Citation: Van Eerde v. Revell 2023 ONBCC 9

Ruling No.: 23-09-1623

Application No.: B-2022-16

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 3.2.9.2.(4) and 3.2.9.6.(1) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the "Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Michael Van Eerde, for the resolution of a dispute with John Revell, Chief Building Official, City of Windsor, to determine whether the proposed standpipe system design and water supply for the 38 mm hose connections for a six-storey residential building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.9.2.(4) and 3.2.9.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at FHC Apartment Complex, Rosewater Estates Building A, 1600 Lauzon Road, Windsor, Ontario.

APPLICANT Michael Van Eerde, PMP Classic Fire + Life Safety Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT John Revell Chief Building Official City of Windsor Windsor, Ontario

PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Alexandra Chow Michael Egberts

PLACE via video conference

DATE OF HEARING July 04, 2023

DATE OF RULING July 04, 2023

APPEARANCES Michael Van Eerde, PMP Classic Fire + Life Safety Toronto, Ontario Applicant

Alex Verdun Forrest City Fire Protection London, Ontario Agent for the Applicant

Andy Coghlin Norther Sprinkler Design London, Ontario Agent for the Applicant

Jeffrey Ricker Agent for the Applicant

Graziano Nazzani Project Manager Orlando Corporation Agent for the Applicant

John Rivel Chief Building Official Windsor, Ontario Respondent

Rob Nanny Deputy Chief Building Official Windsor, Ontario Designate for the Respondent

Mike Arthur Manager of Inspections Windsor, Ontario Designate for the Respondent

Phil Ross Senior Plan Review Engineer Windsor, Ontario Designate for the Respondent

Adam Meeker Plan Review Engineer Windsor, Ontario Designate for the Respondent

RULING

1. Particulars of Dispute

The Applicant has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, and is constructing a new 6-storey residential building at 1600 Lauzon Road, Windsor, Ontario.

The subject building is known as FHC Apartment Complex, Rosewater Estates Building A.

The building is a six-storey, Group C residential building, with a building area of 1161 m². The building is comprised of noncombustible construction, is sprinklered and is equipped with a fire alarm and a standpipe and hose system. The stage of construction is in final inspection.

The construction in dispute involves the acceptance of testing for the standpipe system.

More specifically the dispute before the Commission is whether the proposed standpipe system design and water supply for the 38 mm hose connections provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.9.2.(4) and 3.2.9.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.

2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute

Article 3.2.9.2. Standpipe System Design

(4) The residual water pressure at the design flow rate at the hydraulically most remote hose connection of a standpipe system that is required to be installed in a building is permitted to be less than 450 kPa provided that,

(a) the building is sprinklered,

(b) the water supply at the base of the sprinkler riser is capable of meeting the design flow rate and pressure demand of the sprinkler system, including the inside and outside hose allowance, and

(c) fire protection equipment is available to deliver, by means of the fire department connection, the full demand flow rate at a residual water pressure of 450 kPa at the hydraulically most remote hose connection of the standpipe system.

Appendix Note A-3.2.9.2.(4) Fire Department Pumping Equipment.

Availability of appropriate pumping equipment from the local fire department or, in the case of industrial plants or complexes, from their fire brigade, is considered sufficient to meet the intent of this requirement.

Article 3.2.9.6. Water Supply for 38 mm Hose Connections

(1) If a standpipe and hose system is required, the water supply shall be sufficient to provide a flow, measured at each of the two hydraulically most remote 38 mm diam hose connections,

(a) of not less than 380 L/min,

(b) for not less than 30 min,

(c) at a pressure of not less than 450 kPa, and

(d) of not less than 190 L/min from each of the two outlets simultaneously.

3. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the required water flow for the standpipe system is available at the base of the riser with the sprinklers running without a fire department connection. The Applicant further submitted that to meet the required pressure at the most remote hose connection, the standpipe system needs to have the support of a fire department pump from a fire truck.

A testing report was submitted by the Applicant for a field test dated March 28, 2022. The field test did not demonstrate the required flows and pressure that the standpipe system is required to meet. Further, the supplied report was not signed by a qualified person due to the test not meeting the requirements. The Applicant submitted calculations to demonstrate the systems ability to perform with a theoretical pump, such as a fire truck, to supply the required pressure needed to successfully complete the test.

The Applicant noted that they did not contact nor need to contact the local fire department to confirm if the fire department had the required equipment to support the proposed standpipe system.

The Applicant further submitted that the firefighting equipment of a standard fire truck is sufficient to provide the required flows and pressures needed to operate the standpipe system.

4. Respondent's Position

The Designate for the Respondent (the "Designate") reviewed Sentence 3.2.9.2.(4) discussing the various requirements for a standpipe system to have a pressure less than 450 kPa. One of the requirements is a fire department connection. The Designate further submitted that the Agent did not contact the local fire department to confirm if they could provide the required equipment needed to operate the standpipe system to meet the requirements of Sentence 3.2.9.2.(4). The Designate advised that the local fire department confirmed that the required firefighting equipment is not available for this site.

The Designate reviewed the requirements of Sentence 3.2.9.6.(1) identifying the four conditions and confirming that all four Clauses need to be met as the word "and" connects the conditions. The Designate noted that the four conditions would require completing three different tests. The Designate explained that the submitted test report does not demonstrate that the tests performed have met the requirements set out in Sentence 3.2.9.6.(1). The Designate advised that the document, "Contractor's Material & Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping" as referenced in NFPA 14 "Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems", was prepared and submitted to the City of Windsor. The document indicates the actual flow rate achieved during the test was 64 GPM (243 L/min), falling well short of the required 100 GPM (380 L/min) as set out in Clause 3.2.9.6.(1)(a) of the Building Code. The Designate also advised that further to this failed test, the report document was not signed by either the property owner (job supervisor) nor the standpipe system installer. The Designate further noted that submission of calculations is not an acceptable method to demonstrate the required measurements set out in Sentence 3.2.9.6.(1).

5. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed standpipe system design and water supply for the 38 mm hose connections for a six-storey residential building, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.9.2.(4) and 3.2.9.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at FHC Apartment Complex, Rosewater Estates Building A, 1600 Lauzon Road, Windsor, Ontario.

6. Reasons

i) The Commission heard evidence submitted by the Applicant that the proposed standpipe system design relies on the local fire department providing a pump from a fire truck to meet the required residual water pressure of 450 kPa at the hydraulically most remote hose connection of the standpipe system as required by Sentence 3.2.9.2.(4) of Division B of the Building Code. The applicant further submitted that they had not contacted the local fire department to confirm firefighting equipment would be available.

The Commission also received evidence from the Designate that the Fire Department will not be able to provide the necessary equipment to deliver the full demand flow rate at a residual water pressure of 450 kPa at the hydraulically most remote hose connection in the proposed standpipe system as required by Sentence 3.2.9.2.(4).

Based on the submitted evidence, it is the Commission's opinion that the Applicant has not secured adequate water supply to meet the residual water pressure and flow rate requirements in Sentence 3.2.9.2.(4) of Division B of the Building Code.

ii) The Commission received evidence submitted by the Designate that documented field test results of the standpipe system failed to meet the requirements of Sentence 3.2.9.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 4th day in the month of July in the year 2023 for application number B-2022-16.

Stephen Wong, Chair

Alexandra Chow

Michael Egberts