Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 105 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Intumescent paint #11001
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    Welcome to the site Julien.

    The biggest thing I look for with intumescent paint is that it has to be tested to CAN/ULC S101 for the given situation at hand.  I’ve had it proposed to me for several different situations, some I accepted, some I didn’t. People tend to think it’s a magic solution (can’t we just paint everything?) and often figure out that drywall is cheaper once they see the price of the intumescent paint.

    For example: Original door in a historic church? Sure, I’ll accept that. Wood paneled stairwell in an apartment building? Nope, give me drywall.

    I have the Owner provide me with all the supporting documents for review before and upon completion require a signed letter of acknowledgement on letterhead from the painting contractor that it was applied as per manufacture’s instructions.

    You may also want to check with your Building Department for their opinion as creating new separations technically requires a building permit.

    in reply to: Apartment suites with self closing doors #10974
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    Also see 2.2.3.4. (1) a door in a fire separation shall be kept closed when not in use

    (2) A door in a fire separation shall be checked as frequently as necessary to ensure that the door remains closed.

    (3) Sentences (1) and (2) do not apply to

    (a) a door designed to close automatically in the event of a fire emergency, or

    (b) a door for which an approved fire safety plan contains provisions for closing in the event of a fire emergency.

    (4) A door in a fire separation shall be inspected monthly.

     

    So even a door in a fire separation without a self-closing device must be kept closed unless it meets Sentence (3) like if there was a magnetic hold-open (happens often) or part of the fire safety plan (which I only approve under limited circumstances and your’s isn’t one of them)

    in reply to: Edwards Heat Detector Recall #10970
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    I would say that the recall would be sufficient proof of “…does not operate or appear to operate as intended…” even without testing the unit or visibly being able to see that it is defective.

    in reply to: Edwards Heat Detector Recall #10964
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    I came across it by chance late October when speaking with a CFAA tech (not from my area) for advice on a situation. I’d also asked OMFPOA to post it but still don’t see it listed on the site.

    When considering  the recall, to me it is irrelevant if these devices are there for life safety or property preservation. The F.P.P.A. and Fire Code both speak to fire safety, life safety, damage to property, etc.  I imagine there has to be a proven failure rate to support the recall otherwise the recall wouldn’t exist.  Without going into any specific criteria of S536, it seems to me that the existence of the recall would be in contravention of 1.1.1.2.(3) and an easy Order to repair or replace.

    I fail to see how the lot testing parameters are applicable when the recall exists – that makes sense in absence of the recall.

    I do agree that a fire watch may be a bit excessive but that would be site specific. What other detection components exist in the building? What’s the risk of the occupancy? I’d be inclined to go with the 30 day Order.

    It’s rather surprising that considering the magnitude of this that there hasn’t been any official word from OFM.

    in reply to: Smoke alarm expiry #10917
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    Dana, I sort of did that earlier this year. I added a letter to EVERY tax bill — about 2700 of them. I got 4 phone calls – 3 for alarm checks and 1 for an inspection on a 4 unit residential building. Sure there are likely some people that took the advice and checked — there’s not really any way to know those stats but I’d figured I’d have WAY more than 4 phone calls.

    The targeting specific ages of houses is a neat idea rather than neighbourhoods. That’s easy data for me to pull – I’m also part of the building department

    This year I had the guys go back to the same neighbourhood as last year but I gave them only the addresses that we didn’t get response from the year before. 244 door knocks, 129 homes entered, 42 alarms given (13 no CO, 15 no SA, 23 expired SA) and 28 batteries replaced.

    In 13 years of stats, we’ve knocked on 3745 doors, entered 2321 homes and given out 719 alarms and 428 batteries for an average of 31% of homes without proper detection. Yikes. One of every 3 homes not properly protected is pretty alarming (yes, pun intended) That’s only stats from during our alarm blitz with the suppression guys. It doesn’t count what the Chief and I do during the day when we get requests for help.

    We’ve only got 2700 properties (total of all property types) with about 1600 single family dwellings. You would think that after being in 2300 homes, we should have edjumicated everyone by now but apparently not….

    in reply to: Phone numbers for OFM advisors? #10908
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    1-800-565-1842

    in reply to: FPPA #10871
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    I’m with Nick, post the Order and install the alarms as step 1.   Rooming /boarding houses get tricky quickly, we don’t have a say in how people get to live in a ‘family unit’ but on the other side, Section 9.3 is there for a reason – you just have to be able to reasonably prove that it applies. One thing in particular to consider with ITL is the immediate nature of it – the longer between discovery and action the more it’s hard to justify using the ITL rather than an Inspection Order.

    Joe sounds like he’s got a good contact there for you.

    I’d also highly recommend calling the Inspection and Enforcement Unit of OFM to get their guidance 1-800-565-1842.

    in reply to: Hotel with wood burning fireplaces…disposal of ashes #10847
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    Interesting situation. I would consider:

    First: 2.4.1.3.(2) Ashes shall be stored in receptacles that conform to Sentence (3) and combustible materials shall not be stored with ashes in the same receptacle.

    Second: Are they required to have a Fire Safety Plan? If so, it shouldn’t be too hard to add additional provisions under 2.8.2.1.(2)(f) provide for the control of fire hazards in the building. Worth noting is that 2.8.2.1.(1) also includes premises in addition to the building. Also see 2.4.1.1.(6)

    I’d consider stipulating minimum distance between the ‘storage bin’ and any exposures and/or wetting the ashes down. If the ashes are thoroughly wet down, then disposal options are much greater.  With making it part of the Fire Safety Plan, it becomes part of their required training, rather than simply ‘they should know better’. It also gives additional enforcement options for failure to implement provisions of the Fire Safety Plan if you need to go that route.

    in reply to: FPPA #10843
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    Residential dwelling with excessive quantities of hazardous liquids and materials (retired chemical distributor). No malicious intent, he simply didn’t get rid of his leftover stock when he quit selling and 30 (ish) years later it was brought to our attention. We issued the ITL under Section 15, an Inspection Order under 21(1)(g) citing 4.2.4.2.(1) as well as the CBO issuing an Unsafe Order under BCA 15.9(4) referencing BCA 15.9(2)(b).

    There’s lots of applications for ITL. I haven’t needed it yet for hoarding but I know some of my neighbouring colleagues have.

    George, what situation are you considering?

     

    in reply to: challenge coin #10840
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    That’s a great question!

    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    Nick is exactly right.  While I haven’t read the instructions myself for these alarms, I was told this same information from a landlord and his electrician who ended up reading the instructions to figure out exactly this issue. I have not crossed this issue with any other detectors besides the Kidde. Then again, these are the alarms that 90% of the new construction use.

    What I can’t figure out is how the alarms know it is the middle of the night to go off for false activation when there is no clock in them. There seems to be an unproportionally high number of them from the middle of the night (like midnight to 3am)

    in reply to: sparky plush dolls #10784
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    Saw this article this morning and remembered your question:

    https://www.oafc.on.ca/article/promoting-fire-safety-kids-through-asher-firefighter-bear

     

    in reply to: smoke alarm program #10744
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    We also have one here in Perth. Historically it’s been on a training night (usually the first in October so it’s close to FPW) so the troops are here anyway.  We’ve focused on a different area of Town each year with the intention that after 5 years, we’d be back at the start again.  I’m doing it differently this year that we are going to the same neighbourhood as 2017 (we missed 2018 due to other training requirements). Rather than just giving the guys specific streets to do, I pulled the actual house addresses from 2017 that had someone home and created a list of the houses that either had no one home or we didn’t get to.

    To help with buy-in from your members, I see two components of it: 1) public education is part of the job they signed up for – ie. mandatory participation. (I guess that’s not really buy-in now is it lol) 2) Give the teams options of when to do it if it’s not on a training night but a deadline date to have it done. In the rural areas, during the day on a weekend might be more receptive that everyone can see what’s going on better.

    Another option is to plan it for a Saturday and bribe your members with a BBQ after….

    Personally, I think the door-to-door approach where we still get to talk to the residents is the only way to go.

    in reply to: home sharing (AIRBNB) #10530
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    For me, I’ve got bigger fish to fry and as such AirBnB (and any other similar) aren’t even a blip on my radar. Our scope on them isn’t any different than any other comparable dwelling. The only difference I’ve found would be the application of 6.3.3.8., particularly Sentence (2) The landlord shall text smoke alarms annually and after every change in tenancyEach separate rental booking would constitute a change in tenancy.

    Inspection schedule? Huh? What are those? Lol.  I can’t even keep up with complaints and requests due to property sale…

    in reply to: Residential Sprinklers? #10462
    John WilsonJohn Wilson
    Participant

    I’ve heard that about premiums before, my Chief just told me about a report out of Arizona that tracked fires in sprinklered homes vs unsprinklered and the repair costs were in the 5% range on average.  Interesting position your insurance company has – kinda reinforces the perspective that they only care about money and ignore the life safety aspect of it.

    Too bad the insurance industry can’t see the big picture.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 105 total)