Forum Replies Created
Ours is in an operating guideline…I will email you a copy.
I would suggest you could leave the battery op interconnect smoke alarms, but a sprinkler system would be required, 22.214.171.124.(1)(c) is pretty specific. If the don’t want to install the sprinklers then hardwired smokes are required. I see no exceptions.
Keeping and eye on this thread too…Thanks Susan for the topic and Darren for the reply.
I agree with Robert B. It sounds like there has been no Part III charges yet on the deficiencies, why not move forward with them? Also have a look at FPPA 33.(1). Make application to the Fire Safety Commission for an Order authorizing you to do the thing.
It is not only the building, but the occupancy that must be considered. What is happening in the building? Has that changed? Remember that Part 2 of the OFC requires the CFO to classify a building based on its major occupancy in conformance with the building code.
If the installation was prior to a building code then the minimum would be the Part 9 of the OFC depending again on the occupancy. If Part 9 does not apply because of the building design one would have to review the associated risk and issue an Inspection Order based on some reasonable/logical measure.
Monitoring realistically is based on size, occupancy and occupant load, all risk factors. So, if the shoe fits…
Audibility is actually a good example. Current OBC requirements have a minimum level of audibility. Fire alarms installed prior to these requirements have been successfully upgraded by Inspection Order throughout the Province. The technical guideline is just a reasonable/logical measure.
Now my head hurts! Thanks for making me think!
Joe made a good point. Talk to your building department. If the occupancy has changed or there was construction without a permit they should be involved. If the exit lighting turns out to be a requirement under the OBC and for whatever reason the building department is not going to act you could issue the Inspection Order. Just be careful that you are not ordering something that is not required to be there in the first place. Let us know how you make out.February 18, 2016 at 7:24 pm in reply to: Excessive Accumulation of Combustible Materials – Inspection Orders #2147
Could you clarify if your Inspection Orders are referencing (f) or (g)? What standard are you using for the minimum percentages of open floor area, clear widths for egress and pile heights etc.? Also have you had any of those Inspection Orders appealed?
Combustible = “able to be burned easily” from Webster’s
126.96.36.199. does not apply as that is for guest suites, 188.8.131.52.(2) allows the use of combustibles in the space you describe as long as the space is designed for it. You and the CBO have to decide what that means.
184.108.40.206.(1) requires that the means of egress remains free of obstructions. You have to feel comfortable that the materials in question can’t “migrate” into the expected path of travel. Consideration could be given to securing or delineating the materials.
There is no referenced standard as of yet to define combustibility of furniture in Canada that I am aware of. The California standards seem to be the favorite documents to refer to. http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/september-october-2013/features/old-problem-fresh-look & http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/277/2156%20-%20UpholsteredFurnWhitePaper.pdf are really fun reads.
Is solid wood easily ignitable? What about “treated” cushions that meet an unrecognized standard? There is no easy answer. Evaluate the risk, consider the probabilities and take reasonable steps to mitigate potential loses.
I take it you have no Open Air Burning By-law? You can do the order if not compliant with 220.127.116.11. As for the fire safety plan you may have that covered in provision for control of fire hazards. I don’t think it would be appropriate to have a deficiency to a Code requirement spelled out. If you were to approve the open air burning you could require provisions. Another consideration is to contact MOL and get their take.
Let us know how you make out.
18.104.22.168.(2) Except for Article 22.214.171.124. and Sections 9.7 and 9.9, this Part does not apply to a building or part of a building that satisfies the requirements of the Building Code.
In my opinion it does not matter if the exit signage is consistent within a building as long as the sign is in conformance with the Building Code of the day. It really is not any different than 2 different buildings having different exit signs.
I believe Part 9 does not apply (with exceptions), see 126.96.36.199.(2).
Re-read the article, then look up the definition of Inspection, noting that it is a defined term. The inspection is a physical inspection to determine apparent operation. Testing is not a requirement in 188.8.131.52. You, the Chief Fire Official has to be satisfied the inspection is being completed by a competent person (may even be a staff member of the facility). Also have a look at the record retention requirements for inspections (DIV B Section 1.1). A $5000 plus expense sounds an awful lot like testing.
Thanks Joe for your advice and input. Yes a building permit is a definite. We work closely with our Planning and Development Division reviewing applications and drawings submitted by qualified designers/architects. However, the question originates from a qualified P. Eng.
I think I answered my own question. The real dilemma was in NFPA 75 (ref by NFPA 13). 8.1 requires these rooms to be sprinkler protected whether or not the building is sprinkler protected. There is an allowance where the building is not sprinkler protected to use CAFS in lieu of sprinklers. 8.4.1 speaks to total gaseous flooding systems protecting critical data in process in non-sprinklered rooms.
I failed to recognize the requirement in 8.1 as stand alone, if the building is sprinkler protected, the Information Technology Equipment Room mustalso be sprinkler protected. The allowance in 8.4 does not alleviate this requirement.
Thanks to all for your consideration.
Issue a Part I Offence Notice if documentation is not maintained. Even more formidable would be issuing a Part I Summons for failing to comply with NRCan, Display Fireworks Manual. That is a max $1000 fine and may possibly cost the Display Supervisor’s certification. Pointing these out may assist in assuring FE’s are maintained and records kept.