The EPA is irrelevant for Reza's project. If you look at the references in his original post, they are from European vendors so it's safe to say, he's not in Kansas.
Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thompson, Pat Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents Reza, I must step in once again to point out that the key clause in your NFPA 2010 reference is "agents approved for use in normally occupied spaces". Do you have data to show that any of the aerosols are approved for this application? I would love to see it if you do. It is up to the manufactures to gain these approvals, then and only then can you apply the quoted reference. As noted in my earlier post NFPA 2010 requires in that the agent be evaluated by the EPA SNAP program or equivalent, this is in Chapter 5 of the standard. A link to the EPA site was in my earlier email, check it out. Aerosols are not approved for normally occupied spaces. So this means that safety measures in Chapter 5 are not applicable, at least not until there is documented testing on the agent's safety. Regards, Pat Thompson Special Hazard Sales NICET #101475 SimplexGrinnell A Tyco International Company 907-743-9128 direct 907-561-4650 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 1:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents Thanks all for the professional replies. I am not a professional, but while NFPA 2010 part 5.2.3.2.1 states that "In the event of failure of the predischarge alarm and time delay, means shall be provided to limit exposure to agents approved for use in normally occupied spaces to no longer than 5 minutes." So it is seems to be safe for human exposure below 5 minutes while not exceeding the adverse-effect level. I agree that Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents are the first options, but Aerosol can works too. Before posting this question in the forum, I was thinking that aerosol products like Pyrogen are only useful electrical switchboard cupboards or small electrical rooms or vessel engine rooms, but now I come to understand that although Aerosol is not the best option but where dust or residue is of lesser concern, they can be used for even larger rooms in total flooding use like pump rooms or paper archive rooms, but they are not suitable for server rooms because the residue may harm the hard disks. Thanks for your nice comments. Reza Esmaeili Sarian System Novin Co., Ltd. www.sarian.ir --- On Sat, 4/14/12, Thompson, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: From: Thompson, Pat <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents To: "Smith, David L.(FAC)" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: Saturday, April 14, 2012, 2:42 AM Understand that this is my personal take on the subject; as with many (most?) posts in the forum the statements made by individuals are opinions and should be taken on face value. I say this not to disparage the value of the forum; I believe that the collective experience and input of the participants is valuable indeed. I have over 40 years in the fire protection industry and like all grey-haired fogies I have seen many things change over the years. For instance, there was a time that carbon tetrachloride was listed and commonly used in portable extinguishers. Anyone remember NFPA 12B? It was the standard for Halon 1211 systems. Again, a product that was listed and used in its day that has gone bye-bye. There are more examples of products that at their time had a listing (and even their own NFPA Standard) that we no longer use. In my review of these aerosol products what jumps out at me is not what they say but what they infer. Nowhere do they state that they are listed as safe for human exposure, but the inference is clearly there. Why? - I can only surmise that it is because no data exists to substantiate it. The only thing they state is that they are 'listed' and then they paint a picture that touts their 'advantages' over clean agents. It is a dangerous position to make the assumption that 'listed' makes them appropriate for a given application. The listing must be examined to determine what the product has been tested and 'listed' to do. Maybe it is a grey-haired characteristic or that I am skeptical by nature, but the presentation of information on the websites from the proponents of aerosols makes me suspicious. A video clip of people breathing the aerosol only proves that no immediate toxicity is observed; but the inference is safety. Where's the testing and data (and/or 'listing') to support human exposure safety? I submit it does not exist. BTW- liver damage from carbon tet exposure was not immediately evident either. Bottom line to this old fart is that aerosols may in fact have a place in fire protection, but until data is produced and listings established for their use in occupied spaces I'll be sticking to the clean agents that we have available. Pat Thompson Special Hazard Sales NICET #101475 SimplexGrinnell A Tyco International Company 907-743-9128 direct 907-561-4650 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Smith, David L.(FAC) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:49 PM To: Thompson, Pat; [email protected] Subject: Re: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents Take s look at WWW.statx.com And let us know what you thinks Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint! _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120414/c96c95aa/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
