Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:39
redvan wrote:the bc fire code is saying that before 1984 extinguishers do not need to be replaced
any one know what the reasoning for the nfpa 10 requirement of disposing of them is ?
i could not get an answer from nfpa without joining them for about 175$
There are multiple reasons...
UL Classifications and testing changed in 1984
2. Extinguishers over 2A or 20B rating required to have hose
3. Pictgram instructions required
4. Testing and Discharge time requirements changed
An explanation is listed in NFPA 10 - 2010 edition in the Appendix
Now again the BC Fire Commissioner bowed to the money and cowered from making any reasonable code direction and removed that particular code requirement.
Only place I have worked that residential HIGH RISES (Are you insane!) can have an unsupervised, ineffective, heat detection only [cough cough] fire alarm systems, battery only smoke alarms, no elevator recall, pump [yes] water extinguishers.
Even a small town in Nova Scotia enforces better Fire Prevention than some of BC's largest municipalities
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot ... -1.1861595
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:06
The Fire Commissioner makes decisions that relate to including (or excluding) particular Clauses in a Standard after consultation with Stakeholders and industry experts. I think you're way off base with the "money" comment. AFAIK most pre-1984 extinguishers are being replaced anyway (many fire service companies have invoked the Clause regardless).
As for the unsupervised 12 volt fire alarm systems still in operation (in Vancouver at least), neither the Building Bylaw (Building Code) or the Fire Code mandates their replacement unless the units become inoperable. Now, what many fire service companies are doing when this occurs is replacing the common controls with supervised single zone panels. You can then swap out the heat detectors in the common area hallways with smokes. Granted, it's not the "best" solution, but life safety is improved at very little additional cost to the owners and you don't have to run in new wires. The field wiring remains unsupervised however.
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:15
[quoteThe Fire Commissioner makes decisions that relate to including (or excluding) particular Clauses in a Standard after consultation with Stakeholders and industry experts. I think you're way off base with the "money" comment. AFAIK most pre-1984 extinguishers are being replaced anyway (many fire service companies have invoked the Clause regardless).][/quote]
Unfortunately I do not believe I am off base here. When the 2012 code was getting close to adoption, and back as far as 2007 we were "warning" customers and talking with local AHJ's about this particular issue. It is not a big issue when you consider that the replacement is due at the next 6 year or hydrotest. It is tough to invoke a clause when you have no standing in the codes or the backing of the AHJ. From what I can tell BC is the only jurisdiction in North America that is not "participating" in an industry wide replacement of older ineffective extinguishers. That would be like saying all of clause 4.4 "obsolete extinguishers" is not to be enforced because everyone appears to be removing them from service. We would still be using/servicing Soda Acid.
It has been almost 7 years since NFPA and the industry came out with the pre 1984 clause and we are just getting around to adopting that edition - minus the clause in question of course!
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:20
quite possibly because great many of the fire departments in bc have a large quantity
of old 10 and 20 lb general extinguishers that they don't want to replace
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:18
Budget cut-backs! That's the ticket!