You need to check with your local codes. The international codes do not re quire this and we have not specified any chemical storage area with a non-a queous system, not even our chemistry department stockroom. There are other factors you'll need to consider if you're going with a CO2 or other system, including the ventilation and what to do it the system act ivates while it is occupied. Based on the discussions we've had with lab building designers for three ne w lab buildings over the last four years, it does not appear to be conventi onal to go with such a system. The international fire code lists storage q uantity limits based on the presence (or lack) of water-based fire suppress ion and use of flammable liquid storage cabinets. Another option is to look at a pre-action system, particularly if you're co ncerned about the possibility of leaks. - Robin Robin M. Izzo, M.S. Associate Director, EHS Princeton University 609-258-6259 (office) =A0 How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling i t a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. ~ Abraham Lincoln -----Original Message----- From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Fe rm Barret A Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 11:08 AM To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: [DCHAS-L] When is non-water fire suppression required in a chemica l stockroom? We are in the design phase of creating a new, modest-size chemical stockroom, which is considered an occupied space. Is it current standard to have fire suppression that uses a non-aqueous agent? Does it depend on what chemicals are present? It will definitely house general organics, acids and flammables. Is there a prevailing design philosophy I can present to the decision-makers?
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post