Ontario fire loss statistics for the risk-cost assessment model

Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la

première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at

PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.

https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

Internal Report (National Research Council of Canada. Institute for Research in Construction), 1992-02

READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright

NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=f5f8ae49-4325-4cec-bbac-ca35e9152bec https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=f5f8ae49-4325-4cec-bbac-ca35e9152bec

For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous.

https://doi.org/10.4224/20358665

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at

Ontario fire loss statistics for the risk-cost assessment model

R427

no. 6 2 c. 2

BLDG

Council Canada de recherches Canada L "7)

Institute for lnstitut de Research in recherche en Construction Construction

Ontario Fire

Loss

Statistics

for the Risk-Cost Assessment

Model

by S. Mailvaganam, D. Yung and M. Prencipe '

Internal Report No. 622

Date of issue: February 1992

Office of the Fire Marshal of Ontario. Toronto

This is an internal report of the lnstitute for Research in Construction. Although not intended for general distribution, it may be cited as a reference in other publications

S. Mailvaganam, D. Yung and M. EVencipe*

ABSTRACT

F i e loss statistics at the Ontario Fire Marshal's Office in Toronto were retrieved to find relevant data for the risk-cost assessment model which is being developed at the National Fire Laboratory. The risk-cost assessment model is a computer model that can be used to assess the cost effectiveness of f i e safety provisions in highrise buildings.

Statistical data needed include the probabilities of fire starts; the types of fires; the

effectiveness of alarm and sprinkler systems in saving lives; and the response and set-up time of fire departments. The determination of set-up time was carried out in a separate study through collaboration with Ontario f i e departments. The present report documents and discusses the findings of these two studies.

Abstract

...

i Introduction

...

1 Methodology

...

2 Fire Incidence

...

3 Fire Type

...

5

...

a) Apartment Buildings 5

...

i) Property Loss 5 ii) Extent of Fire Spread

...

5

...

b) Office Buildings 5

...

i) Property Loss 5 ii) Extent of Fire Spread

...

5

Fire Protection

...

22 a) Apartment Buildings

...

22

. .

b) Office Buildings

...

22 F i e Services

...

29

...

a) Response Time 29

...

b) Set-up Time 30 Conclusions and Recommendations

...

42

Acknowledgements

...

42 Appendices

A) Fire Reporting Documentation

...

A-l i) Fire Loss Reporting System

ii) Fire Safety Report

B) Apartment Dwelling Statistics

...

B-1 C) Fire Department Survey List

...

C-1

by

S. Mailvaganam, D. Yung and M. Prencipe

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few years, the National Fire Laboratory of the National Research Council of Canada has been developing risk-cost assessment models that can be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of fue safety provisions in highrise buildings. These models

use

both mathematical models based on physical laws, and probabilistic models based on statistical data, to determine the

fie

risks and protection costs in highrise buildings.

The purpose of this study was to obtain Ontario fire loss statistics on apartment and office building fires for the development of the risk-cost assessment models. Four major areas of statistics were needed:

i) F i e Incidence: to predict the probabilities of fire starts.

ii) Fire Types: to predict the probabilities of occurrence of three types of fues (smouldering, non-flashover and flashover).

iii) F i e Protection: to predict the effectiveness of alarm and sprinkler systems in saving lives.

iv) F i e Service: to predict the response and set-up times of

f i e

departments.

The study focused on

fm

loss statistics for the province of Ontario where these statistics are gathered and processed at the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM). It is from the

OFM that fire reporting documents are circulated to fire departments across Ontario (samples of the fire reporting documents

are

shown in Appendix A). Statistical data obtained are then entered into a database called the

Fire

Loss Reporting System (FLRS). Unlike the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) in the U.S., which captures roughly one-third of U.S. f i e s each year and extrapolates the rest, the FLRS documents

aU

fues

that occur in Ontario. The current FLRS database spans from 1983 to the present and

publications regarding

f i e

losses are

issued annually by the OFM based on this data.

As well as the FLRS, the OFM maintains a second database, called the F i e Safety Report (FSR) database. This database contains detailed information on some f i e s which were investigated by the OFM during the years 1984 to 1987. The fires investigated were of a significant nature and include fatal fues, large loss fires, suspected incendiary fires and explosions. A sample of the form used by the f i e investigators is also shown in Appendix

A.

All

four groups of fue statistics, excluding data on fire department set-up time, were obtained from both the FLRS and the FSR databases. Set-up time is not recorded on either database and was obtained separately through the f i e departments. Other

supplementary statistics, such as office space and number of apartment units, were obtained from outside sources.

database set-ups, its strengths and weaknesses, and the discrepancies that exist between each database.

The Fire Loss Reporting System (FLRS) is a mainframe database located at the Queen's Park central processing area. It contains information on all reported fues in the province of Ontario

as

collected by district fue departments. Retrieval of statistics on this system can be tedious and time consuming as every submission for retrieval must be sent to Queen's Park before being processed. Currently, this antiquated system is being phased out and a network fde-server system is being implemented at the OFM. It should be noted that the 1987 FLRS files were lost and partially reconstructed. At the time of retrieval, it was not known to what degree the files were restored.

The Fire Safety Report (FSR) database is a PC-based system that is run by the program DbaseIV. The fires contained in the FSR are a small subset of those in the FLRS, and are those that have been investigated by the OFM during the years 1984 to 1987. The

FSR

fires

include fatal fues, large loss fires, suspected incendiary fires and explosions.

Because of the nature of the fues, the FSR database is highly biased towards more significant fires. However, information in the FSR database was provided by trained investigators from the OFM. Therefore, the FSR database has more detailed information and is considered to be more accurate than the FLRS.

Few discrepancies exist between the FLRS and FSR databases, except in the area of alarm systems. The Standard Fire Report, which is the basis for the FLRS, is

ambiguous, especially with respect to alarms. As a result of this ambiguity, a large number of inconsistencies in the reporting may have resulted.

From the FLRS database, statistics on fire incidence, property loss, alarm and sprinkler systems, injuries, deaths, and response time can be obtained. From the FSR database, all of the aforementioned (except response time) information, including the extent of fue spread, is obtainable.

Since data in the FSR database is limited to the time period from 1984 to 1987, any data extracted from the FLRS database ideally should also be from the same four years to facilitate comparison. It was not possible to do this as the sample size of four years was not large enough to

see

definite trends or established patterns. It was decided that, where possible, the tables based on the FLRS would be compiled for the maximum period available, from 1983 to 1990, to increase the size of the data set. However, to allow for proper comparison with the FSR data, tables based on the FLRS were also compiled for the shorter time period, from 1984 to 1987. It should be noted that the one table that could not be derived from the FLRS database was the Extent of Fire Spread table, as this

information pertained strictly to the FSR database.

Most of the information in both databases is codified based on a set of standard codes. These codes characterize such things as area of fue origin, source of ignition, material first ignited and property classification. As this study deals strictly with apartment

and office buildings, the codes most closely characterizing these types of structures were used. For apartment buildings, the codes for Multi-Unit Dwellings (two or greater, Property Classifications 131-133) were used; and for office buildings, the Property Classification for General Office Buildings (531) was used. The Multi-Unit Dwelling categories do not include any rooming, boarding and lodging houses or attached dwellings such as rowhouses or townhouses.

In some tables, the category "unknown" will appear. Occurrences in this category indicate that information was not available but the incident has been included in the total to give an indication of the number of fires in a given breakdown.

Supplemental data, such as number of apartment units and available office space, were required to construct some of the tables. Reference was made to Statistics Canada tables to determine the number of apartment units in Ontario. Unfortunately, statistics in the tables only listed apartment buildings five storeys or greater which was not consistent with the building types being surveyed in the fire loss databanks. Through the Ontario Ministry of Treasury and Economics, it was possible to obtain pertinent data on the number of apartment units in Ontario from the 1986 census data (see Appendix B).

The search for comprehensive data on total office space in Ontario was not as successful. Many private agencies, such as Canadata, had summary statistics on

construction starts on an annual basis but none had cumulative data. The only information that could be found was a survev bv Roval L e P a ~ e in 1989 on Canadian real estate in maior urban centres (The Royal ~ e ~ a g e

arkk kt

~ u r v e g Canadian Real Estate, 1989). For

J

Ontario, this report lists office space only for the Toronto and Ottawa/Carleton areas. Another roadblock was encountered when trying to locate statistics on the number of people living in units that had sprinkler systems, no sprinklers, alarms, or no alarms and combinations thereof. These statistics, to be used in the evaluation of fire protection systems, were still unavailable at the time of writing.

One area of study dealt with fire department set-up time. This issue was addressed in a separate study as set-up time was not recorded in either database. The methodology that was used will be addressed in the Fire Services section of this report.

FIRE INCIDENCE

Due to insufficient data on apartment units and office space, Table 1 on rate of fue

incidence could not be assembled to completion. For apartment buildings, only 1986 figures on apartment units were available (Appendix B) and therefore only 1986 f m s were tabulated. The number 2.16E-03 represents the rate of fire starts per apartment unit. For office buildings, only 1989 figures on office space were available, as mentioned

previously, and hence only 1989 fires were tabulated. Moreover, only office space for the Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa areas were available and therefore only fires for those two cities were tabulated. The number 7.68E-6 represents an estimate of the number of fire starts per square metre of office space.

Fire Incidence for Apartment and Office Buildings in Ontario

Office statistics apply only to the Regions of Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton.

" Rate is the no. of fires per apartment unit or per sq. rn office space.

... .. . .. . ... .. . . :::...:::?i:.s-:iiy* ... _{... .. : ::: : . . . . . ...} 1986 1989' ; : " ~ ; g $ ~ , : ~ ~ ~ ~. .. . Apartment O f f i i 2,300 110 881,675 units 14,325,600 ~ q . m 2.61 E-03 7.68E-08

FIRE TYPE

a) Apartment Buildings

i) Property Loss (Tables 2-7)

In these tables, fire death rates are shown in $1,000 property loss intervals. Any significant changes in death rate can be regarded as indicators of changes in fire type. For buildings without sprinklers, the FLRS tables ( 2 and 4) show a general increase in death rate with property loss; whereas the FSR table (6) shows,

as

expected, no definite trend in death

rate

due to the smaller size of the database and the skewed nature of the data sample. For buildings with sprinklers, both the FLRS tables (3 and 5) and the FSR table (7) show no definite trend in death rate. This is possibly because the data set for buildings with sprinklers is small. Also, in buildings with sprinklers, a simple correlation between death

rate and property loss may not exist since property loss can be caused not only by fire but also by sprinkler action.

When comparing the FLRS 1983-90 data with the FLRS 1984-87 data, a definite smoothing of the trend can be seen. This may be attributed to the increase in sample size.

The FSR data is a subset of the FLRS data. As such, the number of fires and deaths in the FSR database should always be less than those in the FLRS database. In Tables 4 and 6, this is not the case for the intervals $3,000-$3,999 and $9,000-$9,999. This may be explained by the fact that definitions of sprinkler and alarm systems are not completely congruous between the two databases and interpretation may vary resulting in the same incident being reported differently in each of the databases.

ii) Extent of Fire Spread (Tables 14-15)

In these tables, death rates are shown in terms of the extent of fue spread, based on the FSR data. For buildings without sprinklers (Table 14), there is a noticeable jump in death rate from "Confined to Object" to "Confined to Floor", corresponding to the change from non-flashover to flashover fires. For buildings with sprinklers (Table 15), the results also show that there is a jump in death rate from "Confined to Object" to "Confined to Floor". However, with sprinkler protection, most fires are confined to the room of fire origin.

It should be noted that the FSR data, as was mentioned earlier, is biased towards significant fires. The number of "non-flashover" and "flashover" fues that can be derived from Table 14 for buildings without sprinklers, based on the extent of fire spread, cannot be generalized. Table 14 can only be used as a reference for significant fues.

b) Office Buildings

i) Property Loss (Table 8-13)

When examining results for office buildings, it is clear that the sample size is too small to see any significant characteristics. The death rate is almost non-existent and therefore cannot be used to indicate any changes in fire size.

ii) Extent of Fire Spread (Tables 16-17)

The lack of numbers available also makes it difficult to see anv trends.

Nevertheless, the use of sprinklers does seem to limit fire spread to thk room of fire origin for office buildings, as is the case for apartment buildings.

Table

2

Fires in Apartment Buildings: 1983-90

Fires in Apartment Buildings: 1983-90 With Sprinkler System [Using FLRS]

Fires in Apartment Buildings: 1984-87 Without Sprinkler System [Using FLUS]

Fires in Apartment Buildings: 1984-87 With Sprinkler System [Using FLRS]

.:. ..property.~(j~~$)~:;.. 0 - 999 1,000

-

1,999 2,000 - 2,999 3,000

-

3.999 4,000 - 4.999 5,000

-

5,999 6,000 - 6,999 7,000

-

7,999 8,000 - 8,999 9,000 - 9,999 10,000+ . . . . . . _... . ... . _{. . .} o a . ' . . : : ' . . . . . ~ . . . . .. . . . ~ . . . . . .. .. . I : : , : . : .:

'Rms

.,:~::$j;.,. 2.192 236 117 66 36 49 24 18 18 10 1 72 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

,

.. . . . ~ ...; . . . . . , , .:: . :No;.& D ~ a t ~ s : ' : ~ ~ . , f ; : : : ~ a t ~ ~ ~ , ~ r ~ ~ . ; , ; . . 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 16 : . : .:",~~.:::::'l,~~.:;,.:.., . . . . . ... . _{. . .. . .} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.46 4.24 8.55 0.00 55.56 20.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.02 :;.I . _. :;:<.: . _{: . ::}: . ~ .;,. _{'. . :.} 7,&!:<;j,; ~ . . ;::;. ,:,. .

Fires in Apartment Buildings: 1984-87

Fires in Apartment Buildings: 1984-87

Fires in Office Buildings: 1983-90

Fires in Office Buildings: 1983-90

With Sprinkler System [Using FLRSJ

P m P w b (S)

f

No.ofFkes

I

No.

of

D e w

1

DeethaflOOOFlres

Fires in Office Buildings: 1984-87

Fires in Office Buildings: 1984-87 With Sprinkler System [Using FLRS]

Fires in Office Buildings:

1984-87

Fires

in

Office Buildings: 1984-87 With Sprinkler System [Using FSR]

Property

Loss

($1

0

-

999 1,000

-

1,999 2,000 - 2,999 3,000 - 3,999 4,000 - 4,999 5,000

-

5,999 6,000 - 6,999 7,000

-

7,999 8,000

-

8,999 9,000 - 9,999 10,000+ Total

No.

of Fires 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 9

No.

of Deaths 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

f

DeatW1000 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fire Damage I Probability in Apartment Buildings: 1984-87 Without Sprinkler System [Using FSR]

. ... ..::.. ..: Externof Fii&:,,sprea@.:!:,,:: . . Confined to object Confined to room of fire origin Confined to floor of fire origin Confined to other floors Confined to entire building Undetermined .... . . .. .. . 'Tot$l:,: ;:::.?. : . . . .. . . . . . _{. .} ::.: N & ~ ~ , ' F ~ ~ s " : : , 90 134 75 28 24 12 . . , , , ' . ~ : 363~,,~,?~3;:,,:~.(.:.,: . : ; ~ ; : : ~ f : ~ a t ~ : ; : : j ; ~ i , ~ ~ h s / 1 M)o~~&~;; 8 29 21 7 7 3 . , . , , . 88.89 216.42 280.00 250.00 291.67 250.00

Fire Damage / Probability in Apartment Buildings: 1984--87 With Sprinkler System [Using FSR]

iiExtentdf Fir6.Spread::::l.~:f.::,:

No.of:.,fires.'i:;:

. i ~ . ' : ~ ~ ~ i f : : ; ,

1 1 1 0 0 0 Confined to object Confined to room of fire origin Confined to floor of fire origin Confined to other floors Confined to entire building Undetermined . . . . . _{. .} . . .... . .. . _... . : . . : .. . : : ~ . . . . , , .,. i;:,D@athsf1O~,fiwjz:~ . . . 38.46 55.56 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26 18 4 0 0 3 : . . .

g<;:::.,::

. , . . :,, , : . : : . 3 ::::;:::;.,{;,.: . . ..:.58~82.j:.'.:;::;:.':. J

Fire Damage 1 Probability in Office Buildings: 1984-87 Without Sprinkler System [Using FSR]

. Exlent . . . of

FireSprea::

i..

Confined to object Confined to room of fire origin Confined to floor of fire origin Confined to other floors Confined to entire building Undetermined . ...: . . . . . . ..Total; ::. : : ( : . . . . . . . . . . _.: . : ; . N~;.d'oms::.j;:j 5 5 7 3 1 1 . . _{. . . . .. .} . . 2 : . . . . . ,ix,No; of:l)e~hs-~ 0 0 0 1 0 0 . !, : . ..I , : . : ;xDeaths/jOOO;fimsi::i;: . . . . . 0.00 0.00 0.00 333.33 0.00 0.00 . : : &t)5 j::: ::,: 1 . : :: . . . .. ...

Fire Damage 1 Probability in Office Buildings: 1984-87 With Sprinkler System [Using FSR]

Confined to object

Confined to room

Confined to floor

The original intention of this analysis was to show the fm death rate of each of the four categories of fue protection as a ratio of the number of fire deaths occurring to the number of people living in that category. This would illustrate the relative significance of the data. Unfortunately, statistics on the number of people living in these categories do not exist. Consequently, the death rate is given

as

a ratio of the number of

fm

deaths to the number of

fue

incidents that occurred in each category.

During retrieval of these statistics, it became apparent that major discrepancies exist between the FLRS and the FSR databases with respect to alarm installation and activation. Again, a possible explanation could be the inconsistent definitions of alarm systems as are pointed out in the tables.

b) Office Buildings ( ~ a b l e s 21-23)

For office buildings, many of the above-noted observations apply. However, since there are no deaths recorded in this category, the tables do not demonstrate any patterns.

Fire Deaths in Apartment Buildings: 1983-90

[Using FLUS]

Alarm refers to incidents where an alarm system was available or installed but not necessarily used or activated.

Alarm* NO Alarm . . . ... ... ... :.:.: > !...~ :.. ::. ... _{... ...*. ... ...}

.o&*;...Rm

:;$$g:?z:+.;<z$$$$@i

:~::: ... _{. . .} ... ... ... >... ... : ... ..<; ... .<... <.. . _{. . . .} 181321 3=5.60E-03 13127834.67E-03

. . * & ~ ~ . ; ; < ; s . & $ : ; ~ ~ g ~ . ~ g j ;

. . . 81/4989=1.62E-02 145191 73-1.58E-02

[Using

FLRS]

Alarm refers to incidents where an alann system was available

or installed but not necessarily used or activated.

AI;vm* NO Alarm . . . ...<. _{... ...} ... %.*. <. :.: ... :;. ... ~~::~i':j.":'-';:::;.:':::::.::.;~;iI::;~j::i:3:. . . . ... _:.~... !~ ... ... ~: ... ... . . . ... . . .

-

.... ... _... Sprimw ... :::.::::. : ... :: ... ... ... ... . . . : ... 15/1435=10.45E-03 711503~4.66E-03 :.. :.:~.: ..:. ~.:. NdnSme'red;:l::ii . . . . 35/2184=> .60E-02 79/4743=1.67E-02

Alarm refers to incidents where an alarm system was installed in the area of fire origin.

" Sprinklered refers to a sprinkler system installed in the area of fire origin.

Alarm* No Alarm . . . . . _{. . .} . . . . . . . _{. . .} . . . : ... _... * : . : : : : , . : . , : : . : : , : . : i ~ : .::.. ... . . . . . . .. . . . : ;.:.~pri&[ed?:,:,::;i- 1139=2.56E-02 1/12=8.33E-02 . . iii:c;:i~ohiw~Idered . . . ::;{::I; 381131 =2.90E-01 371232=1.59E-01

Fire Deaths in Office Buildings: 1983-90

[Using FLRS]

Alarm refers to incidents where an alarm system was available or installed but not necessarily used or activated.

Alarm' NO A1;lrm . . . ... !... _... .,: . . . . ....$. -.. ::~<: : : . z ~ : 2 :::: :-.::i;i::t:~:a.:&~~;!.::Rat~.:$f;;$~;:.jj"i;;ij~~$~rg~;g~ . . . ... . . . ... ... ... _{... ... . . . sprimred}

_;SF&;:

. . . . 0/264=0.00E+00 0/232=0.00E+00 ; ~ ; - ; i : : ~ Q R S ~ r & i ~ ~ j 011 31 =O.OOE+OO 1/51 2=1.95E-03

Fire Deaths in Office Buildings: 1984-87 [Using FLRS]

Alarm refers to incidents where an alarm system was available or installed but not necessarily used or activated.

Alarm'

NO Alarm

:.~.: _,... ... ~ ~ :.:..:::.:.:.: ... ... . :... .:....:..:.:.... :...:: .:.

: ...,...$. ~::::s.::.:;z2::<<;:~;.~.$:.@;: _{. .. . . . .::. ... ... :..} ~ ...~.. . .... ... . ,:Rafe;.;: :' .~:<.:~;.:::i.: .;: :: ::.; :.:.:> ::<$> :::z:::*2;::.z:::ji:

. .~. _{.. .} . . ... ...~. . . . . . . ... ..~ ...:;..; ~ :,::z...,..: ... ~.~ ... ~..~..< .... :... ~... . . ~ . .... ... . ... ., ~.~ . .. .. ....,... ~. ...~.. . . . ....:.:. .,: ., :.:.:::...

::

.:: .. . . : : : : : : : : : . , : i ~ ~ , ; ~ ~ ~ < ; ; ~ : . . . .. . . . ~ ~ . . . .~. .

;jj;;:;j:$;;:m-e;g$-

011 10=0.00E+00 0/52=0.00E+00 0/107=0.00E+00 1/235=4.26E-03

[Using FSR]

Alarm refers to incidents where an alarm system was installed In the area of fire origin.

" Sprinklered refers to a sprinkler system installed in the area of fire origin.

Alarm' NO Alarm . . . ... _{. . . .... ....} ... ... _{. . .} ::: De& ::R*,'.;i;i'::':i"::;:.';:.,,;:.j~ ... : {.2? . . . _... ... : . . . . . : :Spdnklered?:i,;:;;;;i: . . . 0/4=0.00€+00 0/2=0.00E+00 . . . . . . : ... $;ti$N~nSpriwered ::::;:: . . 0/6=0.00€+00 1/16=6.25€-02

begins is composed of five separate time steps:

(1) Alarm initiation or notification time starts with fm ignition and ends when the fire department gets the notification of the

fm.

(2) Dispatch time is the time it takes for the fmt crew to be alerted of the fue after the

alarm is received by the dispatcher.

(3) Preparation time is the time it takes the fuefighters to get ready.

(4) Response or travel time is the time it takes the fire crew to travel to the scene of the fue. The response time can be retrieved from the FLRS.

(5) Set-up time begins when the firefighters arrive at the scene and ends when they begin fire suppression operations. This information was not available and had to be

obtained through a combination of on-site timing and fire department enquiry.

All of the above information is useful because it provides an indication of the degree

to which fire department response time affects the consequences of the fire (with respect to injury, deaths, and property loss). Two areas of fire service fall into the scope of this study: response time and set-up time.

a)

Response Time

It is important to note that response time alone cannot measure the effectiveness of the fire service. The response time is complemented by a number of other factors:

(1) Average response time: dependent on incident location, region, response area and degree of hazard.

(2) Weighted average response time: gives specific focus to particular areas.

(3) Availability: measures how often response time is delayed because closest company is at another location.

(4) Initial response adequacy: measures the proportion of alarms for which the initial -

-

response is appropriate.

( 5 ) Workload: measured in number of responses per day and average time working per

day.

i) Apartment Buildings (Tables 24-27)

For units with or without sprinklers, the majority of responses took less than 8 minutes with the bulk of the occurrences being res~onded to in 2 to 3 minutes. The total dollar loss, however, increased significantly for-buildings without sprinklers. Similar increases can be seen in the injury and death categories.

ii) Office Buildings (Tables 28-31)

With office buildings, the majority of responses took place in less than 5 minutes, as opposed to the 8 minutes for apartment buildings. This could be a result of the fact that most office space is centrally located and usually within close proximity to fire stations. Again, an increase in dollar losses was observed for buildings without sprinklers, although not as dramatic as for apartment buildings.

required. Used in the risk-cost assessment model, these estimates will help in the assessment of the probability of fire extinguishment at various stages of fire growth.

Set-up time, which is defined as the time from when the fue department anives at the scene of the fire to when suppression of the fue begins, is controlled by many factors. These include:

- time of day,

-

weather and traffic conditions,

- location of hydrant and size of water main,

-

apparatus and man-power available,

- _{location and extent of fire,}

- _{building height and type of construction,}

-

water supply,

- _{number and age of occupants,} - highrise plan availability,

- presence of sprinkler system,

- ability to ventilate,

- temperature (stack effect),

- life hazard,

-

type of fire department (full-time, composite or volunteer).

Since variances in the above list can be large, the range of possible set-up times can also be large. It is therefore important to establish

a

range of set-up times that would take into account the best and worst case scenarios and would be based on factors that are similar to actual fue conditions.

It was decided that the best way to attack the problem of defining an accurate. range of set-up times would be to go out into the field and time a crew setting up under specific, pre-defined conditions.

After consultation with the Fire Advisory Services Division of the Ontario

F

i

r

e

Marshal's Office, three scenarios were devised that would encompass the normal operations of a fire department fighting a highrise fire.

The Mississauga Fire Department provided the crew and facilities. This included six fuefighters, two training officers, one pumper, one aerial and the Mississauga F i e Department Training Centre's mock highrise building.

All three scenarios had the following common components:

-

four man crew including Captain,

-

fourth storey level of fire origin,

- _{standpipe system with hose cabinets installed,} - _{standpipe Siamese connection on front of building,}

-

central conidor building type,

-

extent of fire spread limited to room of fire origin,

went into the building while the driver stayed with the vehicle. This evolution took 3 min 56 sec or approximately 4 min from arrival to suppression and represents a best-case scenario.

Scenario No. 2: The firefighters arrived at the scene to find the closest hydrant inoperable (the next closest hydrant was located 500 ft away), the floor of fire origin completely filled with smoke and the standpipe was dry. The crew proceeded to station a man at the operational hydrant and lay approximately 350 ft of 100 mm, high ball hose from the hydrant to the pumper and the remaining 150 ft with 65 mm hose from the pumper to the standpipe connection. This portion took 4 min 5 sec. At this point, the captain and one other firefighter went into the building where they began fire suppression activities. This portion took 1 min 28 sec for a total time of 6 min 33 sec. Although certainly not representative of the worst case scenario, the time gives an indication of the delay involved when certain conditions are less than ideal.

Scenario No. 3: This was proposed in order to estimate the set-up time when the type of vehicle and fm fighting tactics were changed. This time an aerial or truck with ladder apparatus was used and the fire fighting strategy turned from offensive to defensive. Given the varied time it takes to hook-up the hydrant to the vehicle, only the set-up time of the ladder was measured. This evolution, which included aerial set-up by remote control at the base of the ladder and then positioning the water nozzle toward the fire (i.e.

suppression), took 3 min 17

sec.

Summary of Set-up Times

Scenario Conditions Time (min:sec)

1 - use of standpipe system only 3:56

-

clear visibility

2 - first hydrant inoperable 6:33

- smoke-filled floor

- standpipe dry

3 - aerial apparatus used 3:17

The second phase of the set-up time determination was a survey of fire departments across Ontario. The knowledge gained in the field was implemented in the construction of a questionnaire that addressed issues relevant to set-up time.

The questionnaire also addressed the last point of the aforementioned list of factors influencing set-up time - i.e. type of fire department In Ontario, there are 656 fire

departments of which 34 are full-time, 100 are composite (a combination of full-time and volunteers), and 522 are exclusively volunteer. The percentages are, respectively, 5%,

highrise fire fighting tactics. Volunteer fuefighters, on the other hand, are usually from rural areas and may not be trained in techniques of highrise fue fighting. In addition, equipment availability and water supply can also cause large discrepancies in set-up time.

In order to account for the discrepancies between fire departments, a list of fue departments was compiled to represent the distribution of full-time, composite and

volunteer departments across Ontario (see Appendix C for the list). The questionnaire was then circulated to these fm departments and the differences in answers observed. Before the questionnaire was sent, a phone call was made to the department chief or deputy chief to request their cooperation.

Fire Deoartment Set-uo Time Ouestionnaire

Scenario: high-rise building, residential standpipe system with hose cabinets, standpipe Siamese connection on front of building, hydrant located 38 m away from front of building, pumper located

15 m from standpipe connection, one pumper with a crew of four, level of fue origin: fourth storey, building type: central conidor. Set-up time definition: Set-up time will commence from the point of taking the hydrant,

the pumper laying hose to the building, hooking into the Siamese connection for the standpipe system and charging it with water. The fuefighters will proceed to lay out 38 mm hose from the

standpipe cabinet to the apartment on fire and playing water. Set- up time will stop the instant water is played by the firefighters at the apartment

For the given scenario:

1. What is the average set-up time for fire suppression operation?

2. What would the average set-up time be if:

a) the building was an office building? or

b) the fire originated on the 7th storey? 8th storey? or C) the building was of centre core construction? or

d) the hydrant was further than 38

rn

away (next closest)?

3 . What other factors affect set-up time? By how much?

4. What would be an average dispatch/preparation/travel time?

5 . Indicate whether water supply line was 100 mm or 65 mm hose.

During the phone call stage, it became apparent that almost

all

of the volunteer fue departments had never been involved in any highrise building fires and usually did not even have highrise buildings in their geographical area This is to be expected since the majority of volunteer departments are located in rural areas.

The results, therefore, are largely compiled from full-time and composite departments but will be representative since the areas which contain these types of departments are far more likely to have highrise buildings.

per floor was 1 min but the time decreased if a firefighters' elevator were available.

It was found that type of construction did not affect set-up time to a significant degree although, in an open concept office building, it would be much easier to locate the hose cabinets and, as a result, decrease the time to suppression.

The answers to Question 2d were not as consistent as the others. Some fire chiefs believed that the distance from the fire scene to the next closest hydrant should not make a difference in set-up time because it was the pump operator's responsibility on a four man crew and would not slow the overall set-up process. Others, however, felt that there should be an extra 10-15 sec allotted for every 15 m the hydrant was farther away from the scene of the fue.

Question No. 3 was not answered by any of the respondents as it was felt that too much guess work would be involved in estimating the influence of a list of factors on the

The answers to Question No. 4 included the following: dispatch times ranged from 60-90 sec, preparation time ranged from 30-60 sec, and travel times ranged from 2-5 min. These figures are more representative of full-time fire departments since volunteers get notified of fires at their place of work or at home and get dressed on the run or after they anive at the scene.

In general, the water supply line from the hydrant to the pumper would be 100 m while the line from the pumper to the Siamese connection would be 65 mm.

In conclusion, it is important to note that while it was possible to obtain actual numbers for many of the questions, conditions during a fire can be so varied that an exact

prediction of a set-up time is impossible. It is far better to work with ranges that would take into account the factors of variance at a fire scene.

No Sprinkler Installed [Using FLRS] ". Response time..: . . . ... . _{. . .} minutes, . :;;;:: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ Unknown i . : I . . Tots : . . . . . :i:.No.,ot.O.~~, . . . .~~;.(-;:g~~;~i.;: .

:.::

15 49 70 46 24 7 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 i i : ; 226:. . . : :- . . . :.No.of _{. . .}

Fires

:.:

. . . : , ... _{. . .} 1,122 3,365 4,209 2,854 1.311 457 205 89 30 41 6 4 8 4 8 4 1 2 0 22 419 4 , . i:':::::'Elw,t968i:;:iii ::?::: . & ~ ~ i i , z i i j ~ , ~ ~ 7,440.437 34,559,661 35,439,343 26,521,338 11,787,878 4,374,478 2,965,208 981,488 790,931 993,794 145,800 11 0,600 102.950 90,200 501,350 133,400 300 50,200 0 235,716 3,036,541 ti.:,.130,268,61&!::: ... No. of lnjuttas.'::: . . . ..: ,.! :;:.i:;::::.. ... 187 727 832 567 287 86 39 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 . ;.2,748 ,:'::..:.i'. . . .

Sewice in Apartment Buildings: 1983-90 Sprinklers Installed [Using FLRS] -....R-tkne ..~... ... ... _{. ~ ~ .} :, . . ,..., . :::: .,.: . , , .... , : : . ,

..:?~l~

.:: ;..~:<:: ....,,.,,,.,,.,, ': . R.F?::;. . . . . . . . . _{. .} 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ Unknown ... .. ... .::..:;:.. . . ~ ... ~ : : : : . : ' : ; : . . : . : . . . . .

>:Notot,-:;:

:: . :..::..:.... . : :g$$:.:$T;<j;iEg$ .. . 2 9 14 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5iii:i': ::3q ...:?$! ;':>::' ;><;: M,&flnre:;i,: : . : . , : : : : . :

mm.::2:.:;.-~.;;;;;.:::;;;;;;;;;~;z.:!;;+;

. . .~. . . . . . 833 1,654 1,624 1,039 51 1 166 49 19 4 15 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 33 43 .. .... . . I . .

gs$m;Lw#i:'s;;ii

,,,,,,,,,, ;;, ,,

-:;;;;3,$;:&ms$&g

. . . . . 2,079,402 3,883,366 6,032,627 670,888 1,167,068 1,183,542 265,211 25.m 1,370 22,510 2,000 0 1 1.oOO 0 150 0 200 0 45.580 38,861 :;~:,:,ii;f:;..:~,:~7:4,962~).:j:;::::~ . I t :;;:Nr).i:Qf

!n&l"&$;:::

. : : : : . : . : . . : :... ::.:..::.: : ~;~$;;;~$j;;:+~;:;~~$~j$g$; ~ . . . . ... . . . 70 219 21 7 1 49 4 8 30 8 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 : . : : : . : : . : g _{. . . . . .} : : _... . :

Fire Service in Apartment Buildings: 1984-87 No Sprinkler Installed [Using FLRS]

. Besponsetime . . . . . . :.!min~&s:,:-;:i:i . . . . ... . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ Unknown : . _{. .} Total _. : : : . .::.!.No,i$fnju~&: . . . . . . ..~;:,::~,:.;:;~.~~i;j,i,ii;:~~:::;~ _{. . . . .} 116 417 41 6 286 111 32 30 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .:: .:::.~.i:::1:413:'; :~:! _{. . . .} :,.: '::t;:;.:.,N,o, . . .of . Hrij@;,:i'.;: . . . . . ; ,,?: . . ~ ~ , ; : ~ ~ ' , ~ ' , : . . , , ' . . 606 1,720 2,058 1,343 576 230 102 47 11 17 4 2 1 1 5 I 0 1 0 3 199 . .: 6,927: : : : : : _{. . . .}

+&$.;of:.&-:,.

_{. . .} . . :;~~,:;;~~::~~~::;~ji~~:;~~.::.::::,. _{. . .} 7 33 35 25 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 .;...:: : : . . : . : ?::.;;;I .... Rm;h&i..{:+;:. :: . . ~ : , , : ; & ~ : ; , ~ ~ . , ~ : : : ~ : : : ~ 3,459,975 17,280,063 14,715.302 9,824,596 4,856,644 1,555,966 902,038 243,976 22,480 316,694 60.800 35.100 80.000 7.500 271,050 80.000 0 200 0 4,151 594,633 . yl 1 6 8 ::::: . .

,

. . .

Fire Service in Apartment Buildings: 1984-87 Sprinkler Installed [Using FLRS]

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ Unknown . . . . . . ... : ... . . _{. .} ....:. :... _{. . ...} T u :~:.:;:.,:'.:::: _{. . . . ... . .} 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 31 .::;W$i.2938 . . . . .. ... .,;,;:j;::: . . . . . . . 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 ::;:,i,,:i;:;:'qfa _{. . . . . . .} ,:::iii{i:,ii, _{. . .} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iii:,;i':i$::;,:w+ _{. . . . . . . . . . .} ... 1 0 0 150 0 0 0 29,726 17,070 . > ( ' , ~ . : . , : $ ; ; , ~ : . ~ ~ B ~ m . . . . t .:. . . $,;:;:

Fire Service in Office Buildings: 1983-90

No Sprinkler Installed [Using FLRS]

..:.:R&spwsetlme:

.... ... ... , : . , m j ~ t e s : i ; : : : j . ~ : , : . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ Unknown .. :: . .. . . . . . : ,'~otal ' . . . :;<jN&'bf inj"&,.i: ... ;~~~~;j~i.,.'::~~,:;~~::i:i,:::i:i:-:i~~:~~;.;~i~:~~i;r~~~~,,<~i;:~:~,.:.<~::~<:~~~~:~~~~.~~~:~~~'~ 3 15 32 6 5 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ...::., .:;: ;,Na,of _{. . .} jZjrw:!jc:; . . . 70 1 65 188 95 47 17 13 6 0 7 0 3 0 1 1 I 0 0 0 0 29 . . . . . ji;&&.,of Deaths: _... . . . 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : , , , , : . : : . , , , . . . . . . : . : : : : ~ : ~ ~ $ . ~ : $ j $ : ~ . . . . - ;::::i:.i::&~j:~.~.:<;j;,:; 1,448,864 2,803,734 1 1,057,303 3,152,104 5,789,051 198,450 296,050 385,601 0 640.005 0 2,001 0 20,000 1,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 85,999 . . 25883'362;:;:~::.' . . . . .' t

Fire Service in Oftice Buildings: 1983-90 Sprinkler Installed [Using FLRS]

. : r ; r R ~ . . ~ : : : : .

.,.. . . -,.;<::::. . ..~.:~:.:.~::.: . . . m l ~ ; ".' , ,,, .. :... ~.:::... ,:<::: :&<, . . : : : . . . . ..:.:..:.::.. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ Unknown :... : :.: . . . ... . . . .:.. . ... :.. ::.. ... :. Tw',;.;::'!':;::::.. ~ . . . $&,:#;-; '-'-z*; <:=: :.: <:,:,;.: :.:> ..:.:; ;.. .: ...: :.:.::.:.:,.~ .:.; :.:.:;:.:>:,:*:*: ;;,;;, :+:; . : ' . : : : . : : : : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2;+;:g;,i&:i:b;;:....:, . . . , . . . . :;:,,; .;f;;,i~,.&flre&$;;.! .: :";; ,:::, ;;:. ;;.:*:::::::::"::,"-::::: :: ...~.:~.::;;.~.~[:~:::<'. ,., :.:: : ... ,,:: ., :.:: ,:*;:. :: ... ... . . : :: 81 153 133 71 31 12 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 : ~ : , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , . ~ . . : ~ $ i ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ; ~ ~ . , ~ . ~ . , ; : . ~ : . ~ ~ ; ; : . ; ~ ~ : . .

,;;mi@&g:;;jj

_{.. .... ..} 3:: i:6i;<;w

m:$,;is;

. , ,, ,~ ,, ,,,,,,,,, ; 199,938 328,247 658,189 1,155,307 437,651 45,240 952,200 1,300 300 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 86,722 ,:;:

a&(g

1=.<;:;; . ₃ ,:lg*:of.~nj"~ . ~<..<:riii::;;,;l:i:;..:<:,;,~;~:.:*: _..::.::. ... ... .a= _{..~. .~...} .... ... _{... ':.:!:<' ..: ...: : .:.} . : : : : : ; : ; 7 9 7 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ; ~ ; ~ . > ; ; , ~ . . . .

Fire Service in Office Buildings: 1984-87

;;Nij,:of,I)e&& ... _{. ... . . . . . . .. . . ..} i,i;$>3z:;g; _{. . .} :.,.,:, _{. . . .. ..:} :.;~ii:i::~.:i:;:.j::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , ::: . . : 0 :,:: : : : %Nol _{;":: :::.}

atitnjum;:il

_{. . : .:. : : : : :.:} ~ ... ~ ,:::~'‘~;.,:)~~~~~::;:;.j:i::~.;.;i;;, _{. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .} 2 1 5 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :: . : : : : . . . . . . . . . ':I.ReSpoM'limgii: .,. .. .~ .:. . . . . .~. ' . . . .. . . . :. ...; ., ~ , . . ~ . .. . .

-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20c Unknown . .. . ~ ~: ; . . t. ~ l ':j-,,::e:Fjm;:bs&:$;<:; . .. . .

i;;,

. . ; :.: :: do#=$$ii.?; . . . 91,026 142,069 255.908 561,305 43,100 40,450 800 0 300 25.000 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . .? _I 184.960 _t .:.:.:- ;~;;~b,~Fjresi:,:~~., ... .... ....::.. . .. . . ~ : ... : .i;Yf:;: _{... . .: ~~.} ';;;;.~::l' _{.. . . .} .i....j.j.;:~~:,ii; 43 76 56 25 6 5 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . , ~7 , . , : . .

and easy to use. Apart from the problems identified in the Introduction, all retrievals were successful. The FSR database contains a comprehensive documentation of fire statistics but, unfortunately, the amount of data it contains is not large enough to project general trends. The FLRS database contains a large quantity of data, but the document on which it is based, the Standard Fire Report, is in need of re-wording in order to eliminate some of its ambiguities.

With respect to the supplemental statistics, this study identified a need for more accessible data on the demographics of sprinkler and alarm systems

as

well

as

the need for statistics on office space. One information source, not explored but which may prove to be helpful, is the insurance industry which may have a breakdown of policy holders according to presence or absence of alarm and sprinkler systems.

When the results were analyzed, it became apparent that the databases are not large enough to show a clear breakdown of the type of fires. Nevertheless, the results still provide valuable information on fue incidence, the effects of alarm and sprinkler systems and the response time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the NRCC Code Development Fund for its financial support, without which this study would not have been carried out; Mr. Doug Crawford, Chief of the Technical Consulting and Research Services, Office of the Fire Marshal of Ontario, for his support and his permission for an NRCC staff member to work at the OFMO during the summer of 1991.

The authors would also like to thank various people at the OFMO for their support during the course of this investigation, especially Mr. Boyd Finger, and the training crew at the Mississauga fue department for their work on set-up time. The responses by the

various fire departments were also much appreciated.

Finally, the authors would like to thank Irene Nowakowski, Ministry of Treasury and Economics, for the information on apartment units.

FlRE OEPT REFERENCE NO

I

FlRE OEPT REFERENCE NO

I I

RESPONSE LOCATION

I t

RESPONSE TYPE OTHER RESPONSE

FlRE EXPLOSlOW OD Ass~slan~e I0 POIICO Or O t k l Ar)enClU

1 0 Rubbllh~,relNodoll~I0111 el ~~mx-smd

11 Grass Rre IN0 dvllal 9s.) 95 Olhor PubIaC Saw"

I2 C h l m n w a Flu.Faelt4o dollar loss1 $5 *urhocued F D ~ c w a ~ e d ~ s t . r t r I T ~ W W a5 I 13 Furnace or S t a s Mallunsuon -

,4 E X O ~ O S ~ O ~ (NO tlrd ALARM TO FIRE DEPARTMENT

18 *Ilmslance lo 0th- F D ~

CUmUC " N A R D t Tsbphansro F D or Csnuai DcsSstCh 2 U ~ ~ S C C V . s r e a i no= s w s m 2 0 WasMorm lHu8rdour productsl

2 1 NLuraI G.s Leak 3 ~ u (~ m a m ~ ~ ~~ o n n e c t a n t ~ to ~F D OI D s p l s h

22 PI0P.n.G.r La*. a M.~u.$ snxsm - Connectbon lo F D m Dsrmlch

23 Radbo-amwe Matsnal ProYem 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ c s ~ n n t l e r S * r f ~ m - C o n n ~ n ~ o n ~ o F . D o r D s ~ ~ l c h 29 0lh.c Dangerous G m d 50411 08 Leak 6 S t ~ l l l l u r n Wel-l CeOon l o ~ c o l l O " l

3 0 RuPtursdwale8lSteam P i p 7 Tdr0honefrom Other L m e ~ p e n c ~ I R o l e n r o n ADDDO

31 POW^ L , ~ ~ , o ~ ~ , A ~ E ~ ~ ~ s ~ a a , 32 BomblExnlor~re R e m a o i / S l a n d h 9 0 1 ~ r m a n a b a e 39 olnec I P W W . ~ m a v a RESCUE 40 vanlcle ~ n r ~ c a ~ o n 4 , ?orsoor h . ~ ~ c d 8" Llnator 4 0 D f h e r l R e l c u e ~ l ACCIDENT 5 0 VohasieINol8rol

5 1 Homeor .C l d e nI~ aI PrOPCr1v

52 CDmmerClal or Industrlai P I o D r l y

RESUSCITATOR C A W

6 0 Arphnma or Rorpramry condilmon

6 1 Corn3llons 0 6 2 tioctnc snoct

0 83 Tcaumalr Shock SurDosted

64 D r a n l n g Condlllon 6 5 Haart &%tact

66 Drug RLIaICd

6 8 Amd No! Requmrcd on Arrlral

69 0th.. lRnuscilator CBllI FALSE ALARM - MALICIOUS

,a Resmde",ma, O C C " ~ ~ " ~ " 7 1 tdwca,manat O c c u o ~ n c ~ 79 Ol".r/Mai,clo".<alr..l..mri RESPONSETIYE R L I P O N M U O PERSONNEL RESCUES

n

Pl,,.,"S Rescued REMARKS A U R Y - 110 FlRE 80 Sprini<er PrClrureChange 8 1 Detcclo~ Acavaled a2 ro.,Dmemf Mdil""CllO"

83 smoke sxcam .tc ~ ~ ~lo, trlre ~ i ~ n

8 4 U n t n a n odour inrerclgolod

8 6 A l v r n A c E ~ B e " t a l

8 3 Olner lAiorm No<,reI

CHIEF DATE

FlRE DEPARTMENT

I

I

Form TM Eon ( R e 111881 YES O N G'EOD

FIRE DEP? REFERENCE NO.

I

CODE

I

AREA

AREA^

STATUS ? FlrB(l.ht.r 2 Ocsupn, 3 NmOrcwant IBpunder p s x r b ? eC ) S U

0

1 Ma* 2 Fern*.

C A S U A L N NAME AND ADDRESS

PHYSICAL CONOlnDW OR STATUS (u.pstrdl

(7 t n ~ s s - rw ~ w n , t, m

2 Cmlorcn L* "rut,.-

3 Under Re-trame or Oclen>m

4 BPdrldden or O(her P"-lsalR(ental H.nd#up

5 ImWlrd prwde oeta88r m 6 IrnW,,cd.

-

Remarks Are.

7 A s # e p

1

B Normal - , " " O M ,n Oannf4cmhlwh.l *c,nlly.

9 Norma, - brolrra m Le~%rUReneattonal Arf8rif8c

10 Normal - lnrDirCd m 8unnl5slOcCupaLanSI isflntbes C3 7 3 U"."W".."

,.,.

d

C A S U A L N NO.

-

ICT1ON OF CASUIICT (suspcteol

1 PSmc a LOU 01 Juapemnt

I All.mglmp EYIp

3 R c r W M m g la a Relvmmg +om A I a m 4 C""C4"ed 3" n-w Am,",,,-

5 inrohcd m Fl.d,g",i"g lC,,",trr.

6 Rrmonw E*nXrcd P r m " " or Equpnunl 7 MoAe,on a " . * " a n a um,.,,,,w WUSE OF I W R * MI OEITW

,

smoke 0c.m 2 G*cs"J"

a

3 f*lmw Deb". 4 BUddllxl Coilapw

5 E Q " V r n t Fnlurs - aavnna R.!s!ed B As**, - OCCurCsnCC Fa-

I Egulp"mt Fadure - T r a m . Act* 8 A C n m t - Tnmmg k l 4

8 U n m a n a UocloS~Ila

S N E R l n

1 UlnOr - Nor Han*lallz*I - No AMcncc #mom W a k

2 SL~~DYI- H O I P I ~ ~ I I Z ~ = M i a A b o c e 4rom Work

3 *.F

CLOTHING: 080 T I P S OI CLDTI1IIK. WORM B I C A S U I L T I

ADD TO LEVERITVI * N O

2 Y e ,PlO"#dF drtalr. 2" rema.,. area1

V W S U U n IS A FIREI1GHTER PROVIDE THE FOLLOWlNG D E T I l U EYPLOVYEWT I T I N S 7 F",, T8"e 2 ".P Tim. I V ~ n l ~ I HE,GC.HT

GI

CENTIYETRES

QOTHlNGEWlPYUIT WORN AT THE TlYE OF INJURY (7 .*me4

Helm* Lnr.

F.cc shad.

[3 Olhel Eye PrOteC110n &.at ,T"r"o"tl ~8dn cumas)

a

Boot. H . . . KW Be"

Breatn,ng I\.paraur Isell-contalmd)

FIRE DEPARTMENT CHIEF DATE

1

~ o r m FM 81 t e n o m 3 1

YES O T I RE0 D

DO you requare a IYPP~Y 01 lorms* -

Ontarlo

RESPONSE L O C A T I O N

H.O. FILE. _FATALITY # DATE

FATALITY N A M E AN0 ADDRESS

KO. USE

n

G - IGNITION OF CLOTHING OR o T n m FIMU if FATUITY u AMEFIGMER VROVLOET# 0 I Out.. Ootlunp FOLLOWING M U L C

U 2. cccw.", 2. s@eo.de.,

17

3- Nm-0~cw.m (B~stmder. paryrby. .I=) . 3. umercb"wq

4. h u m

0 - S E X C - AGE 0 5. Bidding a B d U r n

0

I. mu 6. H.~~CIIO.P;IIOI

0 2. F*- _- 1. ~phojsterat ~ u m c t u n

U s N a * w j u b a

D -PHYSICAL COND(TION OR STANS ,uup.c~.d) 9 unknown aunc~auaf+ea'

-

1 Infant - T m Young to Act

2 Cbldren Len Unattcnad

0

-

3 Under Restrami w O e t a r ~ o n

U 4 sadnwen a Other P n y s ~ c s l m e l e n u ~ ~ m d ~ o p

5 t m p a r ~ - A ~ C M ~ I .

0 a ~ r n ~ a ~ r a t - ~ ~ g s ~

17

7 mtrp

-0 8 NXmI - InmCed m DO-ucly-Mld Adlvmes

9 MnUI- lWhM ,n h ~ r ~ R e C r e a ( M a I I c t m M S 10 N o m U - , n m n B u S - h c l g l M n d A C h l t e F - CAUSE OF REAT)( 5 Bums a s o l r 6. AWh".rn REMARKS

H -TYPE OF FABRIC OR UATEAIAL IGNlTEG

0 1 Qttm - 3 Othr Natura(F0b.. 4 Raymmylm 1'41.urrol 5 Other S y t n e ~ c F+w.s 6 Mmlursol F~bres 7 Pd~"1C1b"e a RUW, 9 PlaS*lils 10 Nlll A P d n Q k

-

I -CLOTHING: 010 TYPE OF CLOTnlNG WORN BY C A S U U N A 0 0 TO SEVERITY7

0 , N O 2. yes.

J - F m u m L o c A n o N

1 Rmm of plre ~ r n g m

2 FIDO~ O, F L ~ C orlgan (otner Rmml

3 corn.50, 0, Floo, 0, Flrc Origin

4 smmn",,,

5 E*. ,..,

6 Olwrlnan Flea 01 Fsre ongrn'

7 ""k".,w"- U - H E I W CEHTIUETRES 0 - CLOTHlNWEOUlPUENT WORN n * m t 0 "O(m<LMr F x c n l e l OI* Eye R O l e C I , M

.

&I irumout) 0 GIOnswlm, sma n- K ~ Y BBII ~ t a t m p ~ p O a r a u s (setecontamml

PROVlOE DETAlLS IN QEMARKS AREA

L

RESPONSE TYPE UCENSE NO. OR REGISTRATION

PRIUARY PURPOSE - Crr- On: .--.p- 2 F-Lq*J. fJ 3 *--GI 4 5 ovsaaaGam.r-ums 6 W & W - I w b w w ~ a n a r v m k d a 9 -

VEWCLE FUEL OR ENERGY SOURCE 0 1- [3 2 W F U d 3 P-P-- 4- o an- AREA OF ORIGIN 97 ...,-.- 92 RumngGBsr(-&-4Namg [7 %3 .kt-,s-. [3 M F u f S . m - m B I M k 1 B~~=-~UA--~T.=S+W [3 9s .-.-...m -..CnRoA.== m- __I

u

CAUSE Iurwed) [3 08 *Rm [7 04 R.uc.a.--.. 07

"-..-

11 -p.rs 0 21 b$.P- 31 L . w a a d Q - ~ W 1 P UnuredWBrulkWd

:

S L * r u e d E p u m a 48 ..-..F- -CJ st V ~ ~ W C o b m . . 052- ! O m - .,&

RESPONSE TIYE RESPONDING PERSONNEL

MAK+YODEL&YV.R DISTRICT

INSURANCE COVEFIAGE

Ilmhob,e O~-Y.,

n 2 -

ngU-

FI*(ILI- GWEN WE

B

-m

I . , - I

41 c--.M.. ESTIMATED DOLLAR LOSS RESCUES CASWLTIES

O w -

n-.~-...

DoMn OPERATOR. DRIVER. ETC. (Me-) REMARKS:

FIRE DEPARTMEW _{CHIEF DATE}

OWNER

I ~ L e ~

11 dm-

*

-1

I

FORM FM82 (NEW 011831 "ES o n Woo

l l l l t l

STREETORLOTM.

c b , ~ a , d l - ~

-

FIRE MARSHAL COPY

a* STRERNUIE.LINEWCONCESSONNO S T R E R W L O T W APT NO , , , I RepaD

0

49 Omnusc w w v o n r * l

AFT IXI I UTI.TOWII. W G E W TOWNWIP _I

. , # , , a , , , , , , , c ,

STREET W E . LlllE. oRCONCESSI)NNO.

CIP( TOWN. YlLUGLOR TOWNSHIP

1 1 1 , 1 , / 1 , , ( , ,

Ontario FIRE DEFT. REFERENCE WQ, '

-;

/

,

ATENDING F.Di PROPERTY CIASSIFICAllON AREA OF ORIGIN

CAUSE (rurpe~tedl

L

L l

0 , h" w o i c d canmaon

-

U 07 uamam

COMPLEX _{SOURCE OF IGNITION. IGNITING OWECT}

! 1 C M m n bm 21 D e w Oetr- 0 22 C o n r n M r n Detcem

-

OCCUPANCY STATUS 7 0=2,w 2 " m u m 3 i * E q l c d . ~ " n 4 "-.me - s e a m , us 5 v , , 6 Uer D-frn 7 .r&c,s,,rn B NDI/\DOIcahI. OWNERSHIP STATUS 01 ~ " e d & O E C " r n d 4 ' d &." 02 a * n e e d O E C ~ p w w P m On m o r n e d a a s u t . * r a u u n G a 7 7 L e a to FW G.,, 12 Le-lo P r a Gor t 3 LE.Y.,,O MU" k." 21 O m e a b ~ f e G n L e r e d t o d r r r . 72 ~ m M w P c a G a L-w- 25 O m e d h ~ Mun Gr* Learedio0he.r

,

,.*.6.> ,,a,, w a t n n c .

BUILDING OR STRUCTURE HEIGHT

ELI

Pw"*-s,-*

LEVEL OF ORIGIN

CJ

6imr . StOILy

0 ,

FUEL OR ENERGY A%SXIATED W I W SOURCE OF IGNITION j - m 0 2 D e M i U 3 ProDan 4 E-.a 5 F d O * 6 Nalunl Ga. 7 w w B N o I A m u N C 0 0,-r

OBJECT OR MATERIAL FIRST IGNITED

r-l

PROl€CTlON FACIUllES/SYSTEMS l V l l U B L E USSO OR W INSTALLED ACTIVATED 1 2 s~r,"**rsvl,em~

1 2 F u d S-ern Oltei T M n Swlnkler

t 2 stanempesrnem

,

2 Enw"<sners ? 2 out* Hwr.", DETECTION SWTEMS ,USTILLED I C n Y A m D 1 I A F D S Heal' 3 P A F D S S m a * e fz. 1 2 Prdeclrn 1 D e l e u r n C o r n o l d

-I? Pa"*$ svltem ,",on.% Do,a,ir m Remans ivea

INSURANCE COVERAGE

7 . - Z M

L?

9wl-

ESTIMATED DOLlAR LOSS

RESPONSE TIPE

07 ,,F

02 NDAlorm rre

m rxm,we p , n

I

<

f

I

0 ,

ALARM TO FlRE DEPARTMENT

1 ~ e ~ e p ~ n e w F D aancnloiwpen

2 MunslDal S l M Bo. spcn

3 AUlOrntE *me" C r n o g l l r n I. F D w D i M f h 1 ~ a n w ~ SF- crn-on to F D or orsmtcn

5 Automatr sOnn*ier svlIem ~en-tan lo r o or ~,qia:;n

6 Sill A l o m Nemai r e a n so melon>

7 ieteOnomtmmOmerEmrgers~IPronnana4ein

8 rm.0 9 m e ,

mior5

mi"

RESPONSE TIYE R E S P O W G PERSONNEL MinYles

YANHOURS BACK IN SERVICE

m

7

i nwr ; Mm , RESCUES CASUALTIES

I

DISTRICT STATON PUTDON

m --.. I FlRE DEPARTMENT ' 3 I CHIEF DATE

.-

4- ;--"

I

_{: .,.< . .: . .} .-

.

.

. . YES o n *COD s- ₇