March 25, 2000
CONTENTS:
- Mist fire suppression systems
- UNIFORMS (James Barnhart)
- Security budget (Steve Keller)
From: Rick Kerschner rkerschner@shelburnemuseum.org
Subject: Mist fire suppression systems
The following messages were posted on the Objects Group discussion
list with little response. Any advice from the DistList?
The following message was posted by Jessica Johnson for someone not
on the OSG list:
Currently several NPS parks are in the design phase for the
installation of a water mist fire protection system. As with
many fire suppression systems, many of the lines will run
through unheated areas that are prone to freezing temperatures.
The usual (and least expensive) means used by the company for
preventing freezing within the lines is the insertion of an
antifreeze (Propylene Glycol). Since these are some of the
first installations in museums for this company (usually a
distributor to cruise lines), they are not aware of any
potential hazards posed by this antifreeze to a museum
collection during a disaster. Has any park installed a fire
suppression system (preferably a mist system) with an antifreeze
in the lines that knows more about the clean-up? Do any
conservators know of any potential problems with the clean-up of
this material?
R. Kerschner Replied:
I believe this system has significant potential for use in
Museums, especially in historic buildings. It is essentially a
highly effective fire suppression system that could quickly
extinguish a fire in a historic building without introducing
much water or soaking the contents of the building. I believe
that we are talking small amounts of Propylene Glycol, pints or
quarts, not gallons. This may or may not make a difference if
even very small amounts can cause corrosion to metals or damage
to paint films.
Also keep in mind one is probably not talking about long term
contact between the antifreeze-water mixture and the artifacts.
Hopefully within minutes or hours of discharge, conservators or
other respondents will be wiping moisture off all the artifacts
that have been exposed to the mist.
Finally, any potential damage from the Propylene Glycol should
be weighed against the potential damage from fire, or soaking
with hundreds of gallons of water from conventional sprinkler
systems or fire hoses.
A dry pipe mist system may be ideal. I believe this is possible,
but additional cost may be a factor.
Richard L. Kerschner
Director of Preservation and Conservation
Shelburne Museum
PO Box 10, Route 7
Shelburne, VT 05482
802-985-3348 Ext 3361
From: "James Barnhart" barnhart@alphaclp.clpgh.org
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: UNIFORMS
Date sent: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 06:49:44 -0500
Recently the security staff in several of our museums were removed in favor of
educators and customer service representatives. In one case the uniform is a
polo type shirt and the in the other instance they wear dark clothing. Both
groups experienced problems with respect and enforcement of museum policies. In
the case of the group in polo shirts they feel they are being treated badly by
members of the general public, and a lack the respect from the general public
because of the uniform they wear.
From: IntlArtCop@aol.com
Date sent: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:42:51 EST
Subject: Re: March 24, 2000: industry standard
To: securma@xs4all.nl
In a message dated 3/24/00 2:13:05 AM, Mike Kirchner writes:
Is there an industry standard as to what percentage of an overall museum
budget is spent on security? Has there been a study done to that effect?
These are the second and third most frequently asked questions. (Number one is
"How many guards per square foot should i have?")
There is no standard and I know of no study. We tried to compile information on
this some time ago and found that it really was not possible to determine a
standard percent. The range seems to be from 10% with no special exhibit budget
included, to 25% in museums with large security forces when special exhibits are
included. But these stats are not based on any study, just my observations.
Steve Keller