BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Ruling No. 08-18-1192 Application No. B-2008-07 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23...
Author: Ferdinand Owens
1 downloads 0 Views 79KB Size
Ruling No. 08-18-1192 Application No. B-2008-07

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 Sentence 8.8.2.2.(1) of Regulation 350/06, as amended, the Building Code. AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Ken Spira, Spira Fire Protection Ltd., for the resolution of a dispute with John Tutert, A/Director of Building Services, Town of Oakville, to determine whether the design of an installed automatic sprinkler system, which does not include an alarm check valve or low pressure switch, but does include a listed waterflow detecting device with the necessary attachments, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 3.2.4.9.(2)(b), Division B of the 2006 Ontario Building Code at 180 Oakpark Boulevard, Town of Oakville, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Ken Spira Spira Fire Protection Ltd Guelph, ON

RESPONDENT

John Tutert A/Director of Building Services Town of Oakville

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair Rick Florio Prabhakar Mahant

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

May 22, 2008

DATE OF RULING

May 22, 2008

APPEARANCES

Glen Good Building Code Consulting & Training New Hamburg, ON Agent for the Applicant Will Crognale Assistant Chief Fire Prevention Officer Town of Oakville, ON Designate for the Respondent

-2RULING 1.

Particulars of Dispute

The Applicant has submitted engineered drawings for an automatic fire sprinkler system, which forms part of the building permit application made under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a new 6 storey, residential building at 180 Oakpark Boulevard, Town of Oakville, Ontario. The subject building is 6 storeys in building height, 2704.8 m² in building area with a Group C major occupancy classification. The building is comprised of non-combustible construction and is equipped with a sprinkler system, standpipe and hose system, and fire alarm system. The construction in dispute involves the monitoring of pressure loss within the installed sprinkler system to prevent false alarms. Clause 3.2.4.9.(2)(b) of Division B of the Building Code requires that if a fire alarm system is installed in a building, an automatic sprinkler system must be electrically supervised to indicate a signal on the fire alarm system for loss of excess water pressure to prevent false alarms. The Applicant is proposing to use an electrical waterflow detecting device with an adjustable time delay mechanism, which will be connected to the fire alarm system and is expected to prevent false alarms in the sprinkler system. The Applicant’s position is that false alarms can be prevented by properly calibrating the subject flow switch. The Respondent is of the opinion that the Applicant’s proposal does not meet the supervision requirement of the noted Code provision and further, an alarm check valve and low pressure switch along with other necessary equipment are required in order to create excess pressure that can then be supervised for “loss of pressure” by the fire alarm system. 2.

Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute 3.2.4.9. Electrical Supervision (2) If a fire alarm system is installed in a building, an automatic sprinkler system shall be electrically supervised to indicate a supervisory signal on the building fire alarm system annunciator for each of the following… (b) loss of excess water pressure required to prevent false alarms in a wet pipe system,

3.

Applicant’s Position

The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the automatic sprinkler system has been designed in conformance with NFPA 13 Standard as required by Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) of the Building Code. He stated that section 6.9.2.1. of NFPA 13 states, “the alarm apparatus for a wet pipe (sprinkler) system shall consist of a listed alarm check valve or other listed waterflow-detecting alarm devices with the necessary attachments required to give an alarm”. The Agent maintained that NFPA 13 Standard clearly indicates that the installation of an alarm check valve is not mandatory in all wet sprinkler systems and further, would accept other listed waterflow-detecting devices such as the listed flow switch being proposed. The Agent suggested that Clause 3.2.4.9(2)(b) of the Building Code is applicable only when an alarm check valve and pressure alarm switch have been installed on a wet sprinkler system but does not dictate or demand that all wet pipe sprinkler systems be installed with an alarm check valve and low pressure switch. The Agent submitted a written opinion from the Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association

-3(CASA), which essentially supported this interpretation of Clause 3.2.4.9(2)(b) of the Building Code and the subject sprinkler design. The Agent suggested that the intent of Clause 3.2.4.9.(2)(b) of the Code is to prevent false alarms in a wet pipe sprinkler system. He argued that the desired result of preventing false alarms can be achieved by properly calibrating the water flow detection device of the wet pipe sprinkler system. He explained that the subject flow switch could be calibrated so that a constant flow of water through the flow switch for 30 seconds would be needed before an alarm signal is given. As a result, he maintained, the flow switch would prevent any false alarms caused by possible surges of pressure in the water supply. In summary the Agent contended that the referenced NFPA 13 Standard for sprinkler systems does not mandate an alarm check valve as the required alarm apparatus on every wet pipe sprinkler system. Instead NFPA 13 permits a choice between and alarm check valve and other types of listed waterflow detecting devices along with the necessary attachments. The Agent submitted that the proposed listed waterflow detecting device will prevent false alarms due to an adjustable time delay mechanism and as such, he believes that the sprinkler system design as presented provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 3.2.4.9.(2)(b) of the Code. 4.

Respondent’s Position

The Designate for the Respondent submitted the subject wet pipe automatic sprinkler system has been designed as a combined standpipe and automatic sprinkler system based on the 2006 Building Code design requirements. He stated that Article 3.2.4.9. of the Code provides the requirements for electrical supervision of the automatic sprinkler system where a fire alarm system is provided, which requires wet pipe automatic sprinkler systems to be electrically supervised to indicate a supervisory signal on the building fire alarm annunciator for loss of excess water pressure. The Designate pointed out that prior to the implementation of the 2006 edition of the Building Code, the requirement for supervising loss of excess water pressure on a wet pipe automatic sprinkler system worked in tandem with the cross contamination protection requirements found under Part 7 of the previous 1997 edition of the Building Code. The Designate explained that Sentence 7.6.2.3.(4) of the 1997 Code required the provision of a listed alarm check valve to protect against cross contamination between an automatic sprinkler system and the connected municipal potable water supply. He maintained that a listed alarm check valve assembly was necessary to provide supervision of loss of excess water pressure as it provided the pressure barrier required between the water supply and the sprinkler system as well as, the associated trim needed to attach a supervisory monitoring device to supervise system water pressure. The Designate contended that the 2006 Code has replaced the requirement for the provision of a listed alarm check valve assembly with a double check valve backflow preventer for fire systems and that this change has now disconnected the previously interrelated requirements. The Designate submitted that he did not agree with the Applicant’s position that providing a time delay type waterflow device would meet the intent of Clause 3.2.4.9(2)(b) of the Building Code. In fact, he maintained that it was his position that Clause 3.2.4.9(2)(b) requests a supervisory signal indicator be provided at the fire alarm annunciator to indicate a loss of excess water pressure. He argued that a supervisory signal is different than an alarm signal, in terms of identification at the fire alarm annunciator and signal response actions required. He contended that although the device has been designed with a feature that delays the initiation of an alarm condition, it does to initiate a supervisory signal as intended by Clause 3.2.4.9(2)(b) of the Building Code. The Designate argued that CAN/ULC-S524 “Installation of Fire Alarm Systems”, a referenced installation standard in the Building Code, defines a “supervisory signal” as follows, “A field device to signal a condition that could prevent proper operation of a fire protection

-4system”. As a result, he maintained, that he did not believe that the proposed approach of providing a waterflow alarm device in replacement of excess water pressure supervision meets the intent of Clause 3.2.4.9(2)(b) of the Code. In summary, the Designate stated that it was his position that the loss of excess pressure supervision requirement of the Code cannot be fulfilled without providing the equipment necessary to create and supervise the excess pressure; in other words, an alarm check valve and pressure switch along with other necessary equipment is required in the subject wet sprinkler system. He further argued, the proposed waterflow detecting device is intended to initiate an alarm condition with a time delay mechanism. However, the Designate contended, it does not perform the function of a supervisory device and as such, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Clause 3.2.4.9(2)(b) of the Building Code.

5.

Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the design of an installed automatic sprinkler system, which does not include an alarm check valve or low pressure switch, but does include a listed waterflow detecting device with the necessary attachments, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 3.2.4.9.(2)(b), Division B of the 2006 Ontario Building Code at 180 Oakpark Blvd, Oakville, Ontario.

6.

Reasons i)

The Building Code requires the installation of an automatic sprinkler system to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13 “Installation of Sprinkler Systems” (1999 edition). NFPA 13 allows a choice between an alarm check valve and other types of listed water flow devices with the necessary attachments. In this case, a listed waterflow detecting device was installed in conformance to NFPA 13.

ii) Clause 3.2.4.9.(2)(b) of Division B of the Building Code states, “If a fire alarm system is installed in a building, an automatic sprinkler system shall be electrically supervised to indicate a supervisory signal on the building fire alarm system annunciator for each of the following: …b) loss of excess water pressure required to prevent false alarms in a wet pipe system“. The listed waterflow device that was installed in accordance with NFPA 13 does not signal a loss of excess water pressure. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that electrical supervision is not required for this installation. iii) The Building Code does not explicitly state whether an alarm check valve is required in order to create excess pressure, which can then be supervised, or whether the supervision requirement in Clause 3.2.4.9.(2)(b) of Division B, is applicable in only those cases where an alarm check valve has been installed as the alarm apparatus. iv) The installed electrical waterflow detecting device is equipped with an adjustable time delay mechanism, which can prevent false alarms by properly calibrating the flow switch.

-5Dated at Toronto this 22nd day in the month of May in the year 2008 for application number 2008-07.

________________ Tony Chow, Chair

________________ Rick Florio

________________ Prabhakar Mahant