Rank: New forum user 
|
I have always been used to sprinkler valves being locked off using leather straps and padlocks. I've believed that this was so they could be cut should an emergency situation require it.
A client of mine has just been taken over by an American company and their insurance company is insisting that the valves are locked using chains and padlocks.
Can anyone help, or point me in the direction of the relevant guidance as I can not find anything definitive.
Is it straps and padlocks or chains and padlocks?
Any thoughts, Many thanks. Alan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Straps and padlocks - definately.
A lot of places will chop through the leather strap to around 3/4 of it's width to allow it to break easily in an emergency.
Accidental sprinkler activations are rare - the most likely cause is an FLT or load hitting a poorly positioned in rack sprinkler head. Usually happens when folks change the racking configuration without altering the rack sprinklers so they are shielded.
In an accidental activation you need to be able to shut off the main valve quickly. Taking time to find a padlock key that may reside in a locked office out of hours is an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Yep, same thoughts that I’ve had for many a year, but I have to point to the specific guidance for the insurance company. Any ideas where I can get it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In the UK I worked to the LPC design rules although I've not done sprinkler work for around 4 years. I know European standards were being rolled out. I had a hunch that your American company might be using the NFPA codes. I managed to find the NFPA 13 Standard for Installation of Sprinkler Installations online - in an awful unsearchable document reader. The section applicable simply reads:- 8.16.1.1.2 Supervision (3) Valves locked in the correct position. The document can be found here - http://www.nfpa.org/abou...utTheCodes.asp?DocNum=13 View the document online - read only. You need to register but it is free. Is the insurer Factory Mutual by any chance? If so, they publish stuff online but I think you need a password for it. You might be able to get that if your firm is a policyholder. Factory Mutual have a reputation for OTT requirements for property risk management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Looks like you can download the LPC rules and technical bulletins here - http://projects.bre.co.uk/frsdiv/lpcrules/It is a self extracting exe file so you may wish to virus check first. Page is dated 2001 so it may be a little out of date. There are never really any retrospective requirements to bring old systems up to modern standards. I used to see old 28th* and 29th edition systems on a regular basis and they can date back to the 60's and before. Providing the system is maintained and meets the design requirements for the occupation we would accept it. *28th ed did not take occupancy in to account so they would get a very low discount only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is some free info from RSA (Royal SunAlliance), a major UK property insurer, on sprinkler system maintenance. http://www.rsaconnect.rs...opertyRiskManagement.aspSprinkler stuff is near the bottom of the page. It just says valves to be secured in position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
UK practice has long been for leather straps whilst US insurers want chains. FM in particular are paranoid about arson involving closing of the main water valves and will quote horror stories at you.
What is your experience with water discharge from the systems?
If you have had none then you may consider that the change is worthwhile to keep them sweet. Otherwise use your broker to convince the US insurer that it is your site and unless thay are prepared to pay 100% of any and all unintentional discharge costs (no chance) you will stick with what you want. They will however raise this at and after each survey visit in the hope that they will wear you down.
If your property insurance is a small part of a large global programme they will not have any commercial levers to use. Another slant may be that your US parent has a global risk manager that will also support your insurers recommendation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stuff4blokes - is that the Digital Equipment Company Limited -v- Hampshire County Council case they are quoting?
If so, I reckon the brigade could chop through chains with no issues.
Agree with the comments about Factory Mutual though.
I did sprinkler work for around 11 years with a previous employer and cannot recall a single instance of valves being maliciously closed to prevent water flow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Me neither. An arsonist sufficiently aware to know to close a spk valve will find a way to get around a chain! In my experience pumphouses are so insecure and rarely intruder alarm protected that they are a far easier target than a valveset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The use of chains should not present a real problem in the event of an emergency shut off being required. The system I used in a previous company involved all the fire team each having a single key that fitted all the locks and they could if necessary and with instruction from a senior fire team member of Fire officer shut the valve. This is far quicker than having to find something to cut the leather strap. Some people used to say that the strap could be snapped by closing the valve but we always found that this didn't work quick enough. The use of the chain and padlock also prevents someone closing the valve during a fire in the belief that they needed the water off to see what was happening. Believe me I once stopped a fire officer doing this so he didn't get wet when checking the area.
Take care
John C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In a fire situation where the sprinklers have actuated,the premises should have been fully evacuated, so it is necassary for the Senior Fire Officer attending the incident to send one of his crew to the main sprinkler valve which should be in the open position and locked off with a Leather strap and padlock. The crew member will wait for the order to close the valve, usualy by radio. To enable him to do this he is required to cut through the strap with a special knife. This is why the strap is leather and this has been Fire Service procedures for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
johnc wrote: This is far quicker than having to find something to cut the leather strap. Some people used to say that the strap could be snapped by closing the valve but we always found that this didn't work quick enough. The leather strap still has a padlock on it so your key plan would work. A lot of firms pre-cut the strap to 1/2 - 2/3 of it's width to give a weak point that will fail when turning the valve. It is easier to see if a strapped valve has been tampered with (the strap breaks and cannot be fixed) than a chain that you could snap and re-close a link to make it look undisturbed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Smith24525 wrote:In a fire situation where the sprinklers have actuated,the premises should have been fully evacuated, so it is necassary for the Senior Fire Officer attending the incident to send one of his crew to the main sprinkler valve which should be in the open position and locked off with a Leather strap and padlock. The crew member will wait for the order to close the valve, usualy by radio. To enable him to do this he is required to cut through the strap with a special knife. This is why the strap is leather and this has been Fire Service procedures for years. This is correct but also the premises occupier can provide any keys to the fire service to be held on the appliance/s. Bottom line - any arsonist will find a way to close a main stop valve - the strap/chain is purely a deterrent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.