On a safety tour of a vessel I'm working on I discovered someone doing spark generating hot work in a room where co2 cylinders for fire fighting are stored. The sparks were going directly onto the cylinders at the shoulder of the cylinder. I stopped the job and tried to explain my concerns (language barrier) but I did not receive a positive response. I would consider this to be a very dangerous activity. Am I over reacting?

I agree with ray. But my main concern would be to ensure that the CO2 system was isolated / immobilised to prevent accidental release into the room which would have the potential to be fatal. Steve

Thats actually a very good sheet on CO2. I'm keeping it for use later!

It is not clear to me whether we are talking about some (small) self contained portable CO2 fire extinguishers for use against small fires, or potentially larger cylinders for connection to or already connected to a fire system. Without the full picture it is hard to see a safety issue of the sparks ( although poor practice) My immediate concern would be whether the cylinders and work activity turn the vessel into a confined space (potential for loss of consciousness due to lack of oxygen).

Should not be a problem if covered, especially the valve groups and any hoses. Recommend hot work permit system, permit to be requested prior to starting hot work, this should resolve any issues.

Steve 1973 has stated the CO2 cylinders were not connected, provided a hot work permit was in place and other combustible materials were not in the vicinity of the CO2, then I would suggest that it was an over reaction. With regard to FM 200 and Inergen being a safer alternative to CO2 ???????? They are also both asphyxiants!!!!

Many many many many years ago the Liverpool Fire Brigade Chief Fire Officer entered a Russian ship on fire at the Liverpool docks. A while after he came of the ship he collapsed with carbon monoxide poisoning - and recovered. I wonder if anyone has died as a result of total flooding a compartment with CO2? Or whatever is used nowadays.

Hi there, why not cover the area that is to be welded in a Habitat this would then contain the sparks. Make sure that the area is well ventilated. Your task should have been well risk assessed before starting the task. There should also be a someone there to act as a fire watcher.

Steve I disagree with the view that Inergen & FM 200 (HFC 227 ea) are a MUCH safer substitute for Co2. I will however agree that HFC 227 ea is a more efficient fire suppressant. Ultimately, there are hazards associated with all three agents viz Cardiac sensitization in the case of FM 200 and Asphyxiation in respect of CO2 and Inergen. The overall risk is dependent on the duration of exposure and concentration of suppressant within an occupied space. Provided that an effective alarm/warning of activation/discharge is available and that suitable means of emergency egress is provided taking into account the volume of the room, discharge rate and NOEL value, then the three suppressants present a similar degree of hazard. In the case of Inergen, inert gas extinguishing data from VDS, Cologne, Germany, provides evidence that a concentration of between 28-43.8% is required for effective suppression of various fuels when compared to 16-28% CO2. When considering FM 200, the concentration required for suppression is largely fuel dependant. In addition, acute exposure limits derived from (PBPK) Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling for HFC 227 ea, show that exposure duration at 12% concentration should not exceed 29.4 seconds. A safer alternative to the above would be a fine water mist suppression system. Regards Bleve

Bleve in my last post on this I wrote "much" not "MUCH". I am not able to quantify how "mUcH". The point I make is that there are safer substitutes to CO2 and I accept that inert gas and halocarbon systems can kill too, but the risks between the 2 are not comparable. You state “Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling for HFC 227 ea, show that exposure duration at 12% concentration should not exceed 29.4 seconds.” Anyone one in an environment with 12% CO2 would be dead within a couple of seconds, this is far more serious than “12 % HFC 227 should not exceed 29.4 seconds” A report on these systems was done in 2003 that I would point the readers of this post to "REVIEW OF THE USE OF CARBON DIOXIDE TOTAL FLOODING FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS" http://www.epa.gov/ozone.../fire/co2/co2report2.pdf I realise that these CO2 systems are predominent in the Marine industry and that they are Manually Operated which are much safer than the automatically that can be accidentally discharged. Steve

The original question was regarding sparks from a hot work activity impinging upon the shoulder of CO2 cylinders "STORED" in a vessel without any information regarding the risk assessment carried out and any permit to work system --so we are all speculating! Steve1973 has informed that the cylinders are not connected. Therefore, the cylinders ( and also other equipment etc) can be protected from sparks by means of screens /fire blankets! The question to ask would have been does this type of work come inder

Jay here this is a different MSDS for CO2 gas that mentions the toxic effects of CO2 http://www.energas.co.uk/downloads/009.pdf This is the link I gave above to a study that was was made into the toxic effects of CO2 http://www.epa.gov/ozone.../fire/co2/co2report2.pdf Steve