Citation : Poplak v. Johnston 2021 ONBCC 17

Ruling No.: 21-17-1591

Application No.: B-2021-13

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 Ontario Building Code Sentence 3.2.4.13.(1), Subclause 6.2.1.1.(1)(a)(iii), and Clause 6.2.1.1.(1)(d) of Division B. of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Lewis Poplak, Carttera Management Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Will Johnston, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal not to install a duct smoke detector on the four storey below-grade exit stair pressurization fans located in the exit stair shafts of a 19 storey, Group D, Group E and Group F3 (storage garage) Major occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 3.2.4.13.(1)(a), Subclause 6.2.1.1.(1)(a)(iii), and Clause 6.2.1.1.(1)(d) of Division B of the Building Code at 65 King Street East Office Building, Toronto, Ontario.

APPLICANT Lewis Poplak Vice President, Carttera Management Inc. Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT Will Johnston Chief Building Official, City of Toronto Toronto, Ontario

PANEL Matthew Graham, Chair Designate Elektra Vrachas Michael Egberts

PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING October 14, 2021

DATE OF RULING October 14, 2021

APPEARANCES James Back Principal, Smith + Anderson Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant

Dorota Kuciej Project Building Code Consultant, Jensen Hughes Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant

Ian Pierson Owner’s representative Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant

Imran Esmail Building Engineer, City of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent

Selva Panchanatham Building Engineer, City of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent

Karthic Bremachandran Building Engineer, City of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent

RULING

1. Particulars of Dispute

The Applicant has received an Order to Comply from the City of Toronto to remedy alleged deficiencies associated with Sentence 3.2.4.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at 65 King Street East Office Building, Toronto, Ontario.

The subject building is a proposed 19-storey building with a 4 storey below-grade parking garage. It consists of Group D, Group E and Group F, Division 3 major occupancies as per Division B of the Building Code.

The construction in dispute involves whether a duct-type smoke detector for the stair pressurization fans serving the below-grade exit stairwells is required. The scope of the dispute is limited to the below-grade exit stairwells, and concerns whether the stair pressurization fan serves more than 1 storey.

More specifically, the dispute before the Commission centers on whether the proposal not to install a duct smoke detector servicing the four level below-grade exit stair pressurization fans located in the exit stair shafts, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 3.2.4.13.(1)(a), Subclause 6.2.1.1.(1)(a)(iii), and Clause 6.2.1.1.(1)(d) of Division B of the Building Code.

2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute

Clause 3.2.4.13.(1)(a) of Division B states:

(1) If a fire alarm system is installed, an air handling system shall be designed to prevent the circulation of smoke upon a signal from a duct-type smoke detector if the air handling system,

(a) serves more than 1 storey,

Subclause 6.2.1.1.(1)(a)(iii) of Division B states:

(1) Heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems, including related mechanical refrigeration systems, shall be designed, constructed and installed to conform to good engineering practice appropriate to the circumstances such as described in,

(a) the ASHRAE Handbooks as follows:

(iii) HVAC Applications,

Clause 6.2.1.1.(1)(d) of Division B states:

(1) Heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems, including related mechanical refrigeration systems, shall be designed, constructed and installed to conform to good engineering practice appropriate to the circumstances such as described in,

(d) the NFPA Fire Codes,

3. Applicant’s Position

The Agent for the Applicant (“the Agent”) submitted that an Order to Comply was issued June 1, 2021, following an HVAC inspection. The Order requires a duct-type smoke detector to be installed in the below-grade exit stair pressurization system as per Sentence 3.2.4.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.

The Agent referenced the definition of ‘storey’ and ‘floor area’ as per Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the Building Code to support his assertion that the below-grade exit stair does not form part of the floor area that makes up each storey of a building. The Agent submitted that the below-grade exit stair shaft does not serve more than one-storey. The Agent indicated that, the below-grade exit stair pressurization system services only one fire compartment, and therefore the requirements of Clause 3.2.4.13.(1)(a) of Division B of the Building Code are not applicable in this case.

The Agent explained that the addition of a duct-type smoke detector on the below-grade exit stair pressurization system would be unsafe because it could inadvertently shut down the stair pressurization fan component of the life safety system, as a result of false alarms that typically occur with smoke detectors.

In response to the Respondent’s suggestion that the fan could be restarted from the Central Alarm and Control Facility (CACF) room, the Agent explained that the time frame from a fire being identified to personnel entering the CACF room would result in significant time lost for exiting where a pressurization fan could keep the exit stair pressurized and clear of smoke. The Agent further noted that the design of the pressurization system uses equipment that operates as intended and the likelihood of the supply-air being contaminated with smoke when the building pressurization system would activate is extremely unlikely. The Applicant further explained that a short in the motor that could cause smoke would render the equipment inoperable due to other safety mechanisms involved in the operation of the motor.

The Agent stated that the design of the exit stair pressurization system was based on Supplementary Standard SB4 “Measures for Fire Safety in High Buildings” as good engineering practice and was in conformance with Sentence 3.2.6.2.(1) of Division B of the Building Code for limiting smoke movement. The Applicant stated that the NFPA 92 “Standard for Smoke Control Systems” is not a referenced document in the Building Code. The Applicant explained that supply-air for the exit stair pressurization is drawn directly from the exterior as shown in the drawings submitted and therefore, no external source of smoke contamination is anticipated.

In summary, the Agent stated that their design conforms with the Building Code and the installation of a duct-type smoke detector to the exit stair pressurization system could cause an inadvertent shut down of the below-grade exit stair pressurization system which, in their opinion, is an unreasonable risk. The Agent further noted that smoke detectors are installed throughout the exit stair shaft in accordance with the Building Code.

4. Respondent’s Position

The Designate for the Respondent (“the Designate”) submitted that Clause 3.2.4.13.(1)(a) of Division B of the Building Code requires a duct-type smoke detector for the below-grade exit stair pressurization fan. The Designate noted that even though the below-grade exit stair is one fire compartment, the exit stair still serves 4 storeys below-grade. Therefore, it is the Respondent’s position that Clause 3.2.4.13.(1)(a) of Division B is applicable.

The Designate also referenced Article 6.2.1.1. of Division B regarding good engineering practice. More specifically, Subclause 6.2.1.1.(1)(a)(iii) “ASHRAE HVAC Applications” and Clause 6.2.1.1.(1)(d) “the NFPA Fire Codes” of Division B of the Building Code. The Designate explained that both references pointed to the NFPA 92 – Standard for Smoke Control Systems which requires a smoke detector in the air supply to the pressurized stairwell.

Sentence 6.4.6.2 of NFPA 92 states:

• 6.4.6.2 – Smoke Detection

• 6.4.6.2.1 – A smoke detector shall be provided in the air supply to the pressurized stairwell.

• 6.4.6.2.2 – On detection of smoke in the air supply, the supply fan(s) shall be stopped.

The Designate also indicated that if the pressurization fan shuts down whether it be from the duct-type smoke detector or for any other reason, the fans can still be activated/overridden from the CACF room.

In identifying good engineering practice deemed appropriate to the circumstances, the Designate expressed concern for smoke developing from the malfunction of the fan or from possible intake of smoke from the supply-air, which could facilitate smoke movement in the below-grade exit stair.

In summary, the Designate submitted it was their position that the installation of a smoke detector is an essential part of the pressurization system to prevent smoke from inadvertently being circulate the building.

5. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal not to install a duct-type smoke detector for the four level below-grade exit stair pressurization fans located in the exit stair shafts of a 19 storey, Group D, Group E and Group F3 Major occupancy (storage garage) building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 3.2.4.13. (1)(a) of Division B of the Building Code at, 65 King Street East Office Building, Toronto, Ontario.

6. Reasons

i) Clause 3.2.4.13.(1)(a) of Division B of the Building Codes States:

(1) If a fire alarm system is installed, an air handling system shall be designed to prevent the circulation of smoke upon a signal from a duct-type smoke detector if the air handling system,

(a) serves more than 1 storey,

Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the Building Code defines floor area, storey, and exit.

It is the Commissions opinion that based on the Building Code’s definitions of floor area, storey and exit, the subject four storey below-grade exit stair is not considered a storey.

ii) Subclause 6.2.1.1.(1)(a)(iii) and Clause 6.2.1.1.(1)(d) of Division B of the Building Code were submitted by the Respondent as being matters in dispute. However, the Applicant’s party did not agree.

iii) Subclause 6.2.1.1.(1)(a)(iii) and Clause 6.2.1.1.(1)(d) address good engineering practice for the design and installation of heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems and both indirectly refer a Building Code user to NFPA 92, Standard for Smoke Control Systems.

The Commission heard that NPFA 92 requires that a smoke detector be provided in the air supply to the pressurized stairwell. The Commission heard that it was the Respondent’s position that in keeping with good engineering practice and NFPA 92, a smoke detector should be provided in this case. The Commission also heard that the Applicant chose to design the subject building in accordance with Supplementary Standard SB4 “Measures for Fire Safety in High Buildings” as good engineering practice which is in compliance with Clause 3.2.6.2.(1). (b) of Division B of the Building Code to limit smoke movement. Sentence 1.3.1.2.(1) of Division B of the Building Code states: (1) Where documents are referenced in this Code, they shall be in the editions designated in Column 2 of Table 1.3.1.2. The Commission notes that NFPA 92 is not referenced in Table 1.3.1.2 of Division B.

Sentence 1.5.1.2.(1) of Division A of the Building Code states: (1) In the case of a conflict between the provisions of this Code and those of a referenced document, the provisions of this Code shall govern. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that the provisions of Clause 3.2.4.13.(1)(a) of Division B governs over a referenced standard.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 14th day in the month of October in the year 2021 for application number B-2021-13.

Matthew Graham, Chair Designate

Elektra Vrachas

Michael Egberts