Oh, that’s very interesting. If that’s true, someone should tell Kimberly-Clark’s insurers that they deliberately shut off fire suppression during a fire. Maybe this will actually cost them a few dollars?
It’s standard practice to shut down a fire suppression system after the fire is extinguished: the water will cause more damage than the fire did if you don’t. The owner is responsible for having someone on “fire watch” until the activated sprinkler heads are replaced and the system is put back into service – which needs to be done by someone qualified to do so.
It sounds like they did everything “right” in that regard, they just didn’t realize the guy starting fires was still there.
Oh, that’s very interesting. If that’s true, someone should tell Kimberly-Clark’s insurers that they deliberately shut off fire suppression during a fire. Maybe this will actually cost them a few dollars?
It’s standard practice to shut down a fire suppression system after the fire is extinguished: the water will cause more damage than the fire did if you don’t. The owner is responsible for having someone on “fire watch” until the activated sprinkler heads are replaced and the system is put back into service – which needs to be done by someone qualified to do so.
It sounds like they did everything “right” in that regard, they just didn’t realize the guy starting fires was still there.
lol I didn’t even think of this, hilarious