Total damage to building and contents if it did not have sprinklers would be much more than 250k. Plus you have to factor in if there was a fire the store would be closed for multiple days. How much money would Lowes lost then.

In related news, there will be a massive sale this weekend at the Idaho Falls Lowe's.

pullingguard79: Total damage to building and contents if it did not have sprinklers would be much more than 250k. Plus you have to factor in if there was a fire the store would be closed for multiple days. How much money would Lowes lost then.

Not having sprinklers was not the option desired by the store. They wanted to be able to shut off the sprinklers once they got the fire under control.

Welcome to wrongville, population: You.

With helpful image of what fire may look like.

dletter: While I appreciate where you are coming from as a fire marshal... if this was a fire that was truly put out by a handheld fire extinguisher (at least that is what I assume is meant), but, it triggered the sprinklers and then they couldn't be shut off at all.... seems like someone in charge of the store (even if it is only the top, top manager at the store) should be able to override and get it turned off. Boils down to.... small fire that was put out with the extinguisher only cause $2k in damage, which triggered the sprinklers that caused $250k in damage.

Considering how the fire started around 4 AM I'm going to guess nobody was in the store to even shut it off.

Heh, CSB time. In California(or at least certain municipalities) there is a law that structures(including homes) over a certain size(I think its 4ksqft) require sprinklers. I was working for a termite company and the rich guy who owned this massive home down on the water in the Newport Beach area needed a heat treatment in the attic to certify the home for a cash sale, so the sales rep sells the heat treatment and doesn't mark down that there is a sprinkler system in the home. The technician goes to the house, starts the heat treatment, and goes in to his truck to take a nap. In the meantime, the sprinklers go off in the attic and flood the next floor down, where the artwork is(including at least one work by a notable Impressionist artist) and the high grade Brazilian cherry wood office is(as in entirely built in it, walls, built-ins, floor, desk, furniture, etc). The sirens from the fire dept(sprinklers triggered the security system to send an engine) wake up the technician, who is now in deep shiat.

Post mortem is something around a million in water damage/repairs, none of the meaningful artwork harmed(thankfully), Brazilian cherry wood office a total loss, cash sale of the multimillion dollar home broken off(ouch), sales rep has his sales license suspended and is placed on unpaid admin leave for a time, and the technician gets fired and loses his applicators license.

love-m'-beer: midigod:
Not having sprinklers was not the option desired by the store. They wanted to be able to shut off the sprinklers once they got the fire under control.

Welcome to wrongville, population: You.

Thankfully, the Lowe's employees are too stupid to shut down the sprinkler system, even one zone at a time. That's the Fire Department's job, once they determine that the fire is truly extinguished.

Also, no one was injured or killed. That makes it a win all around.

/Fire Marshal

One night, this guy in our data center takes out a sprinkler head with a pitching wedge. Water starts gushing out the sprikler, about 30 feet from the server room. We go nuts trying to find the cut off, as well as doing what we can to mitigate any damage. The fire dept finally gets there, knows it is not a fire and turn off the system. A big obvious thing we all missed.

Any way, we remark to the fire marshall that we wish we would have found it to turn it off. He tells us back its a good thing we didn't, as it is something like a $500 fine or whatever if someone aside from the fire dept turns off the sprinkler system.

We look around at 4 cubes covered in water, water draining into the offices in the basement below, soaked filing cabinets and carpets all over the place. I think the $500 fine would have well been offset.

wingnut396: love-m'-beer: midigod:
Not having sprinklers was not the option desired by the store. They wanted to be able to shut off the sprinklers once they got the fire under control.

Welcome to wrongville, population: You.

Thankfully, the Lowe's employees are too stupid to shut down the sprinkler system, even one zone at a time. That's the Fire Department's job, once they determine that the fire is truly extinguished.

Also, no one was injured or killed. That makes it a win all around.

/Fire Marshal

One night, this guy in our data center takes out a sprinkler head with a pitching wedge. Water starts gushing out the sprikler, about 30 feet from the server room. We go nuts trying to find the cut off, as well as doing what we can to mitigate any damage. The fire dept finally gets there, knows it is not a fire and turn off the system. A big obvious thing we all missed.

Any way, we remark to the fire marshall that we wish we would have found it to turn it off. He tells us back its a good thing we didn't, as it is something like a $500 fine or whatever if someone aside from the fire dept turns off the sprinkler system.

We look around at 4 cubes covered in water, water draining into the offices in the basement below, soaked filing cabinets and carpets all over the place. I think the $500 fine would have well been offset.

I'm calling B.S...

//everyone knows you use a 7-iron on that hole for a water hazard!

If you have a small fire, you will often do more damage from the water or dry chemical agent used to put out the fire, though of course it is still preferable to letting your house burn down.



Me, I like to hedge my bets a bit by having a CleanGuard extinguisher containing DuPont FE-36® which comes out as a liquid and flashes to a gas starving the fire of oxygen, but leaves no residue behind. Like the old Halon extinguishers which had the negative side effect of evaporating the ozone layer. Recommended for computer centers, laboratories, museums, art galleries, etc. They cost ~10x the price of a typical dry chemical extinguisher, but how often do you really use them?

GoldDude: If you have a small fire, you will often do more damage from the water or dry chemical agent used to put out the fire, though of course it is still preferable to letting your house burn down.

[www.ansul.com image 288x432]

Me, I like to hedge my bets a bit by having a CleanGuard extinguisher containing DuPont FE-36® which comes out as a liquid and flashes to a gas starving the fire of oxygen, but leaves no residue behind. Like the old Halon extinguishers which had the negative side effect of evaporating the ozone layer. Recommended for computer centers, laboratories, museums, art galleries, etc. They cost ~10x the price of a typical dry chemical extinguisher, but how often do you really use them?

Uhm, if you almost never use them, isn't it just plain better to eat the cost of extra cleanup from using a shiatty one rather than buying an expensive-as-hell fire extinguisher that you'll never use?

If the fire set off a head, the heat was above 155°F. That means 20'-0" down (I am guessing on the total building height of the Lowes but the ones by me are essentially big warehouses) Therefore that head puts out 26-30 GPM. The heat around the ground floor had to be quite high. A normal fire extinguisher could not put out that fire. I find that suspect. It falls to the Lowe's employees to know how to shut the system down. Probably an additional 300 to 500 gallons of water would have been in the piping for that zone. Each zone requires it own valve to shut down for service, etc. The sprinkler system did what it was supposed to do. Put the fire out and save lives. Even at 4 in the morning.

/I design sprinkler systems for a living.

could have been a total loss of building, inventory, and 8 wrongful death lawsuits, the $250k damage figure sounds like an insurance company is about to get raped. (another sprinkler design dude)

Which of the two options did insurance cover?

Link

It's not like they dont stock these in the store or anything..

bwakie: could have been a total loss of building, inventory, and 8 wrongful death lawsuits, the $250k damage figure sounds like an insurance company is about to get raped. (another sprinkler design dude)

Assuming the company and not a franchisee owns the store, their deductible for property damage is at least $1MM, some companies run as high as a $5MM deductible. They're Work Comp and Liability policies all would carry similar deductibles so it would be Lowe's bearing the brunt of any costs.

/I work for people who insure shiat like this
//They pay WAY less than you'd expect

I'm pretty sure they are self insured up to 10 million per store. And there are nothing but company owned stores, no franchises.

In virtually every fire that is successfully controlled by sprinklers, the water damage will cost more than the fire damage. This is a good thing, it means the fire didn't burn down the entire building. However, the chances are very good that the damage was considerably higher than that due to smoke - lots of the items in a typical Lowes (lighting, appliances, unpackaged consumer goods, plants) won't be sold directly to the public - or at least not at normal retail prices. In addition, the smoke can make a rather nasty mess to clean up (assuming they care about what the ceiling looks like - they may or may not).

If the damages are only $250k, the insurance company will write the check (less deductible, of course) with a smile.

Abner Doon: GoldDude: If you have a small fire, you will often do more damage from the water or dry chemical agent used to put out the fire, though of course it is still preferable to letting your house burn down.

[www.ansul.com image 288x432]

Me, I like to hedge my bets a bit by having a CleanGuard extinguisher containing DuPont FE-36® which comes out as a liquid and flashes to a gas starving the fire of oxygen, but leaves no residue behind. Like the old Halon extinguishers which had the negative side effect of evaporating the ozone layer. Recommended for computer centers, laboratories, museums, art galleries, etc. They cost ~10x the price of a typical dry chemical extinguisher, but how often do you really use them?

Uhm, if you almost never use them, isn't it just plain better to eat the cost of extra cleanup from using a shiatty one rather than buying an expensive-as-hell fire extinguisher that you'll never use?

Yes, if you're making a decision based on minimizing the expected cost. Of course, I have never used a fire extinguisher in my house, so based on my historical data set the obvious solution is to not bother buying any fire extinguishers. But based on my desire to protect against an unlikely event, I have chosen to buy extinguishers. The fact that I bought a cool "techie" one just identifies me as a prime marketing target (aka "o

California started requiring sprinklers in all new build houses starting January 1, 2011. Luckily my parents were able to get their plans submitted to the city before then. It would've been 15k+ easily.

My town recently discussed sprinkler requirements for new builds. Luckily they're smart enough to realize that the cost/benefit just isn't there so they shelved it.

midigod: pullingguard79: Total damage to building and contents if it did not have sprinklers would be much more than 250k. Plus you have to factor in if there was a fire the store would be closed for multiple days. How much money would Lowes lost then.

Not having sprinklers was not the option desired by the store. They wanted to be able to shut off the sprinklers once they got the fire under control.

Welcome to wrongville, population: You.

Unless the store owner is a fire marshall, in other words is actually qualified to determine that a fire is extinguished, they have no business deciding to turn off the sprinklers. People don't realize that a fire can smolder inside a wall, or other unseen area, for weeks before reigniting. We can't just let every idiot have the authority to decide that a fire is "under control" or "extinguished."

And don't tell me "it's their business, so it's their decision." A fire can and will spread to other businesses, other buildings, nearby plantlife, and most importantly it can and does kill people. There are reasons we don't give the owner authority to turn off their sprinklers if they think a fire is "under control" or "extinguished." Go to a place with a bunch of giftshops next to each other in the same building, then go in one of them and observe the 16 y/o "manager" on duty. Would you want that little zit-faced kid deciding to turn off the sprinklers to reduce water damage if you owned the shop on the other side of the wall? No, because you don't want your business burning to the ground because someone made a decision they weren't qualified to make.

midigod: pullingguard79: Total damage to building and contents if it did not have sprinklers would be much more than 250k. Plus you have to factor in if there was a fire the store would be closed for multiple days. How much money would Lowes lost then.

Not having sprinklers was not the option desired by the store. They wanted to be able to shut off the sprinklers once they got the fire under control.

Welcome to wrongville, population: You.

There's an easier way:



I was hoping to find a better picture, but didn't have much luck. Any simple wedge will shut down a sprinkler head.

joness0154: California started requiring sprinklers in all new build houses starting January 1, 2011. Luckily my parents were able to get their plans submitted to the city before then. It would've been 15k+ easily.

My town recently discussed sprinkler requirements for new builds. Luckily they're smart enough to realize that the cost/benefit just isn't there so they shelved it.

How big is there house? Typical estimated cost of a residential sprinkler system for a single family house is about $1.50 per sf. If your parents can afford to build a 10,000 sf house, I can't believe that $15k would really make an impact on their overall cost.

In all reality, it makes more sense to require sprinklers in homes more than commercial buildings. Most people die in their house from a fire and not at their work.

/ Fire Protection Engineer

bostonbd: joness0154: California started requiring sprinklers in all new build houses starting January 1, 2011. Luckily my parents were able to get their plans submitted to the city before then. It would've been 15k+ easily.

My town recently discussed sprinkler requirements for new builds. Luckily they're smart enough to realize that the cost/benefit just isn't there so they shelved it.

How big is there their house? Typical estimated cost of a residential sprinkler system for a single family house is about $1.50 per sf. If your parents can afford to build a 10,000 sf house, I can't believe that $15k would really make an impact on their overall cost.

In all reality, it makes more sense to require sprinklers in homes more than commercial buildings. Most people die in their house from a fire and not at their work.

/ Fire Protection Engineer

FTFM

bostonbd: How big is there house? Typical estimated cost of a residential sprinkler system for a single family house is about $1.50 per sf. If your parents can afford to build a 10,000 sf house, I can't believe that $15k would really make an impact on their overall cost.

Is that before or after the cost of permits, inspections, and bribes?

I have a sprinkler system in my house and I know how to turn it off (and how to test it) so I'm getting a kick out of these replies



/water damage is better than "the entire neighborhood went up in flames"

bhcompy: bostonbd: How big is there house? Typical estimated cost of a residential sprinkler system for a single family house is about $1.50 per sf. If your parents can afford to build a 10,000 sf house, I can't believe that $15k would really make an impact on their overall cost.

Is that before or after the cost of permits, inspections, and bribes?

Those costs are reflected in the general building permit. FD's generally want the sprinklers installed.

bostonbd: bhcompy: bostonbd: How big is there house? Typical estimated cost of a residential sprinkler system for a single family house is about $1.50 per sf. If your parents can afford to build a 10,000 sf house, I can't believe that $15k would really make an impact on their overall cost.

Is that before or after the cost of permits, inspections, and bribes?

Those costs are reflected in the general building permit. FD's generally want the sprinklers installed.

I'm sorry, there is a 6 month backlog before we can do an inspection. I know that you want to get your house built today, but there is nothing we can do since budgets are constrained. Of course, if you could assist with our budgetary problems, we might be able to work something out.

bhcompy: bostonbd: bhcompy: bostonbd: How big is there house? Typical estimated cost of a residential sprinkler system for a single family house is about $1.50 per sf. If your parents can afford to build a 10,000 sf house, I can't believe that $15k would really make an impact on their overall cost.

Is that before or after the cost of permits, inspections, and bribes?

Those costs are reflected in the general building permit. FD's generally want the sprinklers installed.

I'm sorry, there is a 6 month backlog before we can do an inspection. I know that you want to get your house built today, but there is nothing we can do since budgets are constrained. Of course, if you could assist with our budgetary problems, we might be able to work something out.

Yeah, I guess I could see that. However, sprinklers or not, that is a possibility with any inspector.

In general, the cost of sprinklers in a typical house can be equivalent to upgraded counter tops or hardwood flooring. At least they provide a lot more safety than a granite counter top.