http://museum-security.org/
securma@xs4all.nl
SITE MAP

November 15, 1998

CONTENTS:

RE: Yet More Sprinkler System Thoughts (Ken Vail)

first:

Dear Subscribers,
This Sprinkler thread on our list has become quite interesting, and so is the e-mail below by Ken Vail. Allow me to add a little bit more information and thoughts to reflect on:
- damage by fire in Sprinkler protected buildings is only 3 (three) percent of the damage caused by fire in non-Sprinker protected buildings
- 90% of all fires that need to be fought are 'beginning' fires. Almost all beginning fires are extinguished by just one Sprinkler head (it is a misunderstanding that a fire alarm starts all Sprinklers in the building)
- Sprinklers need far less water to extinguish a fire than traditional means of fighting fire
- the strength of Sprinkler water beams is only a small fraction of traditional means (the firebrigade is able to blow your whole museum collection to pieces; they won't but may....)
- Sprinkler protected buildings allow much larger exhibition rooms (this will be accepted by the fire brigade)
- modern Sprinkler turn off automatically (and restart if needed)
- did you ever think about the damage that your, possible not trained, staff may cause when they try to extinguish a fire using the fire hoses you have in your building?
- last but certainly very important: using Sprinkler systems there is only a very small lapse of time between the moment your electronic systems detect a fire and the moment the actual fighting of the fire starts.

Ton Cremers


------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: "Ken V." Kenmtb1@email.msn.com
To: "Museum Security Mailinglist"
Subject:

RE: Yet More Sprinkler System Thoughts (Ken Vail)

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:00:08 -0500

Another view is from the basic risk management perspective of the "minimax" principle. This involves minimizing the maximum loss. This principle recognizes that in the long-term, the greatest good is done by preparing for large loss scenarios, and preserving collections accordingly...even though there may be a small risk of loss in that process. Most risk management professionals concur that sprinkler systems (in various forms) provide the most efficient, effective, and economical fire *suppression* capability that is readily available at today's technology level.
Anyone seriously considering installing large-scale Halon (or replacement) systems, in today's cultural institution environment, for general protection purposes, just isn't playing with a full deck. There are serious unintended consequences for the staff, extremely limited supply & duration of protection, & almost no back-up/redundancy for secondary suppression needs. That's my perspective, as a risk control consultant with 20 years experience.
I have found that the decision makers in many cultural institutions have a real conceptual problem with analyzing risk in financial terms. And rightfully so. Money won't replace the objects. When they're gone, that's it. I asked the CEO of a very large, high profile Museum what she considered to be an acceptable level of loss for her facility. This was at a time when the Museum Administration was considering upgrading fire & security safety. Her answer was "there is no level of acceptable loss". Yet her facility was mostly non-sprinklered, was primarily one fire division (due to the building configuration & in terms of maximum probable loss), and had numerous basic fire prevention & security improvement opportunities. Was the CEO's view inconsistent with her facility's current reality? Absolutely.
Yes, it's a real inconvenience to upgrade protective features. There's always a risk that part of the collection can be lost or damaged in the process. It can be politically allot easier to bury the project in feasibility studies. Or worse yet, to just do absolutely nothing, take the Ostrich stance, and hope the issue goes away (but that's never happened HERE ...). But the *real* risk is doing nothing. Remember "minimax"? Without a full coverage sprinkler system, with an adequate water supply and appropriate design density, the fact is...your facility *is* at risk of a total fire loss. There are some people...who really ought to know better...that still think that every friggin' sprinkler head will go off in the event of a fire. That's simply not true for sprinkler systems in cultural institutions.
Anyone here have first-hand knowledge of the havoc that smoke & toxic products of combustion cause in a fire scenario? I do. It's not pretty. All fire-restive or (some) non-combustible construction *really* means is that the structure will probably remain intact, & not contribute to the overall fire load. But guess what...the contents will still become damaged/destroyed in a fire scenario. And that's for normal fire scenarios. It can get more drastic in arson/sabotage scenarios.
What would you rather attempt to restore...a total burnout, or a relatively insignificant amount of water damage? I believe I know what most conservators would prefer to deal with.
What seems risky to museum mangers today...the prospect of installing sprinkler systems...will become the accepted practice within 15 years. All it will take is a few more sensational fires. At which time the Board of Directors of cultural institutions, & the public will start to take a hard look at what due diligence *really* takes place about protective features. Museum professionals...you have an obligation to preserve the objects for the edification, enjoyment, understanding, & enlightenment of future generations. But will the objects still be there? That's contingent, in large part, on the decisions that you make today. What would you do if you were sued for failing to provide adequate and appropriate protection for your facility? Does that sound far fetched? Don't bet on it. Will a major incident in your facility be the one that finally turns the tide for the remainder of the industry? Give it some thought now. Then act as if it really matters. It's up to you. What will it be?



Main Indexpage