Axis US Property - Property Risk Assessment
[pic]
PROPERTY RISK ASSESSMENT
|ACCOUNT NAME |Underwriter: |Service Provider |
|SONY PICTURES | |Coda Risk Analysis |
|Location Name (if different from Account Name) |Surveyed (1) By |Survey Date |AUSP Review |
|Worldwide Product Fulfillment |Gary Hartley |1-17-12 | |
|Location Address |Surveyed (2) By |Survey Date |AUSP Review |
|150 Roger Avenue, Inwood, NY 11096 | | | |
|Location Contact Name & Title |Surveyed (3) By |Survey Date |AUSP Review |
|Michele Renfroe, Manager - Operations | | | |
|Richard Scarola, Executive Director, Inv. & Dist. | | | |
|Contact Phone |Website and/or email address: |Producer Name |
|718.868.6006 |michele_renfroe@spe. |Lockton Insurance |
|718.868.5997 |richard_scarola@spe. | |
|Service Notes (to prepare for follow-up visits) |
|Special equipment needs? | |
|Unique appointment concerns? |Ms. Renfroe will also coordinate appointment at the Boyer, PA |
| |facility. |
|Special concerns of underwriter? | |
|Special request from location? Forms, etc. If shipping is necessary,| |
|please provide local phone number if other than above | |
|Occupancy |
|See Occupancy/Process Narrative for complete description of Occupancy |
|Occupancy Code |Occupancy Description |Combustibility Code (%) |Susceptibility Code |
| | |C-1 |C-2 |C-3 |C-4 |C-5 | |
|4222 |Warehousing – Class II commodities | | |70% | | |S-4 |
|4223 |Warehousing – Class III commodities| | |24% | | |S-4 |
|4225 |Warehousing – Group A Plastic | | |6% | | |S-4 |
| |commodities | | | | | | |
|Comments: |Non-Non-refrigerated storage of movie film in metal containers without boxes. The insured ships their movies to this |
| |location for cataloging and long-term storage. Worldwide Product Fulfillment, a Sony Pictures Entertainment Company |
| |subsidiary, runs the building. The insured’s property is mixed with the property of others. Inventory is tracked via |
| |computer using a bar code on each film container. (See Occupancy section below for occupancy classification.) |
|Major changes in operations? |None. |
|Downsizing, closing, to be sold or | |
|razed, etc? | |
Loss Expectancies
|Amount Subject – Fire |
|The total insurable value, without adequate clear space as defined in Amount Subject guidelines. It does not consider the presence of Amount |
|Subject or MFL walls, nor does it contemplate vapor cloud explosions. This is based on physical separation, not an event. |
|Using the PML Build-up method, detail Amount |N/A |
|Subject breakdown only if Less than 100% | |
|{Include the location, what building(s), | |
|equipment and stock will be involved; what | |
|Business Interruption is subject in each, etc} | |
| |% or Time |$ |
|Real Property |100% |$17,357,705 |
|Personal Property ^Includes Contents, EDP and I&B |100% |$262,224,025^ |
|Business Interruption *This is Extra Expense only. |100% |$5,744,640* |
|Total |$285,326,370 |
|Probable Maximum Loss – Fire |
|The probable maximum loss amount expected under normal conditions. It assumes that all protective features of the risk are functioning as |
|designed and installed; if protective systems were out of service when premises were left, consider those systems out of service when |
|calculating PML |
|Using the PML build-up method, detail |The PML fire would originate in the mixed media storage of SV-1. The fire department would |
|largest PML scenario {Include the PML |quickly respond to the waterflow alarm the CMSA sprinkler system would control the fire within |
|location, why this is the largest PML, what |the sprinkler system design area of 1,500 square feet. A susceptibility factor of 3.0 is |
|is expected to happen; what building(s), |applicable to personal property (PP) in the remaining area that will allow permeation of smoke |
|equipment, stock and operations will be |and water. Since the BI figure is strictly Extra Expense, it is included as BI PML below. The |
|involved; what protection and controls are |PML is therefore computed as follows: |
|in place and how they will affect the PML | |
|outcome. Details must correspond with |RP PML = $17,357,705 RP values x (1,500 square feet/107,069 total square feet) = $243,000 or 1% |
|diagram. | |
| |PP PML = $262,224,025^ PP values x (1,500 square feet x 3.0 susceptibility factor/107,069 total |
| |square feet) = $11,021,000 or 4% |
| | |
| |BI PML = $5,744,640 x 30% = $1,689,600 |
| |% or Time |$ |
|Real Property |1% |$243,000 |
|Personal Property |4% |$11,021,000 |
|Business Interruption |30% |$1,689,600 |
|Total |$12,953,000 |
Construction (Details must correspond with diagram)
| | | | | | |
|Building/ |Occupancy |Total Floor |ISO Construction Class % | |Roof |
|Section | |Area | |% AS |Covering |
| | |(Sq. Ft.) | | |age |
| | | | | |(Years) |
| | |
|Year Built |Building Condition |
| |(G,A,P) |
|Fire Divisions |
|Describe any fire divisions (one hour or greater) not shown on the |Common interior walls are reinforced, filled concrete blocks. |
|diagram. Include protection of horizontal and vertical openings; | |
|include all walls and divisions influencing PML | |
|Explain any unprotected penetrations in fire walls |There are both protected and unprotected openings in the firewalls. |
| |The protected opening has the fusible link on the fire door directly |
| |on the fire door instead of at ceiling level on both sides of the |
| |firewall where the heat is expected to gather. |
|Explain any deficiencies in parapets |There are no parapets. |
|Or, if none of the above is applicable | Not applicable |
|Unusual construction features |
|Describe any unusual features such as exposed foam insulation; unusual|Metal halide lights have protective covers. There is a sprayed-on |
|building designs or other unique features that could affect building |cellulosic fiber on the interior of the walls and roof of the |
|reconstruction. |building. (See photos.) |
|Fully describe any EIFS used in the construction |N/A |
|Or, if none of the above is applicable | Not applicable |
|HVLS Fan Assessment |
|Are there any HVLS fans in this facility? | Yes No |
|Building Ordinance |
|Identify any situations that could impact on the cost or time to rebuild or renovate. This would include local building code ordinances that |
|require rebuilding and upgrading of the entire facility to present codes if more than 50% of the facility is damaged or, due to environmental |
|concerns, local authorities refuse entrance into a facility until all hazardous materials are disposed. These conditions may also influence |
|the PML estimates. |
| | | |Document all yes answers. |
|Asbestos: | Yes | No | |
|PCBs | Yes | No | |
|Radioactive Contamination | Yes | No | |
|Exposure | | | |
|Carcinogens | Yes | No | |
|Code Issues: | Yes | No | |
|Other | Yes | No | |
|Preventive Maintenance Assessment |
|Based on the condition of the building and equipment, does it appear | Preventive As needed |
|that maintenance is done as a preventive measure; as needed; or on a |Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|breakdown and emergency basis only? | |
|Describe nearly adequate or not adequate conditions |Hartford Steam Boiler does annual IR scanning and all deficiencies are|
| |immediately repaired. The last IR scan was performed on August 2011 |
| |with 5 Alerts found and all immediately rectified. |
|Roof Covering Assessment |
|Is the roof covering in good condition? (E.g. free of blisters, drains| |
|and/or scuppers free and clear, no significant ponding, no sign of |Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|leakage inside the building, within its expected useful life)? Are | |
|roof flashings secured (As noted from an external observation)? Are | |
|there any signs of previous wind damage? | |
|Describe nearly adequate or not adequate conditions |N/A |
|Describe major antennae, HVAC equipment, stacks, etc that are |Numerous rooftop HVAC units, the larger ones are secured to the roof |
|susceptible to wind damage or damaging roof |whereas the smaller ones are not. (See photos.) |
|Roof physically surveyed | Yes No |
|Explain if not physically surveyed |N/A |
|Property Loss Control Management |
|Property Loss Control Leadership: | Adequate Nearly Adequate Not Adequate |
|Describe controls - Who has responsibility for Property Loss Control |Michele Renfro is responsible for the Property Loss Control |
|activities? Is there a formal property loss control policy with |activities. There is a formal loss control policy with lines for both|
|accountabilities and deficiencies promptly rectified? Do the highest |accountability and deficiency reporting. It is supported by the |
|levels of Management endorse this policy? |highest levels of management. |
|Fire Protection Equipment Self-inspection and Maintenance Program: | Adequate Nearly Adequate Not Adequate |
|Describe programs - Is all fire protection equipment well maintained? |Weekly churn testing of fire pump. (See recommendation.) Quarterly |
|Are self-inspections of the fire protection equipment conducted on a |testing of sprinkler systems with annual trip test of pre-action |
|regular basis and deficiencies promptly rectified? Are written |valve. |
|records kept on file for review? | |
|Emergency Organization: | Adequate Nearly Adequate Not Adequate |
|Is organization evacuation/incipient stage only? | Yes No |
|If more than evacuation/incipient stage, describe organization - What |N/A |
|is the principal function of the organization? What training is | |
|provided? | |
|Fire Protection Equipment Impairment Program: | Adequate Nearly Adequate Not Adequate |
| | Risk |
|Is impairment program being used? | Yes No Risk |
|If other than program, describe existing program - Are there formal |The insured is using the impairment program Tokio Marine who has the |
|impairment notification and monitoring procedures in place? Does this|primary obligation. |
|program assure that all of the necessary controls are in place to | |
|minimize the frequency, size and duration of the impairment and the | |
|sources of ignition? | |
|Hot Work Controls: | Adequate Nearly Adequate Not Adequate |
|Is a hot work program being used? | Yes No |
|If other than program is being used, Is a hot work permit system |No hot work permit program in use at this film warehouse. This would |
|utilized for all cutting, welding, grinding or any other procedure |be an extremely rare and unlikely event and the hypersensitivity to |
|utilizing open flames or producing sparks? Does the permit system |protect the film from all perils would require removal of the film |
|provide adequate controls? Are records kept for review? |from the vault and the sprinkler system to be impaired while the hot |
| |work is in progress. For this reason management’s discretion on film |
| |protection precludes the need for a formal hot work program and |
| |recommendation. |
|Control of contractors working on premises: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Does the risk have an effective plan in place to supervise outside |N/A |
|contractors? Do they strictly enforce a HOT WORK (Cutting and Welding| |
|permit system)? Do they make contractors aware of hazards in the | |
|plant before allowing them to start work and monitor conditions during| |
|the work? Do they refuse to sign contractor’s HOLD HARMLESS | |
|AGREEMENTS? | |
| | Yes No Documented |
|Business Resumption Planning: |Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Briefly describe scope of program |Sprinkler discharge, fire, flood, and terrorism. |
|Overall Rating of Property Loss Control Management | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Common Hazards |
|Comment on the conditions and controls of the following common hazards only when graded Nearly Adequate or Not Adequate. |
|HVAC Equipment Condition and Maintenance: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Are there needed combustion/limit controls; are units adequately | |
|segregated from combustibles; is there adequate clearance to building | |
|components for the unit and flues; is there proper fuel storage | |
|arrangement? | |
|Electrical Equipment Condition and Maintenance: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Overloaded circuits or improper fuse sizes; signs of arcing or | |
|overheating; use of extension cords in place of permanent wiring; | |
|“Octopus” connectors supplying multiple appliances; lights, motors, | |
|transformers too close to combustibles; motors kept free of dust, | |
|lint. Do they have an electrical preventive maintenance program | |
|including periodic testing? Has infrared testing been performed within| |
|the past five years? If no, a recommendation should be made to do so.| |
|Has an electrical review been completed by an approved contractor | |
|within the past 15 years? If no, a recommendation should be make to | |
|do so. | |
|Housekeeping: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Is trash removed from the building as needed; is dumpster or compactor| |
|located an adequate distance from all building(s); no lint, dust, | |
|grease, oil accumulations present; no combustible storage in boiler, | |
|electric or heater rooms or in front of electrical panel boxes? | |
|Smoking Control: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Is smoking prohibited or restricted to designated areas with proper | |
|controls? Is the policy enforced? Are there evidences of smoking in | |
|unauthorized areas, areas with combustible construction or contents or| |
|where flammable liquids are present? | |
|Plumbing Condition: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Are there visible signs of damage from plumbing leaks, is the proper | |
|type of piping utilized for corrosive atmospheres, is there a history | |
|of system backups or joint failures? Are there watermarks on ceilings | |
|or walls, smell of mold/mildew? | |
Protection
|Sprinkler Protection: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
| |None |
|% Sprinklered |100% |
|% Non-sprinklered |0% |
|% Additional Sprinklers Needed |0% |
|If location is delete the remainder of this table and the Automatic Sprinkler Detail Sheet on following page |
|Other Sprinklers Needed - Detail areas where sprinkler protection |N/A |
|other than at the ceiling is required, but not provided (i.e. under | |
|mezzanines, ductwork, walkways, ducts, spray booths, crawl spaces, | |
|etc…) | |
|Sprinkler valves physically tried (N/A on prospects) | Yes Sample only No N/A (Prospects) |
|Sprinkler Valves: Condition: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Valves Locked or Sealed: | Yes No |
|Tamper signals received? | |
| |Yes No |
|Detail unsatisfactory supervisory signal transmission |N/A |
|Sprinkler System Maintenance | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
|Satisfactory drain and ITC flow tests performed? Not required on | |
|prospect surveys. |Yes No N/A (Prospects) |
|If sprinkler valves not physically tried and drain and ITC tests not |N/A |
|witnessed, is there documentation of testing? If so, by whom? | |
|Describe other than satisfactory test results |N/A |
|Recalled sprinklers? | |
| |Yes No |
|If recalled sprinklers are present detail number, type, and locations |N/A |
|Sprinklers >50 years old? Other sprinklers need testing? | |
| |Yes No |
|If sprinklers are over 50 years old, detail number, age, and locations|N/A |
|Automatic Sprinkler System Details |
|1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |
|Main Building |Wet-Grid |90 |0.6 |Unknown |0.38 | |0.395 |
|SV-1 | | | | | |500 | |
|Main Building SV-2 |Wet-Grid* |90 |0.43 |1,451.8 |0.56 | |0.56 |
| | | | | | |500 | |
|Main Building Cold Storage |Pre-Action -Loop |118 |0.30 |1395.3 | | | |
| | | | | |15 heads @ 25 psi |500 |15 heads @ 36.1 |
|Main Building office & | |
|service corridor |Wet-Grid |
|Water Supplies |
|(Delete rows where data is not applicable or add rows where there are redundant supplies) |
|Overall rating of water supply | Adequate Nearly Adequate Not Adequate None |
|Public: |
|Describe source |Direct pumping and elevated storage public water system |
|Describe type, size and age of main |8-inch Public Water Main (PWM) of unknown type or age in Roger Avenue connected |
| |to a 16-inch PWM at street intersection. |
|Describe feed | Gridded Dead End |
|Static/Residual/Flow (psi/psi/gpm) |61 |42 |1,464 |
|Effective Point of Test: |Hydrant in front of building |
|Reliable |Duration (min) | Yes No |City > 120 min |
|Test Date |Test By |10/20/10 |ASC |
|Contact name and number for flow test information |Extrapolated from booster pump test results. |
|Booster Pump: |
|Driver | Electric Diesel Other: |
|Reliable | Yes No |
|Listed? | Yes No |
|Rating (gpm @ psi @ rpm) |1500 |95 |1775 |
|Automatic Starting | Yes No |
|Back-up Power: | Yes No |
|Adequate Heat | Yes No DNA |
|Last Annual Performance Test – Date/By |10/20/10 |Tyco Grinnell |
|Performance test data (insert test form) |See attached Pump Test form. No test was performed in 2011. |
| | |
| |Accidental closure of the valve in the fire pump sensing line will impair the |
| |fire pump so management has chained and locked this valve, which is a suitable |
| |alternative. |
|Public Protection |
|Name of responding fire department: |Inwood Fire Department |
|ISO Class |3 |
|For all non-sprinklered risks in protection classes 8/9/10 and for all risks when protection class is unknown complete the following items: |
|Fire department distance to risk |1 mile |
|Response time |5-7 minutes |
|Barriers to fire fighting (railroads, low water crossings, seasonal |None. |
|roads, limited access to site, etc) | |
|For all risks, complete the following: |
|Fire department notification method |Telephone and central station. |
|Location of hydrants (if not shown on diagram) |See diagram. |
|Other comments |There are no recalled fire hydrants. |
|Special Extinguishing Systems |
|Overall protection | Adequate Not Adequate None |
|Describe details regarding the type of system(s), what is being |N/A |
|protected, the system(s) condition, what testing and maintenance are | |
|done on the system(s)} | |
|Supervision |
|Overall | Adequate Nearly Adequate Not Adequate None |
|Watchman: | |
| |Yes No |
|If yes, describe watch service. Are watchman employees or |Outside watch service makes hourly recorded interior rounds and two/shift |
|third party? What is the frequency of rounds? Are rounds |exterior rounds during all unattended hours. |
|recorded? Is service provided during all idle periods and | |
|in all idle areas? | |
|Alarms: | None Listed Central Station Remote Proprietary Local Other {Describe |
| |Below} |
|Coverage: | Water flow Valve Tamper Bldg. Temp. AFA |
| |MFA Pump Running Failure to start |
| |Pump Power Failure Tank Level Tank Temp. |
| |Other {Describe Below} |
|System Testing and Maintenance (Frequency, by whom): |Quarterly main drain testing, weekly fire pump churn testing (requested by Tokio |
| |Marine even though NFPA 25 stipulates monthly recorded testing), and bi-monthly |
| |alarm testing. |
|Comments {Explain Nearly Adequate or Not Adequate rating}: |Need annual full flow testing of fire pump and improvements in weekly churn |
| |testing records. (See recommendation.) |
|Occupancy/Process Narrative |
|Describe in detail the occupancy of the facility and/or the specific processes involved in the manufacture of the products produced. Specify |
|the raw materials utilized and the resultant finished products. Include items such as operating schedules, planned idle periods, and if |
|operations are seasonal. Detail susceptibility of equipment and stock to heat, smoke and water damage, as well as the controls pin place to |
|prevent or minimize this type of loss. |
|The insured is a film warehouse with three separate storage areas designated as Cold Storage, SV-1 and SV-2 by the insured. There is also a 2|
|story office section and a 1=2 story service corridor between the offices and the warehouse (see diagram). There are 62 employees working |
|three shifts from 7 AM to 7 PM in warehousing areas and 9AM to 6 PM in the office areas. Maintenance personnel will be on-site from 4 AM to 7 |
|PM. There is also some work done on Saturdays from 9 AM to 3 PM but this is variable depending upon the need. Security personnel are on-site|
|during all unattended hours so someone is on-site 24/7. At present there are approximately 1,000,000 assets (films) on-site. |
| |
|The temperature in the Cold Storage room is held at 45°F and humidity is limited to 30%. Details on the storage configuration are explained |
|in detail below in the Special Hazards Narrative. It should be noted that a positive pressure is maintained in all storage areas where the |
|master or sub-master copies are kept. (Masters and sub-masters are stored at two locations so any movie is never subject to a common loss.) |
| |
|In addition to the warehouse areas, there is electronic film enhancing equipment that can improve or replace original film segments. (See |
|photo of electronic equipment.) There is also a small screening room (i.e. a theater) for the viewing of movies by corporate executives (see |
|photo). The viewing room has a full projection room at the rear (see photos). |
| |
|It should be noted that a small section of the SV-1 warehouse is now being used as a secure area by TSA-trained employees for package |
|inspection and shipment before film is set out. This area is a package examination area with tables and storage to 4 feet. It is located |
|under a low ceiling in an area of 46 x 52 feet. The electrical conduit for the fire pump runs over this area but with non-combustible tables |
|and Class II commodities under a sprinklered area, the protection of the fire pump power supplies is considered acceptable. (See photos.) |
|Special Hazards Narrative |
|Provide details of all Special Hazards and the protection provided for them. For each storage configuration identify square footage and |
|location of exposure. |
|HIGH PILED STORAGE – Motion picture film is made with a film base of either acetate or polyester. Bases known as “acetate” are chemically |
|cellulose diacetate, cellulose acetate propiarate, cellulose acetate butyrate, or cellulose triacetate. Beginning in the 1920s, acetate |
|replaced the extremely flammable nitrocellulose (nitrate) film bases used previously as the film stock, in both amateur and professional |
|applications. Polyester bases began to be developed in the 1940s. |
| |
|Cellulose triacetate films are still in wide use today for applications such as original camera negatives, but polyester has largely replaced |
|acetate in recent decades for usage in release prints and intermediates. This is due to polyester's qualities of higher stability and |
|durability for archival and post-production purposes. There is no nitrate film stored at this facility. This facility stores both pre-1940 |
|and post-1940 film in metal containers. Since less than 2% is pre-1940, NFPA 13 lists motion picture film in metal containers as a Class II |
|commodity (NFPA 13 – 2010, Table A.5.6.3 and this is the commodity classification being used. |
| |
|As previously noted, there are three (3) storage areas designated Cold Storage, Standard Vault (SV)-1 and SV-2. |
| |
|The Cold Storage houses the films that are both temperature and humidity sensitive and stored horizontally in metal canisters (see photos). |
|These are stored in back-to-back shelf storage to 21 feet with 4-foot aisles. Shelves are 12 inches deep x 2 deep and may vary from 3 tiers |
|to over 40. (See photos.) The storage in this area is approximately 14,694 square feet. |
| |
|SV-I houses shelf storage of film 26 tiers to 20 feet with 4-foot, 4-inch aisles in an area of approximately 35,351 square feet. The shelves |
|are 16 sections long at 4-foot sections equals 64 feet long overall. The shelves are 12-15 inches deep and approximately 10 inches high. (See|
|photos.) There is also storage of film in polycarbonate cases (Class II commodity) 17 tiers high to 18 feet. Additionally there are 4 rows |
|of double row racks with open wire shelving to 20 feet housing mixed media in single thickness corrugated cardboard (STCC) boxes. Mixed media|
|may be video tape, DVDs or CDs (the latter two are polycarbonate plastic) in polystyrene (i.e. jewel) cases. Commodity classification is |
|considered a non-expanded, stable, cartoned, Group A plastic and it was this area that was hydraulically reinforced (including a 15 foot |
|perimeter) by converting a tree system into a grid and replacing the 17/32-inch orifice heads with K=16.8 sprinklers. |
| |
|SV-II has Double Row Rack (DRR) storage of paper copies of employee records 13 tiers high to 22 feet with 4-foot aisles in an area of |
|approximately 22,366 square feet. These are the original employee records and there are no duplicates. These are stored in single thickness |
|corrugated cardboard (STCC) boxes. All the wood shelving in this building has been replaced with open wire mesh shelving. This is considered|
|a Class III commodity. |
| |
|Utilities – There is no natural gas supplied to this facility. Electric hot water heaters provide all domestic use hot water. All electrical|
|wiring is in conduit. There are no oil-filled transformers located in the interior of the building. This facility experienced the NE power |
|failure of August 1993 but was only without power for several hours. There was no loss incurred because the insured buttoned up the Cold |
|Storage warehouse and would not permit access until the power was restored. |
|Special Hazards/Major Exposures |
|Check box for special hazards that are present and comment on any that are present. Explain the extent of the specific, special hazard, the |
|controls and if they are adequate or not. Note: Delete rows for any special hazards that are not checked as being present |
|High Piled/Rack Storage: | Incidental only |
| |See storage data sheets attached or complete details above |
|Cooking: | Adequate Nearly adequate Not adequate |
| |Microwave cooking only |
|Housekeeping, proper filters and cleaning schedule, deep fat fryers |N/A |
|using vegetable oils, protection systems? (NFPA 96)} | |
|Business Interruption Narrative |
|Explain the business interruption potential at this facility. Detail items such as unique or “one of a kind equipment’, equipment or |
|materials with long lead times or single suppliers, bottlenecks in production. Have these potential problems been identified and arrangements|
|made to deal with potential problems (i.e. where possible alternate suppliers’ located, spare parts kept for critical machinery, duplication |
|of critical machinery or processes). Is this a J-I-T operation? What is inventory of raw materials and finished goods? Are there any |
|upstream or downstream BI potentials or is there additional capacity at other corporate facilities? |
|Special Equipment (other than EDP) |Editing and enhancing electronic equipment (no spare). Work can be |
| |done at the California sister plant. |
|Critical EDP |The computer system is a server-based unit with an Uninterruptible |
| |Power Source (UPS) of 1½ - 2½ hours, more than enough for an orderly |
| |and systematic shut down of the computers. The server is a |
| |sprinklered 10 x 12 foot room with no raised floor. (Sprinklers are |
| |standard response and a missing ceiling tile handicaps sprinkler |
| |operation, see Recommendation.) The independent HVAC system is not |
| |connected to the auxiliary generator. The room is also equipped with |
| |smoke and heat detection. |
|Bottlenecks |None. |
|Seasonality |None. |
|On premises power production critical to processes: |There is a single, diesel powered auxiliary generator to run the HVAC |
| |system in the Cold Storage. The system has a full load test run on it|
| |annually and is turned over bi-weekly. |
|Critical programmable logic controllers |N/A |
|J-I-T/Raw materials/Finished Goods |N/A |
|B.I. Interdependencies |N/A |
|BI Mitigating Factors (buffer stocks, production make-up capabilities,|Typically the vaults loose 2°F per 4-hour increment with the vault |
|critical spares and locations of such, use of outside vendors, etc.) |doors remaining shut. By keeping the vault doors shut the |
| |temperatures can be maintained above below the 70°F safe line without |
| |a problem for 50 hours (a little over 2 days). (Temperatures in |
| |excess of 70°F are experienced in transport to and from this facility |
| |during the summer months.) |
|Contingency B.I. Exposure If there is a contingent BI exposure from |N/A |
|a critical supplier, other then regulated utility provide details | |
|Exterior Exposures |
|Complete this section only if not adequately shown on diagram |
|Overall grading: | Slight Moderate Severe |
|Protection: | Adequate Not Adequate |
|Detail moderate or severe exposures, as well as the protection or |An asphalt grinding operation is located on the west side of the |
|controls taken to alleviate or minimize these exposures. |building within 3 feet of the blank masonry exterior wall. (See |
| |photo.) |
|Describe any yard storage not fully described in Amount Subject/PML |None. |
|sections or shown on diagram | |
|Security/Theft/Arson/Burglary Protection |
|Complete only if occupancy is designated as having high theft potential or if specifically requested by underwriter |
|Was this information requested by underwriters? | Yes No |
|Does occupancy have high theft potential? | Yes No |
|If answer to both questions above is “No” delete remainder of this section |
|Alarms: | Yes No |
|Monitoring Source: | Local Central Station Police Remote Supervisory Signals |
|Alarm Testing: | Yes No |
|Alarm Signatures: | Contacts Motion |
|All Openings: | Yes No |
|Full Coverage: | Yes No |
|Physical Barriers |Standard glass in metal frame fire rated personnel doors at entry and |
|Describe quality of doors, openings, etc: |hollow core metal doors on rear of facility. |
|Guard Service: | Yes No |
|Frequency of rounds: |Hourly recorded rounds. |
|Rounds made during all idle hours? | Yes No |
|Camera Coverage: | Yes No Full Partial |
|Describe partial coverage: |Every egress and ingress point, every hall, every main aisle in |
| |vaults. There are 32 CCTVs, which are monitored by Sony Security in |
| |Los Angeles and locally by the security personnel on-site. |
|Employee/Public Control: | Access Points ID Cards Card Access |
| |Other |
|Describe “Other” |Pass code required in vaults in addition to Pass card. |
|Exterior/Grounds: | Lighting Fencing in part Security Personnel There is no fencing |
| |on the backside of the property which has waterfront access and on the|
| |street side. (See aerial photo.) |
|Yard Storage Subject to Loss? | Yes No |
|Describe exposure if response is “yes” |N/A |
|Past Loss Activity (Describe): |None. |
|Loss History |
|Describe any known details of prior significant losses |
|None. |
|Flood/Surface Water |
|Finished floor elevation: | At Grade Loading Dock Height Other |
|Explain “other” |N/A |
|Attach completed flood survey upon specific request. If not requested to complete a flood survey, comment on any unusual features or |
|conditions noted during the assessment. |
|The canal on the NE side of the facility has a water level that is roughly 10 feet below the canal bank on the insured's side of the canal. |
|The finished floor elevation is roughly 4 feet above grade on the rear of the property. This canal is open through a series of bays to the |
|Atlantic Ocean and is not considered a flood potential. There has been no flood history. |
|Earthquake |
|If an Enhanced CAT report was not requested, complete the following for locations in California, the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska or New |
|Madrid. If location in other areas, this section can be deleted. |
|ISO () Earthquake Zone |Zone 4 for Nassau County |
|If located in CA, PNW, HI, AK, New Madrid, provide cursory comments on|N/A |
|adequacy of seismic bracing of sprinklers | |
|If enhanced CAT report was requested, insert.xls file here |N/A |
|(Insert/Object/Display as Icon) | |
Note on Recommendation formatting – provide space (line) between body of recommendation and any “comments” added to recommendation.
|Previously Completed Recommendations |
|Include any recommendations completed before last inspection |
|Rec # |Text |
| | |
|Newly Completed Recommendations |
|Include any recommendations completed since last inspection |
|Rec # |Text |
| | |
|Current Recommendations |
|Enter all Recommendations formulated as a result of this assessment. Provide recommendations in an active voice (do not use “should,” “shall”|
|or “in accordance with”). Submit recommendations in order of importance. Add additional rows when needed. |
|Utilize the Recommendation Analysis Addendum when there are Physical Protection recommendations having a loss expectancy of $5.0M or greater. |
|Rec # |Text |
|12-1 |Modify the extant fire pump churn testing form to include all items mentioned in NFPA 25. (At present only the suction and|
| |discharge pressures are being recorded when the pump is not running.) |
| | |
| |At present the jockey pump automatically starts at 110 psi and automatically stops at 130 psi while the fire pump |
| |automatically starts at 120 psi and automatically stops at 170 psi. Reference NFPA 20. |
| | |
| |Fire pump churn testing is currently being done weekly however pressure readings are the only item being recorded and these|
| |are done while the pump is idle. Sample forms can be secured from then clicking on the COMMON FORMS tab |
| |and clicking on Electric Fire Pump Testing. |
|12-2 |Replace the missing ceiling tile in the 10 x 12 foot computer room. Also revise the standard response sprinkler head to a |
| |Quick Response (QR) head. |
| | |
| |Comments: Heat rising from a fire in the computer room will trap at the suspended ceiling and race over to the sprinkler |
| |head, setting it off. Missing ceiling tiles permit vertical heat migration into the concealed space above and retarding or|
| |preventing sprinkler activation. |
|Did you remove all usage of “should”, “shall” or “in accordance with?” | Yes |
|Abeyance Recommendations |
|This section to be completed by US Property Engineering, US Property Underwriting, or designated Account Coordinator only. |
|Rec # |Text |
|12-3 |Increase the life of the fire pump by modifying the fire pump piping so that it has the appropriate lengths for both |
| |suction and discharge piping to prevent cavitation. |
| | |
| |Comments: There is only 1 inch of pipe between the suction side of the pump and the nearest 90° elbow. This was apparently|
| |done to accommodate the limited pump room space but it will induce cavitation and overtax the electric motor on the fired |
| |pump, shortening its life, however it should be noted that it does not have any effect upon its ability to deliver the |
| |booster pump characteristic flow and pressure. |
|Recommendation Analysis |
|To be completed for all recommendations reflecting a PML of greater than $5M PD plus BI |
|Rec # |C/R |Condition (brief description) |Cost to complete |PML before completion |PML after completion |
| | | | |($M) |($M) |
| | | | |PD |BI |PD |BI |
| | |N/A | | | | | |
Cost to complete is a rough estimate ( ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- top line of doc doa home
- psychology internship program
- 2 chinese immigration working in the mines
- introduction homepage u s national park service
- esis upgrade help sheet usda
- vaginal birth after caesarean vbac management post policy
- detecting bias examples eileen burchill
- axis us property property risk assessment
Related searches
- risk assessment for p2p payments
- risk assessment examples for banks
- nist risk assessment template
- nist cybersecurity risk assessment template
- nist risk assessment template xls
- nist risk assessment model
- nist risk assessment questionnaire
- nist csf risk assessment template
- nist risk assessment checklist
- nist risk assessment pdf
- risk assessment steps nist
- nfpa 99 risk assessment template