# Having issue with S Occupancy definition



## NFRMarshal (Sep 26, 2010)

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.


----------



## RJJ (Sep 26, 2010)

How is the area separated? How did this occupancy get approve to begin with? What code are you using?


----------



## NFRMarshal (Sep 26, 2010)

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.


----------



## cda (Sep 26, 2010)

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???


----------



## cda (Sep 26, 2010)

Oh yea welcome to the board room!!!


----------



## cda (Sep 26, 2010)

Also what triggered the questions.  More chemicals being brought in, remodel, change of owner,  new fire marshal in town, etc???


----------



## RJJ (Sep 26, 2010)

Yes Welcome to the BB. And as Cda asked what has triggered this. Do you annual fire inspections for building such as this?


----------



## NFRMarshal (Sep 26, 2010)

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.


----------



## NFRMarshal (Sep 26, 2010)

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???


 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.


----------



## cda (Sep 26, 2010)

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??


----------



## RJJ (Sep 26, 2010)

Sound like an new story in the making. I agree with cda again! Make it safer to start. What is the location / state city?


----------



## NFRMarshal (Sep 26, 2010)

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.


----------



## NFRMarshal (Sep 26, 2010)

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??


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.


----------



## RJJ (Sep 26, 2010)

If they are going to work with you the time may limit may be extended as a point of meeting half way. If they start on a plan then that is a great start.


----------



## NFRMarshal (Sep 27, 2010)

So am I correct with my initial assumption that table 3404.3.4.1 would not be able to be applied here?


----------



## RJJ (Sep 27, 2010)

I am in the office now, so I will read the section.


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 27, 2010)

It may be as simple as creating 3 more control areas.........


----------



## RJJ (Sep 27, 2010)

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.


----------



## FM William Burns (Sep 27, 2010)

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   .


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 27, 2010)

These are the kinds of occupancies that require more frequent visits...hard to do without proper staffing.


----------



## cda (Sep 27, 2010)

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


----------



## cda (Sep 27, 2010)

And you have looked at chapter 39??

I think if it were me I would seek professional help


----------



## NFRMarshal (Sep 27, 2010)

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.


Even 4 control areas, sprinkler system and cabinets would not allow them as much IB as they have right now.


----------



## NFRMarshal (Oct 3, 2010)

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.


----------



## cda (Oct 3, 2010)

Well not sure how they would come close to what code requires

I would say throw it out there but who is going to do the analysis??


----------



## globe trekker (Oct 3, 2010)

Sooooo, down-sizing their "on site" quantities isn't an option?   Shouldn't that be a first step

to show a good will gesture [ by the owners ] and a place to begin designing a compliant

facility?

.


----------



## NFRMarshal (Oct 4, 2010)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Sooooo, down-sizing their "on site" quantities isn't an option?   Shouldn't that be a first stepto show a good will gesture [ by the owners ] and a place to begin designing a compliant
> 
> facility?
> 
> .


Yes it is but we are interested in providing options to this business. This has made it to the top of city government and back down.


----------



## cda (Oct 4, 2010)

Without seeing the whole enchilada

, it is hard to give you a good answer

Sounds like if you can have the business bring in someone that knows what they are doing and reputable, it may or may not help

Does not sound like they can get away from sprinklers

A rated wall to make two buildings would more then likely throw off thier day to day operations


----------



## globe trekker (Oct 4, 2010)

NFRMarshall,

Oooooops! Forgot to "welcome" you to The Codes Forum, so... *"Welcome!" * 

Since your conundrum has made it up the chain-of-command to the "top of

city gub`mint" and back down, can we assume that the "top" will support

your requirements for sprinklers? I agree with cda in that; in just your

description, it DOES sound like the facility will require sprinkling and that

is a cost that the owners aren't going to want to digest. As long as you

[ might ] be delivering that piece of good news to them, the downsizing

of quantities; and other options, would lessen the present hazards in a

short time frame. Their safety IS as important as the public' is!

I have the luxury of not being in your position, ...not being at the site, but

only offering suggestions from afar.

Please let us know how this turns out, as some of us would like to know.

Thanks!

.


----------



## NFRMarshal (Oct 5, 2010)

After we left that building we went to another business, a paint distributor. They had 30' rack storage in the warehouse grossly exceeding the 500sq ft. footprint. There with shelves stocked with 5gal Flam 3 DOT labels at all levels, no sprinkler. They did have 1 fire seperated area in the back with a sprinkler system but it did not contain all provisions to qualify as a liquid storage warehouse so the quantity would be limited. This business actually burned to the ground back in the 70's because of a lacquer thinner explosion. I guess we will be getting another call from city hall.


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 5, 2010)

One should never worry about the pressure from City Hall in this line of work, be concerned when the vans from the various national media show up in town.  That's when things get real interesting while watching everyone with "suits" doing the backstroke.


----------

