HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-2009 Anderson Coach Works v. City of Winter Springs Painting Operation Fire Protection Analysis Report1 zn
BROWN, GARGANESE, WEISS & D'AGRESTA, P.A.
Attorneys atLaw
Debra S. Babb-Nutcher'' Offices in Orlando,
Joseph E. Blitch Ft. Lauderdale & Tampa
Usher L. Brown'
Suzanne D'Agres4'
Anthony A. Garganese"
William E. Reischmann, Jr.
J.W. Taylor
Jeffrey S. Weiss
'Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer
'Board Certified City, County & Local Government Law
Board Certified Appellate Practice
June 9, 2009
John F. Bush, Mayor and
City Commission
City of Winter Springs
1126 E. State Road 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Re: Anderson Coach Works v City of Winter Springs
Painting Operations Fire Protection Analysis Report
Dear Mayor Bush and Commissioners:
Tara L. Barrett
Vivian P. Cocotas
Robin Gibson Drage
Gregg A. Johnson
Katherine W. Latorre'
Bridgette M. Miller
Alfred Truesdell
Lynn M. Vouis
Gary M. Glassman
Erin J. O'Leary'
Amy J. Pitsch
Catherine D. Reischmann"
Of Counsel
Enclosed is a copy of Global Fire Engineering, Inc.'s Painting Operations Fire
Protection Analysis Report, as I indicated under reports last evening. We determined
that it was best to disclose a copy of the report to Anderson's attorney for their
consideration. Therefore, this report is no longer subject to confidentiality.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
AAG:jel
enclosure
cc: Kevin Smith,
Sincer ,
/Anthon . Garganese
City Attorney
City Manager (w/ enc.)
111 N. Orange Ave, Suite 2000 • P.O. Box 2873 • Orlando, Florida 32802-2873
Orlando (407) 425-9566 Fax (407) 425-9596 • Kissimmee (321) 402-0144 • Cocoa (866) 425-9566 • Ft. Lauderdale (954) 670-1979
Website: www.orlandolaw.net • Email: firm@orlandolaw.net
GLOBAL FIRE ENGINEERING, INC.
FIRE PROTECTION DESIGN & CONSULTING
IMI
■ 8450 Linger Lodge Road, Bradenton, FL 34202 ❑ 2108 W. Risk Street, Plant City, FL 33563
Phone: (941) 758-2551 Fax: (941) 739-6383 Phone: (813) 659-2700 Far: (813) 659-2727
May 19, 2009
Mr. Anthony Garganese
Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta, P.A,
111 N. Orange Ave.
Suite 2000
Orlando, FL 32801
***CONFIDENTIAL***
ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGED
UNTIL FOLLOWING CASE CONCLUDED:
ANDERSON COACH V. CZ.'�Y OF WINTER SPRINGS
CASE NO.: d8_C�✓'� J r'1 ��_ l�
RE: Anderson Coach Works
Painting Operations Fire Protection Analysis
Dear Mr. Garganese:
At your request, I visited Anderson Coach Works in Winter Springs on April 3, 2009 and met with Mr.
Anderson. We toured his facility and I have evaluated my observations with the applicable fire protection
codes and standards. My understanding is that the operation was permitted in 2003, so the applicable
requirements of the 2001 Florida Building Code and the 2001 Florida Fire Prevention Code would have to be
followed. The 2001 Florida Fire Prevention Code references NFPA 33 (1995 edition) Standard for Spray
Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials. These references also adopt NFPA 70 which is the
National Electric Code (1999 edition).
The building is a multi -tenanted light gauge pre-engineered metal building structure using corrugated steel
roofing on metal purlins and rigid metal frames. The exterior walls are concrete block. This type of structure
offers little fire resistance and can not provide a 1 hour rating, unless additional structural protection is
provided. This building is provided with a fire sprinkler system designed to provide an Ordinary Hazard
protection level of 0.20 gpm/sq. ft. over the hydraulically remote 1,500 sq. ft. The sprinkler system is
supplied by a 4 inch double check backflow preventer and a 4 inch fire riser.
NFPA 33 would require the painting area to be designed for an Extra Hazard Group II occupancy which
would need to provide a design density of 0.41 gpm/sq. ft. over the hydraulically remote 2,000 sq. ft.
(assuming a design area reduction for high temperature 280-286 degree F rated fire sprinklers). The current
sprinkler spacing yields approximately 125 sq. ft. coverage per sprinkler. In an Extra Hazard system, the
maximum spacing using standard sprinklers would be limited to 100 sq. ft. coverage. We also noted that the
4 inch backflow preventer was improperly installed with PVC pipe above grade. This 4 inch device would,
with reasonable certainty, not be adequate in size to provide the water flow at the needed pressures for an
Extra Hazard fire sprinkler system. It is unknown if the tenant would be responsible for fire sprinkler
upgrades based on its use of the building or if the landlord would be required to provide adequate protection.
If the landlord understood what the tenant proposed to do in the building and is responsible for the general
area fire sprinkler protection, then a case could be made that the lease should not have been executed.
Mr. Anthony Garganese
May 19, 2009
Page 2 of 5
Anderson Coach Works has recently reduced its leased space from three bays to two bays. Each of these bays
measure approximately 40 feet in width and 50 feet in depth. The eastern (end) bay of the building is used
for paint spraying. There is no booth so by default the space becomes a spray room. This "spray room" is
separated from the adjacent space by a wall reportedly constructed of studs with drywall covering. As a result
of a previous requirement by the fire department, this wall was reportedly covered with a layer of 5/8" Type
X fire rated drywall over the existing wall. During my observations, I noted that there is a double door cut
through this wall for access to the other bay. This door is a lightweight metal clad door that is not a 1 hour
rated door, so the required separation between the spraying area and the adjacent occupancy does not exist.
Within the spray room area, I noted that the lighting is provided by standard fluorescent fixtures which do not
provide a suitable level of fire or explosion ignition resistance in the spraying areas. A previous attempt was
made to improve the situation by installing weather resistant covers over the light switches and the upgrading
the fans to ones with sealed motors. Chapter 4 of NFPA 33 provides the minimum levels of protection for the
electrical equipment so that it will not pose an ignition hazard. As a general statement, the installed electrical
service in the entire spray room will need to be upgraded to meet the requirements of the National Electrical
Code specifically to comply with Class I or 11 Division U electrical safety ratings.
One of the most obvious conditions was the lack of overspray on the walls, floors and structural members
since the operations started in 2003. Based on this observation, it would appear that the two exhaust fans (a
third one is abandoned in place) provide adequate exhaust to remove the overspray. At the time of the
observations, new filter material was being installed on the fans. I did notice slight discoloration on the fire
sprinkler heads above, but it did not appear to be significant (See Recommendations Below).
The second occupied bay is used for the preparation and body work repair of the motor coaches in addition to
paint mixing. The paint mixing is done in the open and not in a mixing room. I observed approximately 60
gallons of paint stored on open racks along with two metal drums of combustible paint thinner. With the
drums of thinner, the maximum storage quantities are exceeded without additional handling improvements.
VIOLATIONS OF CODES OR FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS AND POTENTIAL
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Based on my field observations, I have compiled a list of the fire protection observations that do not comply
with the applicable fire codes and standards. This list does not purport to identify every hazard but is believed
to identify the significant problem areas. Following each identified problem, I have provided a narrative
solution to each of these items:
1. OBSERVED CONDITION: The existing pre-engineered metal building structure does not provide
the required 1 hour rating required by NFPA 33 Section 3-1.3. This NFPA standard allows a paint
spray "room" if it is constructed of and separated by 1 hour fire resistance construction. With the
current roof construction and improper door in the wall, the 1 hour requirement can not be met.
Mr. Anthony Garganese
May 19, 2009
Page 3 of 5
SOLUTION: A replacement of the door and the application of a 1 hour rated intumescent coating on
the roof and structural members could be used to make this spray area comply with
Section 3-1.3 of NFPA 33. It does not appear that it would be practical to install a
rated ceiling as the building would be too low to allow continued operations.
2. OBSERVED CONDITION: The lighting and electrical fixtures in the spray bay need to comply with
the National Electrical Code and be listed for Class I or Class II Division II service. If any electrical
equipment or wiring is located in a position that it could be subject to spray, then this electrical
equipment would have to meet Class I or Class II Division I service per the National Electrical Code.
SOLUTION: All lighting, electrical switches, electrical conduit, conductors, emergency lighting,
exit signage, electrical receptacles, and switchgear (existing breakerbox) will need to
be removed and replaced with compliant equipment. This equipment will need to meet
Class II Division II as a minimum. The electrical switch panel located in the northeast
corner of the building needs to be relocated outside the building in a UL listed
waterproof box or installed inside the building in an enclosure suitable to provide at
least a Class I or II Division II electrical classification.
3. OBSERVED CONDITION: The fire sprinkler system would be required to meet the requirements of
NFPA 13 for an Extra Hazard Group II occupancy as specified in NFPA 33 Section 7-2.1. The
current system is inadequate and does not appear to be suitable for modifications that could upgrade
this system. A removal and replacement of the fire sprinkler system starting at the underground fire
mains and backflow device will be needed.
SOLUTION: The existing fire sprinkler system will need to be removed from the 2 bays occupied by
Anderson Coach works and a new system meeting the requirements of an Extra
Hazard Group II occupancy would need to be installed. This will require the
installation of a new larger backflow device capable of delivering the needed flow and
volume to supply a new 6 or 8 inch fire riser to protect the area occupied by Anderson
Coachworks. This assumes that the public water supply can provide adequate flows
and pressures, but could not been verified from the site visit which included
observations only.
4. OBSERVED CONDITION: The mixing of paints is being done in an open area that is not separated
from the other operations as required by NFPA 33 Section 6-3.1.
SOLUTION: A self contained mixing room or constructed cut off room must be provided to meet
the requirements of NFPA 33. If the total of all combustible paints AND solvents can be maintained
below 60 gallons, it would be permissible to mix paints in the spraying area, provided that the other
protective features identified in this report. These improvements would include upgrades to the fire
sprinkler system and correction of electrical deficiencies. If a mixing room is provided, it must meet
the requirements of Chapter 6 as specified in NFPA 33. This will include it being protected with
Mr. Anthony Garganese
May 19, 2009
Page 4 of 5
automatic sprinklers, containment for spills, ventilation, explosion control electrical features, and
bonding of dispensing containers, etc.
OBSERVED CONDITION: The PVC plastic air line that penetrates the fire rated wall between the
two bays. This piping passes through a wall that is required to have a 1 hour fire rating.
SOLUTION: All pipe penetrations through a required fire rated wall or partition must provide the
same level of fire resistance as the wall. This penetration by the pipe would have to be protected using
an Underwriters Laboratories (UL) approved penetration fire stopping. As a general notation for
safety, it is not recommended to run compressed air through hard plastic piping as its failure can
result in the release of dangerous plastic shards capable of causing injury or death to the occupants.
6. OBSERVED CONDITION: The existing break room structure in the body shop/ paint mixing area is
not fully protected with automatic sprinklers.
SOLUTION: The protection in this room needs to be improved by adding sprinklers piped from the
existing overhead fire sprinkler system.
7. OBSERVED CONDITION: The fire protection backflow preventer is currently installed with what
appears to be either DR-18 or DR-14 PVC plastic piping.
SOLUTION: The listing of this material does not allow it to be installed above grade where it would
be subject to damage from fire exposure or damage from the sun's UV radiation. The plastic piping
needs to be replaced with ductile iron pipe. (Note: This piping would need to be replaced anyway to
increase the size of piping supplying the fire sprinkler protection in order to comply with the other
recommendations in this report.)
8. OBSERVED CONDITION: The fire sprinklers in the paint spray bay need to be inspected by a
licensed fire sprinkler contractor for overspray and replaced as necessary.
SOLUTION: From the floor level there appeared to be a minor amount of discoloration on the
sprinkler heads that could affect the operation of the sprinklers.
POSSIBLE ALTERNATE SOLUTION
If this operation could cease the use of solvent based paints and switch to the newer water based automotive
finishes, the hazards could be reduced significantly. Without the solvent based paints the electrical equipment
would not be an issue nor would the current protection afforded by the fire sprinkler system. No mixing room
would be required, the 1 hour wall penetrations and the relocation of the electrical panel would all become
acceptable as they now exist. The feasibility of this change would have to be explored by the tenant to
determine if it is possible. A review of the internet seems to indicate that the future of automotive finishes is
moving toward solvent free materials.
Mr. Anthony Garganese
May 19, 2009
Page 5 of 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The current operation does not comply with the applicable requirements of NFPA 3 3 or the references to
NFPA 13 (Standard for the Installation Sprinkler Systems) and the National Electrical Code. The unfortunate
situation for the tenant is that this building can not be brought up to "code" without the expenditure of a large
capital outlay. The fire sprinkler upgrades most likely would have to be completed by the landlord as the
required changes would be on the scale of a major demolition of existing piping and its replacement.
Other issues such as the need to provide a 1 hour fire rating for the spray area will require protection of the
exposed roof steel. We recognize that two probable alternatives exist to upgrade the fire resistance of the roof
framing. The first option could be to install fire proofing. An alternative such as installing a ceiling is likely
to reduce the building height to unusable elevations and will likely conflict with the existing door height.
Virtually all of the electrical wiring and conduit in the bay used for spraying would need to be removed and
replaced along with new lighting, including the exit and emergency lighting. The final major deficiency is the
paint mixing operation and the lack of a suitable work space complying with NFPA 33. Currently flammable
liquids handling, dispensing and mixing do not comply with the applicable requirements of NFPA 33.
Based on the total sum of needed improvements, it is likely that the tenant could find a more suitable location
for this type operation or explore the alternate solvent free painting options. Unless the landlord is willing to
upgrade the fire sprinkler protection, the tenant is not likely to be in a position to bring this building and its
current operations into compliance with the applicable codes and standards.
I will be available to discuss this matter further at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Bri oster, F.P.E.,
Florida Certified Fire Safety Inspector,
President
cc Project File 3135-09