The subject of this question is American Water based in NJ that sells
90% or more of the water in the USA and Canada through its subsidiary
local water companies that it has been buying up for some time. A
water company here is one of these. Except for a couple of systems, it
controls practically all the water in the St. Louis metropolitan area
on the Missouri side of the Mississippi river. Another such company
controls the water on the Illinois side of the Mississippi river. It
is common knowledge the water company managers will not provide
historical hydrant test information even though the company is present
at every hydrant test made on their system. Fire sprinkler systems
around here are usually designed based upon recent hydrant tests with
some debating over the required safety factor applied to the available
water energy. The local Fire Marshall reviews and approves the final
design and water supply basis. The local water supply networks vary
from place to place in supply quality and their hydrant test results
are predictable.
Such is how it has been. Recently the water company has added the fire
sprinkler system to its water tap application documents. They now hold
a project's water tap in ransom if the sprinkler system design
extracts more water energy than some value that they determine based
on the tap's location. A 20% safety margin has been mentioned in this
forum as excessive. That is nothing compared to a 35% to 40% margin
ransom value. The water company refuses to make the tap unless the
fire sprinkler system design is changed to require no more energy than
a value they dictate, regardless of the AHJ's prior approval and
historical system knowledge. Is that starting to happen in your area?
If so, is the tap ransom a function of the project's construction cost?
One might say the water company is looking out for our safety. I
suspect they are intentionally trying to decrease the liability of
extracting more profit from their customers that results from not
properly applying water sales fees into maintaining water supply
systems. There have been a few reports of dramatic water supply
failures during fires. These have been on American Water owned
systems. If a fire pump goes into a project as a result of the water
company mandate, then the water company's expected failure
responsibility cost is reduced by the added probability of fire pump
failure and electrical system supple failure and so on. Maybe this
kind of profit optimization adds up to big money when you supply 90%
of the water and you control every tap. Maybe it means even more if
you also had a stake in the pump business. I don't know if they do,
but if you supply water it might help to make your own pumps.
Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
