Fire Sprinkler Hazard for Cannabis Grow Facility?

6/3/2020

We're determining fire sprinkler hazard classification for a cannabis grow facility. It is under International Fire Code occupancy F-1 and I would lean to Ordinary Hazard Group II as an Agricultural facility. However, I'm concerned with 23' high racks with three level of ABS plastic pans containing the plants in the flower rooms.

Would this are be considered storage and more specifically rack storage exceeding the OH II classification?

Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

9 Comments

Wayne Ammons

6/3/2020 08:22:43 am

I don't want to provide too much opinion on this topic as I have not had to work on a project involving cannabis, but I did copy a couple links below that I think might be of use, particularly the second link:

https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/Resources/Standards-in-action/Marijuana-grow-and-extraction-facilities

https://community.nfpa.org/community/nfpa-today/blog/2018/04/06/nfpa-1-occupancy-classification-of-a-building-containing-marijuana-growing-or-extraction-operations-firecodefridays

Jesse

6/3/2020 10:08:07 am

You'll need to protect much of it as OH-2. However, your rack storage area will drive your design. In this case you have Group A Plastic to 23'.

I've done a ton of cannabis facilities and I've not seen that array yet. I've seen typical nursery grows, greenhouses, PODS, etc, but not that yet.

Keep in mind the process hazards as well. Is this just a grow or is there processing as well? If there is a butane extraction process you may have a pocket of EH-2 you need to protect.

6/3/2020 10:08:17 am

There have been a few other threads about this topic in the past. I would recommend going back to see if any of them are helpful.

Mike

6/3/2020 10:10:11 am

Definitely would explore rack protection requirements since this excceds the height of Miscellaneous Storage.

There are very good decision trees in the Storage chapters.

Jesse

6/3/2020 11:25:36 am

Additionally, the version of NFPA 13 your AHJ is working with will be a factor.

2016 NFPA 13 changed a lot in how we identify commodity class. Previous versions may have let you look at the primary commodity, and increase it one class for the plastic containers. While your AHJ may be on 2013, I can absolutely guarantee that the insurer is operating under the most recent edition of 13. So, while you may be get away protecting the storage array as Class III or Class IV, the insurer's engineer may call it Group A and call AS inadequate resulting in an enormous premium.

Laurie

2/9/2021 01:43:38 pm

I have a grow and processing facility in my jurisdiction that has a two tiered moving carriage style grow racks. They are 15 racks deep and 4 racks wide. The individual pans are 4x8 and 3 inches deep. So, each pan holds about 60 gallons of water. These are open top containers that keep water from getting to the storage and prevent heat from reaching the sprinklers delaying activation. When they are rolled closed there is barely an inch between racks. The trays are ABS plastic (Group A) and only have a small hole in one corner for drainage. I am being told these are being used all around the country in sprinkled buildings. How are these not obstructing the system? They exceed the 20ft area rule and they are open top containers. Anyone?

David

5/26/2021 08:23:57 am

I have done about a dozen of these and I feel you. I was brought into a meeting with the higher ups at my job (MEPFP Engineering) and even after presenting my 20+ hours of research into it, was told that since it is an F-1 Hazard Class, that in-rack sprinklers should not be required. I strongly disagree with them, but its not my call in the end, unfortunately. The Cannabis grow facilities are using compact storage racks for a purpose other than storage, and until 2021 NFPA 13, this is not addressed. So the debate hinges on only doing what is required by current code (only sprinklers at the ceiling needed) vs treating the plants and trays as a class IV commodity and providing in-racks because if it was S-1, that would absolutely happen. The code changes ARE coming, so don't give up the fight! I'm just glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks not providing in-racks is stupid too!

James

5/26/2021 08:29:03 am

Timely David - just yesterday I had a conversation with a '13 committee member who explained that in a handful of cases the Engineer of Record had been sued and had lost when they followed the adopted code at that time and did not follow a more stringent (newer) requirement that had just not been adopted.

His premise is that codes and standards won't protect engineers if there has since been a clarification or new requirement that improves the level of life safety.

Until then I'm not sure I've ever encountered that stance.

Is the likelihood high of something happening here, and the only difference between major and minor loss this one difference? Probably not. But it has happened, and in court at least several Engineers have not faired well with the repercussions.

peterboyce link

2/16/2021 07:02:51 am

I simply wanted to write down a quick word to say thanks to you for those wonderful tips and hints you are showing on this site.

Fire Sprinkler Hazard for Cannabis Grow Facility?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES