Is a Building that Didn't Require Sprinklers Subject to Sprinkler Standard Requirements?

7/13/2023

My understanding is that sprinklers are not required in a commercial warehouse that was constructed prior to the code requiring them.

So, how would a requirement apply regarding Open Rack Storage and Closed Rack Storage and the requirement for in-rack sprinklers?

This is a large warehouse with no sprinkler system. They are using 2x6's for rack spreaders and completely covering them with no flue space.

Several issues there... what drives the requirements on the storage practices?

Even though the building doesn't require sprinklers, do the code requirements regarding the rack storage apply?

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

14 Comments

Glenn Berger

7/13/2023 08:20:22 am

I will start with the easy question first:

1) A facility that has changed its function, occupancy, egress, etc. needs to be brought up to code for the new "use."

2) In your case, check with the authorities having jurisdiction and authorities having interest to determine required procedures.

SafetyGuy Bernie

7/17/2023 08:21:40 am

Thank you Glenn for your response. In this case the AHJ is the local fire chief, whom is an outstanding chief in the small town, but is lacking in a full understanding of the code. Also, this building is owned by the local municipal and I think he would be reluctant to inform them of such an expense.

JP link

7/13/2023 08:32:08 am

One could argue that if the storage arrangement or type of storage has changed since the original construction, then the new sprinkler requirements could be enforceable.

This is a complicated issue with a few different considerations and thought processes for the owner/designer.

1. Can we utilize the existing building code to avoid sprinklers all together (this is unlikely in my opinion depending on how much the storage has changed).

2. Next, can we achieve protection of the storage without in rack sprinklers? This is dependent on what we are intending on storing and how we are storing it.

3. If we need in rack sprinklers, then we will want to confirm the long term plans for the space and evaluate what the most likely storage will be in order to plan for a design that covers all of the needs of the building.

The biggest concern would be adding a fire pump to meet the demand.

SafetyGuy Bern

7/17/2023 09:12:37 am

Thank you for the response JP.
I would agree with you. The addition of the wood spreaders on the racking in my opinion constitutes a change in configuration and storage classification. The building storage is Mixed (Flammable Liquids, Combustibles, and non-flammable). It has a utility vehicle depot attached, though separated by a 2 hour fire rated wall.

Dan Wilder

7/13/2023 08:52:55 am

The original building may not have been required to have sprinkler protection based on the occupancy, storage, storage commodity and configuration, or several other factors at that time. As soon as any of those factors are changed via a required permit submittal (even if a permit was not pulled), i.e. adding a wall, adding an electrical breaker/outlets, adding or removing ceilings...then the city (typically) has the right to reassess any life safety items within the building based on their adopted building and fire codes.

2018 IBC - Section 105 has the requirements for permitting and compliance. 105.3.6 has this specific wording "Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance by the fire code official, as evidenced by the issuance of a new or amended permit." One of my jurisdictions also added the following "The permit holder's business certificate has expired." (so a renewal could trigger a review). There is also a section on operation permits for high piled storage that needs to be renewed and when what's being stored changes, that typically triggers a review. The only out that I am aware of is Section 102.6 for Historic Buildings and that even has some specific requirements.

Those racks do not look original to the building, nor do those shelves, changes in storage types/configurations and commodity all (technically) allow review and additional requirements to be implemented.

At a minimum, the application of allowances for a unsprinklered property (allowable storage area, fire ratings and separations, egress requirements, fire alarm, and likely some other items I don't ever deal with) would all be required to be followed if sprinkler protection was to be omitted (assuming the AHJ would allow it at all).

We get a couple projects a year where a new owner of an existing warehouse gets the dreaded fire department visit & letter concerning the evaluation of his storage configuration and the ability of the existing system to be designed adequately to meet the current NFPA standards for that storage configuration. Some projects are just a flow test/review/new calc plate, others get some new piping, and in the (what seems to be) the most schedule restrictive buildings, a combination of new piping and a new fire pump...

SafetyGuy Bern

7/17/2023 09:21:22 am

Thank you Dan for the IBC code. You pointed out exactly what I believe about the wood shelving. This warehouse is owned by a municipal electric company. I am their new contracted safety consultant. I have an extensive background in fire protection and life safety code, along with my CFI-1 from 12 years ago, and I was doubting myself on putting it in writing that they must comply with the requirements of NFPA 13 due to the changes. You guys are great. Thank you very much.

Jon N

7/13/2023 09:45:33 am

It depends on the code being used. If the jurisdiction uses the International Fire Code (IFC), refer to Section 102 (Applicability).

IFC 102.1 says that construction and design features apply to new conditions, existing conditions not legally in existence, existing conditions where required in Chapter 11, or when determined by the fire code official to be a distinct hazard.

IFC 102.2 says that operational and maintenance features apply to new conditions (arising after the adoption of the code) and to existing conditions (basically both new and existing facilities).

In our state, "operational" provisions are those things that require an operational permit (state fire code amendment). Operational provisions are typically things that address unique hazards - such as flammable liquids, paint spray operations, hot work, fuel dispensing, etc. These are things not found in every building but are part of that particular building's "operation". The protection provisions for operational features are retroactive. High-piled combustible storage is something that requires an operational permit; therefore, it can be considered an operational feature.

Even if you disagree with high-piled storage being an operational issue and want to call it a construction or design feature per IFC 102.1, item 4 still allows the fire code official to declare this a "distinct hazard" and enforce the protection criteria to this even in an existing condition.

NFPA 1 - Section 1.3.2.4.3 has similar language for conditions constituting an "imminent danger".

SafetyGuy Bern

7/17/2023 09:27:26 am

Thank you Jon N, I like how you laid it out in IFC code language. That is my language. You have given me several additional responses in the event they reject my findings from the safety audit. I have become friends with the local fire chief who is the AHJ, and I am confident he will back me as well. Tax payers wont like it much, as it is a municipal building. Great stuff, Thank you.

Just another AHJ

7/26/2023 11:51:22 am

I agree with Jon, the operational permit alone "should" trigger an inspection under the IFC. During this inspection the fire inspector should note that the high piled storage is not covered adequately by a fire sprinkler system as required. You may be able to argue also that the occupancy classification of the building has changed based on the use and the storage of new types of materials IAW with IBC. An example would be changing a S-2 occupancy type to a S-1 depending on the type of materials being stored. This would be an "change of use" or "change of occupancy" and require the building be brought up to current codes/standards.

Casey Milhorn

7/13/2023 10:17:29 am

Dan nailed it. Not sure who your represent in all this (contractor, AHJ, owner, engineer, etc.), but depending on your contractual involvement, and even ethical involvement, be careful. You now are aware of changes that may require protection. Make sure you cover your tail, and make the appropriate parties aware.

Many jurisdictions don't have storage permitting (meaning a warehouse originally built in the 80s that was intended to store CMU blocks and now has group A plastics stored to 30' tall goes unnoticed, for example).

SafetyGuy Bern

7/17/2023 09:40:00 am

Thank you Casey, I am a new Safety Coordinator working for Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association, and this is one of my clients which is a municipal power company. With the price of power generation on the extreme rise, they will not be pleased to hear this expense is required. How I look at it; it is much better than having a fire and learning about it afterwards.
I am a previously retired Federal Safety Compliance Administrator who just couldn't stay retired, so I am blessed not having to worry about them not liking my audit report and getting the boot. You bring up several points that my wife has lectured me about. She thinks I am nutty for bringing it up, as know others before me have. I have a problem with not looking the other way...

Jesse

7/13/2023 11:40:53 am

This is a complicated question. It all boils down to the AHJ.

A big driver in all of this is commodity class. In the last 20-30 years the amount of Group A Plastic in the overall content of goods has increased - hence a change in the 2016 edition of 13. Many AHJs are now choosing not to renew high piled storage permits in unprotected warehouses.

Seems like some things in your building have changed and protection may very well now be needed.

Robert

7/14/2023 10:59:36 pm

Also - the insurance = the underwritten...the policy could deny a claim if a fire occurs and storage of materials differs from the original occupancy/policy.

SafetyGuy Bern

7/17/2023 09:44:46 am

Great stuff everyone. I thank you for all the information and codes to back them up. I can't believe after 26 years in the safety field I just found your site. I definitely won't forget it. If you ever have an OSHA occupational safety question, I would be glad to assist. Much appreciated.

Is a Building that Didn't Require Sprinklers Subject to Sprinkler Standard Requirements?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES