A telling set of documents regarding the Ark Tsisserev affair have been sent to CivicScene, challenging the trumped up claims of a group of political motivated individuals.
I have just received a very telling set of documents regarding the Ark Tsisserev issue, which has now taken on a level of political maneuvering and innuendo that doesn’t line up with the facts.
Alex Tsakumis writes in his post from yesterday morning that:
“…this whole matter began after I was leaked the email stream between Ark Tsisserev and his colleagues, from October, November and December of last year and then into early January–when he first raised concerns related to life safety issues with respect the the Olympic Village and then was concerned about inspection limitations for the pending Olympics.
He adds in a challenge regarding the safety sign-off by Tsisserev:
“If all Olympic venues were approved by city electrical inspectors in accordance with all recognized electrical and safety standards, release all the reports.”
In a post from February 9, Tsakumis also seems to suggest that Ark was fired as the whistleblower who was bringing forth safety concerns, and whom the city wanted to silence:
“An outstanding employee is fired after he spent the last two months of his tenure seeking answers to safety concerns about the Olympic Village that would be filled to the brim by unsuspecting Olympic athletes from all over the world not ten weeks from when Mr. Tsisserev discovered something might be wrong. In the midst of, presumably, seeking corrections, that exemplary employee is unceremoniously marched out of his office like a common thug, in front of his staff…”
I now have evidence in hand that proves otherwise.
This scan contains the letter written by a representative from Underwriter Laboratories of Canada and the subsequent response from Tsisserev after he brought forward concerns about how fire alarm systems (GE Security Model EST3 Fire Alarm Control Panel) used in the Olympic Village may be “problematic” back in November. At that time, he also requested that “immediate steps” be taken.
Here are the specific claims that Tsisserev made in his initial report:
“When a radio is used within about 1 ft. of an annunciator, it causes the LCD screen to go blank, then the panel to go into a reboot mode and the LCD zones to look like a Xmas tree, which appears to require a manual reset to get the panel up and unning again.
This condition was confirmed numerous times, on 3 annunciators in different buildings at the site. While the panel was in this mode, it did not register new alarm activations, and new activations did not trigger an audible alarm. The annunciators operated normally after they were reset, but the same reboot process started again when a radio was used near them.”
In this resulting response letter detailing an investigation into Tsisserev’s concerns, Underwriter Laboratories of Canada notes the following about the GE Fire Alarm:
“The Model EST3 Fire Alarm Control Panel is currently Listed under ULC’s Fire Alarm Control Units product category. At the time of Listing, ULC determined the product met all of the applicable requirements of the Standard for Control Units for Fire Alarm Systems, CAN/ULC S527.”
Fine. But Tsisserev was specifically talking about how these Control Panels were severely compromised – as in a false response – when in close proximity to a hand held radio. So what of the ULC tests regarding this particular issue?
Let’s continue reading:
“Our investigation revealed that during the reported incident [Editor's Note: referring to Tsisserev's], the hand held radio was held closer than the 300 mm required by the standard and that the door panel was not in place (i.e. closed). The radio did not interfere with the operation of the control panel when the radio was 300 mm or more from the control panel and the door panels installed and in the closed position.”
The letter seems to question the way in which Tsisserev conducted his tests. Regardless, ULC still acknowledges Tsisserev’s concerns about radios being within 300 mm of the panel and states:
“…it appears that the control panel is adversely affected when the radio is fewer than 300mm from the panel which is less than as specified in the standard.
We are therefore providing the information on this report to the Standards Committee for ULC S527 for its review and consideration.”
So what about Tsisserev’s response. Did he continue to have concerns and “whistleblow,” allegedly leading his dismissal? Well, let’s look at the key points in his response to ULC’s letter:
“Please, be advised that the conclusions presented in this report are deemed to be satisfactory to this office for the purpose of acceptance of the referenced product for installation in Vancouver as an “approved” fire alarm control panel.
“By the copy of this email to Tony Mezenberg and Scott McCuaig I’m advising Technical Management of GE Security that the referenced issues is considered to be resolved, and that all restrictions on the use of EST3 in the City of Vancouver indicated in my original email to Scott are no longer applicable.”
Tsisserev was also happy and made more secure by the knowledge that “it was recommended by the investigating Certification Organization that the Technical Committee responsible for a development of ULC S 527 should review current requirements of this standard so, as to mitigate any future design, construction or performance problems described in the report – for the benefit of fire safety.”
So all of this bluster about Tsisserev not signing off on the fire safety of the Olympic venues, and that all visitors to these sites were put at grave risk because of a lack of oversight, is a bunch of political spin.
Time to find the next issue in which to go after Vision Vancouver on, Alex, because this latest attack is not standing up to the most basic scrutiny of the facts.
I am currently looking into the validity of the alleged fire that occurred at the Canada Pavilion, and will report back on my findings when I finish my investigation.
