Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 04 February 2002 11:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brendan Meyler
Can anyone please send me any information on what is now the (drop in), or replacement for HALON in fire control systems.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 04 February 2002 16:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick House
To the best of my knowledge, FM200 is the replacement for Halon systems (especially in the marine industry).

I don't know much about it at present, but will keep my eye out for more info.

Regards,

Nick.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 04 February 2002 17:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By declan gibney
Brendan,
a useful website is www.reliablefire.com. FM200 is an environmentally friendly alternative to HAlon with no ozone depletion potential. It is also safe in the event of activation in an occupied location, as it has a NOAEL of 9% and typically works to 7.5% of room volume. It extinguishes by chemically interupting the combustion process.

regards,
Declan Gibney.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 04 February 2002 18:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick House
Hi Brendan,
www.e1.greatlakes.com/fm200/jsp/index.jsp
has an info brochure on FM200 in PDF format.

Seems quite comprehensive.

Regards,

Nick.

Admin  
#5 Posted : 05 February 2002 12:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor
A number of us have serious doubts about using the synthetic FM200 and prefer 'Inergen' comprising a combination of naturally-occurring gases. See http://www.inergen.com/
Admin  
#6 Posted : 06 February 2002 12:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie
Ken

This is new to me.

Are your reservations about toxicity, effectiveness or environmental?

Laurie
Admin  
#7 Posted : 06 February 2002 12:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By declan gibney
Likewise - any concerns that I have experienced were based on mis-information rather than fact - issues like wearing contact lenses and the toxicity of the gas have all been raised and discounted by Factory MutuaL. I would be interested in hearing the reasons for suggesting inergen over FM200 also.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 06 February 2002 16:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brendan Meyler
Check this site out for an interesting comparison between these two Halon replacements.
http://www.nafed.org/Halonalt.html
Admin  
#9 Posted : 07 February 2002 08:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor
Rather than trying to debate the matter in detail with the restrictions of this Forum (including environmental considerations, cost of recharging systems, whether discharge tests are practical, whether this class of synthetics will eventually be subject to another 'Montreal Protocol' type action lead by the US, unknown synergistic considerations in fire situations, etc) I suggest that you read the arguments set out by the suppliers of both extinguishants (including those available via the Web address that I have supplied in the earlier response) and then take a carefully-considered decision. For my part (in both self and world interest) I prefer to go for gases that we are breathing in and out naturally all day!
Admin  
#10 Posted : 07 February 2002 09:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Phil Grace
Brendan,
One route would be to speak to your insurers who should be advising on replacement procedures and possible/preferred alternatives. You could try my colleague, Allister Smith the Fire Risk Manager for Norwich Union, who is currently working on a solution.

allister_smith@norwich-union-insurance.co.uk
Admin  
#11 Posted : 07 February 2002 11:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
All
Forgive the question re inergen but the crux of the problem is that at the level of O2 percentage to suppress fire we are also close to the percentages which are able to affect people, even fatally. I know Inergen claim a carefully balanced CO2 figure but is this necessarily safe for all persons?

Halon was uncomfortable but did not reduce the O2%ge. In fact I seem to remember it being used as an O2 solvent for use ventilating prmature infants on a trial basis in the states. Apparently it obviated the need for high pressure O2.

Comments please

Bob
Admin  
#12 Posted : 07 February 2002 14:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor
I've been around long enough to remember when they were telling us that CTC was safe let alone the enthusiasm with which the fire brigades embraced 1211 and 1301. Wormauld's can lay on a demonstration of Inergen release with persons present. Try asking the FM200 people to do the same if you like. I know which one I would rather be in! The O2 chemistry is not so simplistic as some may suggest but that of hydrofluorocarbons over chlorofluorocarbons still leaves me concerned.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 07 February 2002 23:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By fred tubb
Brendon
With the greatest respect to some of my learned friends, that have suggested particular products, do not go this route. There are now quite a few alternatives (note the word) to halon. Firstly what and where is the safty systems required, Two is it a deluge requirement, a life support/escape requirement ect, is it within an electrical instalation. All safety agents have there problems, therefore more than just word or mouth is required. I even wrote my degree thesis on the dangers of safety systems but am still finding thing nearing my bus pass. Contact a local fire engineer or someone who works in this area, or even ring the fire research centre.
if may be of any more help i am fred tubb MSc, GIFireE, CFPA(Eur), MIOSH.
Admin  
#14 Posted : 08 February 2002 12:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ted Twomey
Hi All,
can any one supply information on the Gas named Fe-13,
please. This is used in a Fire Suppression System from the halogenated hydrocarbon family like FE 2oo is the information supplied. Is this an older version or a less safe version. If any one has information or comparisions to make I would be grateful,
Thank you,
Ted.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 11 February 2002 12:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor
FE13 (or HFC-23)(CHF3) is another Hydrofluorocarbon but with observable adverse effects recorded at >50%v/v (although O2 depletion would be the important factor before this concentration is reached) and an atmospheric lifetime estimated at 280 years (Loss Prevention Council figures). It was available from Dupont (UK) Ltd but I have not come across this in use.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 13 February 2002 13:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ted Twomey
Thanks Ken,
Ted.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.