Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I also would like to see some direction from the Province on this as it’s a lot harder with these to justify postponing them when compared to chip trucks or property sales.
Chris, don’t forget that the timing of these is once every 12 months, not once every calendar year. I’ve got one in Aug, 1 in Oct, 4 in Nov and 1 in Dec.
THANK YOU KEVIN! I never thought of looking in OBC Part 11.
OBC 3.4.7.2. (wooden fire escape construction) has a Pt 11 CA that references 3.2.3.13.(2) which is unenclosed exterior exit stairs that prescribes protection of the openings 3m horrizontally, 10m below and 5m above which is interesting considering 3.4.7.4. only requires protection of openings 1.8m above.
So in current OBC, if it’s an exterior exit stair, it needs protection of openings 5m above but if it’s a fire escape, it can get by with 1.8m above. Now I’ve got to dig out my old OBCs and see how far back those 3.2.3.13. clauses go.
In regards to what’s an exit stair vs fire escape, I guess it would come down to the dimensions of the rise/run and width…
Stairs:Â Max rise 200mm, min run 255mm, min width 1650mm
Fire Escape: max rise 210mm and min run 220mm, min width can be reduced to 550mm if not more than 3 stories and not more than 15 persons
I completely agree that the F Orders are there for us to use as we see appropriate and that they are supported by OFM. Considering the huge number of 1 or 2 dwelling units plus a commercial unit that have been specifically excluded from Retrofit and even old row houses, there is a huge portion of properties that are excluded. I guess part of my hesitation to use an F Order is how many properties here have enough issues with 2, 6, & 9 and the efforts to get compliance on them that I don’t need to add to my workload and my Chief supports this position. Personally, I don’t loose any sleep over not going further than minimum nor do I deter anyone else from going as far as they/their department like.
I completely agree with your last paragraph. Even after an inspection (and the associated repairs), I never write a letter stating that it meets or complies with the Fire Code. I write “The deficiencies identified on the (date) Order/Report/Letter have been corrected and there are no other noted deficiencies at the time of last inspection.”
I look at situations like this very different than Vicky and Joe. I stick with (g) Orders and have not yet used an (f).
You will get many different versions of essentially this same question: “Does the building meet Fire Code?”. Some of the common ones I’ve had are retrofit inspection, Code inspection, compliance letter (which realistically you can’t give without conducting an inspection), upgrade inspection and I’m sure a few others that I’m forgetting.
In a situation like yours, and every time I get a request for an inspection that doesn’t meet the requirements of any of the application statements of Part 9, I stick to Parts 2 & 6 and enforce those. When I write my letter, I spell it out very clearly “The building does not meet any of the application statements of Part 9 Retrofit of the Ontario Fire Code.” Now if an owner asks my opinion on other things they could do to increase fire safety within the building, I will gladly share. Every time an (f) Order is issued, I would expect it to be appealed as those Orders are open to interpretation and judgement whereas (g) Orders are very clear…the owner is responsible for complying with the Code.
“Does it meet Fire Code?” is what the lawyers care about so that’s what I stick with which means no (f) Orders.
I would dearly love to see the Code updated to take out some of the many loopholes and standardize things between Parts and Sections. Our jobs would be easier and buildings would be safer but this is where we are currently.
I’m with Craig, I don’t see where removing the second kitchen either helps the situation or more importantly, is within our authority. Where is there anything that says a single family home can’t have 2 kitchens? or bedrooms in a basement? etc….
If they legitimately want to go back to a single family dwelling (like mine did) with only one kitchen and did a major reno, then that’s easy. But if they want to get out of the requirements of 9.8 with the limited amount of work possible, remove any locks on the separation door (nothing says you can’t use a rated door in a non-rated interior partition) and letter from the legal owners acknowledging it’s use as a single family dwelling and move on.
Hi Vicki,
Thanks for the comment. Construction of the stair is easy as is maintenance of it and the ‘serving stories above the second’ clause. The question that remains unclear is WHICH openings need protected.
9.5.3.7 paints a very clear picture of which openings around a fire escape need protected. The Code is not clear when it comes to an exterior stair which is not the same thing as a fire escape so 9.5.3.7. can’t be used to identify openings around an exterior stair.
Exterior stair and fire escape are not interchangeable terms and they both have the ability to serve as required exits.
I’ve signed up for all the ones thru OFM, even ones I’ve taken before as I still learn stuff each time.
I did the firestopping one from Hilti last week and signed up for the UL one next week. I haven’t found many others besides what’s been posted here in the news section. I’m definitely interested if there are others available.
Evidently I was a bit overzealous with installing my update pages and mistakenly tossed pages 113-116 from my binder. Is there anyone that can scan those 4 pages from their binder and email them to me?
I imagine that the concern is that if people can buy fireworks, then they will set them off and not think twice about it or the resulting potential for grass fires. The “I shouldn’t be able to buy them if I can’t use them” mentality. I have yet to hear of an FD tasked with enforcing social distancing – if there is, I’d like to hear about it.
I just looked at our bylaw again. It’s citing FPPA 7.1(1) and Municipal Act Section 120 & 121. as the authority. MA 121 specifically speaks to the sale and setting off of fireworks. I see in the Pickering bylaw that the sale is limited to the week before Victoria Day and week before Canada Day – we don’t have those clauses in ours – they can be sold any time here.
I wonder if a bylaw could be amended to include a simple statement prohibiting sale and/or discharge any time there is a burn ban in place?
Our bylaw prohibits the discharge of fireworks at all times without first receiving a permit from us. It doesn’t have provisions for us to stop the sale of ‘regular’ consumer grade fireworks. Firecrackers, a bunch of specific odd devices I’ve never heard of and the ‘prohibited list’ from the Explosives Act are banned at all times.
Hi Guys,
Check OBC 3.4.1.4.(1)(d) exterior stairway, and (e) fire escape (conforming to Subsection 3.4.7.). This indicates that they are separate and distinguishable from each other. Yes these are serving as required egress.
Agreed that if it was considered exterior stair then 9.5.3.3.(1) & (2) would apply and 30 min would be required. The masonry walls easily give that but then I get to 9.5.2.8. for the closures. The challenge there is that under the ‘fire escape’ definition, there are specific parameters which openings need closures but under the ‘exterior stairway’ definition, those parameters don’t exist means even an opening 60′ away horizontally away would technically need to be protected.
The Type 3 reference is straight out of the IFSTA manual for Firefighter Level 1. I forget that everyone here doesn’t necessarily have suppression background – sorry about that. Masonry loadbearing exterior walls with combustible floors/interior walls/supporting elements/roof.
Rob, I’m with George, under FPPA, we do not have the authority to order tests like the BCA provides so I can’t tell the owner to have it evaluated. What I can do is go to OBC SB2 2.1.1. and see that 76mm (3 inch) solid brick gives me 45 min. This style of construction (if brick) is typically 2 wythes minimum if not 3 or 4 wythes thick. It’s also reasonable to consider a real stone wall (similar thickness or more) with similar parameters. No need to evaluate the masonry further than that to me.
When considering the cost of evaluation vs replacement, that’s partly where my mind is. Under 9.5.3.7. I can define exactly which openings need closures by the distances specified in Sentence (2). For argument sake, lets say that means 10 windows on the side of a long building. But now if I use 9.5.2.8. EVERY window in the side of the building needs to be protected. That could be a HUGE difference, hence this discussion.
In considering 9.2.2.2.(2)(a), I would look at:
Steel frame?
Steel ‘commercial’ door?
Self-closing device?
Proper latching hardware?
Well installed?
If yes to all the above, I move on with the inspection.
My quick research shows that there were some manufactures that did make kalamein doors without tags. The main distinguishing feature of a kalamein door is that it is wood core not all-steel construction. As to the site-installed door skins, I’ve got quite a few of them here in Perth but in 9.5 buildings where they only needed to get 20 min and had recessed panel doors that didn’t meet the 45mm min.
From my perspective, as long as the residents maintain their distance from your crews, the rest isn’t your cup of tea to educate/enforce. While we all want the best for everyone, we’ve got a tough enough job without voluntarily accepting responsibility that isn’t ours. Leave that up to the police/bylaw per your municipality.
I’ve got one of those in progress right now. To me, it’s fairly straight forward: they apply for the building permit and proceed with the construction. This one actually met most (if not all) of 9.8 as inspected, they just loved the spot. I had a previous one where there were a ton of problems as neither the owner nor the contractors used had any real idea of what they were doing. Basement bedroom and bathroom existed and they had added a kitchen in the rec room and a door on the main floor that separated it from the rest of the house and used a side door. No separations and really poor plumbing. We said take the kitchen out and remove the main floor door and all was fine.
There are many occasions where there are options to compliance with the Code. Often that is either provide the prescriptive requirement OR make the building not fit the application sentence. I’ve written lots of Orders that had “or as an alternative” in the Action section. Every time I’m aware of a reasonable option, I include it in my Order.
I’ve had a couple places that as inspected, they fit 9.5.1.1.(1). To meet the rest of 9.5, they would have had to upgrade a whole bunch of separations. I gave them the option of permanently sealing several basement accesses (which took literally a handful of screws) and it no longer fit the application sentence and then only 2 & 6 applied.
With 9.8.1.1.(1)(c) if the building meets the OR component as inspected, I would give them the option of permanently sealing one of the doors and providing a different access/egress point (as that’s potentially relatively easy to do) then it’s back to only 2 & 6.
Another situation is with Fuel Fired Service Rooms like 9.5.2.10. They can provide the required separation OR switch the appliance to electric and the separation is not required.
