Posted By Stephen Clark With regard to warehouse operations and others. The new guidance states that sprinklers should extend to all parts of the building. Contrary to this at least one fire authority has requested that sprinklers be removed from office areas as they think the risk from electrical equipment such as PCs etc means that sprinklers are not appropriate. What are your views on this? Steve Clark CMIOSH Chair- R&D SG: Transport & Distribution Cluster Group steve.clark@phyzix.co.uk

Posted By David Bannister I find it very strange that a fire authority is asking for removal of sprinklers after well over a century of sprinklers doing their job, preventing small fires from becoming large ones. I have never heard of this before. I have often heard the argument (by ill-informed managers) that the office computers may be damaged by sprinkler water as justification for not extending the sprinklers. The counter is that the fire will do much worse and the Brigade will use vastly larger quantities of water. Accidental discharge is so rare in offices as to be discounted, whilst inattentive FLT drivers stick in the main to warehouses and factories! Offices do have fires, non-sprinklered offices have large fires that can spread in to the factory and be so large as to overwhelm the sprinklers (ie be larger than the design capabilities). I believe in sprinklers as a superb, tried and tested method of controlling fire. Challenge the relevant fire authority to justify its stance.

Posted By Ashley Wood Hi Steve, I am doing work at the moment for the new 'fire control centers', I have designed water mist systems for the office areas and these have been accepted by the fire authorities! Your experience may be an isolated case.

Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney We have just purchased a substantial office block of almost 200,000 sq ft. It has sprinklers and our architects are proposing the removal of said system. The insurers have offered a 30k reduction in premiums to keep it; when I weigh up the cost of inspection and maintenance and the electrical factor, although there are ways to link the main electrical supplies to the sprinkler and kill power to everything the moment they go off it does make some sense; having so said the system is there and I see little point in it's removal. Will I get my point across? I wonder, time will tell. CFT

Posted By Robert J Martin I would suggest the fire officer did know what he was talking about. If your not sure ask to speak to his senior manager. It's true I would rather damage a PC by water than loose a sizeable and functional part of my business.

Posted By Christopher Kelly Engineering insurance departments used to request that sprinkler heads were blanked off above computer equipment as the risk of water damage was greater than from fire. However we always mentioned that this should only be done with the authorisation of the main fire insurer and reviewed by the fire risk assessment. Usually we found it was impractical to do this as the office fire risk is primarily from electrical equipment and therefore needs to be covered by a sprinkler head. The insurance underwriter looks at risk purely from the particular risk they are covering. Fire underwriter's requirements often conflict with Employer's Liability requirements. I find it difficult to believe that a Fire Brigade Officer would recommend that a sprinkler system should be removed - they are not interested in protecting property from water damage - just in preventing spread of fire. Wasn't this an insurance surveyor ? Now working in electrical transmission industry - it seems ridiculous that a fire insurer would request water sprinkler systems above electrical distribution equipment - lethal ! Regards