Accidental Discharge Is Rare And Can Be Prevented There is only a one in 16 million chance of accidental discharge due to a manufacturing defect from a sprinkler system. Nearly all accidental discharges can be prevented by proper maintenance. In the case of water damage from a sprinkler system as a result of fire, the damage is far less than the water damage caused by fire fighters attempting to extinguish a blaze.
Source: http://www.emcins.com/lc/insights/insights99v5/makethedifference.htm Noreen McMahon Smith Seckman Reid, Inc. Denver, CO Tel: 303.779.1222 Fax: 303.694.9144 [EMAIL PROTECTED] P Please do not print this e-mail unless necessary Notice: This message is confidential, is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message and are not an intended recipient, please delete it from your computer. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Fitz Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 7:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: worried about Sprinklers leakage I specifically installed a wet system in my lab and some of it is above my scanning electron microscope (SEM), FTIR, GCMS and other very expensive lab equipment in case they are a possible fire cause. (We did have one of the electrical connections in the SEM fail, it was caught by lab personnel before it could spread.) The risk of damage by maintenance people, power problems or an earthquake to this delicate equipment is much higher than a sprinkler leak. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics to prove these statements. Michael At 06:10 AM 6/23/2008, you wrote: >We've had similar discussions about this type of topic before. > >Even if they had a gaseous system, they would most likely be required to >provide sprinklers anyway due to requirements of NFPA and other codes. > >If they were apprehensive about the issue they should have expressed >that much sooner. Waiting until its all installed is a bit late to be >considering the issue. But it might be easier and cheaper to convert >the sprinkler system to a pre-action system. At least the option should >be investigated. Of course there may be system issues that prevent >that. > >I would also try to find out if there are other water carrying pipes >above the ceiling over this equipment, things like water lines, roof >drains, waste drains, condensate drains, any HVAC equipment, etc. All >these can drip or condensate and can leak with a greater likelihood than >the sprinkler systems. Testing of these type of systems is often not as >strict or comprehensive as the testing sprinkler lines have to endure. > >If they are worried about water they need to investigate ALL water >carrying systems that could be installed above their equipment. > >If they are worried about the psycho janitor swinging the mop handle and >breaking a head, then offer to install cages or use the institutional >style heads if possible. > >They would probably be more likely to be hit by lightning than have a >sprinkler accidentally discharge. > > >Craig L. Prahl, CET >Fire Protection Group >Mechanical Department >CH2MHILL >Lockwood Greene >1500 International Drive >PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 >Direct - 864.599.4102 >Fax - 864.599.8439 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.ch2m.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Haji, >Jaber M >Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:45 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: worried about Sprinklers leakage > >Newly constructed research and development lab facility is protected by >a wet type sprinkler system, one of the lab scientist is worried about >the accidental release of the automatic sprinkler heads on top or in >the vicinity of the high tech., expensive analytical instruments such >as NMR, FTMS, autospec GC/MS and ESEM , which present a potential risk >of damage to these instruments in case these sprinklers kick off during >actual emergency or broken by mistake by a maintenance personnel or a >lab personnel. He suggests gas suppression instead. I explained to him >that accidental leakage of wet type sprinkler system is very minimal. >The question is what the probability of activation and how much will it >cost to replace the existing system with a gas suppression system. Your >recommendations/insights are highly appreciated. >Jaber Al-Haji >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >To Unsubscribe, send an email >to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Michael M. Fitz, P.E., C.F.I. MDE Inc. 700 South Industrial Way Seattle, WA 98108 Main 206-622-2007 Direct 206-957-2140 Fax 206-622-2248 Home Office 360-427-2751 Cell 206-321-1804 www.mde.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
