Kevin Meijerink

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Hold Open Devices #14321
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    Hi Scott,

    That’s what the appeals process is there for. I’d issue the order and advise of their appeal rights. At the end of the day you’re going to get a binding opinion from an engineer at the OFM that is going to put you in a better position then an opinion from your advisor.

    in reply to: OFM Public Education PSA/template access issues #14231
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    Most of the OFM resources have been moved onto their Sharepoint site. I just logged on and had no problem grabbing the single page info sheets, which include a field to put your fire service’s info into.

    The following came out in an email:
    Information for the public (Fire Marshal Communiqués, media releases, fire safety tips, etc.) will be posted on Ontario.ca. This information will continue to circulate to fire services and industry stakeholders using the OFM’s email distribution lists and, where appropriate, on our Twitter accounts @ONFireMarshal and @IncendiesON. All specialized information and resources (technical guidelines, public education resources, etc.) will be available on a new SharePoint online site designed for fire services’ and stakeholders’ unique needs. The new SharePoint site will facilitate easy, secure and dedicated access to information and resources previously available on the OFM website. Content will be added over the coming weeks and months.

    You can request access here: https://mailchi.mp/ontario/ofm-sharepoint-registration

    in reply to: Visual AND audible device attached to kitchen system #13982
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    I would look further as well to the very beginning of the standard:

    1.3.2 The authority having jurisdiction shall determine compliance
    with this standard and authorize equivalent deviations
    from it in all applications.

    1.5 Equivalency. Nothing in this standard is intended to prevent
    the use of systems, methods, or devices of equivalent or
    superior quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability,
    and safety over those prescribed by this standard.

    Looking at this, you could establish a operating guideline between your department and CBO that all new installs going forward require both audible and visual.

    in reply to: Request form for Inspections #13870
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    You can put as much or as little on this as you want.  We keep it fairly generic, however, you could ask more questions if you wanted to.

    Further, the vendor our municipality uses for the website allows conditions to be added to forms.  So, if you had a yes/no question on it, the answer to that question could radically change the form and what else is displayed.

    in reply to: Request form for Inspections #13868
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    We have a form available somewhere on our website.  Once completed, it generates an email to our team address (everyone gets a copy).

    https://forms.kawarthalakes.ca/Fire/Request-a-Fire-Inspection

    Basically it gives a brief snapshot of what the requester is seeking to get the ball rolling.

    in reply to: Cannabis Store Inspections #13862
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    Hi Steven,

    Nothing really different then any other inspection of a mercantile occupancy.  It’s a store so you need to treat it as such.  Unless they are processing there using solvents/F&C liquids, you’re basically looking at a Part 2&6 inspection.

    Detection and early warning if present maintained.  Portable extinguishers as required.  Sprinkler if present maintained.  Fire separations maintained.

    in reply to: Tablets #13519
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    I was meaning we’ve progressed from tablets of stone with the chisel!

    in reply to: Tablets #13514
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    We have moved away from tablets.  We have endorsed some electronic forms, but still feel there is room to progress.

     

     

    in reply to: Partial Fire Alarm System to monitor sprinklers? #13314
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    I am thinking that the architect is proposing a monitoring panel for the sprinkler. It will be that – simply a panel that monitors and sends signals. This could be a security panel, or other type of dialer. (I had a pile of Silent Knight 5207 panels with customers in a past career). The electrical contacts from the various sprinkler components (valves, flow switch, low pressure) would connect to this panel and it would simply dial out when something is “not normal.”

    I’m going to try to walk myself through this written here. Based on facts given, I am with the architect on this one from a facts point of view (although will always encourage the early warning and going above the code to provide better protection to buildings and occupants)

    Under 3.2.4.1 a determination of whether a fire alarm system is needed or not is make. If we say yes, we continue to apply all of 3.2.4. If we say no, 3.2.4 is gone – we can’t selectively apply certain parts of that section.

    The monitoring under S561 is indicated in 3.2.4.8(4), but we have already been kicked out of that because we don’t require a fire alarm (although, again, if a fire alarm system is installed, I feel that this level of monitoring would be required.)

    3.2.4.10.(3) also requires the fire alarm to be be there before we can use this. As with the monitoring the presence of a sprinkler system does not require a fire alarm system to be there, however, if the fire alarm is there, the sprinkler must be connected. Once we connect sprinkler, we monitor. Kind of a vicious cycle.

    As for the time and effort – It’s many hours of electrician time for installation. A 3rd party verification. Somewhere in the area of $1000 a year for 561 monitoring. Integrated system testing under ULC S1001 at time of occupancy, after year 1 and 5 years after that. With this in mine, it’s worth the architect to avoid installing this fire alarm.

    Feel free to hit me with an email if needed. [email protected]

    in reply to: Partial Fire Alarm System to monitor sprinklers? #13280
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    Hi Jon,

    You indicate the threshold for installation under 3.2.4.1 is not met. Therefore a fire alarm system is not required. If the presence of a sprinkler system did require a fire alarm system, it would be provided as a prescriptive requirement here.

    In my opinion since a fire alarm system is not required any installation of such would be above the code requirements. However, if the architect did specify a fire alarm system be installed, the electrical supervision of the system via the fire alarm system would then be required per your reference of 3.2.4.10.(3).

    S524 does not provide any information on what is required in a fire alarm system – those requirements are in the building code (eg. installation of pull station at principle entrance and near every required exit) . 524 provides how the system must be installed (eg. pull station mounting heights and distance from doors).

    Hope this helps?

    Kevin

    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    In many municipalities, fire protection water is exempt from metering.  In theory it is possible to bring the 1″ main into the house and tee off in the appropriate 3/4″ size for the domestic service while maintaining the fire protection portion meter free.

    in reply to: Residents Congregating during Alarm Activations #12643
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    I agree with Jon.  This isn’t ours to deal with.  Have your crews do their regular job and observe physical distance as necessary for their safety and call it a day.

    in reply to: Fire Log Books? #11039
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    Yes.

    its a log.  From time in industry in working on equipment, not my preference, however, generally meets requirements

     

    in reply to: Edwards Heat Detector Recall #10984
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    I was fortunate to run into an Edwards technician.  They are documenting these detectors when they find them as a deficiency and indicating the same on the cover page of the fire alarm report.

    in reply to: Edwards Heat Detector Recall #10958
    Kevin MeijerinkKevin Meijerink
    Participant

    I have engaged a few service providers and they knew nothing of it.

    How are you treating this when you inspect a building that has these detectors with accompanying reports indicating “this system is fully functional?”

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)