Question 33_ Safety, Health and Welfare not addressed and Still correct?
Reviewing the question 33, I find some issues that seriously affect the safety of the building and its occupants, such as an unsealed penetration, a door that does not have panic hardware, and non-operational emergency lights, however, an item that is not fixed and can be easily removed from the space, even by its final occupants, is an element to be resolved to certify substantial completion?
All my time studying, I have believed that NCARB, through these exams, leads us to think in the right direction, to create a sort of instinct for how to act in real professional situations. However, I refuse to believe that two trash containers that can be taken out by any employee, pose more danger than an emergency light that will never turn on, preventing desperate people, between the smoke and the flames, from finding a way out.
-
Thaks for your point of view, Manuel, but this question refers to items preventing you, as architect to issue the G704. In all the examples reviewed in Black Spectacles, in real life, with my advisors during the AXP hours, I never found a bag, trash container, or even tools from contractors leave to pick in a later date, as an obstacle to streamline the completion process.
Even here, when I realized that the answer was a single element, I thought about assessing what was more dangerous to bring up in a G704. For example, that unsealed penetration can lead to a spark leak and subsequent fire of any dust causing an obstruction of the escape route. (even far more dangerous that a couple of containers) That means certain death for those trapped and potential liability for you as an architect, and the moral burden of having left an element unfinished, knowing that it could have caused that disaster.
I find this an unfortunate question/answer.
-
All those items can impact substantial completion, but the main objective is to determine what items are impacting the egress path. The conduit penetration, the hall lights, and the exit door are not items that block the path of egress, and in the exit stair shaft, there are items that would block a path for people escaping a fire through the designated path of evacuation. Any obstructions that impact life safety and egress will prevent substantial completion; it’s not to say the other items are acceptable, but the question is looking for a specific issue to address.
-
For this exams you need to answer the one that is 100% sure to be wrong , all of the other mentioned things are suppositions. Is 100% wrong and 100%confirmed that you can’t have substantial completion with furniture in the exit. If in your job you are giving substantial completion with garbage in the exit is illegal. If you are not able to see it obvious things like that , you are going to have a harder time with PA and PPD in those exams all answers are reasonable but only 1 is 100% correct
-
Thank you for your consideration, Manuel, but in real life, if I were the owner of that building, I would prefer the contractor leaving behind a piece of furniture or a container that I could move with an employee in two minutes, than keep an incorrect hardware panic or an unprotected penetration (and in the top of passway!!!) that could in the future obstruct the escape route and cause deaths.
Also, the question asks for the specific word INTERFERE. When I saw photos, the first thing that came to mind was that pipe, obviously electric, that runs through a slab to the upper floor. Imagine that there is a raging fire in the up level, if such perforation fails, it will throw down a lot of sparks, melted cables, smoke from the plastic of the conductors that will be an obstacle if it spreads width the passway.
I do prefer the trash container in my path, it is much less dangerous. -
Those are all fair considerations for substantial completion in general. However, the main goal of the question is to determine what is interfering with egress. You might prefer keeping obstructions on an egress path, but building officials will not and the building would be delivered with a known violation of code, going against the Standard of Care.
A situation (like a fire) is being created in your scenario when that’s not what is presented for the question. A fire breaking out from the exposed piping vs properly sealed and protected, and both situations feature a blocked path of egress in the (potentially) only accessible stairwell, heightening the risk of danger to occupants that would be trying to evacuate.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments