Business Interruption isn't addressed by code. Sure is important, and a small investment in sprinkler can avoid millions in shutdown/replacement/loss of revenue/loss of customers going elsewhere.
glc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Value of additional Sprinkler Coverage This is a common issue in industrial facilities. Apparently he sees value in protecting his chillers against fire. Does he feel that his electrical equipment is expendable? If the whole "water-on-electrical-equipment=electrocution or damage" issue is his driver for omitting sprinkler protection from the electrical room, remind him that any fire within this area will be dealt with by use of water. Without sprinklers it will be firemen with hoses delivering large amounts of water. Plus by that time, his electrical gear will be a total loss from the heat and fire. Can he afford to interrupt his operation long enough to replace the equipment, wiring, conduit, controls and possibly the building? Most will say no, they couldn't afford that kind of interruption, and especially not in today's economy. If he has fear of the electrocution or water damage issue, you can always do the pre-action thing to offer him some level of comfort. Often these areas are considered low hazard areas and by code don't require sprinkler protection. However the driver that usually results in them being protected is their importance to the operation of the facility. These are expensive items with long lead times for delivery. Depending on their use, their failure can result in failure of other equipment. So that's why it's good to ask the owner what level of importance these types of support areas have to their overall operation. So no, you're not being overly conservative, you're trying to look out for his best interest. If he has an insurance underwriter have they been involved or offered any opinion? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist 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 Ken Nisly-Nagele Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Value of additional Sprinkler Coverage Chiller plant determined by architect to be F-2 occupancy: No sprinkler protection required under current code. However, owner wants to bid alternate for sprinklers in main chiller room, but no sprinklers in adjacent electrical equipment room. Electrical equipment room has only dry equipment, transformers of 75 kVA, but no rated separation from chiller room. I am pressing for sprinklers in electric equipment room, or 2-hour separation with the alternate to provide sprinklers for the chiller room. Would members say I am being overly conservative and best to be just be content if owner wants to add some sprinkler protection? I see the unprotected electrical area as reducing the value/advantage of sprinklers in the chiller room. Ken A. Nisly-Nagele, P.E. Mechanical Project Engineer Applied Engineering Services, Inc. 9100 Keystone Crossing, Ste 200 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Voice: 317.810.4141 Fax: 317.810.4140 www.applied-e-s.com <http://www.applied-e-s.com/> <file:///G:/Group/Marketing/Logo%20small.jpg> _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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)
