Change of use/Occupancy - Printing/publishing to Wood Pallet Manufacturing?

[Truck3capt]

I'm being questioned about the code sections referenced by former officials in my division. The business in question was previously a commercial printing and publishing facility for at least 40 years prior to 2010. They went out of business in 2010 the buildings sold and the new owner offered to lease the building to a company that manufactured wood pallets. About 30,000 SF under roof. 5B construction. No sprinkler. The owner/tenant requested zoning relief and rec'd a use variance. No permits for remodeling work within the building were ever pulled when the pallet company moved in. They essentially moved into the building and started operating. (IFC 2006 is our adopted fire code with the State also adopting 2000 Life Safety 101.)

Flash forward to late 2012: Previous officials cited violations for a change of use, high piled combustible storage (idle pallets stacked to the ceiling well in excess of 12') and other violations after a complaint was filed and an inspector entered the building for a routine inspection. Solution: Sprinkle the building.

Flash forward to today. (this is still dragging on) As requested I site several code sections that I think require sprinklers based on the notes from the previous officials that were dealing with this building. Section 102 Applicability, Sections from Chapt. 23 High Piled Combust. storage and table 2306.2 for High hazard Commodities, Section 903 on sprinklers based on an F-1 Occupancy with combined fire areas exceeding 24,000 SF.

Today I'm told that they don't think any of this applies to them because this was an existing building and there was no change of use/occupancy because the F-1 Occupancy definitions include a printing and publishing operation. I used F-1 as the closest occupancy to the wood pallet operation they have in the building today. I think Section 102 applies but they are hanging their hat on the F-1 definition and the print/publishing operation being no more hazardous than the pallet operation that has moved into the building.

We've burned one pallet repair operation to the ground during my time on the job and had fires at two others. The first company to arrive at the one that burned down arrived in two minutes and the fire was already coming out of all of the eaves of the building.

I may not get to offer any more opinions on this, I'm not sure they want to hear it, but I'd sure like to think that I'm not completely out in left field on this one. It's going to come up again. I meant to look at the commentary before I left the office but I was kind of ticked after getting browbeaten for something that I was just trying to clean up. Thanks

Truck

 

[cda]

1. Sounds like high pile chapter applies.

Which would kick in fire sprinklers

2. Chapter 19 applies.

Which would kick in sprinklers

903.2.3.1 Woodworking operations.

An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all Group F-1 occupancy fire areas that contain woodworking operations in excess of 2,500 square feet in area (232 m2) which generate finely divided combustible waste or which use finely divided combustible materials.

Maybe not a change of occupancy, but the new business has brought in a process that does not meet the fire code.

Palleys burn great!! Maybe burn a six foot high stack. Record it. Show it to everyone and ask if they want this times a lot.

 

[cda]

You can always require a technical report, paid for by the business, done by some one you approve, to see what an expert says.

 

[steveray]

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. A change in the purpose or level of activity within a building that involves a change in application of the requirements of this code

901.2 Change in occupancy with no change of occupancy classification. A change in occupancy, as defined in Section 202, with no change of occupancy classification shall not be made to any structure that will subject the structure to any special provisions of the applicable International Codes, including the provisions of Sections 902 through 911, without the approval of the code official. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued where it has been determined that the requirements for the change in occupancy have been met.

 

[Truck3capt]

1. Sounds like high pile chapter applies.Which would kick in fire sprinklers

2. Chapter 19 applies.

Which would kick in sprinklers

903.2.3.1 Woodworking operations.

An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all Group F-1 occupancy fire areas that contain woodworking operations in excess of 2,500 square feet in area (232 m2) which generate finely divided combustible waste or which use finely divided combustible materials.

Maybe not a change of occupancy, but the new business has brought in a process that does not meet the fire code.

Palleys burn great!! Maybe burn a six foot high stack. Record it. Show it to everyone and ask if they want this times a lot.

I wasn't around when all this started but from what I can see in the file and what I can tell from the codes they referenced in the original citation (and some that they didn't but could have referenced) that this thing should be sprinklered. The F-1 argument seems ridiculous but my own city legal department is arguing that a judge will see the two uses as the same. I think they are getting pressure from somewhere else not to pursue it. That said I want to cover my butt in the documentation I've been asked to provide.

 

[steveray]

Do you just have the IFC or do you have IBC/ IEBC? See definition of change of occupancy above...

 

[Truck3capt]

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. A change in the purpose or level of activity within a building that involves a change in application of the requirements of this code901.2 Change in occupancy with no change of occupancy classification. A change in occupancy, as defined in Section 202, with no change of occupancy classification shall not be made to any structure that will subject the structure to any special provisions of the applicable International Codes, including the provisions of Sections 902 through 911, without the approval of the code official. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued where it has been determined that the requirements for the change in occupancy have been met.

The existing building code reference of 902.1 doesn't show up in the IBC or IFC, does it?

 

[Truck3capt]

Do you just have the IFC or do you have IBC/ IEBC? See definition of change of occupancy above...

Yes I'm looking at the IEBC 2006 right now. I'm trying to stick with the IFC only because that is where all of the original references were pulled from when this owner was originally cited.

 

[cda]

I wasn't around when all this started but from what I can see in the file and what I can tell from the codes they referenced in the original citation (and some that they didn't but could have referenced) that this thing should be sprinklered. The F-1 argument seems ridiculous but my own city legal department is arguing that a judge will see the two uses as the same. I think they are getting pressure from somewhere else not to pursue it. That said I want to cover my butt in the documentation I've been asked to provide.

The occupancy type might be the same,,,

But what they are doing inside pulls in the IFC

Would the city allow them to make tires, than stack / store them 20 feet in the air?

Ok it is a factory, but now they are doing high piled stock!!!! Which kicks in additional requirements, such as a fire sprinkler system sometimes!!!

 

[cda]

Have the city agree to requiring a technical report, from someone you approve.

 

[Truck3capt]

Have the city agree to requiring a technical report' date=' from someone you approve.[/quote']IFC 2006 104.7.2, correct? I doubt that city legal will do that. When the owner balked recently at the sprinkler system (that he previously agreed to install) they asked for other options. Our direction was to hire a design professional to evaluate the building and operations and submit documents that we could review to see if they had a viable solution. I think they contacted local politicians instead

 

[steveray]

2006 IFC

102.3 Change of use or occupancy.

No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any structure that would place the structure in a different division of the same group or occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such structure is made to comply with the requirements of this code and the International Building Code. Subject to the approval of the fire code official, the use or occupancy of an existing structure shall be allowed to be changed and the structure is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the requirements of this code and the International Building Code for those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use.

102.4 Application of building code.

The design and construction of new structures shall comply with the International Building Code, and any alterations, additions, changes in use or changes in structures required by this code, which are within the scope of the International Building Code, shall be made in accordance therewith.

And if you want to play "touch the badge"....

102.8 Matters not provided for.

Requirements that are essential for the public safety of an existing or proposed activity, building or structure, or for the safety of the occupants thereof, which are not specifically provided for by this code shall be determined by the fire code official.

 

[cda]

Well someone high in the city needs to decide if the building and fire code are going to be enforced. If not this business will keep doing what they want. Than another business come to town and hear they don't have to follow codes. And if the city does not enforce, the fire chief should say without following the codes, the building cannot be properly protected and will not put firefighters in a hazardous condition. So the fire department will not go in, and will only confine the fire to the property

 

[Truck3capt]

2006 IFC102.3 Change of use or occupancy.

No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any structure that would place the structure in a different division of the same group or occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such structure is made to comply with the requirements of this code and the International Building Code. Subject to the approval of the fire code official, the use or occupancy of an existing structure shall be allowed to be changed and the structure is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the requirements of this code and the International Building Code for those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use.

102.4 Application of building code.

The design and construction of new structures shall comply with the International Building Code, and any alterations, additions, changes in use or changes in structures required by this code, which are within the scope of the International Building Code, shall be made in accordance therewith.

And if you want to play "touch the badge"....

102.8 Matters not provided for.

Requirements that are essential for the public safety of an existing or proposed activity, building or structure, or for the safety of the occupants thereof, which are not specifically provided for by this code shall be determined by the fire code official.

Thanks. I have the 102.3 and 102.4 sections included in my references I'm preparing to forward. I may mention the "touch the badge":lemo: reference but I think the other references should cover this unless there is just no will to pursue it by those above me.

 

[Truck3capt]

Well someone high in the city needs to decide if the building and fire code are going to be enforced. If not this business will keep doing what they want. Than another business come to town and hear they don't have to follow codes. And if the city does not enforce' date=' the fire chief should say without following the codes, the building cannot be properly protected and will not put firefighters in a hazardous condition. So the fire department will not go in, and will only confine the fire to the property[/quote']I agree. We've had the building on our dangerous buildings list since all of this started but that doesn't exclude entry in certain situations.(life at stake with possibility of rescue) . They have two dozen employees working two shifts. If our guys roll up and they can't account for all of the workers they will be forced to make a risk assessment on the potential for a rescue. The whole thing stinks, it puts everyone involved in a bad spot. Just follow the code. This is going to be decided above me. All I can do at this point is offer my opinion on what the code says and document everything.

 

[cda]

Yep...........

 

[Truck3capt]

Thanks again guys....

 

[mtlogcabin]

The high piled storage can be addressed through house keeping, The sprinklers are not required if no finely divided combustible waste or use finely divided combustible materials are generated.

No sprinklers are required if they where not required at the time of original construction. Remember the legacy codes did not address "Fire Areas" within the codes

[F] 903.2 Where required.

Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section.

You have to find the charging language that directs you to require code. An F-1 is an F-1 and the 2006 IFC is the adopted code.

 

[Builder Bob]

high-piled combustible storage also includes certain high-hazard commodities, such as rubber tires, Group A plastics, flammable liquids, idle pallets and similar commodities, where the top of storage is greater than 6 feet (1829 mm) in height.

 

[Insurance Engineer]

The high piled storage can be addressed through house keeping, The sprinklers are not required if no finely divided combustible waste or use finely divided combustible materials are generated.No sprinklers are required if they where not required at the time of original construction. Remember the legacy codes did not address "Fire Areas"

[F] 903.2 Where required.

Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this

Every pallet manufacture I have been to had uncontrolled combustible dust from the cutting of wood, I am sure they have the same problem here.

What kind of water supply do they have in the area? The sprinkler demands for this occupancy will be very high . If the public water supply is not adequate they may need a fire pump, $100K and a tank another $300K PLUS the cost of the sprinkler system itself. Just another reason why they do not want to install the protection.

 

[Truck3capt]

The high piled storage can be addressed through house keeping, The sprinklers are not required if no finely divided combustible waste or use finely divided combustible materials are generated.No sprinklers are required if they where not required at the time of original construction. Remember the legacy codes did not address "Fire Areas" within the codes

[F] 903.2 Where required.

Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section.

You have to find the charging language that directs you to require code. An F-1 is an F-1 and the 2006 IFC is the adopted code.

The original inspectors were told that the operation wasn't feasible if he had to limit the piles to six feet in height. There is a cutting operation. It shoots sawdust out a hole in the side of the building into the back of a tractor trailer

Also, am I understanding you correctly that Section 102.1,102.2, 102.3 and 102.4 along with the Change of Occupancy definition in Chapter 2 don't apply as far as the requirement for sprinklers under the F-1 classification? A pallet mfgring plant with high-piled comb. storage and a cutting area wouldn't be a considerable change in the level and type of activity as compared with the printing operation? Did I interpret the application of the code to an existing building incorrectly based on section 102?

 

[Truck3capt]

Every pallet manufacture I have been to had uncontrolled combustible dust from the cutting of wood, I am sure they have the same problem here.

What kind of water supply do they have in the area? The sprinkler demands for this occupancy will be very high . If the public water supply is not adequate they may need a fire pump, $100K and a tank another $300K PLUS the cost of the sprinkler system itself. Just another reason why they do not want to install the protection.

You hit the nail on the head. They previously agreed to sprinkler the building. They waited till the last minute to get pricing. A pump will be required. Uh oh. Now what are we going to do? And here we are....

 

[cda]

The original inspectors were told that the operation wasn't feasible if he had to limit the piles to six feet in height. There is a cutting operation. It shoots sawdust out a hole in the side of the building into the back of a tractor trailer

Also, am I understanding you correctly that Section 102.1,102.2, 102.3 and 102.4 along with the Change of Occupancy definition in Chapter 2 don't apply as far as the requirement for sprinklers under the F-1 classification? A pallet mfgring plant with high-piled comb. storage and a cutting area wouldn't be a considerable change in the level and type of activity as compared with the printing operation? Did I interpret the application of the code to an existing building incorrectly based on section 102?

If you have adopted the IFC, some people do not understand it is also a design code:::!!!!!!

In my opinion they have to sprinkle the building because

Woodwork chapter 19

High piled stock chapter 23

No matter what!!!! It can stay the same occupancy, BUT when the process changes, it has to meet current code

 

[mtlogcabin]

The original inspectors were told that the operation wasn't feasible if he had to limit the piles to six feet in height. There is a cutting operation. It shoots sawdust out a hole in the side of the building into the back of a tractor trailer

Also, am I understanding you correctly that Section 102.1,102.2, 102.3 and 102.4 along with the Change of Occupancy definition in Chapter 2 don't apply as far as the requirement for sprinklers under the F-1 classification? A pallet mfgring plant with high-piled comb. storage and a cutting area wouldn't be a considerable change in the level and type of activity as compared with the printing operation? Did I interpret the application of the code to an existing building incorrectly based on section 102?

The cutting operation can be limited to less than a 2,500 sq ft fire area. The manufacturing area of the pallets is an F-1. The storage area for the pallets is an S-1. The building can be broken up with fire barriers if the operation will permit.

The high piled storage is a separate issue and would need to comply with Table 2306.2. Pallets fall under High Hazard Commodity and are very limited in size when no sprinklers are provide.

This is where you should find the charging language to require sprinklers, not in Chapter 9 IMHO if you are challenged in court or by the powers to be.

Section 102 is general in it tells the fire code may be applicable under certain conditions/situations. You have to find the specific code sections that apply to each condition or situation and apply it accordingly.

The IEBC is pretty specific when requiring a sprinkler system for a change of occupancy and "level of activity" is not included

912.2 Fire protection systems.

Fire protection systems shall be provided in accordance with Sections 912.2.1 and 912.2.2.

912.2.1 Fire sprinkler system.

Where a change in occupancy classification occurs that requires an automatic fire sprinkler system to be provided based on the new occupancy in accordance with Chapter 9 of the International Building Code, such system shall be provided throughout the area where the change of occupancy occurs.