• 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

Hazardous Chemical Storage

nitramnaed

nitramnaed

Sawhorse
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
182
Location
L'Etolle du Nord
2012 IBC. I have a client that is building a water treatment plant. This is being constructed in an area where they don't have easy assess to a fire line to install a sprinkler system. It's an 8000 square foot facility with and enclosed chemical room that would store up to 400 gallons of 20% diluted Sodium Permanganate. Sodium Permanganate is considered a Class 2 Oxidizer per the Fire Code. If I use Table 307.1(1) my limits for Sodium Permanganate is 250 lbs. It is stored in a exhausted enclosure so I can increase that to 500 lbs which is only like 60 Gallons of chemical.
These seem limiting as it's a non-flammable liquid and we have it stored in a 3-hour enclosure.
My question is; I'm I calculating this correctly? Even if I could sprinkler the building I only can store 120 gallons max.
Any input on this would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jeff
 
The limitation is the quantity per control area. You can have up to four control areas. If the hazardous material can be stored in multiple control areas separated by fire barriers per Section 414.2.4, then the building can be classified as a Group F-1. If you cannot divide the material into smaller quantities per control area, then the building will need to be classified as a Group H-3 (or at least that portion of the building).
 
As indicated by Ron, the alternative to the permissible (4) control areas is classification as an H-3 use. The trip there is that all H uses shall have fire suppression.

What about an alternate system as permitted by IBC/IFC Section 904?

Table 307.1(1)
upload_2020-3-18_10-16-33.png
 
RLGA said:
The limitation is the quantity per control area. You can have up to four control areas. If the hazardous material can be stored in multiple control areas separated by fire barriers per Section 414.2.4, then the building can be classified as a Group F-1. If you cannot divide the material into smaller quantities per control area, then the building will need to be classified as a Group H-3 (or at least that portion of the building).
Click to expand...


Can this be separated use H3/F2 (I inadvertently classified it F1)? Does the H3 need to be sprinklered?
 
Ty J. said:
As indicated by Ron, the alternative to the permissible (4) control areas is classification as an H-3 use. The trip there is that all H uses shall have fire suppression.

What about an alternate system as permitted by IBC/IFC Section 904?

Table 307.1(1)
View attachment 6542
Click to expand...

Alternate system may work. Is it plausible to propose only sprinklering the H3 under this section?
 
nitramnaed said:
2012 IBC. I have a client that is building a water treatment plant. This is being constructed in an area where they don't have easy assess to a fire line to install a sprinkler system. It's an 8000 square foot facility with and enclosed chemical room that would store up to 400 gallons of 20% diluted Sodium Permanganate. Sodium Permanganate is considered a Class 2 Oxidizer per the Fire Code. If I use Table 307.1(1) my limits for Sodium Permanganate is 250 lbs. It is stored in a exhausted enclosure so I can increase that to 500 lbs which is only like 60 Gallons of chemical.
These seem limiting as it's a non-flammable liquid and we have it stored in a 3-hour enclosure.
My question is; I'm I calculating this correctly? Even if I could sprinkler the building I only can store 120 gallons max.
Any input on this would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jeff
Click to expand...


What size containers will the chemical come in???


Plus have you looked at USE also, and not just storage??? And the code requirements?
 
Sounds like you need to hire a fire protection engineer,

There are many variables involved in the entire project.

The money paid for the FPE, will more than likely be saved over the project.
 
cda said:
What size containers will the chemical come in???


Plus have you looked at USE also, and not just storage??? And the code requirements?
Click to expand...

They want to store up to 400 gallons. I don't know right now if that's one or multiple containers. Either way they are in one enclosure.
 
nitramnaed said:
So you're saying because I have no practical way to provide adequate control areas the only option here is to classify the entire building as an H3 and sprinkler?
Click to expand...
nitramnaed said:
If I'm classifying the entire building H3 I need to sprinkler the entire building.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that the only option is to classify as H-3, but to me, with the limited information, it seems to be the logical path forward.

If you have an H-3, yes you must sprinkle the whole building.

415.4 Automatic Sprinkler System
Group H occupancies shall be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.2.5.

903.2.5.1 General
An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in Group H occupancies.​
 
nitramnaed said:
If I'm classifying the entire building H3 I need to sprinkler the entire building.
Click to expand...


The other thing I do is ask the business, do you really need that amount?

What is your average on hand?

What is the time for getting resupplied, as in can you live with half or whatever and your supplier can supply you, without delay.

Most say yes we can live with less, and save money on the design of the building.
 
nitramnaed said:
If I'm classifying the entire building H3 I need to sprinkler the entire building.
Click to expand...
If the entire building is classified as Group H-3 (assuming you're using either the nonseparated occupancies method or the entire building is used for hazardous material handling), then the entire building needs to be sprinklered. If only a portion of the building is used for the Group H-3 and the remainder of the building is classified as to its use with a fire barrier to separate the occupancies per Table 508.4, then only the Group H-3 needs to be sprinklered.
 
RLGA said:
If the entire building is classified as Group H-3 (assuming you're using either the nonseparated occupancies method or the entire building is used for hazardous material handling), then the entire building needs to be sprinklered. If only a portion of the building is used for the Group H-3 and the remainder of the building is classified as to its use with a fire barrier to separate the occupancies per Table 508.4, then only the Group H-3 needs to be sprinklered.
Click to expand...
Ok, can you shed some light on this Ron?

My take, given an F-2 and H-3 mixed use, 2 routes exist
  1. Non-separated; most restrictive apples (H-3 => whole building sprinkled)
  2. Separated; provide fire barrier per Table 508.4 (H-3 must be sprinkled, not sure if F-2 will require)
Question then becomes, if not sprinkling the whole building, would you therefore use the NS value of Table 508.4 and use a 3-hr fire barrier? Similarly, would the non-sprinkled allowable area from Table 506.2 be used?

Sorry, but struggling in my mind how one would not require sprinklers throughout when the building contains an H-3 occupancy. Seems counter-intuitive to only sprinkle a portion of the building.
 
Ty J. said:
Ok, can you shed some light on this Ron?

My take, given an F-2 and H-3 mixed use, 2 routes exist
  1. Non-separated; most restrictive apples (H-3 => whole building sprinkled)
  2. Separated; provide fire barrier per Table 508.4 (H-3 must be sprinkled, not sure if F-2 will require)
Question then becomes, if not sprinkling the whole building, would you therefore use the NS value of Table 508.4 and use a 3-hr fire barrier? Similarly, would the non-sprinkled allowable area from Table 506.2 be used?

Sorry, but struggling in my mind how one would not require sprinklers throughout when the building contains an H-3 occupancy. Seems counter-intuitive to only sprinkle a portion of the building.
Click to expand...
For height, area, and separation the NS values must be used since the building is not sprinklered throughout.

Section 903.2.5.1 states "An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in Group H occupancies." Compare that to Group R which requires a sprinkler system "throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area."
 
Yeah....but there is no difference for NS vs. S H3....I would have to walk that one all the way through....

506.1 General. The floor area of a building shall be determined
based on the type of construction, occupancy classification,
whether there is an automatic sprinkler system
installed throughout the building and the amount of building
frontage on public way or open space.
 
steveray said:
Yeah....but there is no difference for NS vs. S H3....I would have to walk that one all the way through....

506.1 General. The floor area of a building shall be determined
based on the type of construction, occupancy classification,
whether there is an automatic sprinkler system
installed throughout the building and the amount of building
frontage on public way or open space.
Click to expand...
That's because of no matter what the situation, a Group H-3 does not get an increase for a sprinkler system throughout. This has been a requirement even before the new tables were introduced in the 2015 IBC. In the 2012 IBC, Section 506.3 had an exception that would not allow Groups H-2 and H-3 to have an increase--the increase could only be applied to the other occupancies if the building had mixed occupancies. The same conditions would apply in the new codes with the new tables--increases for those occupancies that allow increases for a sprinkler system throughout and no increase for Group H-3 (and H-2).
 
Build a detached separate smaller 200 to 400 sq ft building to store the excess chemicals in. Then you do not have to provide a fire suppression system in an 8,000 sq ft building only the smaller one
 
RLGA said:
That's because of no matter what the situation, a Group H-3 does not get an increase for a sprinkler system throughout. This has been a requirement even before the new tables were introduced in the 2015 IBC. In the 2012 IBC, Section 506.3 had an exception that would not allow Groups H-2 and H-3 to have an increase--the increase could only be applied to the other occupancies if the building had mixed occupancies. The same conditions would apply in the new codes with the new tables--increases for those occupancies that allow increases for a sprinkler system throughout and no increase for Group H-3 (and H-2).
Click to expand...
mtlogcabin said:
Build a detached separate smaller 200 to 400 sq ft building to store the excess chemicals in. Then you do not have to provide a fire suppression system in an 8,000 sq ft building only the smaller one
Click to expand...

That would certainly work but not for the water treatment process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top