Dave Baker

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Chief Fire Official Appointments #10143
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    Ours is in an operating guideline…I will email you a copy.

    in reply to: Interconnected Smoke Alarms – 9.5.4.4. #2545
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    Hey Joe,

    I would suggest you could leave the battery op interconnect smoke alarms, but a sprinkler system would be required, 9.5.4.4.(1)(c) is pretty specific. If the don’t want to install the sprinklers then hardwired smokes are required. I see no exceptions.
    IMHO

    in reply to: Electronic devices used for inspections #2517
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    Keeping and eye on this thread too…Thanks Susan for the topic and Darren for the reply.

    in reply to: Enforcement Question #2434
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    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.

    IMHO

    in reply to: Replacement of fire alarm systems #2209
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    IMHO,

    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!

    in reply to: Exit signs lacking in building #2174
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    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.

    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    Hey Colin,

    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?

    Interesting topic.

    Thanks
    Dave B

    in reply to: Furniture in corridor outcropping #2140
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    IMHO

    Combustible = “able to be burned easily” from Webster’s

    2.4.1.2. does not apply as that is for guest suites, 2.4.1.1.(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.

    2.7.1.7.(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.

    in reply to: Open-Air Burning in Fire Safety Plans #2042
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    Hey Armando,

    I take it you have no Open Air Burning By-law? You can do the order if not compliant with 2.4.4.4. 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.

    in reply to: Passing Of Wendy Krebsz #1996
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    Our condolences…

    in reply to: Exit signs vs Green running man sign #1991
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    9.1.2.2.(2) Except for Article 9.4.5.5. 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.

    in reply to: Exit signs vs Green running man sign #1938
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    I believe Part 9 does not apply (with exceptions), see 9.1.2.2.(2).

    in reply to: Div B 2.2.3.5 #1881
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    Hey John,

    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 2.2.3.5. 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.

    in reply to: Clean Agent Suppression Systems #1818
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Fireworks Display Sites and Fire Extinguishers #1783
    Dave BakerDave Baker
    Participant

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)