In 25 years I've never worked on a pharm plant that wasn't fully protected. Whether by size or other criteria, the building code generally will require full sprinkler protection.
With the typical mixed bag of storage, chemicals, and other hazardous processes, I'd be real curious under what circumstances a facility would be exempt from being protected. I'd like to see that Hazards and Codes Analysis. Of course if its occupancy is classified wrong by the A/E, accepted by an unknowing AHJ and never questioned by an owner who enjoys saving a few bucks, anything is possible. Often the error occurs when an A/E finds there are no flammable or combustible chemicals in the building. They quickly attach an F-2 occupancy (low hazard) and now we have no sprinklers. What they fail to understand or question is if there is any chemicals which are toxic, explosion hazards, oxidizers, etc. I've caught several that started out this way. Then when I point out the wrong path of occupancy determination and state that sprinklers will be required, of course it's fire protection that's trying to tank the project. The fact that a major screw-up has just been averted o ften goes unnoticed. And then we repeat the dance on the next project. <sigh> Even if the chemicals used are not flammable or combustible, many are health hazards in raw form or have other hazardous characteristics and drive the facilities into an "F-1" or "H" occupancy category which mandates sprinkler protection throughout. Now we are talking about the IBC codes, codes in the Netherlands may be different of course. Craig L. Prahl, CET -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Stoop Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Reasons to not sprinkler a pharmaceutical plant Dear colleagues, Here is a peculiar question: A pharmaceutical company is planning to build a new plant with laboratories for production and quality control, offices and an underground parking level. The top floor is for HVAC. The main process is waterbased, although, like any other laboratory, there small quantities of flammable liquids present. The flammable liquids will be stored in fire cabinets. We already convinced the company's management that sprinkler is the way to go for the obvious reasons: life safety, preservation of property, continuity of operations, etc. Maybe we advised them too good: Now the management wonders why not all pharmaceutical plants are sprinklered throughout. I'm composing a list of unsprinklered pharmaceutical facilities with the reason why the decision makers in concern have chosen not to sprinkler. Can you help me with examples of such sites, (parts of) plants or rooms and the reasoning? By the way, this question from our client is not as peculiar as it looks like at first sight. It is just a known method of decision making. It might lead to the decision to protect some rooms or parts of the building otherwise (with gas, pre-action sprinkler e.g.). Frans Stoop TOS architecture & fire protection Netherlands <[email protected]> Tel. +31-24-324 0112 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
