The Client and Its Challenge
As an owner of a cogeneration plant, this client understood the liability it would face if a fire were to break out and the fire department could not contain it because of a system failure. The client asked Marsh to determine whether its existing fire protection was adequate.

After conducting a flow test of the underground fire main at the client facility, which was constructed in 1986, Marsh consultants found that the water supply had greatly deteriorated since construction, resulting in a seriously deficient fire protection water supply. A review of the original plans and hydraulic calculations identified a few omissions in the hydraulic calculations that further aggravated the problem.

The initial recommendation from the property carrier's engineer was to install a fire booster pump. Marsh was asked to review the recommendation and propose an alternative.

The Risk Consulting Solution
Since the original installation, a reduced pressure backflow prevention device had been added and the facility had tapped into the fire main for additional mill use. This resulted in a marginal water supply that was adequate to supply the sprinkler demand at the bottom of the riser, but provided no allowance for fire hose streams, and no additional capacity for proposed sprinkler system upgrades.

Marsh consultants concluded that the recommendation from the insurance carrier's engineer was not an ideal option. The pump would be expensive to install, would reduce reliability, would create the potential for excessive pressure on the old mains, and would introduce additional maintenance demands.

Aware that the client owned the adjoining piece of property, Marsh suggested evaluating the possibility of cross-connecting the underground mains. The cross connect would provide a strong water supply with a substantial safety factor above the greatest hydraulic demand. Reliability would also be improved, as either of the two city connections could provide an adequate supply for sprinklers (without hoses).

Results
Marsh's proposed solution was met with skepticism by both the client and the property carrier. However, subsequent tests proved the solution's validity. The property carrier agreed to accept the cross connection and the client obtained initial approval from the city within 48 hours. The cost of the booster pump would have been in the range of $75,000 whereas the cross connection cost was $20,000. After additional review of the proposed changes, the carrier agreed to reduce the property premium by $30,000 in recognition of the improved reliability.