NFPA vs. CFC conflict for commodity classification reduction

[arion]

Hi,

According to 2007 CFC Section 2306.3.2.2, mixing High Hazard Commodities with Class I-IV Commodities results in classifying the entire storage area as High Hazard. However, Section 5.6.1.2.3 of 2002 NFPA 13 states that we can use the protection requirements for the lower commodity class as long as there are (1) no more than 10 pallet loads of the higher hazard commodity, and (2) the higher hazard commodity must be randomly dispersed with no adjacent loads in any direction (including diagonally).

Does that mean loads of the lower class commodities as well, or that the higher hazard commodities can't be adjacent to each other?

Are there any other classification reductions under certain criteria?

The main question though is which code supersedes the other? This seems to be a direct conflict between CFC and NFPA.

Thanks!

 

[cdafd]

The stricter of the two Normaly applies

Plus you need to start with CDC since that is where the requirement comes from


Possibly look at 2304.2 should be titled designation based on engineering and 2306.3 separation of high piled. That may be the answer you are looking for


And do not forget 2306.2 extent and type of protection. The ten foot rule

 

[stookeyfpe]

And let's also not forget that the particular provision has been shown by fire testing to completely invalid.

CDA is right: when a difference exists between the IFC and NFPA standards, the IFC takes precedence. However, since you're in California, I have no idea of how the CFC addresses this.

 

[arion]

Yeah, that makes sense. I would further say the CFC is even more strict than the IFC is, because we seem to get all the seismic and fire drama out here. haha

thanks guys!