BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No. B BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF with Article of the Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Frank Calandra Jr., Jennmar Corporation for the resolution of a dispute with Alain Bazinet, Chief Building Official, Municipality of West Nipissing, to determine whether the proposed compensating measures offered in lieu of a standpipe and hose system in a new one storey, 5300 m², Group F, Division 3 major occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of Division B of the Building Code at Jennmar Canada Inc, 11 Toulouse Crescent, Sturgeon Falls, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Frank Calandra Jr. Jennmar Corporation Pittsburgh, PA Alain Bazinet Chief Building Official Municipality of West Nipissing Tony Chow, Chair Leslie Morgan Yaman Uzumeri Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING January 14, 2010 DATE OF RULING January 14, 2010 APPEARANCES Gene Stewart Jennmar Corporation Pittsburg, PA The Agent for the Applicant Alain Bazinet Chief Building Official Municipality of West Nipissing Sturgeon Falls, ON The Respondent

2 RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a Group F, Division 3, low hazard industrial occupancy building at 11 Toulouse Crescent, Sturgeon Falls, Ontario. The subject building is a newly constructed one storey, non-combustible, manufacturing plant, having approximately a 4000 m² building area for the plant, 690 m² building area for the mechanical office, and 626 m² area for a covered storage area. The subject building has a building height of 10 m, is equipped with a fire alarm system and is not sprinklered. The technical dispute involves the proposal by the Applicant to provide several compensating measures including a fire alarm system monitored by the fire department, and the provision of additional fire extinguishers, in lieu of constructing a standpipe system in the subject building. In accordance with Article and Table of the Building Code, an unsprinklered, one storey, Group F, Division 3 occupancy building, having a building area in excess of 3000 m², is required to be equipped with a standpipe system based on its size and occupancy. Therefore, the dispute is whether the compensating measures offered in lieu of providing a standpipe system provide sufficiency of compliance with Article of Division B of the Building Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Standpipe Systems Where Required (1) Except as provided in Sentences (4) to (7), a standpipe system shall be installed in every building that, (a) is more than 3 storeys in building height, (b) is more than 14 m high measured between grade and the ceiling of the top storey, or (c) is not more than 14 m high measured between grade and the ceiling of the top storey but has a building area exceeding the area shown in Table for the applicable building height if the building is not sprinklered. (2) A standpipe system shall be installed in every basement of a building that requires a standpipe system above grade. (3) A standpipe system shall be installed in every basement of a building that is regulated by Sentence (2). Table Building Limits without Standpipe Systems Forming Part of Sentence (1) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Occupancy Classification Building Area, m 2 1 Storey 2 Storeys 3 Storeys A

3 C D F, Division F, Division (4) A standpipe system is not required to be installed in the lowest storey in a building if this storey is a service room that has an area not more than 50 m 2. (5) A standpipe system is not required to be installed in a roof-top enclosure if this enclosure has an area not more than 50 m 2. (6) A standpipe system is not required to be installed in a storage garage conforming to Article provided the building is not more than 15 m high. (7) A standpipe system is not required to be installed in a dwelling unit that, (a) extends not more than 3 storeys above adjacent ground level, (b) is completely cut off from the remainder of the building so that there is no access to the remainder of the building, and (c) has direct access to its interior by means of an exterior doorway located not more than mm above or below adjacent finished ground level. 3. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the subject building is being constructed for the purpose of fabricating mine roof support products. The Agent described the facility as consisting of a one storey manufacturing area having a 4000 m² building area with an attached one storey office portion of 690 m² in building area. The Agent submitted that the plant will contain rollforming, shearing, stamping, threading and electrical induction forging equipment and that the production materials will include various grades, sizes and types of steel materials susceptible to corrosion from the adverse effects of water exposure. The Agent explained that a standpipe system was not considered in the design of the building due to the nature of the manufacturing undertaken at the subject plant. The Agent expressed that the Applicant had particular concerns with regards to the potential adverse effects water exposure would have on the various electrical controls, electrical equipment and specialty metals located within the plant, in the event of a fire or accidental water leakage. The Agent expressed concern that water discharged from a standpipe system could come into contact with the electrical equipment, which could then lead to potential injuries to the building occupants, if they were to use the standpipe system s hose that is attached to the 35 mm connections. The Agent advised that all such similar facilities operated by the Applicant in the United States are not equipped with such systems and further, a number of past BCC rulings have accepted compensating measures in lieu of a required standpipe system in industrial buildings with comparable low hazard levels. The Agent submitted that as compensation for the omission of the standpipe and hose system, the Applicant offered the following measures for consideration to achieve sufficiency of compliance with the Code: The subject building complex is comprised of non-combustible construction and contains minimal combustible materials. The fire load for the building area is approximately 0.55 kg/m 2 (1.1 lb/ft²).

4 The building will be equipped with a fire alarm system monitored by the fire department, although not a requirement of the Code for this building. The fire department is located within 3 km of the plant. The building has an 18 m clearance around the perimeter thereby permitting the Fire department full access to the building. The building contains a low occupant load, approximately one person/100 m². More fire extinguishers than the minimum number required by the Building Code will be provided throughout the building and building staff will be trained to properly operate the fire extinguishers in the event of a fire. The fire extinguishers will be inspected once a month by staff and annually by the supplier. The building will be equipped with one fire hydrant located off the southeast corner of the building. In response to questions, the Agent agreed that the Applicant would install a 65 mm hose connection at the entrance of the subject building, which is located within 45 m of a fire hydrant. The Agent concluded that the above mentioned compensating measures offered in lieu of installing a standpipe system would provide sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Building Code. 4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that according to the Code, an unsprinklered Group F, Division 3 building with a building area greater than 4000 m², as is the case in this matter, requires a standpipe system as per Article of the Code. Further, the Respondent submitted that in his opinion the omission of the standpipe system in lieu of the proposed compensating measures is not acceptable and does not comply with the Code. 5. Commission Ruling, BCC Application B It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed compensating measures offered in lieu of a standpipe and hose system in a new one storey, 5300 m², Group F, Division 3 major occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of Division B of the Building Code at Jennmar Canada Inc, 11 Toulouse Crescent, Sturgeon Falls, Ontario on condition that: a) The Applicant shall install a system of piping within the building, complete with 65 mm hose connections, for use by the fire department. 6. Reasons i) As a compensating measure, the Applicant has offered to provide more fire extinguishers throughout the building than the minimum number required by the Building Code. The Commission was advised that building staff would be trained to properly operate the fire extinguishers in the event of a fire.

5 ii) iii) iv) The Commission was advised that the fire load for the building area is approximately 0.55 kg/m 2 (1.1 lb/ft².), which is significantly less than the maximum load permitted for F3 occupancies. It is the Commission s opinion that the fire load of the subject building is low. The Commission heard that the Applicant will install a fire alarm system that is monitored by the fire department, even though a fire alarm system is not a requirement of the Building Code for the subject building. The Applicant agreed to install a 65 mm hose connection at the entrance of the subject building, which is located within 45 m of a fire hydrant.

6 Dated at Toronto this 14 th day in the month of January in the year 2010 for application number B Tony Chow, Chair Leslie Morgan Yaman Uzumeri