Forum Replies Created
In my opinion, I feel that if these facilities were designed and constructed under a building permit being equipped with electromagnetic locks that are tied to a fire alarm system which will disengage (unlock) when the fire alarm system is activated (similar concepts used in LTC, nursing homes, etc) then that will provide the acceptable life safety method.
I agree with Lindsay, I wouldn’t feel comfortable relying on a person (potential human error) coming to open the door with a key to unlock the door OR what happens if the key goes missing? Chances are they are not monitoring the cameras continuously.
Through popular demands, I’m actually in the early stages of creating a summary of Nancy’s presentation. As you may know, for those who were are the presentation, it was very informative & in-depth. Once I complete the summary and before I make it available, I’d like Nancy to review it first to verify all contents & information are precise and accurate.
Would that be alright with you Nancy?
Can you explain to me why I can’t order a Owner to have a inspection done. You used the example “audibility” in your presentation.
See my posting link above it is POA v.1 rev. 07/14
Scott Hardwick, Director
Duncan, we don’t issue tickets yet in Brantford. But when we do we will be issuing this one.
Scott Hardwick, Director
Great reminder Nick, Slides 61 and on are the case study.
In Brantford we have an inspection policy but not a prosecution policy. My thought is that each violation will be evaluated individually by the CFPO and if warranted the CFPO will direct an information to be sworn by the inspector. This process keeps the inspector at arms length and allows them to completed their re-inspections without a entry warrant or cautioning the owners.
see Brantford Fire P&P 3.01 at https://omfpoa.com/file-manager/
Scott HardwickMay 15, 2015 at 12:41 pm in reply to: Person(s) Performing Inspection/Testing/Maintenance for Part 6.5 OFC. #1524
Great answer Tom,
Joe for more information about this please see the link below.
My thought……seeing that “services” under 2.16.2.(1).(2) is not defined, maybe you can say that the appliances within the restaurant are “building services” and therefore CO alarms are required in the adjacent residential.
Only a thought…..
Hello Judith, sorry for the delay in my response.
I feel that your woodworking shop must comply with OFC Section 5.10 Combustible Dust Producing Processes. if a Engineer would like to submit an alternative solution under Clause 18.104.22.168.(1).(b) good luck them them.
Scott HardwickMarch 6, 2015 at 2:17 pm in reply to: Commissioning of Life Safety and Fire Protection Systems #1283
Have you looked at CAN/ULC S1001-11, is it worth getting and how are you enforcing it?
Scott HardwickMarch 6, 2015 at 1:39 pm in reply to: Fire Alarm Activations due to Houkahs/other devices #1282
In one of our university building we have ‘smudging ceremonies” and at the time of construction we (fire and building) required an exhaust fan to be installed and heats instead of smokes. The school also has a special Fire Safety Plan procedure during these events.
By adding combustible material that may turn the corridor into an occupancy (chairs, desks, tables, etc.) in which people may gather is not allowed under Article 22.214.171.124. unless again the space is designed for it.
I would ask the owner to provide an Alternative Solution under Division A – Subsection 1.2.2. and in this report the Eng. will determine what ‘treatments’ is required.
Interesting question Robert,
What OFC reference number are you using?
Here in Hamilton, we do not accept wireless interconnected smoke alarms because these devices are not acceptable in code application within OFC 9.5.
Also to my understanding, the OFM does not recognize wireless interconnected smoke alarms as approved devices.
I hope this helps.