increase of 5 to 8 percent in cost to comply. That's all I got with the questions. Hablante 1: Any questions from the members? The intention behind your proposed text is tying the design to wind speeds or tying the design to the importance of those types of shelters? What if an (ininteligible) in Puerto Rico doesn't meet the 190 miles per hour when designed, and then we'd need to consider that shelter category 4? Hablante 2: So this is the first amendment, the one that we're discussing right now is for all critical facilities. And it's all the facilities that are listed here on 911 Call Stations, Emergency Operations Centers, and all the ones that are listed here. Those facilities that are in a wind speed region of 190 miles per hours plus. So, this only applies to new critical facilities. The second one that we're going to discuss after this, is related to Category E facilities, which are the ones that hold large groups of people, including schools. Does that answer your question? Hablante 3: No. Not really. Wouldn't it be simpler if we just moved certain buildings, like the ones you described, move them all to a single category, strict, instead of defining them by wind speed? Hablante 2: So, I think that with these two proposals that we are submitting, the first like I said is for critical facilities, the second one is for Category E facilities, and that covers everything. The 190 miles per hour is based on the maps on the ICC 500. So we are covering critical facilities, Category E facilities that, everything that's on the ICC 500… If you wanna discuss wind speed, I mean, we can discuss that, but that's what's in the ICC 500. Hablante 3: OK. Thank you. Hablante 4: My name is Jose Vazquez, for Puerto Rico Fire Department. I have a question. This first ammendment is only for new construction? Hablante 2: Correct. We're talking about the IBC. The IEC would…My understanding is that the IEC would send you back here for the requirements. Hablante 5: I have a question. For Mr. Vazquez. Have you seen the wind plots that have the IBC, that have the wind contours, the wind maps? And these 190 miles per hour will be if you use that plots? Will be for one part of the island and the other part of the island can be lower than 190, but critical facilities are still critical in all the island. So. How did you get this 190 MPH? Why is that your threshold, why 190? Hablante 2: So, we're talking about two different maps, I think that's the confusion. The IBC has a different map that has different contours, that has different wind speeds for…(ininteligible). Now this is talking about the ICC 500, which is a big map of the US, the continental part, and then on the bottom right side it says: Guam, Hawai, Puerto Rico. And Puerto Rico says 190 MPH. So, it doesn't have contours, it doesn't have anything. It just says this is... Hablante 5: For the whole island. Hablante 2: For the whole island. So this includes the whole island, 190 MPH. And instead of referencing here a figure from ICC, we just put 190 MPH because that's what's just referenced over there. Hablante 5: So, that's… Because it said design, wind speed, I thought you were referring to the IBC, but Design wind speed is in the ICC 500, right? Hablante 2: The design wind speed… Hablante 5: When you put the design wind speed with… I think that you're talking about the IBC, not the ICC 500, right? So maybe we can put something here, which implies that we're talking about the 190 in the ICC 500. Hablante 1: There can be like an amendment to the… Hablante 2: Sure, but, a hundred… Hablante 5: Say Puerto Rico. If you're saying that the ICC 500 says 190 MPH for the entire Puerto Rico, basically you're saying Puerto Rico, period. Any critical emergency operation in Puerto Rico would need to comply with this. Hablante 3: Because it could be construed as in confusion to which map are you talking about, the maps are different then. Under the IBC map maybe there are some areas like he's saying that will not… There will be confusion that they don't need to do it, while we just say, hey, everywhere in Puerto Rico there's a critical emergency operation will need to comply with this. Hablante 3: And that's fine, what you're doing is producing the threshold which will make critical facilities more resilient, and FEMA would be fine with that. Hablante 5: You have the critical facilities there listed, so… Hablante 2: Right, what you're saying is to strike…. And it would say… In areas where… No, we would say… Hablante 5: Puerto Rico. Hablante 2: All critical facilities would need to comply with… In short it would be "All critical facilities will need to comply with ICC 500." Hablante 5: "All the listed critical facilities will need to comply with the ICC 500." Hablante 4: That'd be fine with me. Hablante 5: That's better, because the other way can be confusing for the designers, you know. Hablante 1: Can you go over so I can write the a…? Hablante 6: I have a question. Hablante 1: You have a question? Okay. Hablante 6: How come that now that we have tornados in Puerto Rico, that specification is for tornados, not for hurricanes. Why do you want to bring a tornados specification in…? Hablante 2: No, we're striking tornados… Hablante 6: No, but the ones… When they write the code, it was for tornados, wind speed for tornado, tornados and hurricanes are very different situations, conditions for design. So you're bringing something that doesn't apply to Puerto Rico. Hablante 2: Right, so, this is… There's been some changes in regards to storm shelters, right? The intent for storm shelters back before was for tornados, because tornados happen quick, right? And you need somewhere to hide, right? Now this applies to critical facilities, like, in Puerto Rico, we know three days before the storm that it's gonna hit, so everybody can evacuate and go to a safe place. But people that are, the policemen, the fire department, they cannot evacuate, so they need somewhere to hide. Hablante 6: That is already covered in the code. That you design for the category and your code. Why do you want to increase the specifications, sir? Hablante 2: Cause we're providing a storm shelter for those emergency response people. Hablante 6: Already the code provides for that. Hablante 2: Where's that? Hablante 6: If you have occupancy category IV, you're already meeting the requirement for that type of occupancy. Hablante 2: Right, but we're referencing the ICC 500, which is the known standard for storm shelters. Hablante 6: But we don't need storm shelters for tornados here. Hablante 2: This is for hurricanes, not for tornados. Hablante 6: I'm reading tornados, not hurricanes. Why are you bringing tornado specifications to a hurricane prompt area? Hablante 2: ICC 500 is for storm shelters, not for tornado shelters. Hablante 6: I don't know ICC 500, I cannot talk about that. Hablante 5: I have a copy here, of a document, so eventually before we go to the final decision we can check on the document, the ICC 500 for any comment or question, any other comment…? Hablante 4: He has a good point. Should we bring it now? Hablante 5: The ICC 500 is not for the design wind speed, because the design wind speed in Category IV is almost like 200 MPH with the new IBC. That's the design wind speed. When you use the threshold of 190 MPH, like the ICC said, we're supposed to design with the 200, not the 190. But what the ICC brings are other details that make safer that structure. Not specifically just the wind speed. Hablante 2: Right. Correct. You are making the facility stronger, therefore you can reduce the… Yes. Any other question? Hablante 3: I just wanna maybe comment on that. I don't know the ICC in terms of what the storm shelter… I could be wrong but maybe they require specific rooms within the entire structure that meet or exceed the requirements of the entire structure, so it's not that now the whole structure... The whole structure will be designed based on the IBC code, and that could be for 200 MPH, but maybe you're adding a bit more of insurance, there's some specific rooms that are designed a little bit stronger in case the other elements of the structure fail, that they could... the people that are there could be safe there while the passing of the storm. Hablante 2: You're absolutely right about that. The intent is to provide a safe room, alright? It provides a (inteligible) and FEMA provides the requirements for spacing. I think you need 5 sq ft per person. So its… For hurricanes is different, it may be 10 or 20, but it's just a room for people to spend a certain amount of time, and you can do it inside the same building or you can do it outside the building. But it's a limited space for the people to be safe. Hablante 3: Bunkerised. The idea is for the structure... Hablante 2: Good point, thank you for bringing that up. Hablante 4: So, by complying with the ICC 500 we wouldn't be facing a situation like the police station that got flooded suddenly, because the ICC 500 would cover that. Hablante 2: Correct, it would provide for all hazards. It would provide provisions to make the facilities resilient for all hazards that apply to Puerto Rico. It would keep the fire respondents and the police departments safe. Hablante 3: Okay, thank you. Hablante 2: You're welcome. Hablante 1: Can we over the text that we will finally read? Hablante 2: Yes, let me think about the scenarios where the shelter design speed for hurricanes is required… (ininteligible). So, my proposed amendment is to strike everything. It would read 423.3 Critical Emergency Operation, On island states or territories where vehicle access to the Continental US by roadway is not available, 911 call stations, etc. It would just strike everything before on. On island. Hablante 4: Okay, so, you would give us the copy with the amendment. Hablante 2: I can do that. Hablante 4: And the other additional question, the same thing we're talking about here applies to the next? Hablante 2: Yes. Hablante 1: We can go to the next one, which is the proposal number 5S2. Hablante 7: Could I make one quick question before? Hablante 2: Yes. Hablante 6: Do you work with FEMA or not? Hablante 2: Yes, I’m a consultant with FEMA. Hablante 6: So my question would be: When you evaluated the disaster of the Maria, how many critical emergency operations including hospitals, police stations and other critical operations you feel that were totally inadequate for what we experienced? Just a general idea. Hablante 2: If you came up with this is because you're thinking that what we have now is not meeting… Hablante 6: Right. And we're currently… FEMA is currently working on a mitigation assessment team report, we are at the 60% stage right now. I believe that in the week of May 21st we're gonna come and present…. Do a presentation about the 50% draft of that. I am not sure who's gonna be invited, um-- We can discuss with all who's gonna be invited. And that document includes all those numbers. Hablante 2: I mean, we're voting on this today. So do you have a rough estimate, 50% of the critical emergency operations failes because they weren't adequately designed? Or were there any deaths or major injuries to those people who worked in these critical mission operations? Hablante 6: Well, all the facilities that I visited, including the ones that were elevated, were not able to be operational, at least until 3 days, a week after the storm, because there was always a source of failure. It was either a generator, which is included in the ICC 500, it could be flooded, it could be that the water leaked, it could be that they didn't have storm shutters and the wind just broke through the... So, I'd say at least 80% of the facilities that I saw were not operational after the storm because of Hurricane Maria damage. Hablante 7: Do you think that if those buildings were designed under a category IV compliant with the code would be OK? Hablante 6: After the Hurricane Maria, if they were designed… If they had complied with all of the disaster provisions in the 2018 IBC, is that what you're asking? Hablante 7: Also 2009 IBC. Hablante 6: I do not… Well, no, because the 2009 did not include flood provisions, right? It's flood, not wind the problem. Hablante 6: Well, that's one of the problems. Flood is one of the problems. Wind is another one of the problems. Hablante 1: Thank you for the… Okay. Hablante 5: Do you know when is the next revision of the ICC 500 or is the 2014 the last one, or when, when is ICC revised? Hablante 2: Every three years. Hablante 5: Every three years? Hablante 2. Yes. Hablante 6: So you're proposing the 2017? Hablante 2: We on purpose did not put a year on that. We say ICC 500, so every time we get a new update, it gets updated. Hablante 6: Is like it 7-ASC-7, the latest ASCU, to put here with the latest version of the ICC 500. Hablante 1: Latest additions. Hablante 2: I agree with that. Hablante 1: We agree on that amendment. Hablante 2: I agree with that. Hablante 1: Or… Or.. The ICC 500 later edition. Hablante 2: Right, in accordance with the later edition of the ICC 500. Hablante 1: Right. Right. We can move to the second proposal. That one is from Scott Desac. It's with regard to the 423.4 group E occupancies. Hablante dos: Right, this is Juan Nieves again, here to represent Scott Desac. We represent FEMA as well. Um--- This proposal is very similar to the previous one. I can read it, or we can speed up the process. But this is to include Group E Occupancies. I'll just read it: 423.4 Group E Occupancies in areas where the shelter design wind speed for tornados should be... straight through, right? That's my mistake. Wind speed for hurricanes is 190 MPH or greater on island states or territories where vehicle access to the Continental US by roadway is not available. In accordance with figure 3294.2 (2) of ICC 500, all Group E Occupancies with occupant load of 50 or more, shall have a storm shelter constructed in accordance with ICC 500. Again, this applies to only new facilities. So, we're proposing this for any group E category building which is em--- building that occupy large groups of people. The new building shall have a storm shelter constructed in accordance with ICC 500. The next I'm going be reading… similar to the previous one. If it's a new building we expect… and this has been studied by FEMA, and it's been… Yes, there's a FEMA publication that's quoted here that estimates increasing construction cost for a new building to be only 1-2% of the total project cost for new buildings. And if it's a retrofit you'd be a 2-9, no 5-8 percent. Hablante 8: I have a question. You say new buildings. But when you have an existing building you have to comply with the new building conditions, so it would be… It would also apply to existing buildings that will be renovated. Hablante 2: There's language, other words… Who…? I'm not a 100% sure who provides that language for… On the FEMA side is 50% of the renovation, right? I don't know how Puerto Rico does set it or if it's in the IBC or what but… For FEMA it's 50%. Hablante 8: Does IBC change use, or does it change eventually…? Hablante 2: It's gotta be a percentage it's not renovating any part, right? Hablante 8: Is there a value under it could be…? Hablante 2: 50%. Changing use are 50% of the value of the property. Hablante 8: Something like that. Hablante 2: That's right. Hablante 8: And does it say in the amendment that this is specifically for brand new constructions. Hablante 1: And he's also saying is that the building official can say you have to comply. No matter how the percentage looks like. Hablante 2: Who says that? Hablante 1: The building official. Hablante 2: And that's in the IBC? Hablante 1: Yes. Hablante 2: Right. So, we're not touching that part, we're just saying for new buildings. That'd need to be revised somewhere. Hablante 1: That'd be specifically for new structures. Hablante 2: I'm not proposing that. Hablante 3: So it means that old school shelters or rooms where there are 50 people or more, we have… we'd need to have a tornado shelter? Hablante 2: A hurricane shelter. And again this is because when we did the mitigation assessment team, we… all the shelters that we evaluated did not comply with ICC 500. And I've herad… And I did not go there but I've heard that they were using facilities that were not compliant at all with shelters. So this would provide the commonwealth of Puerto Rico with a list of certified shelters that we feel pretty good we're sending people to be safe during a hurricane. Hablante 1: My questions is as follows: Right now we know that there's a big difference between tornados and hurricanes. A hurricane we in advance know when we'll be hit by that tornado, hurricane. There is a procedure for evacuation in those areas which we believe will affect. When you have a tornado, tornado, sometimes you don't have any further advice than one hour, or less to evacuate that area. So we're saying here that we require new buildings to construct a storm shelter for when... For hurricanes. Em... So that's what they're telling. That that will increase the cost of the structure. Hablante 2: Right. So, yes, for new structures it would be 1-2% and again, and I wanna make this clear. You say… It's understood that we send people to shelters, we evacuate people, we send people to shelters but, those shelters that we're sending people, are not in accordance with ICC 500. This will provide shelters in accordance with ICC 500. So, that's my point. I wanna make that very clear, that we're sending people to shelters that are not in accordance with ICC 500. Hablante 1: Okay. Any further questions from the committee? Hablante 6: I have a confusion with the Group E Occupancy with occupant low of 50 or more. %0 or more people like a student, or 50 or more people like a… is going to go to the shelter. People to the outside. Hablante 2: That's 50 or more students. 50 or more occupants. Hablante 6: We use the maximum capacity of the students. That's identifying the occupancy of the building. Right, so… Hablante 2: So, this is saying all Group E type buildings that have 50 or more people at most times of the day. Hablante 6: Yes, but, the maximum capacity for educational occupancy maybe is different for the people who come to the outside of the refuge, you know, right? Hablante 2: Right. Hablante 6: I just only want to know that 50 or more is the table that you'd use the maximum capacity for educational or for the shelter, or the people who come to the outside to…You know? Hablante 2: Right. So what this is saying is that if you have a structure, and that structure is Group E Occupancy, and that structure is a really old school that only has 45 students, then you'd have to worry about this. But if that school has 55 students, then you'd have to worry about this. Is that clear? If it’s a little school, they don’t have to worry about that. Tis doesn’t apply. Hablante 6: Okay, but if it isn't that, the people that're gonna be in the shelter are students. Hablante 2: The people that are gonna be in the shelter um…. That's… Um…. That's another… There a radius of the area of people that can make it there. It's only a limited amount of people that can be sheltered. It depends on the size of the facility. Hablante 6: Okay. Any further questions? Well, thank you for the presentation. For…. Eventually, every time we talk we should identify each one. So we can have a record. A record. Hablante 1: A proposal. Carmen Marla Lopez, Chapter 10: Instituto de Cultura Portorriqueño. Any representative from that agency? That’s for the International Assistance Building Code, Chapter 10, Change of Occupancy, Section 1006 Structural. The Section 1006.2 Snow and Wind Loads. Where a change of occupancy results in a structure being designed to a higher risk category, the structure side shall satisfy the requirements of sections 1608 and 1609 of the International Building Code for the new risk category. I would like to mention that the way this amendment has been submitted, they're changing the type of letter to Italic, I don't see if it’s scratched or bold. Hablante 6: She crossed that snow and… Hablante 1: Okay, okay. Hablante 6: 1608. Hablante 1: So the proposed text should be, scratch snow, and we put wind loads. Where change of occupancy results in a structure being assigned to a higher risk category, the structure shall satisfy the requirements of sections 101609 of the International Building Code for the new risk category. The reason is that historical data indicates no snowfall in Puerto Rico, tropical climate. Because, it will not increase the cost of construction. Any comments, questions with regards to this proposal? Hablante 1: Okay, then we’ll move to the next one. The proposal number 5S4, proponent Fernando Abruña. He’s representing himself. This will be regard chapter 15 of the IBC 1018, Roof Assemblies and Rooftops. It’s section with regard to weather protection. In general, roof decks shall be covered with approved roof coverings, secured to the building or structure in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Roof coverings shall be designed in accordance with this code and installed in accordance with this code and the manufacturer’s approval instructions. Roof coverings shall be required in all low slope roofs defined by the International Roofing Contractors Association as having a slope 3 in.to 12 in. or less. Shall be capable of withstanding 150 MPH winds loads and be installed with a minimum 10 year warranty. The reasons of the Hurricane Maria roof leaks in many structures became one of the main culprits of interior damage and both to the building structure and the contents. This damage includes exposure to mold and bacteria that became health hazards. This requirement would limit health risk to the occupants, and it would limit damage to the building. Higher slopes in other types of roofs can bring water down more easily and rapidly, making this provision less critical than in low sloped roofs. The cost impact it is estimated that a 2% increase in total construction cost would be expected in buildings with no other roofing membrane. This cost should mitigate with the width of the materials. The use of expanded polyurethane or expanded polyurethane foams or panels and other materials can be feasible solutions that can address both water proofing and installation insulation values in the roof structures. With regard to weather protection… Hablante 3: I have some questions regarding that, I think, just touching the roof covering is too… not specific enough, um… I think it should include coating, flashing and its roofing components as part of the roofing assembly? So, I mean, I wish it would be amended with those, but I don’t know… Hablante 1: So your amendment will be to include…. Hablante 3: When they say roof, there’s a lot of different types of roofings that are coded, you know, paint based, type, that are not considered maybe coverings, so I would wanna make sure that those include that type of um… waterproofing membranes that are in the market, like Crosco or some of these other ones, to make sure that there’s adhesion to the substrate that would withstand that type of winds and with that type of warranty. And I think it’s very important to include its flashings and coatings associated with the roofing… With the roofing itself. Hablante 1: So your amendment will be to include coatings like waterproofing membranes and… Hablante 3: Yeah, I would say roof coatings and coverings, its flashings, and all other roofing components in all low slope roofs. Hablante 1: I believe this amendment will be to add… Hablante 3: It’d be adding… Some people could say that it just applies to a membrane type roofing, and I think it should apply to all types of roofing. Hablante 4: Excuse me, Engineer Perez Braj from AEC. I think we should look into the next one, to see if both of them get to a…. Hablante 2: Yes, I didn’t look at the other one, so we can… Hablante 9: Yes. Michael (ininteligible) at FEMA, we have a concern with the 150 MPH wind speed being listed. That being kind of the requirement to design low slope roofs, too, being that it wouldn’t comply with the ASCE716, and the risk category of the building, wind speeds can get designed for ultimate speeds of 200 MPH in some cases. Um… But 150 would just… would make your design to a lower wind speed than it is required by ASCE 716. Hablante 1: Okay, thank you. Hablante 9: So, not complaining about it’s ultimate or (ininteligible) wind speed, there’s also… (ininteligible). Hablante 1: Great. Hablante 8: So maybe it could be amended say, to be designed to the new code requirements. Hablante 1: Instead of putting the 150 MPH wind loads, the… Hablante 8: Within the new code… Hablante 1: Corresponding design winds. Hablante 10: In accordance with this code of manufacturing and construction, we would need to establish… Ingeniero Zapata. When you try to specify the performance of a structure element or construction part of the building, and you say that withstands 150 MPH wind loads, I understand that. Or you specify 150 MPH basic wind speed… Hablante 1: Speed rate, not load. Hablante 10: Not loads, because loads are gonna confuse you, you don’t know what he’s talking about in terms of… what type of wind speed is that. That is an ultimate wind speed like 3 second loses, or that is… I don’t know. He’s trying to rewrite the code and the code already has a provision for that, so we don’t need that. Hablante 1: right. We said before that we’re going to change that text instead of 150 MPH, we’ll put withstanding corresponding design speeds. Hablante 10: Right. It already said that before. But what you say is installing according with this code. And the code already provides for that, for the wind speed that the gentleman was saying. It’s unnecessary. And also, say that it came a 10 year warranty period. How did he come up with that number? Hablante 1: Yes, he says here and be installed with a minimum 10 years warranty. Hablante 10: Jesus. Hablante 1: Eventually, you’ll be voting for this amendment, and you will… Hablante 10: It is more defining the approve roof coatings than it is in the original text, to make sure that it includes the flashing and all these miscellaneous items that make the roof code to include coatings. Hablante 11: There’s a question here. Question. Hablante 1: Your name? Hablante 4: José Vazquez, Puerto Rico Fire Department. I’d like to say this one in Spanish. Hasta donde tengo entendido, solamente la enmienda la puede hacer el proponente. Nosotros no podemos hacer enmienda. Hablante 1: Estoy de acuerdo. Yo sé que nuestra… era de ver si podíamos eventualmente si es algo que no afectaba mucho el contenido, ya estoy viendo que sí, que va a cambiar bastante el contenido. Estamos tratando de ver también la intención de la persona que está trayendo esto. Hablante 4: Entiendo, ¿pero cómo puede afectar también el proceso? Que después digan que no se llevó a cabo de acuerdo a las reglas establecidas. Pero quiero rescatar no, en el sentido de que el proponente es el único que puede hacer una enmienda y no creo que nosotros debamos entrar en esa posición. Nosotros podemos después como un comité, hacerle algún comentario…. Hablante 1: Es el próximo paso, sí, sí. Hablante 20: Pero sí, debería estar aquí la persona. Hablante 1: Debería estar aquí la persona para aceptar o no aceptar la enmienda. Estamos tratando de recoger esto solo como comentario, básicamente como… Hablante 4: Pero sí, este… Un segundito. Yo creo que también generaría un problema en términos prácticos para las personas que se dediquen al sellado de techos, en el sentido de que ellos no van a saber a qué velocidad… Ellos van a tener que consultar a un ingeniero para saber cuál es la velocidad que ellos necesitan para trabajar ese techo. O lo que sea. Que estaría bueno que hubiera un número, en términos prácticos. Por ejemplo, con el código anterior, todos sabíamos que la velocidad de diseño eran 145 millas. El equivalente a esa velocidad ahora con este código es 187 millas. Carlos. Ahí había factor de importancia y en las otras categorías, pero la equivalente a 145 millas ahora es 187. Que no podría decir 190, 185. Que sería como él dice el 145 equivalente bajo el código anterior. Si la estructura es de categoría IV o III podría ser más, pero… Hablante 12: Arquitecto Alberto Hernandez. Este… Yo creo que lo que quería cubrir porque conozco a Fernando, es arquitecto, y sabe que quizás la decisión de él de poner nada más 150 millas, como usted ingeniero sabe de lo que está hablando, aquí hay un montón de otros factores, cause factor, y a qué altura está el edificio. Yo creo que lo que él quiere estar seguro que los sistemas de waterproofing hoy en día en Puerto Rico han sido ineficientes ante el huracán. Que haya un razonamiento de que cumplan con estos wind speeds y con la que tenga una garantía más efectiva. Y para mí también que soy arquitecto, sé que de los componentes que usualmente fallan son los flashings, los coatings, a veces ni los ponen, entonces tú puedes tener tremenda membrana, pero si se te mete el agua entre el parapeto y la membrana tú puedes tener la mejor membrana pero si esa agua te baja por ahí te daña todo por ahí por abajo. Este… Creo que eso es lo que él quería hacer, sino que como decir vamos a asegurarnos de que se estén poniendo unos… igual, yo no diría membrana, diría que hay todo tipo de coatings, y diferentes tipos de waterproofings que cumplan con el addition y todo lo que tenga que ver con los vientos. Hablante 20: Felix Rivera, en eso lo que estamos hablando también de flash roofs y techos que tengan poco, poca pendiente, poco slope. Es lo que está trayendo ahora… Hablante 12: Eso es casi todo Puerto Rico. Si tiene mal, el agua pasa. Hablante 20: Por eso, por eso, o sea que él está trayendo eso. Vi aquí una sugerencia de incluir corresponding design speeds, o poner una cantidad fija. Hablante 12: No debemos meternos en lo elemental, a menos que él… se presente el enmiende. Hablante 20: Lo evaluamos como está. Hablante 1: Lo evaluamos como está. Ok. Vamos entonces a la próxima, que es la 4, también proponente el arquitecto Agruña. Tiene que ver con el Chapter 15: Roof Assemblies and Rooftops. Hablante 11: No, esa fue la que ya leímos. Hablante 1: Esa fue la que leímos. Vamos a la 5, muy bien. Eh… Estamos hablando del ICC Chapter… Estamos hablando del Capítulo 15, Sección 1504.1. Wind Resistance of Roofs, Roof Decks and Roof Coatings. Señor Santos, adelante, se puede para efectos del record y poder identificarlo. Hablante 13: Bueno, Ernesto Santos… el micrófono. Sí, buenos días a todos, Ernesto Santos, en representación del ingeniero Steven Spears. Esta enmienda está relacionada verdad con la anterior, bastante. Y vamos a leerla. En la Sección 1504.1, Wind Resistance of Roofs, Roof Decks and Roof Coatings shall be designed for wind loads in accordance with Chapter 16 Section 1604.2, 1604.3 and 1604.4, nosotros proponemos añadirle: “using a speed of 155 MPH in the calculations”. Las razones para esto, pues, vimos en los reportes de ARA, que este tiene fecha de 9.25.18, los vientos del Huracán Maria no pasaron las 140 millas. En otros reportes que hay de la SSS, CIMSS, se llama Hurricane Maria Advisory Nro. 18, deben tener copia de ambos. Ahí los vientos estuvieron entre 80 MPH y 155 MPH. Y también pues, basado en las observaciones que tuvimos, que la mayoría de los daños fueron en construcciones informales, por decirlo así ilegales, verdad, que no cumplían con códigos. En proyectos que cumplían con el código vigente, el que estaba anterior, pues lo daños fueron mínimos. Así que entendemos que aumentar la velocidad de diseño no va a resolver el problema si no resolvemos el otro problema del cumplimiento que hay. Una cosa debe ir atada con la otra. Si no paramos el problema del cumplimiento, pues lo es todo. Podemos poner 190 millas pero vamos a seguir teniendo problemas. Así que por eso recomendamos dejar la velocidad de diseño, subirla, la que actualmente estaba 145, subirla a 155, porque vimos que hubo vientos de ese tipo. En especial en el área este. Y en lugar de utilizar las velocidades y los charts que hay en el capítulo 16, el costo, si se enmienda, si se acepta la enmienda, pues sería a ninguno, o mínimo. Al no aceptar esta enmienda va a aumentar sustancialmente los costos de la impermeabilización en Puerto Rico. Porque se van a reducir las opciones que van a haber disponibles de sistemas de techos que resistan esas presiones que estamos hablando. Y entonces la propuesta es solamente para los techos, ¿verdad? Las áreas de paredes, ventanas, todo lo demás se quedaría, no estamos cambiando nada de eso. Es solamente para aplicar…. Por eso lo hicimos en esta sección, 1504.1, para no envolver lo estructural de la construcción, esto, todo lo demás solamente el área del techo. Eso es todo lo que tengo. Hablante 1: Gracias, ¿alguna duda, o pregunta? Hablante 13: I have a question. I did notice that between this amendment and the previous one, we’re increasing the wind speed to 155 MPH. Do you offer better evidence with maps, as I do notice. They’re excellent maps, though, and I do notice that many of the maps are titled preliminary wind speeds or estimated wind speeds. My concern is that I’m already noticing differences or suggestions in wind speeds. Maybe the maps provided by the IBC are not satisfactory? But I’d like to know if this committee has given a statistical analysis of the history of wind speeds of all hurricanes we had, or the IBC has explained to us how they came up with the tiny map they have provided. That clearly is not satisfactory to me. I’d like to know if we can figure out a better wind speed based on better statistical and scientific information. Hablante 1: Yes, I noticed that, too, but these were the only available at this time. I didn’t find any final reports or anything…. All of them said this… So…You know. Hablante 13: Thanks. Hablante 4: Arquitecto Alberto Hernandez. So, to make sure of what you’re saying, you wanna change the speed for the design of the actual roofing coverings, not for the structural roof sections. What you’re proposing is not that the actual design of the roofs and parapets structure parts that make the roof comply with the (ininteligible), but that the actual coverings and flashings, so forth, will not be subject to those higher winds that you think it could be caused (ininteligible) to actually waterproof a roof in Puerto Rico. To go then with a lower wind speed calculation. Hablante 20: Yes, but I’d include the roof decks, are included there also. So, I mean, I would say the system is the whole system. Hablante 10: Una pregunta, Miguel Zapata. Cuando usted se refiere a la velocidad de 155 MPH usted se refiere a esa velocidad a la misma velocidad que se refiere el código del IBC del 2016 o se refiere a la velocidad que se refieren estas gráficas. Hablante 20: Sí, me refería a la velocidad del código anterior. Del código actual vigente. De 145 subirlo a 155, la velocidad de diseño, que se utiliza en los cálculos… Hablante 10: Quedaría la fórmula del código de 2016 o la fórmula del código del 2009. Hablante 20: Buena pregunta. Aplicarían… si esa es la velocidad que se utilizaría, aplicaría a las fórmulas actuales, no a las fórmulas propuestas. Hablante 10: Eso no funciona así. Están tratando de jugar al ingeniero y no, no funciona así. Hablante 1: Bueno, Zapata, cualquier cambio sino pues, igualmente vamos a votar por esto. ¿Alguna pregunta? Hablante 20: Sí, entiendo, ahorita el caballero dijo 183 sería lo equivalen… 187 sería lo equivalente a la 145. Entiendo. Hablante 10: Si la bajamos a lo que dice acá, es un 77%. Hablante 20: Está bien, pero…Sí, entiendo, yo me dejé llevar por la velocidad que hay en los mapas, y esa es la velocidad de diseño, que se utiliza… Hablante 10: Entonces para qué considerar una enmienda. A mí lo que más preocupa es mantener la parte estructural como está manteniendo el código, y si usted quiere entrar a la parte del roof coating, que yo creo que hay un poquito más de… No tan crítico, porque no está afectando la estructura de lo que se está construyendo. Que si la membrana falla, pues es un problema leakeo, pero no afecta la estructura, pero digo, son mi… Hablante 20: Ok, yo podría considerarlo. Hablante 15: (ininteligible) Mi pregunta es, las ráfagas de viento que son mayores al viento sostenido, ¿no se toman en cuenta para tomar esta decisión? Hablante 20: Sí, cuando se toma la velocidad de diseño es ráfagas, es basado en ráfagas de 3 segundos. Hablante 15: (inaudible) …tengo entendido si serían las ráfagas de viento que se hicieron mucho mayores. Hablante 20: Esto se llama… Por lo menos uno de los reportes que tengo es Preliminary Peak Wind Gust, y ninguno subió a más de 150. Hablante 15: Todos los informes se refieren a ráfagas de 3 segundos. Hablante 1: Sí. Hablante 15: Lo que sí, es en el ámbito de construcción. Lo que pasa es que ha habido un cambio en el código desde 2010 en adelante, donde las velocidades del viento estaban factorizadas y entonces no las puedes comparar con velocidades de vientos anteriores. Uno a uno, porque tendrían que convertirlas. Hablante 20: El otro reporte que adjunté aquí, es el Maria Advisory Nro. 18, también habla de Peak Wind Gusts, o sea, son las ráfagas. Ambas velocidades, a lo que me refiero entonces, son las ráfagas. Ellos están proponiendo 150. 155 MPH. Hablante 15: Y cuando el código te habla de una velocidad del viento básica, ahora que se está midiendo a 33 pies de altura, es una exposición tipo C, que es el equivalente a un aeropuerto. Entonces después tú tienes que factorizarla, llevarla a dónde se va a utilizar. Para dar un número así, hay que saber de qué estamos hablando. Porque esas velocidades de estos mapas aquí, nadie dice dónde se midieron, si se midieron en el avión, si se midieron en la tierra, 20, 30, 40 ó 50 pies. Hasta que nadie le ponga el apellido, todos no saben de qué están hablando. Hablante 4: Si me permite, señor Vazquez. Estamos confiando de que nosotros estamos en la zona, donde más altos vientos de huracanes hay en el mundo entero, básicamente. Utilizar un solo dato, Maria, como justificación, lo encuentro un poco débil en el sentido de que Maria fue categoría 4 cuando pasó por aquí. Pero aquí se esperan de categoría 5. Es verdad que todavía no ha pasado, ese fue el más fuerte que ha pasado, pero. Estos (ininteligible) que se hacen en este código se hacen en base a datos que… o sea, una data histórica de posiblemente 40, 50 ó 60 años atrás, y estudios estocásticos que llegan casi a esos números. Que el mero hecho de que Maria, aunque yo no sé si Irma fue culebra, creo que Irma le dio más duros los vientos que Maria a nosotros acá. Se puede utilizar como una buena… Es la mejor referencia que tenemos, si el huracán más fuerte que ha pasado en la historia por aquí. Pero en términos de estudios científicos, la joya de estos contubers, un punto, quizás Maria ni siquiera está considerado en estos (ininteligible). Que tal vez ahora cuando se vuelvan a hacer los análisis con esta data histórica tal vez aumente más. O sea que no podemos, todavía estamos, estaremos en una zona de alto riesgo de huracanes, y la categoría 5 no está excluida de él. Entonces está el problema, como dice el compañero Zapata, que cuando uno dice un número hay que saber a qué uno se… en qué código uno está hablando porque podría ser que en uno se vea que estoy siendo más conservador pero cuando lo verifico en el otro, me estoy yendo por debajo de lo que verdaderamente es. O sea que en el mejor de los casos, lo que yo recomendaría la verdad es que se llene conforme a lo que… a ese código, sea el que sea. A ver si me entienden. Hablante 1: Sería entonces una enmienda, ingeniero Rivera, sería una enmienda, en vez de decir que las 155 MPH, establecer como el anterior que se ponga según… que cumpla según código. Hablante 10: Los roof decks… Zapata. Los roof decks caen también bajo componentes clave. Los componentes clave se desarrollan a calidades mayores que la calidad de los sistemas estructurales. O sea que, que podemos tener el sistema que transmite la carga a los elementos principales diseñados con caídas menores a la que resiste el sistema principal, o sea que no… En términos de diseño e ingeniería no, no… Lo que va a pasar es que va a fallar primero el deck, antes de que falle la estructura y tenga la oportunidad de resistir las cargas. Se supone que eso no es un criterio de diseño. Hablante 1: Sí, entiendo lo que dice pero como mencioné, eso no es lo que hemos visto, aún con sistemas que cumplían con el sistema actual, no hubo tanto daño. La mayoría de los daños fueron con la construcción informal. Hablante 10: Si ustedes han tenido oportunidad de ver las canchas bajo techo y el acero en la región sur de la isla y la región oeste, y todos los warehouse que eran de acero, muchas… es verdad que todas las estructuras que fallaron son las que no están… que no fueron diseñadas acorde. Pero yo he tenido estos últimos meses la oportunidad de ver y evaluar muchas estructuras en acero, que incluso había, hay una que no voy a mencionar, que no llevaba ni siquiera tres meses antes de construida antes del huracán, que se supone que cumplía con este nuevo código, y también muchas cosas con estructuras en acero, que se componen de metal deck y de elementos de estructura de acero, que fallaron completamente. Hablante 1: Sí, sí, eso es cierto. Hablante 10: Incluso yo declaré dos pérdidas totales, que no estaban totalmente en el piso pero que estaban las exhumaciones que estaban lo más tolerable que había. O sea que sí en verdad la mayoría de las cosas que fallaron fueron las cosas que no estaban diseñadas conforme al código, pero en efecto, también hubieron estructuras en acero que efectivamente fallaron. Hablante 20: Sí, la enmiendo para que digan roof coatings, como mencionaba el compañero arquitecto, y que deje los roof decks, y los flashings y todo lo demás… La revisaríamos. Hablante 1: Entregada en la enmienda como usted lo entienda. Claro. A los miembros del comité, nos tenemos que acercar un poco a los micrófonos porque están al máximo, pero yo reconozco que atrás no… Y para efectuar la grabación también, debemos tratar de hablar un poquito más duro y más normal al micrófono. Adelante. Is that a question or…? Ahora sí. Hablante 5: (inaudible) from FEMA again. Sorry. Our concern again is with the wind speeds 150 MPH 155MPH, when the investigation was done after the storm in all buildings, your roof is your number one defense against water intrusion. So, the wind speed of design of 155 MPH doesn’t really cover all the island, it doesn’t cover all risk categories, and it’s not clear once again whether it’s ultimate or allowable, if that’s the ultimate wind speed would be said then the with the reduction factors of ASC716 you’re really talking about 120 MPH designs, roof decks, to cover anything. Hablante 1: Yes, that’s right. Hablante 5: So it doesn’t comply with the wind speeds in ASCE-716 and like I said with reduction factors (inaudible) so… Hablante 1: Can you read the text? Because you told me that it’s only 155 MPH, would be making an amendment. Can you read the new text? Hablante 5: I’ll have to sit down and… Because this is what’s taken exactly from the code. I didn’t have the roof decks and roof coatings… Hablante 1: Can we then leave this amendment for another opportunity? So you can sit down once you’re ready. Hablante 5: Yes, I can hand it to you. Hablante 1: Review that. Thank you. So, that’s number 5. We’re going for number 6. Chapter 15 Section 1507.1.1. Hablante 11: Yes, the same. In this one here, striking out a sentence that mentions about the wind speeds of 120. So it would not apply to Puerto Rico. That’s all. Hablante 1: Any questions, comments, with regard to Chapter 15, scratching all the 120 MPH winds. Hablante 4: Did you allow a more… I mean, since you’re more into this, about this, I’m a bit confused specifically about what we’re striking, can you explain what’s the use of this specific underlayment, and the (ininteligible) what are we striking now here? Forget about the MPH, what are we taking out here? Hablante 1: It’s a sentence. Hablante 4: Yes, I know, but underlayment is like a layer of… like a built top type roofing. Hablante 1: It says right here membrane-like based modified bitumen seven tiered membrane, and it says that: an approved underlayment for an applicable roof covering for design wind speeds less than 120 MPH shall be applied over the forage wide membrane strip. And I’m just thinking aloud because of the 120. Hablante 4: But if it doesn’t apply, then, I’d rather leave it, because I’m not really sure what we’re taking out. If you think it doesn’t apply then doesn’t hurt to leave it, because it doesn’t apply. I’m not really sure what we’re striking out. Hablante 1: And also, based on that same comment, Felix Rivera, the proposed text is in the Exceptions section. So it would be exempt. That’s one comment. Hablante 4: ¿Podría usted elaborar un poco por qué no aplica esto a Puerto Rico, usted dice? Hablante 1: Porque la velocidad de diseño va a ser mayor que 120. Por eso. Sabemos que actualmente la velocidad es 145, y esto hacer referencia a un sistema de 120 MPH. Hablante 4: ¿Puede poner ahí en el código esa sección? Hablante 15: Sí, estoy buscando, dame el número exacto. Hablante 4: Pero este texto es del texto nuevo, ¿no? No es del código. Hablante 1: 1507.1.1 Hablante 15: Es el que falta. Hablante 1: Exception 1507. Hablante 4: Punto 1, punto 1. Hablante 1: Underlayment, entonces estamos en la sección Exceptions. Hablante 4: Es la descripción del…. Hablante 15: Es la sección… Lo voy a agrandar. Sorry. Aquí está. Lo siento pero se me fue, déjame buscarlo nuevamente. Volver al principio. Hablante 4: De paso eliminas toda la sección, esa excepción completa, porque si es una excepción… Hablante 5: ¿Tú no puedes este, dar un ejemplo práctico de la construcción donde aplicaría este, o dónde no aplicaría este texto? Hablante 20: Déjame ver nomás la definición de underlayment ahí. Lo que estoy viendo ahí en underlayment, no está hablando para los tipos de techos que son de tejas. Cómo es en realidad el waterproofing que va a contar el sustrato. Hablante 20: Sí, debajo de las tejas. Hablante 4: Y lo que se usa normalmente es poner el underlayment completo que haría en verdad… hacer unos strips. Hablante 1: En los paneles, solamente poner unos strips. En las uniones de paneles. Hablante 4: En las uniones de los paneles. Hablante 20: Eliminar la sección completa para mí es… Hablante 4: ¿Cómo quedaría ahora? Hablante 1: Poniendo membrana completa. Completa, sí. Hablante 4: Para mí elimínate la sección 2 completa. Hubo muchas tejas que se fueron en el huracán. A mí no me gusta… Yo estoy de acuerdo con lo que está eliminando, yo estoy entendiendo es porque lo que estás diciendo es que en vez de poner el underlayment completo, nada más ponerlo en donde se juntan… Está bien, lo podemos evaluar como está ahí. Hablante 1: Ok, entonces, hacer el cambio y nos sometes enmendado la sección… Hablante 5: Eliminar la sección completa. Hablante 1: Yo estoy viendo por acá. Hablante 5: Sí, pero aquí, en la 1507.1, porque la 5… Hablante 1: A los miembros del comité, el 5S6, es la sección 1507.1.1, en vez de 1504. Hablante 5: Es 07.1.1. Hablante 1: Correcto. En la hoja de evaluación, la hoja de evaluación. Hablante 5: 5S6, la hoja de evaluación. El primero de la segunda página, ¿no? Hablante 1: Correcto. ¿Algún comentario o pregunta sobre la propuesta enmienda, la número 6? ¿Podemos entonces pasar a la número 7? Con relación al capítulo 15, sección 1507, que son unas tablas. Inaudible. Hablante 4: Sí, estas tablas también aplican, dicen que son para velocidades menores de 140 MPH. Hablante 5: En las tablas, eh… ¿en estos diagramas, estos que tú has puesto aquí o no? Hablante 20: No. 1507, underlayment (inaudible). Hablante 1: Sí, son las tablas 1507.1.1 (1). Hay varias, hay tres tablas. Hablante 20: El título de la tabla es Underlayment Types. Hablante 4: Y pregunto yo, ¿bajo los mapas de viento con el nuevo código, no hay ninguna sección de Puerto Rico que caiga debajo de 140 millas? Hablante 20: Está proponiendo en esta enmienda, eliminar esa tercera columna, que aplicaría a vientos de 140 MPH. (Inaudible) Hablante 1: Para las tres tablas. Son tres tablas en esta enmienda. Hablante 4: ¿Y por qué? Hablante 1: Por lo mismo, porque aplican… Ahora sí, a ver…Esas columnas aplican a un sistema de 140 millas o menos, para evitar confusión y malas interpretaciones. Hablante 4: Pero lo que estamos eliminando no es la tabla completa, es nada más la función… Hablante 1: La columna, la tercera columna. Hablante 2: The third row. Hablante 5: La cuarta columna tiene que ver también con vientos de 140 MPH. Y esa no se puede eliminar. Hablante 1: Esa va. La otra es para vientos menores de 140 MPH. Y la propuesta es eliminar completamente la tercera columna. Hablante 4: La tercera columna. Sí. Hablante 1: ¿Algún comentario, duda, pregunta? Hablante 4: Sí, simple. Para efectos del record y constancias adecuadas y precisas, en vez de decir tercera columna, decir la columna titulada tal, tal, tal. Una cosa sencilla, pero para que no haya confusiones tampoco. Hablante 4: Si no vaya a ser que entiendan esto el título y lean mal. Hablante 1: Entiendo que eso es un comentario que es una aclaración. ¿Me lo puede entregar con esa aclaración? Hablante 4: Claro. Hablante 1: Vamos entonces a… Hablante 5: Lo que estamos diciendo entonces es que siempre se va a usar la columna 4. Hablante 1: Sí. Sí, correcto. Hablante 4: Aplica a todo Puerto Rico, sí. Hablante 1: Vamos entonces al número 8, que tiene que ver con Capítulo 15, sección 1507.1.2. Hablante 4: Ice Barriers. Hablante 1: Sí, esto tiene que ver con Ice Barriers, que tampoco aplica a Puerto Rico. Se estaría eliminando esa sección de Ice Barriers. Hablante 4: Y también se repiten en otras secciones que anoté ahí debajo. Hablante 3: Y ahí es que tengo una duda, estas con cosas más bien formales. A ustedes decir, ah perdonen, Reinaldo de León, de Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica. Al ustedes decir “All sections like the one above”, empiezan a nombrarlas, el comité de este proceso requiere que estas secciones también se añadan, el texto se tache. O sea, perdonen que duela, no quiero ser un demasiado formalista, pero habría entonces que enmendar el documento para añadir más texto. Okay, aparentemente debería… Hablante 20: Cada una. Hablante 4: Cada una de ellas incluir… Hablante 20: Okey. ¿Hasta qué hora tengo? Hablante 1: Esta la podemos ver entonces subsiguientemente, la 8 también para que incluya el texto. Adelante, preguntas. Hablante 5: Yo soy de los que piensan que lo que no nos afecta no debe eliminarse. Es lo que quería decir. Que no debería eliminarse. Si no nos afecta, ¿por qué eliminarla? Hablante 1: Eso sería los miembros del comité eventualmente cuando… Hablante 5: Eso lo quería consignar para el record. Hablante 20: Podemos comentarlo más tarde en la votación, yo tengo unas ideas sobre eso. No soy muy fanático de bueno, si podemos discutir ese tema durante la votación, tengo algo que añadir. Gracias. Hablante 1: ¿Preguntas al proponente? Si eventualmente se va a dejar como está el texto, es un trabajo que se podría economizar, ¿no? De someternos a… Hablante 5: Sometí mi comentario. Hablante 1: Él somete un comentario… Vamos entonces al próximo, que es el 9. Tiene que ver con Capítulo 15. Sección1507, Tabla 1507.3.7. Es lo mismo. Hablante 20: Aquí nuevamente aplica esa fila, en esas tablas aplican a vientos menores de 140 millas. Hablante 4: Pero sin embargo hay uno que habla de todos los speeds. Por ejemplo, cuando se ve el de él, dice all speeds. Hablante 20: Exacto, eso no se eliminó. Hablante 4: ¿Elimina el punto? Hablante 20: No, no, no, no estoy eliminando. Hablante 4: Ah, tu pusiste la raya hasta ahí. Digo, le digo yo a ustedes, porque yo entiendo lo que se dice de no quitarlo si no aplica, porque que más da, si no aplica, pero, si hay alguna enmienda aquí que no sé, entre en el detalle que los wind speeds sean en alguna área menores se aplicaría esto entonces, otras tablas. Que no sabemos si se va a probar como se está sometiendo con todos los wind speeds. O sea si eliminamos algo aquí y después se bajan los wind speeds, vamos a estar usando unos materiales de unas velocidades mayores que no aplicaría porque eliminamos alternativas a velocidades menores. Hablante 20: Sí, yo eliminé como puede ver ahí, desde 85 MPH hasta 130. Que eso ni cumpliría con el código actual vigente. Por eso me fui en esa línea. Hablante 4: Rafael Vazquez. Perdone que haga tantas preguntas. ¿Pero tú me puedes dar otro ejemplo en la práctica, en la construcción en donde se aplica esta tabla de códigos? En qué en específico. Hablante 20: Pues mira, esta tabla aplica a lo que, por ejemplo, el título de la tabla es Clay and Concrete Tile Attachment. Hablante 4: Pero un ejemplo, o sea, tiles, hay casas españolas que tienen el tile azulito o el rojo, esas que a veces llaman tiles a las del piso también, los tiles a los que se refiera esto. Son esas tejitas que tú ves, algunas casitas bonitas españolas por ahí, coloniales, a esas es a las que se refiere, a las que ves en Palmas del Mar, ese tipo de desarrollo. Ahora vienen de plástico, algunas son de concreto. Hay diferentes tipos de… Es como también a veces en la construcción a la lozeta le llaman tile, es confuso pero son las del techo. Hablante 1: ¿Algún otro comentario o pregunta? Vamos entonces a la propuesta número 10, Capítulo 15, sección 1507.10. Hablante 14: Ok, en esta propuesta estamos en el área de los techos Built-Up Roofs, 1507.10 Built-Up Roofs, The installation of built-up roofs shall comply with the provisions of this section. Les proponemos añadir que “Coal tar pitch roofs will not be permitted for health reasons”. Y les someto ahí la evidencia de varios websites donde dice que el coal tar fue asociado con cáncer tanto de la piel, pulmones, vejiga, riñones. Entiendo que es bien poco usado, si se usa todavía en Puerto Rico. Hablante 12: Mi opinión. Arquitecto Alberto Hernandez. No me atrevería a quitar algo que es permitido todavía por los códigos actuales, porque se podría malinterpretar que estamos discriminando contra un sector de waterproofing que diga: “Nos están tirando el hacha aquí”. Si aún el coal tar pitch es permitido por los códigos y por OSHA, y por todos los códigos existentes, pues yo entiendo que…. Hablante 20: Pero pregunta que como está esto sometido, o una enmienda propuesta y después eso lo discutimos en comité… Hablante 12: No sabemos cuántas empresas hay que estén dedicadas a eso. Hablante 20: Sí, en el documento que les sometí hay una referencia que nos podemos utilizar para su evaluación. Hablante 1: ¿Preguntas con relación a esta propuesta que tiene que ver con en general todo lo que sea coal tar pitch roofs? Bueno entonces seguimos para la próxima, que es la número 10, la 11. No la 10. Tiene que ver también con la misma sección…. Hablante 20: Sí, de coal tar pitch, eliminando la coal tar pitch de una tabla. 1507.10.2. Hablante 1: Entonces ahora vamos para la 11. Aquí tenemos entonces un…. En la… acá… ¿Verdad? Hablante 12: Estamos siendo consistentes con lo de mover aquello también con moverlo acá. Hablante 20: Esta es la 11, está bien. Hablante 1: Si no hay preguntas… Hablante 12: Una pregunta. De Angel Vazquez. ¿Usted sabe si en Puerto Rico hay una o más o varias empresas que se dedican a ese tipo de trabajo? Hablante 20: No, no conozco ninguno ahora mismo. Hablante 3: Un comentario. Reinaldo de León, de Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica. Entendemos la intención, entendemos la intención de su grupo, tiene muy buenas intenciones, pero también tenemos que pensar que este comité estructural debería ofrecer soluciones y modificaciones basadas en estructuras, que es lo que dominamos. Y quizás basarnos en recomendaciones de salud está un tanto fuera de nuestro alcance y quizás ello no haya que evaluarse. Hablante 1: ¿Alguna pregunta? Pues gracias. Pasamos entonces a la número 12. Tiene que ver con el capítulo 15, Sección 1507.12.2. Hablante 20: Sí, yo aquí tengo los materiales, 1507.12.2, Material Standards, Thermoset single-ply roof coverings shall comply with ASTM D4637 or ASTM D5019. Nosotros promovemos a esto añadirle que se use un minimum thickness shall be 16 millstream force membrane over ¼ inch minimum thickness dense coverboard. La razón de esto pues, pueden ver en la foto, varios de los failures que vimos fue… están relacionados a los single place y basado en un datasheet que tiene la Factory Newton. Ellos en su datasheet recomiendan que en zonas propensas a huracanes, cuando no se autoricen materiales finitos, como vienen por ahí de 45 mils, sino que se usen mayores de 45. Hablante 12: Arquitecto Alberto Hernandez. Ok, aquí yo veo fotos de membranas que se han salido de su anchoring, no necesariamente que la membrana por su grosor haya sido el defecto primario. Le pregunto, o sea, si esta fabricante certifica su trabajo bajo los códigos nuevos, porque poner un requisito que pudiera añadir el costo, el efecto del costo, se supone que esta enmienda tenga un efecto de costo. ¿Cuál es el efecto de costo de variar a lo que requiere el código versus lo que ustedes están proponiendo? Hablante 20: Sí, por ejemplo, una membrana en este caso es thermoset, estamos hablando de unos 15 centavos. Por pie cuadrado. Hablante 1: Que aclare entonces la enmienda para incluir 15 centavos. Hablante 20: ¿Pero cuál sería el beneficio? Hablante 1: ¿15 centavos por? Hablante 20: Pie cuadrado, sí, en las thermoset. Hablante 1: Reducción… Hablante 20: No, aumento. Todo aumento. Pero los beneficios pueden ser sustanciales. Hablante 4: El water… El thickness dense board que usted está hablando ahí, ¿es adicional, también? ¿Y eso también añade costos? Hablante 20: Sí, eso añade costo. Hablante 4: ¿Eso ya incluye los 15 centavos el pie cuadrado? ¿Y cuánto es más el dense board? ¿Y cuánto es más el dense board? Hablante 20: Caramba, yo el precio no lo tengo, pero muchos sistemas recomiendan que se altere el quarter inch minimum. Hablante 4: Faltó el costo por pie cuadrado del normal, 45. Hablante 20: Caramba, si yo tengo la diferencia. No lo sé. La diferencia nada más. Los costos… Hablante 10: Ingeniero Zapata. ¿Hay algún estudio científico que pruebe que subiendo a .60 se van a evitar los problemas que suceden con el .45 o es solo una mera observación? Hablante 20: No, hay evidencia, como dije, esto está recomendado por Factory Newton, sí, yo en sus… en el Datasheet 1.29, por ellos, mencionan de sus varias observaciones. Ellos son una compañía aseguradora. Hacen sus pruebas, el gasto, y basado en sus observaciones y en lo que encuentran, sus recomendaciones son para asegurar… Por ejemplo un techo, con materiales así en esta zona en Puerto Rico, tiene que ser .60. Ya si es .45 ellos ya no lo asegurarían. Hablante 10: Debras. Pero Factory Newton, está usando 175 MPH. Hablante ?: La farmacéutica. Hablante 20: Que ese seguro que Factory Newton vende, en verdad no está asegurando el edificio, solo las pastillitas que están adentro. No es lo mismo, no es comparable. Hablante 1: Sí, es cierto, pero es un estudio como que lo pregunto, que ahí data sobre eso. Y es lo que Factory Newton ha encontrado. Hablante 1: ¿Alguna pregunta con relación a esta enmienda? Pasamos a la próxima que es la 13, que tiene que ver con el Capítulo 15, Sección 1507.13.2. Hablante 20: En esta pone lo mismo que lo anterior, pero aplicando los productos termoplásticos. Que también se aumenta el espesor a 60 mils, y el coverboard a un cuarto. En este el impacto de costo es menos. Está entre los 11 centavos a 13 centavos por pie cuadrado, más el coverboard si no estaba incluido. Hablante 4: En la foto que enseña aquí, ¿ese es el coverboard, o ese es aislante? Hablante 4: Ese es aislante, no, no tiene coverboard. Hablante 20: Y estas fotos de estos sistemas que ustedes nos están enviando, ¿fueron sistemas que se diseñaron para qué parámetros de viento? Hablante 20: Bueno, para el código vigente. (inaudible) Hablante 20: Exacto. No hay un enforcement. Hablante 4: ¿Para el código vigente en el momento de la construcción? Hablante 20: Exacto. (Inaudible) Hablante 4: Hay Uniform Building Codes… Hay Acting… Hablante 20: A mí lo que me preocupa es que al cambiar los códigos nuevos con los vientos, estos fabricantes van a tener que certificar a los vientos nuevos, y puede que el mismo fabricante te dé el de 60. Entonces lo que me preocupa es poner un mínimo sin nosotros tener el expertise de… Y subir unos costos que ya están caros, a algo que deja que el fabricante certifique va a saber los nuevos códigos de viento. Creo yo. Hablante 4: La verdad que esto, lo de Factory Newton yo lo considero bastante importante, su, el dato de ellos. Que para áreas propensas a huracanes no aceptan un 45. Hablante 1: ¿Alguna otra pregunta con relación a la Propuesta 13? Vamos a la Propuesta 14, el Capítulo 15, Sección 1507.15.1. Hablante 20: Sí, en esta estamos hablando ya de los productos líquidos, 1507.15.1, slope, sobre la pendiente. Liquid-Applied Roofing shall have a design slope of not less than one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent slope). Nosotros recomendamos añadir el lenguaje “liquid acrylic coatings shall have a one-half unit vertical en 12 units horizontal”. O sea, subirlo a cuatro por ciento. Y la razón es porque conocemos que los líquidos acrílicos no son bastante resistentes al empozamiento, y se ha experimentado empozamiento verdad, en techos de 2%, con pendientes de 2%. Hablante 10: Ingeniero Zapata. ¿Eso está sustentado con algún estudio? Hablante 20: No, es basado en observaciones de campo. Hablante 10: ¿E incluye todo tipo de edificio o estructuras pequeñas? Hablante 20: Se aplica a acrílicos. Líquidos acrílicos. Los mismos manufactureros te dicen que tienes que t	Translation - English Speaker 1: The technical hearing with regards to the codes, the first amendment proposal is 5S1, proponent Scott Desac. We have… (unintelligible) Speaker 2: I was with the Duberry company at the FEMA presentation. I'm going to speak in English, but if anyone has a question in Spanish, as you wish. Also representing Desac, sitting chair of the ICC (inaudible). He was part of the mitigation assessment team for Hurricane Georgia and Hurricane Maria. He was also part of the assessment team for…(unintelligible) We have the next two proposals that are related to storm shelters, and the reason for submitting these two proposals is that when we did the mitigation assessment team all over the island, we didn't identify a single shelter that met the standards of FEMA and ICC 500. So the next two amendments are intended to make them stronger, to make stronger shelters. So, the first one, I'll just read it, it says, on section 423.3, Critical Emergency Operations: In areas where the shelter designed wind speed for hurricanes is 190 miles per hour for (unintelligible) on island states or territories where vehicle access to the Continental US by roadway is not available, 911 call stations, emergency operations centers, and fire, rescue, ambulance and police stations shall comply with table 1604.5 as a risk category for structure. And so we provided with a storm shelter constructed in accordance with ICC 500. I just wanted to point out that these applies only to new structures, and the intent for this is that when there is a storm, there's emergency operators, you know, the fire department, police departments, that, they cannot evacuate. So, the intent of this is to provide a shelter for them, a safe room for them so they can be protected from the storm. And then, the last thing is… the cause related to this amendment… Estimates show that for new construction is only an increase of 1 to 2 percent. To… For metro fit buildings, in order to make them compliant with FEMA ICC 500, you could expect an increase of 5 to 8 percent in cost to comply. That's all I got with the questions. Speaker 1: Any questions from the members? The intention behind your proposed text is tying the design to wind speeds or tying the design to the importance of those types of shelters? What if an (unintelligible) in Puerto Rico doesn't meet the 190 miles per hour when designed, and then we'd need to consider that shelter category 4? Speaker 2: So this is the first amendment, the one that we're discussing right now is for all critical facilities. And it's all the facilities that are listed here on 911 Call Stations, Emergency Operations Centers, and all the ones that are listed here. Those facilities that are in a wind speed region of 190 miles per hours plus. So, this only applies to new critical facilities. The second one that we're going to discuss after this is related to Category E facilities, which are the ones that hold large groups of people, including schools. Does that answer your question? Speaker 3: No. Not really. Wouldn't it be simpler if we just moved certain buildings, like the ones you described, move them all to a single category, strict, instead of defining them by wind speed? Speaker 2: So, I think that with these two proposals that we are submitting, the first like I said is for critical facilities, the second one is for Category E facilities, and that covers everything. The 190 miles per hour is based on the maps on the ICC 500. So we are covering critical facilities, Category E facilities that, everything that's on the ICC 500… If you want to discuss wind speed, I mean, we can discuss that, but that's what's in the ICC 500. Speaker 3: OK. Thank you. Speaker 4: My name is Jose Vazquez, for Puerto Rico Fire Department. I have a question. This first amendment is only for new construction? Speaker 2: Correct. We're talking about the IBC. The IEC would…My understanding is that the IEC would send you back here for the requirements. Speaker 5: I have a question. For Mr. Vazquez. Have you seen the wind plots that have the IBC, that have the wind contours, the wind maps? And these 190 miles per hour will be if you use that plots? Will be for one part of the island and the other part of the island can be lower than 190, but critical facilities are still critical in the entire island. So. How did you get this 190 MPH? Why is that your threshold, why 190? Speaker 2: So, we're talking about two different maps, I think that's the confusion. The IBC has a different map that has different contours, that has different wind speeds for…(unintelligible). Now this is talking about the ICC 500, which is a big map of the US, the continental part, and then on the bottom right side it says: Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico. And Puerto Rico says 190 MPH. So, it doesn't have contours, it doesn't have anything. It just says this is... Speaker 5: For the whole island. Speaker 2: For the whole island. So this includes the whole island, 190 MPH. And instead of referencing here a figure from ICC, we just put 190 MPH because that's what's just referenced over there. Speaker 5: So, that's… Because it said design, wind speed, I thought you were referring to the IBC, but Design wind speed is in the ICC 500, right? Speaker 2: The design wind speed… Speaker 5: When you put the design wind speed with… I think that you're talking about the IBC, not the ICC 500, right? So maybe we can put something here, which implies that we're talking about the 190 in the ICC 500. Speaker 1: There can be like an amendment to the… Speaker 2: Sure, but, a hundred… Speaker 5: Say Puerto Rico. If you're saying that the ICC 500 says 190 MPH for the entire Puerto Rico, basically you're saying Puerto Rico, period. Any critical emergency operation in Puerto Rico would need to comply with this. Speaker 3: Because it could be construed as in confusion to which map are you talking about, the maps are different then. Under the IBC map maybe there are some areas like he's saying that will not… There will be confusion that they don't need to do it, while we just say, hey, everywhere in Puerto Rico there's a critical emergency operation will need to comply with this. Speaker 3: And that's fine, what you're doing is producing the threshold which will make critical facilities more resilient, and FEMA would be fine with that. Speaker 5: You have the critical facilities there listed, so… Speaker 2: Right, what you're saying is to strike…. And it would say… In areas where… No, we would say… Speaker 5: Puerto Rico. Speaker 2: All critical facilities would need to comply with… In short it would be "All critical facilities will need to comply with ICC 500." Speaker 5: "All the listed critical facilities will need to comply with the ICC 500." Speaker 4: That'd be fine with me. Speaker 5: That's better, because the other way can be confusing for the designers, you know. Speaker 1: Can you go over so I can write the a…? Speaker 6: I have a question. Speaker 1: You have a question? Okay. Speaker 6: How come that now that we have tornados in Puerto Rico, that specification is for tornados, not for hurricanes. Why do you want to bring a tornados specification in…? Speaker 2: No, we're striking tornados… Speaker 6: No, but the ones… When they write the code, it was for tornados, wind speed for tornado, tornados and hurricanes are very different situations, conditions for design. So you're bringing something that doesn't apply to Puerto Rico. Speaker 2: Right, so, this is… There have been some changes in regards to storm shelters, right? The intent for storm shelters back before was for tornados, because tornados happen quick, right? And you need somewhere to hide, right? Now this applies to critical facilities, like, in Puerto Rico, we know three days before the storm that it's gonna hit, so everybody can evacuate and go to a safe place. But people that are, the policemen, the fire department, they cannot evacuate, so they need somewhere to hide. Speaker 6: That is already covered in the code. That you design for the category and your code. Why do you want to increase the specifications, sir? Speaker 2: Cause we're providing a storm shelter for those emergency response people. Speaker 6: Already the code provides for that. Speaker 2: Where's that? Speaker 6: If you have occupancy category IV, you're already meeting the requirement for that type of occupancy. Speaker 2: Right, but we're referencing the ICC 500, which is the known standard for storm shelters. Speaker 6: But we don't need storm shelters for tornados here. Speaker 2: This is for hurricanes, not for tornados. Speaker 6: I'm reading tornados, not hurricanes. Why are you bringing tornado specifications to a hurricane prompt area? Speaker 2: ICC 500 is for storm shelters, not for tornado shelters. Speaker 6: I don't know ICC 500, I cannot talk about that. Speaker 5: I have a copy here, of a document, so eventually before we go to the final decision we can check on the document, the ICC 500 for any comment or question, any other comment…? Speaker 4: He has a good point. Should we bring it now? Speaker 5: The ICC 500 is not for the design wind speed, because the design wind speed in Category IV is almost like 200 MPH with the new IBC. That's the design wind speed. When you use the threshold of 190 MPH, like the ICC said, we're supposed to design with the 200, not the 190. But what the ICC brings are other details that make safer that structure. Not specifically just the wind speed. Speaker 2: Right. Correct. You are making the facility stronger, therefore you can reduce the… Yes. Any other question? Speaker 3: I just wanna maybe comment on that. I don't know the ICC in terms of what the storm shelter… I could be wrong but maybe they require specific rooms within the entire structure that meet or exceed the requirements of the entire structure, so it's not that now the whole structure... The whole structure will be designed based on the IBC code, and that could be for 200 MPH, but maybe you're adding a bit more of insurance, there's some specific rooms that are designed a little bit stronger in case the other elements of the structure fail, that they could... the people that are there could be safe there while the passing of the storm. Speaker 2: You're absolutely right about that. The intent is to provide a safe room, alright? It provides a (unintelligible) and FEMA provides the requirements for spacing. I think you need 5 sq ft per person. So it’s… For hurricanes is different, it may be 10 or 20, but it's just a room for people to spend a certain amount of time, and you can do it inside the same building or you can do it outside the building. But it's a limited space for the people to be safe. Speaker 3: Bunkered. The idea is for the structure... Speaker 2: Good point, thank you for bringing that up. Speaker 4: So, by complying with the ICC 500 we wouldn't be facing a situation like the police station that got flooded suddenly, because the ICC 500 would cover that. Speaker 2: Correct, it would provide for all hazards. It would provide provisions to make the facilities resilient for all hazards that apply to Puerto Rico. It would keep the fire respondents and the police departments safe. Speaker 3: Okay, thank you. Speaker 2: You're welcome. Speaker 1: Can we over the text that we will finally read? Speaker 2: Yes, let me think about the scenarios where the shelter design speed for hurricanes is required… (Unintelligible). So, my proposed amendment is to strike everything. It would read 423.3 Critical Emergency Operation, On island states or territories where vehicle access to the Continental US by roadway is not available, 911 call stations, etc. It would just strike everything before on. On island. Speaker 4: Okay, so, you would give us the copy with the amendment. Speaker 2: I can do that. Speaker 4: And the other additional question, the same thing we're talking about here applies to the next? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: We can go to the next one, which is the proposal number 5S2. Speaker 7: Could I make one quick question before? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 6: Do you work with FEMA or not? Speaker 2: Yes, I’m a consultant with FEMA. Speaker 6: So my question would be: When you evaluated the disaster of the Maria, how many critical emergency operations including hospitals, police stations and other critical operations you feel that were totally inadequate for what we experienced? Just a general idea. Speaker 2: If you came up with this is because you're thinking that what we have now is not meeting… Speaker 6: Right. And we're currently… FEMA is currently working on a mitigation assessment team report, we are at the 60% stage right now. I believe that in the week of May 21st we're gonna come and present…. Do a presentation about the 50% draft of that. I am not sure who's gonna be invited, um-- We can discuss with all who's gonna be invited. And that document includes all those numbers. Speaker 2: I mean, we're voting on this today. So do you have a rough estimate, 50% of the critical emergency operations failed because they weren't adequately designed? Or were there any deaths or major injuries to those people who worked in these critical mission operations? Speaker 6: Well, all the facilities that I visited, including the ones that were elevated, were not able to be operational, at least until 3 days, a week after the storm, because there was always a source of failure. It was either a generator, which is included in the ICC 500, it could be flooded, it could be that the water leaked, it could be that they didn't have storm shutters and the wind just broke through the... So, I'd say at least 80% of the facilities that I saw were not operational after the storm because of Hurricane Maria damage. Speaker 7: Do you think that if those buildings were designed under a category IV compliant with the code would be OK? Speaker 6: After the Hurricane Maria, if they were designed… If they had complied with all of the disaster provisions in the 2018 IBC, is that what you're asking? Speaker 7: Also 2009 IBC. Speaker 6: I do not… Well, no, because the 2009 did not include flood provisions, right? It's flood, not wind the problem. Speaker 6: Well, that's one of the problems. Flood is one of the problems. Wind is another one of the problems. Speaker 1: Thank you for the… Okay. Speaker 5: Do you know when is the next revision of the ICC 500 or is the 2014 the last one, or when, when is ICC revised? Speaker 2: Every three years. Speaker 5: Every three years? Speaker 2. Yes. Speaker 6: So you're proposing the 2017? Speaker 2: We on purpose did not put a year on that. We say ICC 500, so every time we get a new update, it gets updated. Speaker 6: Is like it 7-ASC-7, the latest ASCU, to put here with the latest version of the ICC 500. Speaker 1: Latest additions. Speaker 2: I agree with that. Speaker 1: We agree on that amendment. Speaker 2: I agree with that. Speaker 1: Or… Or.. The ICC 500 later edition. Speaker 2: Right, in accordance with the later edition of the ICC 500. Speaker 1: Right. Right. We can move to the second proposal. That one is from Scott Desac. It's with regard to the 423.4 group E occupancies. Speaker dos: Right, this is Juan Nieves again, here to represent Scott Desac. We represent FEMA as well. Um--- This proposal is very similar to the previous one. I can read it, or we can speed up the process. But this is to include Group E Occupancies. I'll just read it: 423.4 Group E Occupancies in areas where the shelter design wind speed for tornados should be... straight through, right? That's my mistake. Wind speed for hurricanes is 190 MPH or greater on island states or territories where vehicle access to the Continental US by roadway is not available. In accordance with figure 3294.2 (2) of ICC 500, all Group E Occupancies with occupant load of 50 or more, shall have a storm shelter constructed in accordance with ICC 500. Again, this applies to only new facilities. So, we're proposing this for any group E category building which is em--- building that occupy large groups of people. The new building shall have a storm shelter constructed in accordance with ICC 500. The next I'm going be reading… similar to the previous one. If it's a new building we expect… and this has been studied by FEMA, and it's been… Yes, there's a FEMA publication that's quoted here that estimates increasing construction cost for a new building to be only 1-2% of the total project cost for new buildings. And if it's a retrofit you'd be a 2-9, no 5-8 percent. Speaker 8: I have a question. You say new buildings. But when you have an existing building you have to comply with the new building conditions, so it would be… It would also apply to existing buildings that will be renovated. Speaker 2: There's language, other words… Who…? I'm not a 100% sure who provides that language for… On the FEMA side is 50% of the renovation, right? I don't know how Puerto Rico does set it or if it's in the IBC or what but… For FEMA it's 50%. Speaker 8: Does IBC change use, or does it change eventually…? Speaker 2: It's gotta be a percentage it's not renovating any part, right? Speaker 8: Is there a value under it could be…? Speaker 2: 50%. Changing use are 50% of the value of the property. Speaker 8: Something like that. Speaker 2: That's right. Speaker 8: And does it say in the amendment that this is specifically for brand new constructions. Speaker 1: And he's also saying is that the building official can say you have to comply. No matter how the percentage looks like. Speaker 2: Who says that? Speaker 1: The building official. Speaker 2: And that's in the IBC? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 2: Right. So, we're not touching that part, we're just saying for new buildings. That'd need to be revised somewhere. Speaker 1: That'd be specifically for new structures. Speaker 2: I'm not proposing that. Speaker 3: So it means that old school shelters or rooms where there are 50 people or more, we have… we'd need to have a tornado shelter? Speaker 2: A hurricane shelter. And again this is because when we did the mitigation assessment team, we… all the shelters that we evaluated did not comply with ICC 500. And I've heard… And I did not go there but I've heard that they were using facilities that were not compliant at all with shelters. So this would provide the commonwealth of Puerto Rico with a list of certified shelters that we feel pretty good we're sending people to be safe during a hurricane. Speaker 1: My questions is as follows: Right now we know that there's a big difference between tornados and hurricanes. A hurricane we in advance know when we'll be hit by that tornado, hurricane. There is a procedure for evacuation in those areas which we believe will affect. When you have a tornado, tornado, sometimes you don't have any further advice than one hour, or less to evacuate that area. So we're saying here that we require new buildings to construct a storm shelter for when... For hurricanes. Em... So that's what they're telling. That that will increase the cost of the structure. Speaker 2: Right. So, yes, for new structures it would be 1-2% and again, and I wanna make this clear. You say… It's understood that we send people to shelters, we evacuate people, we send people to shelters but, those shelters that we're sending people, are not in accordance with ICC 500. This will provide shelters in accordance with ICC 500. So, that's my point. I wanna make that very clear, that we're sending people to shelters that are not in accordance with ICC 500. Speaker 1: Okay. Any further questions from the committee? Speaker 6: I have a confusion with the Group E Occupancy with occupant low of 50 or more. %0 or more people like a student, or 50 or more people like a… is going to go to the shelter. People to the outside. Speaker 2: That's 50 or more students. 50 or more occupants. Speaker 6: We use the maximum capacity of the students. That's identifying the occupancy of the building. Right, so… Speaker 2: So, this is saying all Group E type buildings that have 50 or more people at most times of the day. Speaker 6: Yes, but, the maximum capacity for educational occupancy maybe is different for the people who come to the outside of the refuge, you know, right? Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 6: I just only want to know that 50 or more is the table that you'd use the maximum capacity for educational or for the shelter, or the people who come to the outside to…You know? Speaker 2: Right. So what this is saying is that if you have a structure, and that structure is Group E Occupancy, and that structure is a really old school that only has 45 students, then you'd have to worry about this. But if that school has 55 students, then you'd have to worry about this. Is that clear? If it’s a little school, they don’t have to worry about that. Tis doesn’t apply. Speaker 6: Okay, but if it isn't that, the people that are gonna be in the shelter are students. Speaker 2: The people that are gonna be in the shelter um…. That's… Um…. That's another… There a radius of the area of people that can make it there. It's only a limited amount of people that can be sheltered. It depends on the size of the facility. Speaker 6: Okay. Any further questions? Well, thank you for the presentation. For…. Eventually, every time we talk we should identify each one. So we can have a record. A record. Speaker 1: A proposal. Carmen Marla Lopez, Chapter 10: Instituto de Cultura Portorriqueño. Any representative from that agency? That’s for the International Assistance Building Code, Chapter 10, Change of Occupancy, Section 1006 Structural. The Section 1006.2 Snow and Wind Loads. Where a change of occupancy results in a structure being designed to a higher risk category, the structure side shall satisfy the requirements of sections 1608 and 1609 of the International Building Code for the new risk category. I would like to mention that the way this amendment has been submitted, they're changing the type of letter to Italic, I don't see if it’s scratched or bold. Speaker 6: She crossed that snow and… Speaker 1: Okay, okay. Speaker 6: 1608. Speaker 1: So the proposed text should be, scratch snow, and we put wind loads. Where change of occupancy results in a structure being assigned to a higher risk category, the structure shall satisfy the requirements of sections 101609 of the International Building Code for the new risk category. The reason is that historical data indicates no snowfall in Puerto Rico, tropical climate. Because, it will not increase the cost of construction. Any comments, questions with regards to this proposal? Speaker 1: Okay, then we’ll move to the next one. The proposal number 5S4, proponent Fernando Abruña. He’s representing himself. This will be regard chapter 15 of the IBC 1018, Roof Assemblies and Rooftops. It’s section with regard to weather protection. In general, roof decks shall be covered with approved roof coverings, secured to the building or structure in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Roof coverings shall be designed in accordance with this code and installed in accordance with this code and the manufacturer’s approval instructions. Roof coverings shall be required in all low slope roofs defined by the International Roofing Contractors Association as having a slope 3 in.to 12 in. or less. Shall be capable of withstanding 150 MPH winds loads and be installed with a minimum 10 year warranty. The reasons of the Hurricane Maria roof leaks in many structures became one of the main culprits of interior damage and both to the building structure and the contents. This damage includes exposure to mold and bacteria that became health hazards. This requirement would limit health risk to the occupants, and it would limit damage to the building. Higher slopes in other types of roofs can bring water down more easily and rapidly, making this provision less critical than in low sloped roofs. The cost impact it is estimated that a 2% increase in total construction cost would be expected in buildings with no other roofing membrane. This cost should mitigate with the width of the materials. The use of expanded polyurethane or expanded polyurethane foams or panels and other materials can be feasible solutions that can address both water proofing and installation insulation values in the roof structures. With regard to weather protection… Speaker 3: I have some questions regarding that, I think, just touching the roof covering is too… not specific enough, um… I think it should include coating, flashing and its roofing components as part of the roofing assembly? So, I mean, I wish it would be amended with those, but I don’t know… Speaker 1: So your amendment will be to include…. Speaker 3: When they say roof, there’s a lot of different types of roofings that are coded, you know, paint based, type, that are not considered maybe coverings, so I would wanna make sure that those include that type of um… waterproofing membranes that are in the market, like Crosco or some of these other ones, to make sure that there’s adhesion to the substrate that would withstand that type of winds and with that type of warranty. And I think it’s very important to include its flashings and coatings associated with the roofing… With the roofing itself. Speaker 1: So your amendment will be to include coatings like waterproofing membranes and… Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say roof coatings and coverings, its flashings, and all other roofing components in all low slope roofs. Speaker 1: I believe this amendment will be to add… Speaker 3: It’d be adding… Some people could say that it just applies to a membrane type roofing, and I think it should apply to all types of roofing. Speaker 4: Excuse me, Engineer Perez Braj from AEC. I think we should look into the next one, to see if both of them get to a…. Speaker 2: Yes, I didn’t look at the other one, so we can… Speaker 9: Yes. Michael (unintelligible) at FEMA, we have a concern with the 150 MPH wind speed being listed. That being kind of the requirement to design low slope roofs, too, being that it wouldn’t comply with the ASCE716, and the risk category of the building, wind speeds can get designed for ultimate speeds of 200 MPH in some cases. Um… But 150 would just… would make your design to a lower wind speed than it is required by ASCE 716. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Speaker 9: So, not complaining about its ultimate or (unintelligible) wind speed, there’s also… (unintelligible). Speaker 1: Great. Speaker 8: So maybe it could be amended say, to be designed to the new code requirements. Speaker 1: Instead of putting the 150 MPH wind loads, the… Speaker 8: Within the new code… Speaker 1: Corresponding design winds. Speaker 10: In accordance with this code of manufacturing and construction, we would need to establish… Engineer Zapata. When you try to specify the performance of a structure element or construction part of the building, and you say that withstands 150 MPH wind loads, I understand that. Or you specify 150 MPH basic wind speed… Speaker 1: Speed rate, not load. Speaker 10: Not loads, because loads are gonna confuse you, you don’t know what he’s talking about in terms of… what type of wind speed is that. That is an ultimate wind speed like 3 second loses, or that is… I don’t know. He’s trying to rewrite the code and the code already has a provision for that, so we don’t need that. Speaker 1: right. We said before that we’re going to change that text instead of 150 MPH, we’ll put withstanding corresponding design speeds. Speaker 10: Right. It already said that before. But what you say is installing according with this code. And the code already provides for that, for the wind speed that the gentleman was saying. It’s unnecessary. And also, say that it came a 10 year warranty period. How did he come up with that number? Speaker 1: Yes, he says here and be installed with a minimum 10 years warranty. Speaker 10: Jesus. Speaker 1: Eventually, you’ll be voting for this amendment, and you will… Speaker 10: It is more defining the approve roof coatings than it is in the original text, to make sure that it includes the flashing and all these miscellaneous items that make the roof code to include coatings. Speaker 11: There’s a question here. Question. Speaker 1: Your name? Speaker 4: José Vazquez, Puerto Rico Fire Department. I’d like to say this one in Spanish. Up to where I understand, he amendment can be only be made by the proponent. We can’t make an amendment. Speaker 1: I agree. I know that our… Was to see if we could, if it was something that didn’t affect the contents, but I’m seeing it does, it will quite change the contents. We’re trying to see also the intention of the person that’s bringing this. Speaker 4: I understand, but how can it affect also the process? Then they could say that it wasn’t done in accordance with the set rules. But I want to mention, in the sense that the proponent is the only one who can make an amendment and I don’t think we should assume that position. We can, later, as a committee, add some comment… Speaker 1: It is the next step, yes, yes. Speaker 20: But, yes, the person should be here. Speaker 1: The person should be here to accept or reject the amendment. We’re trying to pick up this only as a comment, basically as… Speaker 4: But, yes… Once second. I think it would also create a problem in practical terms for people who work in roof sealing, in the sense that they will not know what speed…. They will have to consult an engineer to know what is the speed they need to work that roof. Or whatever. For instance, with the previous code, we all knew that the design speed was 145 miles. The equivalent to that speed with this code now is 187 miles. Carlos. There was an importance factor and in the other categories as well, but the equivalent to 145 miles is now 187. It could not say 190, 185. That it’d be as he says, the 145 equivalent under the previous code. If it is a Category IV or III structure it could be more, but… Speaker 12: Architect Alberto Hernandez. Em… I think that what I wanted to cover, because I know Fernando, he’s an architect, and he knows that his decisions of putting only 150 MPH, you as an engineer know what you’re talking about, there are many other factors here, cause factors, and what height the building is at. I think that he wants to be sure that the waterproofing systems today in Puerto Rico have been inefficient before the hurricane. There should be a reasoning to meet these wind speeds and to provide a more effective warranty. And for me, being also an architect, I know that the components that usually fail are flashings, coatings, sometimes they don’t even use them, so you can have a great membrane, but if the water gets in between the parapet and the membrane, you can have the best membrane, but if the water travels down, it damages everything. Em… I think that is what he wanted to do, just saying that we’re going to make sure that there are using some…. Anyway, I wouldn’t say membrane, I would say there are many types of coatings, and different types of waterproofings that meet the addition and everything related to winds. Speaker 20: Felix Rivera, there we’re also talking about flash roofs and roofs with low slope. It’s what’s he’s mentioning now. … Speaker 12: That is almost all of Puerto Rico. If it’s badly installed, water goes through. Speaker 20: Right, right, that is what he’s mentioning. Here I saw a suggestion about including corresponding design speeds, or stating a fixed amount. Speaker 12: We shouldn’t mess with elementary things, unless he… unless the amendment is submitted. Speaker 20: We evaluate it as it is. Speaker 1: We evaluate it as it is. Ok. Let’s move on to the next one, then, which is number 4, also Architect Agruña is the proponent. It has to do with Chapter 15: Roof Assemblies and Rooftops. Speaker 11: No, that is the one we read already. Speaker 1: That is the one we read. Let’s move on to number 5, very well. Em… We’re talking about ICC Chapter… We’re talking about Chapter 15, Section 1504.1. Wind Resistance of Roofs, Roof Decks and Roof Coatings. Mr. Santos, go ahead, please identify yourself for the record. Speaker 13: Well, Ernesto Santos… the microphone. Yes, good morning everyone. Ernesto Santos, on behalf of Engineer Steven Spears. Actually, this amendment is related to the previous one, quite. In Section 1504.1, Wind Resistance of Roofs, Roof Decks and Roof Coatings shall be designed for wind loads in accordance with Chapter 16 Section 1604.2, 1604.3 and 1604.4, we propose to add: “using a speed of 155 MPH in the calculations.” The reasons for this are, we saw in the ARA reports, dated 9.25.18, Hurricane Maria winds did not exceed 140 MPH, and other reports of the SSS, CIMSS, called Hurricane Maria Advisory No. 18, you should have copies of both. There the winds were between 80 MPH and 155 MPH. and also, based on the observations we had, most of the damage were suffered by informal constructions, that is to say, illegal ones, right, that did not meet the codes. In projects that met the present code, the previous one, damage were minimum. So we need to understand that increasing the design speed will not solve the problem if we don’t solve the compliance issue. One thing has to be tied to the other one. If we don’t stop the compliance issue, that’s it. We can state 190 MPH, but we’ll keep having problems. So, that’s why we recommend leaving the design speed, which was currently 145, increasing it, the one that was 145, increase it to 155, because we saw there were those types of winds. Especially in the East area. And instead of using speeds and charts in Chapter 16, the cost, if amended, if the amendment is accepted, should be zero, or minimum. Not accepting this amendment will significantly increase waterproofing costs in Puerto Rico. Because the available options of roof systems that resist these pressures we’re mentioning will be reduced. So, this proposal is only for roofs, right? The areas of walls, windows, all the rest would remain, we’re not changing any of that. This will only be applied to… That’s why we did it in this section, 1504.1, so as not to involve the structure of construction, all the rest, only the roof area. That’s all I have. Speaker 1: Thank you. Any doubt or question? Speaker 13: I have a question. I did notice that between this amendment and the previous one, we’re increasing the wind speed to 155 MPH. Do you offer better evidence with maps, as I do notice. They’re excellent maps, though, and I do notice that many of the maps are titled preliminary wind speeds or estimated wind speeds. My concern is that I’m already noticing differences or suggestions in wind speeds. Maybe the maps provided by the IBC are not satisfactory? But I’d like to know if this committee has given a statistical analysis of the history of wind speeds of all hurricanes we had, or the IBC has explained to us how they came up with the tiny map they have provided. That clearly is not satisfactory to me. I’d like to know if we can figure out a better wind speed based on better statistical and scientific information. Speaker 1: Yes, I noticed that, too, but these were the only available at this time. I didn’t find any final reports or anything…. All of them said this… So…You know. Speaker 13: Thanks. Speaker 4: Architect Alberto Hernandez. So, to make sure of what you’re saying, you wanna change the speed for the design of the actual roofing coverings, not for the structural roof sections. What you’re proposing is not that the actual design of the roofs and parapets structure parts that make the roof comply with the (unintelligible), but that the actual coverings and flashings, so forth, will not be subject to those higher winds that you think it could be caused (unintelligible) to actually waterproof a roof in Puerto Rico. To go then with a lower wind speed calculation. Speaker 20: Yes, but I’d include the roof decks, are included there also. So, I mean, I would say the system is the whole system. Speaker 10: One question, Miguel Zapata. When you say a 155 MPH speed, you mean that same speed mentioned in the IBC 2016 code or you mean the speed shown in these parts? Speaker 20: Yes, I meant the previous code speed. The present code. Increasing it from 145 to 155, the design speed, that is used in the calculations… Speaker 10: Would the 2016 code formula or the 2009 code formula remain? Speaker 20: Good question. They would apply… If that is the speed to be used, the current formulas would apply, not the proposed ones. Speaker 10: It doesn’t work like that. You’re trying to play the engineer, and it doesn’t work like that. Speaker 1: Well, Zapata, any change however, we’ll have to vote on this. Any questions? Speaker 20: Yes, I understand, now the gentleman said 183 would be the equivalent… 187 would be the equivalent to 145. I understand. Speaker 10: If we reduce it to what it says here, it’s 77%. Speaker 20: Okay, but… Yes, I understand, I got carried away by the speed shown on the maps, and that is the design speed, that is used… Speaker 10: So why consider and amendment? I’m more concerned in keeping the structural part as it is in the code, and if you want to talk about the roof coating part, where I think there a little more of… It’s not that critical, because it’s not affecting the structure of what you’re building. If the membrane fails, it’s a leakage problem, but it doesn’t affect the structure, but I mean, they’re my… Speaker 20: Okay, I could consider it. Speaker 15: (unintelligible) My question is, wind gusts that are greater than sustained wind, are they not taken into consideration to make this decision? Speaker 20: Yes, when measuring design speed it is gusts, based on 3 second gusts. Speaker 15: (inaudible) …I understand that wind gusts were greater. Speaker 20: That is called… At least one of the reports I have is Preliminary Peak Wind Gust, and none was greater than 150. Speaker 15: All the reports mention 3 second gusts. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 15: That is within the construction field. There has been a change in the code from 2010 on, where wind speeds were factorized and then you can’t compare them with previous wind speeds. One vs. one, because you should convert them. Speaker 20: The other report I attached here, Maria Advisory No. 18, also mentions Peak Wind Gusts, that is, gusts. They are proposing 150. 155 MPH. Speaker 15: And when the code says basic wind speed, now that it’s being measured at a height of 33 ft, it’s a Type C exposure, equivalent to an airport. Then you need to factorize it, take it where you want to use it. To provide such a number, you need to know what you’re talking about. Because those speeds on these maps, nobody says where they have been measured, if they were measured from a plane, or on the ground, 20, 30, 40 or 50 feet. Until someone puts a name on them, nobody knows what they mean. Speaker 4: If I may, Mr. Vazquez. We know we’re an area where we have the highest hurricane winds in the world, basically. Just to use one single piece of data, Maria, as a justification, I find it a bit weak in the sense that Maria was Category 4 when it came through here. But we expect Category 5 here. It’s true that it hasn’t happened yet, that was the strongest one that we’ve experienced, but… These (unintelligible) that are made to this code are based on data that… I mean, historical data from probably 40, 50 or 60 years ago, and stochastic studies that almost reach those numbers. The simple fact that Maria, though I don’t know whether Irma was in Culebra, I think Irma had higher winds than Maria for us here… That’s the best reference we have, it’s the strongest hurricane we had in history. But in terms of scientific studies, the jewel of these (unintelligible). That maybe now when the analysis are done again with his historical data they may increase more. I mean we can’t, we still area and will be in a hurricane high risk area, and category 5 are not excluded. Then there is the problem, as Mr. Zapata says, that when you say a number you have to know what you are… what code you’re talking about, because maybe in one code you may seem conservative but when I check it in the other one, I’m below what it truly is. I mean, in the best case scenario, I would recommend to complete it in accordance with… that code, whichever it is. Am I being clear? Speaker 1: It would then be an amendment, Engineer Rivera, it would be an amendment, instead of saying 155 MPH, establishing like in the previous one in accordance with… in accordance with the code. Speaker 10: Roof decks… Zapata. Roof decks are also considered key components. Key components are developed at higher qualities than the structural systems quality. I mean, we can have the system transmit the load to the main elements designed with lower falls than the ones the main system resists, that is not… What will happen is that the deck is gonna fail first, then the structure, having the chance to resists the loads. This is not supposed to be a design approach. . Speaker 1: Yes, I understand what you’re saying, but as I said, we haven’t seen that, even with systems complying with the current system, there was not much damage. Most damage were to informal construction. Speaker 10: If you had the chance to see covered soccer fields with steel roofs in the South and North areas of the island, and all the warehouses made of steel, many… It’s true that all the structures that failed were the ones that do not… that were not properly designed. But these last few months I’ve had the chance to see and assess many steel structures, and there was even one that I’m not going to mention, that had been constructed not even three months before the hurricane, which was supposed to meet this new code, and also many things with steel structures, that are made of metal deck and steel structure elements, that failed completely. Speaker 1: Yes, yes, that’s true. Speaker 10: even I declared two total losses, that were not totally destructed but there were exhumations that were the most tolerable available. That is, the things that failed were those not designed in accordance with the code, but in fact, there were also steel structures that failed. Speaker 20: Yes, I amend it to say roof coatings, as mentioned by the architect, and leaving roof decks, flashings and the rest. We would review it. Speaker 1: Stated in the amendment as you see fit. Right. To the committee members, we have to get closer to the mics because they are at its maximum, but I know that back there…And also for the recording, we need to try and talk a little bit clearer and normal into the mic. Go ahead. Is that a question or…? Okay now. Speaker 5: (inaudible) from FEMA again. Sorry. Our concern again is with the wind speeds 150 MPH 155MPH, when the investigation was done after the storm in all buildings, your roof is your number one defense against water intrusion. So, the wind speed of design of 155 MPH doesn’t really cover all the island, it doesn’t cover all risk categories, and it’s not clear once again whether it’s ultimate or allowable, if that’s the ultimate wind speed would be said then the with the reduction factors of ASC716 you’re really talking about 120 MPH designs, roof decks, to cover anything. Speaker 1: Yes, that’s right. Speaker 5: So it doesn’t comply with the wind speeds in ASCE-716 and like I said with reduction factors (inaudible) so… Speaker 1: Can you read the text? Because you told me that it’s only 155 MPH, would be making an amendment. Can you read the new text? Speaker 5: I’ll have to sit down and… Because this is what’s taken exactly from the code. I didn’t have the roof decks and roof coatings… Speaker 1: Can we then leave this amendment for another opportunity? So you can sit down once you’re ready. Speaker 5: Yes, I can hand it to you. Speaker 1: Review that. Thank you. So, that’s number 5. We’re going for number 6. Chapter 15 Section 1507.1.1. Speaker 11: Yes, the same. In this one here, striking out a sentence that mentions about the wind speeds of 120. So it would not apply to Puerto Rico. That’s all. Speaker 1: Any questions, comments, with regard to Chapter 15, scratching all the 120 MPH winds. Speaker 4: Did you allow a more… I mean, since you’re more into this, about this, I’m a bit confused specifically about what we’re striking, can you explain what’s the use of this specific underlayment, and the (unintelligible) what are we striking now here? Forget about the MPH, what are we taking out here? Speaker 1: It’s a sentence. Speaker 4: Yes, I know, but underlayment is like a layer of… like a built top type roofing. Speaker 1: It says right here membrane-like based modified bitumen seven tiered membrane, and it says that: an approved underlayment for an applicable roof covering for design wind speeds less than 120 MPH shall be applied over the forage wide membrane strip. And I’m just thinking aloud because of the 120. Speaker 4: But if it doesn’t apply, then, I’d rather leave it, because I’m not really sure what we’re taking out. If you think it doesn’t apply then doesn’t hurt to leave it, because it doesn’t apply. I’m not really sure what we’re striking out. Speaker 1: And also, based on that same comment, Felix Rivera, the proposed text is in the Exceptions section. So it would be exempt. That’s one comment. Speaker 4: Could you explain why this does not apply to Puerto Rico? Speaker 1: Because the design speed will be higher than 120. That’s why. We know the speed is currently 145, and that makes reference to a 120 MPH system.. Speaker 4: Could you put that section in the code there? Speaker 15: Yes, I’m looking for it, give me the exact number. Speaker 4: But this text is from the new text, right? Not from the code. Speaker 1: 1507.1.1 Speaker 15: It’s the missing one. Speaker 1: Exception 1507. Speaker 4: Point 1, point 1. Speaker 1: Underlayment, we’re in the Exceptions section then. Speaker 4: It’s the description of the…. Speaker 15: It’s the section… I’m going to enlarge it. Sorry. Here it is. I’m sorry but I lost it, let me look for it again. Go back to the start. Speaker 4: You can eliminate the whole section, because if it is an exception… Speaker 5: can you give us a practical example where you would apply, or where you wouldn’t apply this text? Speaker 20: Let me just see the definition of underlayment here. What I’m seeing there on underlayment, it’s not talking about tile roofs. How the substrate for waterproofing is going to be. Speaker 20: Yes, under the tiles. Speaker 4: And what you normally use is to place the complete underlayment that would… making some strips. Speaker 1: On the panels, you place some strips. On panel joints. Speaker 4: On panel joints. Speaker 20: Eliminating the whole section is for me… Speaker 4: How would it be now? Speaker 1: Putting complete membrane. Complete, yes. Speaker 4: I think we should eliminate the complete section 2. There were many tiles that were blown away by the hurricane. I don’t like… I agree with what you’re eliminating, I understand that it is because you’re saying that instead of putting the complete underlayment, you should place it only where on joints… Okay, we can evaluate it as it is there. Speaker 1: Okay, so, making the change and you submit the amended section. Speaker 5: Eliminating the complete section. Speaker 1: I’m looking at it here. Speaker 5: Yes, but here, in 1507.1, because number 5… Speaker 1: For the committee members, the 5S6, it’s section 1507.1.1, instead of 1504. Speaker 5: It’s 07.1.1. Speaker 1: Correct. In the evaluation sheet, the evaluation sheet. Speaker 5: 5S6, the evaluation sheet. The first one on the second page, right? Speaker 1: Right. Any comment or question on the proposed amendment, number 6? Can we then move on to number 7? With regards to Chapter 15, Section 1507, they are some tables. Inaudible. Speaker 4:Yes, these tables also apply, they say they’re for speeds lower than 140 MPH. Speaker 5: In the tables, em… In these diagrams, this that you have put here, right? Speaker 20: No. 1507, underlayment (inaudible). Speaker 1: Yes, they’re tables 1507.1.1 (1). There are several, there are three tables. Speaker 20: The title of the table is Underlayment Types. Speaker 4: And I ask, under the wind maps with the new code, is there any section in Puerto Rico under 140 MPH? Speaker 20: In this amendment you’re proposing eliminating that third row, that would apply to 140 MPH winds. (Inaudible) Speaker 1: For the three tables. There are three tables in this amendment. Speaker 4: Why? Speaker 1: For the same reason, because they apply… Now, let me see… These rows apply to a 140 MPH or less system, to avoid any confusions and misinterpretations. Speaker 4: But what we’re eliminating is not the complete table, it’s just the function… Speaker 1: The row, the third row. Speaker 2: The third row. Speaker 5: The fourth row has to do also with 140 MPH winds. And you cannot eliminate that one. Speaker 1: That one stays, The other one is for winds lower than 140 MPH. And the proposal is to eliminate the third row completely. Speaker 4: The third row. Yes. Speaker 1: Any comment, doubt, question? Speaker 4: Yes, simple. For the records and to have appropriate and accurate registrations, instead of saying third row, we should say row titled such, such and such. A simple thing, but so as to avoid confusions. Speaker 4: To avoid people reading the title and reading wrong. Speaker 1: I understand that that is a comment, a clarification. Can you submit it with that clarification? Speaker 4: Of course. Speaker 1: Let’s move on to… Speaker 5: What we’re saying is that we’re always going to use column 4. Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, correct. Speaker 4: It applies to all of Puerto Rico, yes. Speaker 1: Then, let’s move on to number 8, related to Chapter 15, Section 1507.1.2. Speaker 4: Ice Barriers. Speaker 1: Yes, this has to do with Ice Barriers, which doesn’t apply to Puerto Rico either. We would eliminate that Ice Barriers section. Speaker 4: And it’s also repeated in other sections I wrote down there below. Speaker 3: And there I have a doubt, these are basically formal things. When you say… Oh, excuse me, Reinaldo de León, Electric Power Authority. When you say “All sections like the one above”, you start naming them, the committee of this process requires that these sections are also added, and the texted scratched. That is, I’m sorry to bother, I don’t want to be too much of a formalist, but then we should amend the document to add more text. Apparently, there should… Speaker 20: Each one. Speaker 4: Each one should include… Speaker 20: Okay. How much time do I have? Speaker 1: We can see this one subsequently, number 8 as well for it to include the text. Go ahead, questions. Speaker 5: I believe that what doesn’t affect us, should not be eliminated. That’s what I wanted to say. That it should not be eliminated. If it doesn’t affect us, why eliminate it? Speaker 1: That would be the committee members eventually when… Speaker 5: I wanted to mention that for the record. Speaker 20: We could comment on it later in the vote, I have some ideas about that. I’m not a fan of… well, if we can discuss this issue during the vote, I have something to add. Thanks. Speaker 1: Questions for the proponent? If eventually the text will remain as is, it’s a job we could save, right? Submitting to… Speaker 5: I submitted my comment. Speaker 1: He’s submitting a comment… Let’s move on to the next one then, number 9. Chapter 15. Section1507, Table 1507.3.7. Same thing. Speaker 20: Again, here that row applies again, in these tables apply to winds slower than 140 MPH. Speaker 4: However, there’s one that mentions all speeds. For instance, when you see his, it says all speeds. Speaker 20: Exactly, that was not eliminated. Speaker 4: Eliminates the point? Speaker 20: No, no, no, I’m not eliminating. Speaker 4: Oh, your line gets till there. I mean, I’m telling you, because I understand that what you say about not taking it out if it doesn’t apply, because it doesn’t matter, but if there is any amendment that I don’t know, give some details about wind speed being slower in some area, these would be applied in other tables. We don’t know whether this is going to be tested as submitted with all wind speeds. We’re going to be using materials of faster speeds that would not apply because we eliminated slower speed alternatives. Speaker 20: Yes, as you can see there, I eliminated from 85 MPH to 130. That would not comply with the present code. That’s why the length of my line. Speaker 4: Rafael Vazquez. I’m sorry to make so many questions. But can you give me another practical example in construction where that codes table is applied? Specifically. Speaker 20: Well, look, this table apples to, for instance, the title of the table is Clay and Concrete Tile Attachment. Speaker 4: But an example, there are Spanish style houses that have those little blue or red tiles, sometimes they call tiles the floor ones, what tiles does this refers to? They’re those little tiles you see on some nice Spanish style houses around, colonial ones, it refers to those, the ones you see in Palmas del Mar, that type of development. Now they’re made of plastic, some are concrete. There are different types… It’s like sometimes in constructions they call lozetas tiles. It’s confusing, but they’re the roof ones. Speaker 1: Any other comment or question? Let’s move on then to number 10, Chapter 15, Section 1507.10. Speaker 14: Okay, in this proposal we’re talking about Built-Up Roofs, 1507.10 Built-Up Roofs, The installation of built-up roofs shall comply with the provisions of this section. We propose adding: “Coal tar pitch roofs will not be permitted for health reasons”. And there I submit evidence of several websites were it says that coal tar has been associated to skin, lungs, bladder, and kidney cancer. I understand it’s not often used, but it is still used in Puerto Rico. Speaker 12: My opinion. Architect Alberto Hernandez. I wouldn’t dare remove something that is still allowed by the present codes, because it could be misinterpreted that we are discriminating against a waterproofing sector that could say: “You’re cutting us out here.” If the coal tar pitch is allowed by the codes and OSHA, and all the existing codes, I understand that… Speaker 20: Yes, but since that has been submitted, or it is a proposed amendment, then we can discuss it in the committee… Speaker 12: We don’t know how many companies are dedicated to that. Speaker 20: Yes, in the document I submitted, there’s a reference that we can use for its evaluation. Speaker 1: Questions regarding this proposal that has to do with coal tar pitch roofs? Well, let’s move on to the next one, number 10, 11. Not 10. It also has to do with the same section… Speaker 20: Yes, coal tar pitch, eliminating coal tar pitch from a table. 1507.10.2. Speaker 1: So, now let’s move on to number 11. Here we have a…. In the … here… Right? Speaker 12: We’re being consistent about moving that and also moving this here. Speaker 20: This is number 11, okay. Speaker 1: If there are no questions… Speaker 12: One question. Angel Vazquez. Do you know whether in Puerto Rico there are one or more companies dedicated to this type of work? Speaker 20: No, I don’t know any right now. Speaker 3: One comment. Reinaldo de León, Electric Power Authority. We understand the intent, we understand the intent of your group, you have good intentions, but also we need to think that this structural committee should offer solutions and modifications based on structures, that is what we master, and maybe basing ourselves on health recommendations would be out of our reach and shouldn’t be evaluated. Speaker 1: Any questions? Thank you, then. Let’s move on to number 12. With regards to Chapter 15, Section 1507.12.2. Speaker 20: Yes, here I have the materials, 1507.12.2, Material Standards, Thermoset single-ply roof coverings shall comply with ASTM D4637 or ASTM D5019. We propose to add that it is used minimum thickness shall be 16 millstream force membrane over ¼ inch minimum thickness dense coverboard. The reason for this is that well, you can see the photo, several failures we saw were…are related to single place and based on a datasheet from Factory Newton. On their datasheet they recommend that in hurricane prone areas, when tin materials are not authorized, like those 45 mils ones, thicker than 45 mils should be used. Speaker 12: Architect Alberto Hernandez. Okay, here I see photos of membranes that have slipped from their anchoring, not necessarily because the membrane has been the main defect because of its thickness. I’m asking, I mean, if this manufacturer certifies its work under the new codes, because adding a requirement that could increase the cost, the cost effect, this amendment is supposed to have a cost effect. What is the cost effect that shall vary from the required by the code versus what you’re proposing? Speaker 20: Yes, for instance, in this case a thermoset membrane, we’re talking about 15 cents, per sq ft. Speaker 1: The amendment shall be clarified then to include 15 cents. Speaker 20: But, what would be its benefit? Speaker 1: 15 cents per? Speaker 20: Square foot, yes, in thermoset. Speaker 1: Reduction… Speaker 20: No, increase. All increase. But the benefits could be significant. Speaker 4: The water… The thickness dense board you’re talking about there, is that additional too? Does that add cost too? Speaker 20: Yes, it adds cost. Speaker 4: Does that already include 15 cents per sq ft? And how much more is the dense board? Speaker 20: Crikey, I don’t have the price, but many systems recommend to change the quarter inch minimum. Speaker 4: The normal cost per sq ft, 45, is missing. Speaker 20: Well, I have the difference. Just the difference. I don’t know. Just the difference. Costs… Speaker 10: Engineer Zapata. Is there any scientific study that proves that increasing it to .60 the problems that happen with .45 shall be solved, or is it just an observation? Speaker 20: No, there’s evidence. Like I said, this is recommended by Factory Newton, yes, I in your… On Datasheet 1.29, by them, they mention many of their observations. They’re an insurance company. They run their tests, expenses, and based on their observations and what they find, they’re recommendations are to insure… For instance a roof, with materials like this in this are in Puerto Rico, has to be .60. If it is .45, they no longer insure it. Speaker 10: Debras. But Factory Newton is using 175 MPH. Speaker ?: The pharmaceutical. Speaker 20: That insurance sold by Factory Newton, is not actually insuring the building but the Little things inside. It’s not the same, it’s not compatible. Speaker 1: Yes, true, but is it a study I’m asking, is there data about this? And that’s what Factory Newton has found. Speaker 1: Any question about this amendment? Let’s move on to the next one, number 13, with regards to Chapter 15, Section 1507.13.2. Speaker 20: This one says the same as the previous one, but applying thermoplastic products. Also increases thickness to 60 mils, and coverboard a quarter. In this one, the cost impact is less. It’s between 11 cents and 13 cents per sq ft, plus the coverboard if it wasn’t included. Speaker 4: In the photo shown here, is that the coverboard or the insulation? Speaker 20: That’s insulation, no, no, it doesn’t have a coverboard. Speaker 4: And these photos of these systems you’re sending us, were they systems design for those wind parameters? Speaker 20: Well, for the present code. (inaudible) Speaker 20: Exactly. There’s no enforcement. Speaker 4: For the present code at the time of construction? Speaker 20: Exactly. (Inaudible) Speaker 4: There are Uniform Building Codes… There are Acting… Speaker 20: I’m concerned that when changing the new codes with the winds, these manufacturers will have to certify to the new winds, and maybe the same manufacturer will give you 60. So I’m concerned we set a minimum without having the expertise… And we increase costs that already are expensive, to something that lets the manufacturer certify the new wind codes. That’s what I think. Speaker 4: The truth is that I consider the Factory Newton issue very important, their data. That for hurricane prone areas they don’t accept 45. Speaker 1: Any other question with regards to Proposal 13? Let’s move on to Proposal 14, Chapter 15, Section 1507.15.1. Speaker 20: Yes, here we’re talking about liquid products, 1507.15.1, slope, about the slope. Liquid-Applied Roofing shall have a design slope of not less than one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent slope). We recommend adding “liquid acrylic coatings shall have a one-half unit vertical en 12 units horizontal. “That is, increasing it to 4%. And the reason is because we know that acrylic liquids are not very resistant to puddle formation, and we have seen real puddle formation, in 2% slope roofs. Speaker 10: Engineer Zapata. Is that supported by any study? Speaker 20: No, it’s based on field observations. Speaker 10: And does it include all type of buildings or small structures? Speaker 20: It applies to acrylics. Acrylic liquids. The manufacturers themselves say that you have to correct puddle formation. Speaker 1: Has been changed from 2% to 4%. Speaker 10: Actually, it doesn’t affect the product, it affects the cost of the coating to be used on the roof, or if you’re going to give it a bit structural slope to… Speaker 20: In this case we’re saying there’s no impact, but based on the comments I understand there is some impact. Cost impact. Speaker 10: Plus coating, plus weight on the roof. Speaker 3: One question, Reinaldo de León again. The product per se, in the manufacturer’s instructions, how is it applied? Does it include any warnings on how it should not be used on certain slopes? Speaker 20: It doesn’t mention exact numbers, but it does say you need to correct puddle formation, in almost all labels. Speaker 3: I would think then that it’s up to the architect or engineer in his/her specifications to instruct the use of liquid-applied roofing in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That it is also applied for the warranty of the job. Thank you. Speaker 1: Since there are no more questions, we thank the association of general contractors. Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. Speaker 1: So expeditious, and to be able to review the code and bring your amendment proposals. On a later turn, we’ll be seeing, on a subsequent turn, we’ll be seeing two of them. Or you can send them to me and we will discuss them when… Speaker 3: We sent you an email. Speaker 1: No, we would like to analyze them because we have to review them now. Could you give them to us? Thanks. Let’s move on then to Number 15, Ivette Sanchez Medina, Chapter 16, Section 1603.1.3. (Inaudible) Speaker 15: Good morning, Ivette Sanchez Medina, representing the Electric Power Authority. I’d like to report for the records, that I’ll be presenting it, but for any question or doubt about it, Engineer Juan Carlos Miranda here with me is the one who has the expertise to answer, and he would be clarifying. The proposal is for chapter 16, Section 1603, and it would be to eliminate the Roof Snow Load Data requirement, and re enumerate the following items. The reason is, obviously, because it is a condition that doesn’t occur in Puerto Rico, and it would have no cost impact. Do you want me to read what we’re eliminating anyway? Speaker 1: It’s clear, we’d be eliminating the part related to snow. Anyone has any doubt or question? I understand that the amendment is quite clear. Let’s move on to the next one, number 16, with regards to Section 1603.1.4. On this section, amendment number 16 is presented by the Association of Engineers and Surveyors of Puerto Rico. Since there is no official representative of this association, I submit it. It is related to Section 1603.1.4, Section 5 5, which says: Design Wind Pressures, to be used for exterior component and cladding materials not specifically designed by the registered design professional responsible for the design of the structure, psf. The reason for that is where another registered design professional isn’t the delegated designer for the interior components and cladding materials, the design wind pressures nee

Bachelor's degree - Universidad del Museo Social Argentino

Years of experience: 20. Registered at ProZ.com: Aug 2017.

N/A

Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, DejaVu, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Trados Studio, Wordfast

English (DOCX)

Meet new translation company clients
Meet new end/direct clients
Screen new clients (risk management)
Network with other language professionals
Find trusted individuals to outsource work to
Build or grow a translation team
Get help with terminology and resources
Help or teach others with what I have learned over the years
Improve my productivity

Bio

My name is Andres Galliano, I’m a freelance translator and interpreter from Argentina. I have been working as a translator for 15 years, handling large and medium-size projects, focusing on prompt delivery, excellency and reliability. My daily output is around 5,000 to 7,000 words depending on the subject to be translated.

That is the reason why I would like to offer my services to you, knowing I would be an added value for your company, and you would have a translator you can rely on.

I have also lived in Australia for many years, so I have a near native knowledge of English.

I also attach my resumé with references included, which can attest to my value and quality as a translator.

My love for the language and for conveying meaning among people is what drives me to be a better translator every day.

Hoping to hear from you soon,

Andres H. Galliano

Sworn Translator

Interpreter

[email protected]

Keywords: subtitling msds localization spanish english legal contracts certificates UN

Profile last updated
May 29, 2020

More translators and interpreters: Spanish to English More language pairs

Your current localization setting

Select a language

You have native languages that can be verified

Your current localization setting

Select a language