sprinkler systems in hospitals

[Gordy]

Chris,
Your point re insurance benefits and property coverage are well taken and you are of course correct. However, getting auto suppression included in new builds is one thing; getting them retro fitted over a complex estate is quite another, especially in a large working hospital. Realistically, it ain't gonna happen. You can't eat a whole elephant at one sitting.

To protect the defined life risk area in accordance with SHTM82 Appendix A, we're protecting an area about three times the size of the particular life risk area (including a main kitchen where an alternative suppression system is to be installed, and the floors above and below).
It's not perfect, and from an insurance point of view, we're actually protecting only a very small percentage of our estate, so there will probably be little insurance advantage at this time.
Nevertheless, I sleep a little easier knowing that I've given some highly vulnerable babies and children the best possible chance if there's a fire. It's a start. The principles have now been established and I know other projects elswhere are actively being considered.

The real point I want to make is that the prevarication should now stop and upward pressure should be applied by FSA's to get suppression systems on the agenda at design meetings, because quite simply, there is no ambiguity about the value of fire suppression, either for life safety or asset protection - and any system effectively does both. It's time to get this particular show on the road and I'd prefer it wasn't on the back of another disaster.

The bean counters have had it all their own way for far too long on this issue. Using a good case history like Warrington is not some kind of moral blackmail - it is valid, justifiable  research in the interest of saving life and property.

[Chris Houston]

because quite simply, there is no ambiguity about the value of fire suppression, either for life safety or asset protection - and any system effectively does both.

I could not agree more.

Well done and good luck.

[Colin Newman]

Just to throw my hat into the ring, the provision of sprinklers in hospitals is recognised in Scottish Firecode, and previous posts have highlighted the prescribed provisions that may be either reduced or omitted where sprinklers have been installed.  

A number of years ago a desktop cost comparison was carried out to identify the savings that may be achieved by installing sprinklers into a new build elderly care unit.  Estimated savings of approx 47% were shown to be achieved by reducing the passive fire protection which in turn reduced the cost of fire and smoke dampers in the ventilation ducts.

This particular example is probably not representative of the majority of cases, I believe the actual level of capital saving would be much less.  In existing buildings savings are likely to be minimal.

However, we shouldn't forget the revenue costs of sprinklers compared to that of passive fire protection.  Generally, the cost of maintaining the sprinkler system will be less than the cost of properly maintaining the higher level of passive protection (incorporating dampers, fire stopping, fire doors etc.) needed when sprinklers are not provided.  Although this cost difference may be reduced where maintenance of the passive fire protection is carried out by internal resource whilst maintenance of the sprinkler system could require specialist contract resource.

From a risk poit of view, there is probably less of an ongoing risk where sprinklers are provided since there is less of a reliance on the integrity of passive fire protection elements.  This is likely to be significant in most hospitals since my experience is that passive fire protection elements are regularly breached with ever-changing service penetrations with inadequate fire stopping measures.