A Life Safety Study is a proposal submitted to the Chief Fire Official that identifies alternate methods of meeting the requirements of Retrofit under Part 9 of the Ontario Fire Code.
A Life Safety Study may be prepared if an owner considers that a particular Retrofit requirement is not feasible and that alternate fire protection measures will achieve an acceptable level of life safety.
This study must be prepared by an Architect and/or Professional Engineer. Architect means a licensee of the Ontario Association of Architects under the Architects Act. Professional Engineer means a licensee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario under the Professional Engineers Act.
The proposal must be prepared in accordance with Subsection 9.1.4. of the Ontario Fire Code and include:
There are a number of misconceptions over what constitutes a Life Safety Study. For example, some owners, or their consultants, have submitted only a list of building deficiencies. Others have tried to explain why it is unnecessary to correct a particular deficiency as required by the Retrofit regulations. In some instances, a lengthy schedule of compliance was submitted without any interim measures proposed. In each of these cases, the applicant had to provide additional information before the proposal could be processed.
A Life Safety Study was submitted for a four storey combustible building used for assembly purposes, which was required to be in compliance with Section 9.2 of the Ontario Fire Code. All walls and ceilings were plaster on wood lathe. Doors opening onto corridors were two inch (actual dimension) hardwood. There was a standpipe system equipped with 38 mm hose. Although there were an adequate number of exit stairs, they were not enclosed from the ground floor to the top storey. As the building had legally been designated as a historical building, it was preferred that certain features not be changed and that the exit stairs not be enclosed in the conventional manner.
Note: The proposal was accepted in this particular case. The additional fire protection features were considered to provide an acceptable level of life safety for occupants of this building.
The building was required to have a full fire alarm system, emergency lighting and exit signs to comply with Section 9.2. In addition, the following proposal was made to compensate for the lack of enclosed exit stairs:
The proposal stated that the compliance schedule for the above items would be as follows: Item 3 in one month; Items 2, 4 and 5 in two months; and Item 1 in six months.
The existing wall and ceiling construction and the existing doors were
considered to provide adequate containment of a fire. This, in conjunction
with a full sprinkler system, would ensure that any fire would be small and
contained and that there would be no significant smoke movement into the
corridors and exit stairs. The cross corridor doors would ensure that any
vertical movement of smoke would be confined to one quadrant of the building
and keep travel distances to a smoke free quadrant short. The combination of
containment, automatic suppression, early warning and short travel distances
to a zone of refuge were considered to provide an acceptable level of life
safety for the building occupants and the Life Safety Study was accepted.
|
||||||||||||||||||
