Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was thinking about this after reading the article about Toronto. Thankfully the one here in Perth has closed. The only thing I could think of that kinda made sense is for the building to have full fire alarm system and that on activation of one of the detectors, all the lights automatically come on, exit signs light up, doors become unlocked and likely some kind of indicator for the door handle/release mechanism. Not exactly a low-buck system but considering the whole nature of them violates the Fire Code. The other option might be to treat them somewhat like a B1
Douglas, where you are hoping to get to is the same as me: enter a few defining factors and the system will provide the appropriate checklist and ability to track deficiencies and issue orders. Unfortunately, no one has come forward yet and said their software will do that for them now. Not that changing platforms is easy…..
Contractor and/or manufacture won’t trump the OBC. As Charles quoted “Where sprinklers are not required, and when approved by the authority having jurisdiction, it is acceptable to install BlazeMaster products exposed in these areas.” But before you even get to the OBC 3.2.5.14.(5) that he mentioned, 3.2.5.14.(1) ‘Combustible sprinkler piping shall be used only for wet systems in residential occupancies and other light hazard occupancies.’ must be satisfied. There are many factors in play to determine if it needs to be protected:
New construction or existing building?
Does it meet that 3.2.5.14.(1) clause?
If it’s new, what’s the OBC building classification (3.2.2.x.) ?
Are they installing sprinklers as an Alternative Measure to something or are they installing because it is required to be sprinklered?
Building Inspector is likely considering many more factors than the contractor.
Thanks for the reply Tyler. Where do you find the information regarding the water delivery time? This is right down my line of thinking of “wow, that’s a lot of air to bleed out of the system right into the fire zone”
We don’t have any here in Perth. It’s a bit of a tough one for sure. It doesn’t exactly fit under the ‘interior finishes’ category and more the ‘accumulation of combustible material’ or ‘obstruction of a means of egress’. To me, it’s one of those areas of reasonable judgement on the part of the inspector unless the dept wants to take a Grinch approach and say none are allowed as that’s the easiest to enforce but bad public perception.
Is this the article you are referring to? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/thunder-bay-fire-rescue-launches-safe-program-for-smoke-alarms-1.3335442
I’m thinking it’s just Thunder Bay’s version of the smoke alarm blitz that many of us do already under various names. A big component of it though is the combination alarms they got from Union Gas. Enbridge does something similar in this area, we got a bunch last year and I think the BBDNE guys were successful this year in getting the grant.
It’s been a long standing, yet unofficial program here in Perth to give out alarms as needed, install, change batteries etc. Its basically up to our discretion who we give them out to. As much as I can, I reserve them for, as the article says, lower income property owners and seniors. I never give them out to landlords as they can write off the purchase.
FDM?? I surely hope that’s not the same FDM that Ottawa was/is using. That was one horrendous piece of programming to try to use. There must be something different with what you have considering you mention mobile version….Ottawa’s felt like the equivalent to using soup cans & string as a phone.
Hi Chris,
The big things I try to get across is that they watch for anything that could possibly be useful to cause determination that would get erased/damaged with suppression and overhaul activities.
Within our E&R bylaw there are provisions for charging for the third response to the same property for false alarms within a 12 month period. It’s in the $1300 range. As for it’s effectiveness, I don’t know. We’ve only charged a couple of times since I’ve been here.
Personally, I’d be happy to see it changed to include that if the false alarm is due to maintenance staff performing required testing, there is no grace and immediately charged (either to the company but more likely the property owner) as they all know that they need to call the monitoring company and/or FD. With my years listening to the scanner/radio in Ottawa before moving to Perth, I think this would be a HUGE asset to reducing false alarm calls… the companies don’t take it seriously enough as to how it wastes resources.
In Perth, we are a one-hall volunteer dept. The Chief and I (as FPO) are the only full-time staff. Separate from my FPO duties, I’m also part of the suppression crew. Due to our typical call volume and type (our last true structure fire was June 2017 just before I started), either the Chief will deal with it after hours or it waits until the next business day for me and/or him.
1. Does the fire prevention staff rotate On Call No
2. Call out criteria for the suppression staff I’ll already likely be there as part of the suppression crew
3.Time period that the fire prevention staff is On Call ( it is for 7 days 7 am Monday till 7 am Monday in PTBO)Â N/A
4. The compensation for the fire prevention staff for the On Call time. ( even if you are not called in )Â N/A
5. Is there a min time for getting called on the phone for advice. N/A
6. From the time you receive a call for investigation, what is the expected time frame for you to arrive. I’ll already likely be there as part of the suppression crewAs I understand it, latches are required on all doors in fire separations under 2.2.3.2.(1) Closures in fire separations shall be maintained to ensure that they are operable at all times by (c) making necessary adjustments and repairs to door hardware and accessories to ensure proper closing and latching.
With the closure already being there, it becomes a Pt2 issue, not 9.5 if it was removed. If there never was a latch to begin with, then it’s the 9.5.2.8 that applies.
Hey Nick, If the CBO agrees that it needs permits, I say let him deal with it under the OBC with the Architect.
If by “detention area” (detention occupancy is a defined term) and trying to look at it similar to jails/juvenile detention, I would disagree. It’s still part of the original A2 occupancy not a B1 as I would imagine they would only be holding a person temporarily until they can be moved to somewhere more appropriate. Even with that, it still falls under the OBC not the Fire Code for the construction.
