Obviously it isn't a code issue, but often it is not an issue owners think 
about until it happens them.  These kinds of areas tend to be high value spaces 
and even if the code doesn't require them to be protected, many underwriters 
will.  There's nothing wrong with pointing out a few issues for the owner to 
consider before he makes his final decision.


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 George Church
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Value of additional Sprinkler Coverage

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)
_______________________________________________
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)

Reply via email to