• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Having issue with S Occupancy definition

N

NFRMarshal

Bronze Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
42
I am dealing with a 30 yr old business that has a mixed use M/B/S 21,000sq ft building no alarm no sprinkler 1 control area. They are a distributor of various fiberglass flammable resins and have some related hardeners in the Organic Peroxide 3 class and a unstable Reactive 2 class. They have a small 12x12 M area where the general public can purchase that is attached to several B offices. The remainder of the warehouse is open roughly 20,000 sq ft and currently qualifies as only being 1 control area. The charts in ch27 indicate that they are over their allowed storage limit by roughly 4000gallons. I just wanted to make sure that the special allowances made for mercantile and storage, which I assume refer to Home Depot type stores, would not allow them more storage. The warehouse S area is not open to the general public. Hit me up if I need to provide more info.
 
Only separation is the office merch area from the warehouse. They have been there for 30 years and have no CO. Were are still in 2006 IFC.
 
So have they had these same chemicals and quantities for 30 years??

I assume you are trying to get either sprinklers or more control areas??

Do not have the book but all-this good stuff is allowed in the same building???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also what triggered the questions. More chemicals being brought in, remodel, change of owner, new fire marshal in town, etc???
 
One of our rescue companies dropped in for a preplaning visit and referred them to us when they saw the quantities. This is the first time that I have been at the location. We are very staff limited so annual visits are not possible on every hazmat commercial structure. Sometimes it all we can do to keep our heads above water answering complaints.
 
cda said:
So have they had these same chemicals and quantities for 30 years??I assume you are trying to get either sprinklers or more control areas??

Do not have the book but all-this good stuff is allowed in the same building???
Click to expand...
Chemical inventories and quantities also have changed as new products have been developed. They would never survive having to install sprinklers profit margin to small in their business and they would never be able to recoup that cost. From what I can tell they can have in just not in the current storage arrangement and quantity. Their building only qualifies a 1 control area.

Whats even better is we left there to go to a Sherwin Williams store to follow up on a Fire Door complaint and found issues there as well. Their quantities of flammables in an unsprinklered warehouse on racks all the way to the ceiling. Easily 10 times what the charts allow.
 
So what enforcement power do you have??

Depending on answer at least maybe work with them in some type of plan to make the facility a little safer, over the next few years

Any working relationship with the building dept?? Do they like to enforce things??
 
We are giving them 10 days to develop a plan to reduce the inventory. The have also been advised to contact an architect/design professional to review the structure and provide options. Outside storage may be a solution for them. Norfolk Virginia.
 
cda said:
So what enforcement power do you have??Depending on answer at least maybe work with them in some type of plan to make the facility a little safer, over the next few years

Any working relationship with the building dept?? Do they like to enforce things??
Click to expand...
We are a full service Fire Dept. Fire marhsal's office. All investigators are cross trained as Investigator/Inspector we are also full sworn Police Officers with arrest powers and can write any State Law Code in addition to fire code. We work with our building officials office and they have been advised of the situation. They are not always as agressive as we are. Our primary mission is life safety and our firefighters are a priority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So am I correct with my initial assumption that table 3404.3.4.1 would not be able to be applied here?
 
Yes I agree use 3404.3.4.1 and also look at 3404.3.5. Just because a use has been in place for years doesn't mean they can expand the operation to a point that creates a hazard. Even with not knowing what was originally approved one must look at the issues that exist today. You may want to be flexible in your approach with and eye on getting them closer to code requirements. As BB stated it may be as simple as creating more control areas.
 
Little late in the game here but here is my take.........

Just because the facility says they can't afford it does not make it acceptable. The table and sections referenced is what you use and enforce to. The idea of additional control areas is just one of many options the facility has in addition to inventory reduction, exterior storage means (in compliant manner) and protection. Doing a fire pump acceptance inspection today as a matter of fact for a facility discovered (2 years) ago that changed their "hazard of contents" without letting anyone know. Yes, our office worked with them and gave them the available options to address the existing hazards while in the mean time ordering removal to MAQ until the sprinkler system was renovated. Like you, we went to another facility and discovered (13-3000 gal.) indoor poly AST's in a building and they are in process of foam/detection systems now in the install phase.

They were also given options and when it all comes down to operations, profit and relocation they pretty much all decide to comply. We too work with them and our mission is compliance or working towards it within a reasonable time frame and let the courts/jurisdiction decide what is reasonable. Serve the notice, offer compliant options and work with them during the reasonable time frame for compliance as the jurisdiction establishes and weigh the progress versus time frame as necessary to establish financial prods. Boy will I be glad when these two nightmeres are completed.

Doing the pump test again today cuz Thursday's test produced some Rocks (not pebbles) that stopped up the impeller and they needed to teardown to remove rocks. Oh well the water purveyor took over responsibility to assure flushing from the FD years ago and we have their documentation of compleation. Hope it works today :) .
 
These are the kinds of occupancies that require more frequent visits...hard to do without proper staffing.
 
I am not sure I would call it a ""M""

Aldo how are they meeting separation of incompatible materials???

Do not have 2006 but it is 2703.9.8 in the 03
 
And you have looked at chapter 39??

I think if it were me I would seek professional help
 
RJJ said:
Yes I agree use 3404.3.4.1 and also look at 3404.3.5. Just because a use has been in place for years doesn't mean they can expand the operation to a point that creates a hazard. Even with not knowing what was originally approved one must look at the issues that exist today. You may want to be flexible in your approach with and eye on getting them closer to code requirements. As BB stated it may be as simple as creating more control areas.
Click to expand...
Even 4 control areas, sprinkler system and cabinets would not allow them as much IB as they have right now.
 
What are the groups feelings on 2701.3 Performance-based design alternative.

We have never allowed these but could this be an alternative for a established business like the one in this scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top