# ESFR OK For Non Storage Locations FM Says YES!! NFPA?????



## Insurance Engineer (Sep 2, 2011)

FM Data Sheet 3-26 FIRE PROTECTION WATER DEMAND FOR NONSTORAGE SPRINKLERED PROPERTIES  07/2011 ED

2.1.1.6 For new or existing Nonstorage occupancies, it is acceptable to use storage sprinklers to protect all areas of mixed storage and manufacturing, and Nonstorage. Determine the water demand design requirements and evaluate obstructions based on the applicable occupancy-specific storage data sheet.

NFPA 13 2010 says this, yea I know says nothing about non-storage, but this all I can find. Ordinary hazard storage and mics storage has Ord Grp. 1 & 2 designs.

12.6.7 CMSA and ESFR sprinklers shall be permitted to protectordinary hazard storage of Class I through Class IV commodities,plastic commodities, miscellaneous storage, andother storage as specified in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20or by other NFPA standards.

So if I have an extra hazard occupancy as per NFPA can I use an ESFR system? Say an injection molding operation with hydraulic fluid?? Looks like FM says yes and NFPA No???? We see this when the spec building is built and ESFR is installed and a non-storage occupancy moves in. What would you do as the AHJ??


----------



## FM William Burns (Sep 2, 2011)

Excellent Topic InsEng!

Based on the various cross references within the FM data sheets for hydraulic oils and flammable and non-flammable oils and those exceptions for various protection schemes for HC 2-3; I still think that I would cover my rear as I’ve done historically by:

*New spec building review –* Note that future manufacturing or processes use within the building using Class I-IV commodities or materials “shall” require new fire protection analysis by a registered design professional or FPE with specific documentation on alternative design methods being submitted for approval. They will need to provide a performance based model specific to the building and process for the jurisdictional review. The analysis will also need to include all necessary data and code/standard references to indicate the design scheme is an acceptable practice.

*Existing building discovery –* Document on the inspection report the need for fire protection design scheme analysis due to the change in use, hazard in contents or process and work with the facility since I won’t be on their Christmas list anymore as demonstrated in previous examples during my career path.


----------



## permitguy (Sep 2, 2011)

After much contentious debate in our office last year, our fire marshal allowed the ESFR to remain in an old S-1 that was converted to an A (volleyball practice court).  I stayed neutral, but we had some that thought they should be changed out for QR, and others who thought the ESFR would cover it.

Anyone ever heard of a real-world problem with this scenario?


----------



## Oldfieldguy (Sep 2, 2011)

Good Topic Insurance Engineer

The two biggest issues I've had are:

1) Hazmats. I've experienced numerous warehouse owners who don't want anyone touching there precious ESFR sprinklers. The solution I've found to be very effective is to essentially provide a gypsum wall board ceiling so the ESFR sprinklers aren't impacted and protecting the Group H with non-ESFR sprinklers. I had the same scenario with organic peroxides, which are realistically a crap shoot when trying to protect them.

2) Substituting ESFR sprinklers and not replacing them. I'm aware of a fire in North Texas last year in a warehouse where large drop sprinklers were used for the protection of rolled carpet. The tenant moved out, the owner didn't replace the ESFR sprinklers. A new tenant moved in, introduced some high-challenge commodity, and the large drop sprinklers were unable to control. The fire extends to the ESFR sprinklers and presto - no more big a$$ warehouse.

3) Excessive Clearances. Sometimes too much clearance can be problematic, especially for plastics and rolled paper. NFPA 13 (2010) Section 12.1.3.4.4 was revised to require additional protection (or lowering the ceiling height) for Class I-IV commodities stored over 25 feet, plastics and rubber commodities if clearances exceed 10 feet. That's becoming a big issue.

I would also agree that high-pressure hydraulic fluid systems would also be a concern. It's definately something that should be addressed in NFPA 13. The one hook I always use is IFC Section 901.4. I appreciate the fact the code text states _....Required systems shall be extended, __*altered*__ or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is __*altered*__, remodeled or added to._

Using the alteration provision is very helpful because I've interpreted that to be change of commodities. For the most part few have had a problem with that ruling.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Sep 3, 2011)

Permitguy,

For a light or ordinary hazard occupancies as defined by NFPA I would not have a concern. Because of the size of the fire and the gpm the ESFR will put out is so much higher then what is needed.  I have a concern in a hydraulic oil fire (as in an injection molding machine) which is an extra hazard occupancy. The fire can set off too may ESFR heads since the fire is not going to be controlled or extinguished since it is a 3 dimensional fire. If we had auto shut off of the hydraulic pump say via a water flow switch then maybe. Also what about a flammable liq. operation, say spray painting or dipping, again are we going to get fire control to reduce heat output??

Since ESFR is so popular with many industrial parks I am wondering what others are doing?? From an insurance point of view up until now we would not insure them or charge a lot more. Now we have to rethink our position until NFPA takes a position, when ever that happens!


----------



## RAC (Sep 23, 2011)

ESFR Swapout

I have a storage location that wants to include aerosol storage. Can the ordinary sprinklers be swapped for ESFR or do you also need a separate riser for the ESFR system? Can you put this system in a building with 30 inch wood gluelam

and roof? Do you need to have an open truss system instead?


----------



## permitguy (Sep 23, 2011)

RAC, welcome to the board!

The short answer on the swapout is no, and it isn't due to the need for a separate riser or the presence of glulams.  ESFR heads are worthless if you can't get enough water to them at the correct pressure, and if the storage scheme allows them to be overwhelmed by blocking their effectiveness.  The change to aerosol storage needs to be evaluated in its entirety for the hazard present.  You'll want to have them secure the services of a licensed design professional such as a fire protection engineer.


----------



## cda (Sep 23, 2011)

Concur with permit

Need fire protection engineer of a sprinkler company that has delt with this hazard


----------

