Ruling No.: 19-17-1537
Application No.: B-2019-15
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 Sentences 3.1.8.1.(1), 3.1.9.1.(1) and 3.2.8.2.(3) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Santokh Mahal, for the resolution of a dispute with Russ Thomson, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal to protect floor penetrations with additional sprinklers, as opposed to using conventional fire stopping, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.8.1.(1), 3.1.9.1.(1) and 3.2.8.2.(3) of Division B of the Building Code when considering Appendix Note A.3.2.8.2.(3) at Golden Miles Foods Mill, 155 Adams Blvd., Brantford, Ontario.
APPLICANT Santokh Mahal
Golden Miles Foods Corporation
Mississauga, Ontario
RESPONDENT Russ Thomson
Chief Building Official
City of Brantford, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Les Muniak
David Annable
PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING August 29, 2019
DATE OF RULING August 29, 2019
APPEARANCES Santokh Mahal
Golden Miles Foods Corporation
Mississauga, Ontario
The Applicant
Richard Rosetti
General Manager
Golden Miles Foods Corporation
Brantford, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Russ Thomson
Chief Building Official
City of Brantford, Ontario
The Respondent
Andy McMahon
Manager of Building Services
City of Brantford, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a four-storey building at Golden Miles Foods Mill, 155 Adams Blvd., Brantford, Ontario.
The subject building is a four-storey building, reclassified as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy. The building is of non-combustible construction, is equipped with a sprinkler system, standpipe system, and fire alarm system. The subject building is used for the processing of grain and flour.
The construction in dispute involves the design of the floor assemblies, where piping used in the manufacturing process penetrates the floors at various locations. More specifically, the dispute centers on the Applicant’s proposal to protect the floor penetrations with additional sprinklers as opposed to using conventional fire stopping and whether this proposal provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.8.1.(1), 3.1.9.1.(1) and 3.2.8.2.(3) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Division B, Article 3.1.8.1. General Requirements
(1) Any wall, partition or floor assembly required to be a fire separation shall,
(a) except as permitted by Sentence (2), be constructed as a continuous element, and
(b) as required in this Part, have a fire-resistance rating as specified. (See Appendix A.)
(2) Openings in a fire separation shall be protected with closures, shafts or other means in conformance with Articles 3.1.8.4. to 3.1.8.18. and Subsections 3.1.9. and 3.2.8. (See Appendix A.)
Division B, Sentence 3.2.8.2.(3). Exceptions to Special Protection
(3) If a closure in an opening in a fire separation would disrupt the nature of a manufacturing process, such as a continuous flow of material from storey to storey, the closure for the opening is permitted to be omitted provided precautions are taken to offset the resulting hazard. (See Appendix A.)
Appendix A, Note A- 3.2.8.2.(3) Special Protection of Opening
In manufacturing operations involving the use of conveyor systems to transport material through fire separations, it may not be possible to use standard closure devices. NFPA 80, “Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives”, includes appendix information concerning protection of openings through vertical fire separations. NFPA 13, “Installation of Sprinkler Systems”, includes methods of protecting openings through floor assemblies, however, it is assumed by that standard that the remainder of the building would be sprinklered. Combinations of methods may be required to ensure that the level of safety inherent in the requirements of the Code is maintained.
Division B, Sentence 3.1.9.1.(1) Fire Stops
(1) Except as required by Sentences (2) and (3) and permitted by Sentences (4) and (5), penetrations of a fire separation or a membrane forming part of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating shall be,
(a) sealed by a fire stop that, when subjected to the fire test method in CAN/ULC-S115, “Fire Tests of Firestop Systems”, has an F rating not less than the fire-protection rating required for closures in the fire separation in conformance with Table 3.1.8.4., or
(b) tightly fitted. (See Appendix A.)
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the subject building is a new flour mill and consists of two main structures: the grain unloading and receiving building, which houses the grain receiving pit and the pre-cleaning process equipment, and the mill tower building, which houses the grain cleaning and milling equipment, flour and bran packaging equipment, and storage warehouse. The Agent indicated that the building was reclassified as a Group F, Division 2 occupancy based on an analysis and report by Jensen Hughes Consulting Canada Ltd. The reclassification was accepted by the municipality and is not a matter in dispute.
The Applicant submitted that the issue in question relates to the various floor penetrations required for the processing equipment and piping that transports the grain and flour within the plant. The Applicant explained that the plant was originally designed with numerous floor penetrations to allow for various pipes having a diameter of 100 mm to 600 mm, to pass from floor to floor, with most of the piping in the range between 100 to 150 mm. The Applicant stated that the general contractor originally managing the construction, interpreted the Building Code report provided by Jensen Hughes that was submitted in support of the building permit application, to mean that additional sprinklers could be used to offset the presence of any floor opening without fire stop, and this is how Golden Miles proceeded to build the plant.
The Applicant submitted that extra sprinkler heads currently protect all the floor openings and penetrations, as detailed in the Vipond drawings for the design of the sprinkler system which were also submitted in support of the permit application. The Applicant explained that Golden Miles will also be installing a laser-based smoke detection system, which will serve to act as a warning signal should some type of equipment failure start blowing dust into the atmosphere of the plant and will also detect smoke from a fire should it occur. The Applicant maintained that all of these systems, combined with the explosion protection and suppression devices installed throughout the plant will work together to mitigate any type of fire safety hazard.
The Applicant submitted that to protect objects from falling through the floor openings, toe kick plates were welded into place around almost all the openings where it could feasibly be done. The Applicant clarified that Golden Miles stopped this work upon learning that the City of Brantford Building Department was not going to accept the additional sprinklers as sufficient protection around the floor openings for the process piping. The Applicant stated that Golden Miles also covered many of the floor openings with 3 mm steel plate to facilitate cleaning of dust that might escape into the plant environment.
The Applicant submitted that the City of Brantford Building Department indicated that the addition of extra sprinklers would be acceptable in certain areas, for example, on the ground floor where all the roller mills are located since the drive belts passing through the floor are impossible to fire stop. The Applicant argued that if the additional sprinklers are acceptable in that particular situation, then there is no reason why they should not be considered acceptable elsewhere in the plant.
The Applicant submitted that Section 3.8.2 of the Building Code is concerned with fire and smoke propagating from floor to floor and the risks that this creates. The Applicant explained that the main plant area of the mill that is in question is not typical, and its design does not pose any life-threatening conditions which the Code attempts to address. The Applicant submitted the following as supporting reasons for his argument:
Due to the nature of the process in the plant, there are 6 large dust collectors within the main plant area which in aggregate will completely exchange the air within the plant, with air exchanges taking place approximately every 6 to 7 minutes. This frequent air exchange significantly mitigates the effects of smoke building up within the building that could prevent workers from escaping in the event of a fire during normal operations.
The plant and its equipment are of non-combustible material, with only a very small amount of plastic and rubber that could potentially burn (less than 0.3 kg/m2). These combustible materials are dispersed throughout the plant in such a way that if a drive belt were to catch on fire for example, it would be impossible for that fire to propagate and ignite the belts in a neighboring machine.
The grain and flour which represents the largest combustible component is contained within steel equipment and piping, such that even if the grain or flour were to catch fire, it would be contained within the equipment and the smoke would be carried away by the dust collection systems. Furthermore, the total fuel load of all the flour and grain is less than 2 kg/m2, well below the Building Code F-2/F-3 separation point of 50 kg/m2.
The Golden Mile facility is highly automated, so that only two people will be in the processing area during normal operations at any given time.
In addition, the Applicant submitted that although the risk within a flour mill is from a dust explosion, not fire, several compensating fire protection measures that have been put in place are as follows:
Golden Miles has added a large number of additional sprinkler heads in close proximity to the disputed through-floor openings
The fuel available to burn is limited and contained within the equipment
The plant will be monitored continuously for any anomaly
The building construction is of non-combustible steel and concrete
All structural steel is coated with a 2 hour cementitious spray
In response to questions from the Commission concerning the challenges of providing a closure or fire stop in the openings around the process piping in question, the Applicant submitted that there are 8 sifter boxes, which are connected to some of the piping in question that pose a specific challenge to fire stopping. The Applicant stated that the sifter boxes are required to shift and move during the manufacturing process and therefore providing a firestop in these areas would interfere with the manufacturing process.
In response to questions regarding the other piping in question other than those connected to the 8 sifter boxes, the Applicant stated that he would seal those pipe openings with steel plates and concrete.
The Applicant submitted that it is his position that the process piping penetrating the floor assemblies meets the exception set out in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(3) of the Building Code, and further, when considering the described compensating measures, provides sufficiency of compliance.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent submitted that the reclassification of the building from Group F, Division 1 to a Group F, Division 2 occupancy building, based on the Jenson Hughes report has been accepted and is not in dispute. However, the Respondent explained that the reclassification of the building does not impact the Building Code requirement for the floors of the subject building to be constructed as fire separations and for those floor assembly fire separations to be constructed as a continuous element as required by Sentence 3.1.8.1.(1) of the Building Code.
The Respondent submitted that in accordance with Sentence 3.1.9.1.(1) of the Building Code, any penetration of a fire separation is required to be protected by a rated closure such as a damper or fire stopping. The Respondent submitted that although the Building Code does provide an exception in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(3) where machinery would be permitted to pass through the floor without a rated closure in situations where the closure would disrupt the nature of the manufacturing operation. For instance, the Respondent explained that in cases where the closure would disrupt the continuous flow of material from storey to storey, the Code would require closely spaced sprinklers and baffles below the opening, which has been considered and permitted for some of the machinery in the plant. However, the Respondent maintained that he did not believe that having the process piping penetrate through the concrete floor with fire rated caulking around it, would impede the flow of material. Therefore, the Respondent submitted that it was his position that the exception provided in the Code under Sentence 3.2.8.2.(3). does not apply to the process piping in this situation and that the floor assembly is required to be protected by a rated closure.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to protect floor penetrations with additional sprinklers as opposed to using conventional fire stopping, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.8.1.(1), 3.1.9.1.(1) and 3.2.8.2.(3) of Division B of the Building Code when considering Appendix Note A.3.2.8.2.(3) at Golden Miles Foods Mill, 155 Adams Blvd., Brantford, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) Sentence 3.2.8.2.(3). Of Division B of the Building Code states:
If a closure in an opening in a fire separation would disrupt the nature of a manufacturing process, such as a continuous flow of material from storey to storey, the closure for the opening is permitted to be omitted provided precautions are taken to offset the resulting hazard. (See Appendix A.)
Appendix A, Note A- 3.2.8.2.(3) Special Protection of Opening states,
In manufacturing operations involving the use of conveyor systems to transport material through fire separations, it may not be possible to use standard closure devices. NFPA 80, “Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives”, includes appendix information concerning protection of openings through vertical fire separations. NFPA 13, “Installation of Sprinkler Systems”, includes methods of protecting openings through floor assemblies, however, it is assumed by that standard that the remainder of the building would be sprinklered. Combinations of methods may be required to ensure that the level of safety inherent in the requirements of the Code is maintained.
The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the sifter boxes, which are connected to the piping in question, are required to shift and move due to the nature of the manufacturing process.
It is the Commission’s opinion that the processing pipes connected to the sifter boxes form part of the manufacturing process. Further, it is the Commission’s opinion that providing a firestop in these areas would disrupt the nature of the manufacturing process and therefore, the exception provided in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(3) is applicable in this case.
ii) The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the Applicant is offering to provide additional sprinklers around the sifter box piping openings as a compensating measure to fire stopping. It’s the Commission’s opinion that this proposal along with the proposal to fire stop all other openings around the process piping that penetrate the floors with concrete and steel plates provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.1.9.1.(1).
Dated at the City of Toronto this 29th day in the month of August in the year 2019 for application number B-2019-15.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Les Muniak
Dave Annable