BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No 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 Article of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Joan Ross, CEO, Northumberland Health Care Corporation, for the resolution of a dispute with Frank Lukes, Chief Building Official, Town of Cobourg, to determine whether the omission of a roof anchoring system, where window washing and maintenance is intended to be carried out from ladders with grade level access and where equipment is positioned to permit rooftop maintenance without approaching the parapet, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Ontario Building Code at Northumberland Health Care Corporation, 1000 De Palma Drive, Cobourg, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Joan Ross, CEO Northumberland Health Care Corporation Coburg, Ontario Frank Lukes Chief Building Official Town of Cobourg Michael Steele, Chair-Designate Robert De Berardis Fred Barkhouse Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING January 24, 2002 DATE OF RULING January 24, 2002 APPEARANCES Dan MacKay, Building Code Consultant Larden Muniak Consulting Inc., Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Frank Lukes Chief Building Official Town of Cobourg The Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Joan Ross, CEO, Northumberland Health Care Corporation, Cobourg, Ontario, has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and is constructing a care and treatment facility referred to as the Northumberland Health Care Corporation at 1000 De Palma Drive, Cobourg, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant is constructing a health care facility having a Group B, Division 2 occupancy classification. The building is 2 storeys in height and has a total building area of 10,145 m 2. It is comprised of noncombustible construction and will be equipped with fire alarm, sprinkler and standpipe and hose systems. The building forms an irregular footprint and measures between 8.35 m to 8.7 m in height. Atop the building are three mechanical penthouses through which access from the building s interior to the roof surface is provided. Concrete pavers on the roof form a walkway between penthouses. Numerous window openings penetrate the exterior walls of the building, providing views from patient rooms and administrative areas on the two treatment floors. The construction in dispute involves the omission of a rooftop anchor system where window cleaning and maintenance is intended to be carried out from the exterior of the building. Instead, it is intended that ladders, up to 13 m in length, will be used to conduct window cleaning and exterior maintenance. These ladders would be securely fastened or stabilized to prevent tipping or falling. In addition, rooftop equipment is positioned a minimum of 3 m from the edge of the roof such that maintenance can be carried out in this area from the roof surface. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the proposal to perform window washing and maintenance from ladders with grade level access and where rooftop equipment is positioned to permit its maintenance from the roof surface, provides sufficiency of compliance with the provisions of Article of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). This Article requires that, where maintenance and window cleaning are intended to be undertaken from the exterior of the building, an anchor system must be provided where any portion of the roof is more than 8 m above the ground level. The Article continues by describing the design and testing requirements for anchor systems and the composition of materials to be used. It also permits the use of other anchor systems provided that an equivalent level of safety will be provided. For the building subject to this dispute, it is intended that maintenance and window cleaning activities will be performed from the exterior of the building. In addition, the height of the structure slightly exceeds the 8 m criterion outlined in the Code as being the height at which an anchor system shall be installed. Despite this, no anchor system is being proposed as it is the owners intention to carry out maintenance and window washing from ladders with grade level access. In addition, rooftop equipment has been set back from the parapet to allow for regular maintenance without the need to approach the edge of the roof.

3 -3-4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Anchor Systems on Building Exterior (1) Where maintenance and window cleaning operations are intended to be carried out on the exterior of a building described in Article , anchor systems shall be provided where any portion of the roof is more than 8 m (26 ft 3 in) above adjacent ground level. (2) Except as provided in Sentence (3), the anchor systems in Sentence (1) shall be designed, installed and tested in conformance with CSA Standard Z91, Safety Code for Window Cleaning Operations. (3) Other anchor systems may be used where such systems provide an equal level of safety. (4) The anchor system material shall be made of stainless steel, aluminum, or other corrosion resistant base material, or from steel that is hot dipped galvanised, in accordance with CSA Standard G164-M81, Hot Dip Galvanising of Irregularly Shaped Articles. 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant acknowledged that the Building Code requires a roof anchor system be provided where a building exceeds 8 m in height. He also acknowledged that the subject building exceeds this height, although marginally. He emphasized however that there are two contrary pieces of provincial legislation governing the matter of maintenance to the exterior of a building, namely the Ontario Building Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. In this regard, he advised the Commission that the Occupational Health and Safety Act permits work to be carried out from ladders up to 13 m high. In addition, workers on ladders at this height are exempt from the requirement to be protected by a fall arrest system provided that the ladders are securely fastened or stabilized to prevent tipping or falling. He also argued that, in this Act, a fall arrest system is not prescribed in situations where workers are not required to come closer than 3 m to the edge of a roof that is located more than 3 m above the next highest surface. He submitted that both of these provisions are intended to be met in this situation. Ladders, he argues, will be secured and it has been demonstrated that all required maintenance can be undertaken from ladders or a surface not more than 3 m above the adjacent level. As a further argument in support of the omission of an anchor system, the Agent submitted that Sentence (1) of the OBC permits the use of systems not described in the Code provided that a level of performance is achieved in keeping with its intent. He suggested that ladders, and a program that limits access to the edge of the roof, will provide a level of performance in keeping with the intent of Article In respect to the provision of equivalents, the Agent acknowledged that Section 2.7. excludes Part 4 requirements, however, Article , Building Designs, permits designs not specifically described in Part 4. In summation the Agent submitted that, while the Building Code may require the installation of an anchor system, the Occupational Health and Safety Act does not require it to be used, provided that safe working practices are implemented. He suggested that, if installed, the anchors would not likely be used since the owners intend to conduct maintenance from ladders at ground level.

4 -4-6. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the Code is specific in requiring that buildings exceeding 8 m in height be equipped with an anchor system when maintenance and window washing are to be carried out from the exterior. He argued that he did not consider ladders to be an alternative anchor system. The roof anchors are safety features and to accept anything less than the minimum Code requirement could potentially create an unsafe situation. The Building Code is intended to offer all available safety measures and if this building were to be permitted to exempt an anchor system, employees would not be afforded any choice in how to conduct their work. In addressing the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Respondent argued that at no point does this Act exempt a building from being equipped with safety features required by the Building Code. In addition, he stated that the two pieces of legislation are not necessarily in conflict since the Ontario Building Code is meant to address new construction whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act governs all existing working conditions. The building which is subject to this dispute is being newly constructed and therefore must comply with the provisions of the OBC. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the omission of a roof anchoring system, where window washing and maintenance is intended to be carried out from ladders with grade level access and where equipment is positioned to permit rooftop maintenance without approaching the parapet, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Ontario Building Code at Northumberland Health Care Corporation, 1000 De Palma Drive, Cobourg, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) Portions of the roof of the building complex are located such that they minimally exceed the requirement of 8 m above ground level. Sentence (1) requires that, where this situation occurs, an anchor system shall be provided. ii) No alternative anchoring systems or safety features were proposed which would allow for a finding of sufficiency of compliance with Article

5 -5- Dated at Toronto this 24th day in the month of January in the year 2002 for application number Michael Steele, Chair-Designate Robert De Berardis Fred Barkhouse