Small Arms Primer Storage

[tonto961]

There is a local business trying to comply with the IFC that stores and ships pallets of small arms primers. they receive and ship pallets containing 150 cases of small arms primers with a total weight of 66 lbs of explosive material per pallet. There are 1.5 million primers per pallet. I am thinking he could store them in a shipping container away from any other structures. The container would not have electricity and would be within 100ft of a hydrant. I cant find any support for or against this idea in the 2018 IFC or NFPA 495. there is no discussion of storage outside a building that is remote and more than an explosives magazine. The company moves them in and out in 7-10 days but always has about 20 million primers on average. Any suggestions?

JC

 

[ICE]

Metal shipping containers bring to mind three potential issues.
1. Static electricity.
2. Lightning.
3. Security.

Perhaps the Fire Service is responsible for regulating that… and also ATF.

 

[RLGA]

What is it about the building that it cannot be stored in compliance with Section 5606.5.2.3?

 

[tonto961]

Metal shipping containers bring to mind three potential issues.
1. Static electricity.
2. Lightning.
3. Security.

Perhaps the Fire Service is responsible for regulating that… and also ATF.

Metal shipping containers bring to mind three potential issues.
1. Static electricity.
2. Lightning.
3. Security.

Perhaps the Fire Service is responsible for regulating that… and also ATF.

We can ground and bond the container. ATF does not regulate storage of small arms primers according to the agents we spoke to.

 

[tonto961]

What is it about the building that it cannot be stored in compliance with Section 5606.5.2.3?

The primers are shipped on plastic wrapped pallets on 1.5 million. Exceeding the 750,000 maximum would require taking apart the pallet and reassembling 7-10 days later. The pallet has 66lbs of explosive net weight which exceeds the 50lbs maximum. We can meet the requirements of NFPA 495 by adding automatic sprinklers to the building but can't satisfy 5604. There is a vacant lot in the complex and so the idea of isolated shipping containers is being considered. Wouldn't the container be considered a building? Shipping containers do not meet the definition of an explosive magazine?

 

[TheCommish]

Smart Fire fighters would us a hydrant further away.

 

[steveray]

At some point, a shipping container becomes a building.....but what you suggest sounds reasonable, not sure on the code requirements without looking...

 

[tonto961]

At some point, a shipping container becomes a building.....but what you suggest sounds reasonable, not sure on the code requirements without looking...

I am looking at using shipping containers/conex boxes for the storage. I believe they meet the requirements in the IFC for Type 2 magazines. However, in the definition of a magazine it states it must be an approved magazine. Who approves it? The AHJ, who does not want the liability?

 

[ICE]

I am just thinking out loud here but wouldn't a magazine be designed to come apart in a predictable manner? In other words, if the contents explode, the energy is directed rather than just hoping for the best outcome.

What you propose sounds like a really, no really, large pipe bomb. However, you did mention that ATF is not interested so perhaps there's not a danger of a RUD of a Conex shipping container.

 

[north star]

@ ~ @

tonto961, ...does humidity control play a factor in your application ?
Seems like a non-conditioned shipping container would need some
type of continuously controlled, "low-very low humidity" conditioned
environment.......There are lots of articles on the internet to this effect !

Once the primers get saturated, they are no longer any good.

@ ~ @

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I am looking at using shipping containers/conex boxes for the storage. I believe they meet the requirements in the IFC for Type 2 magazines. However, in the definition of a magazine it states it must be an approved magazine. Who approves it? The AHJ, who does not want the liability?

Definition from the 2021 IFC (unless Texas edited it):

APPROVED. Acceptable to the fire code official.

So the answer to your question is, "Yes." The local AHJ may not want the liability, but that's part of the job. If the code says "Approved" means acceptable to the local fire code official, when someone submits a widget to him/her for approval, he/she is legally required to approve or disapprove the widget.