Fire Suppression Systems the hidden Truth and facts you may not have known about the NFPA
Written by Bill Costello
Friday, 17 October 2008
Corrosion of electronic components by hydrogen fluoride
Corrosion of electronic components by hydrogen fluoride
I would like to educate everyone on the truth about FM-200 and Novec 1230 fire suppression systems and their byproducts when they come in contact with a flame or electrical arc, that are protecting your critical facilities.
FM0-200 HFC-227ea Byproduct is Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) which is a chemical warfare agent and is highly corrosive and damages electronic components.
Novec - 1230(Sapphire) Byproducts are HF and Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)
NOTE: Hydrolysis is not expected to be a significant degradation pathway. Product is Highly insoluble in water and volatile, and use as a clean extinguishing agent would not typically result in releases to aquatic environments.
Both of these suppression systems create a very toxic byproduct HF and in the case of Novec 1230 you better hope that your sprinkler system does not go off and carry the TFA in the water system and get into the drain because you will have a potential environmental disaster on your hands.
Now these companies who sell and manufacture the chemicals and these systems make up almost half of the members who are in The NFPA 2001 Clean Agent Standard Technical Committee and they have voted negatively not to include my pure, hypoxic (oxygen reduced) air agent and stated that is not a clean agent but their toxic and deadly chemical mixtures are, I will let you be the judge. Many of you in the Datacenter community that I have spoken to have had no idea of the deadly byproducts of these fire systems and the companies selling you the systems never made aware of the deadly byproducts. You have been told you better get out of the environment before the system goes off, that it. What if you can’t? Now the production of HF produced depends on the fire and the concentration of the fire suppression systems. It is not a matter of if HF is present it is a matter of how much! Please search for Corrosion of Electronic component by Hydrogen Fluoride done by the NRC Institute of Research in Construction. If you can’t find it feel free to contact me and I will send it to you.
Now something even scarier is the structure of the NFPA and it processes and rules. Through my process and my to get my Hypoxic Agent listed on the NFPA 2001 Clean Agent Standard I have learned that the NFPA 2001 Technical Committee makes law here in the United States! I have been told by the NFPA that it is not the Standard
Council position to overturn the Technical Committee decision and it is not the Board of the Directors position to over turn of even get involved with committees and the standards process and it is not the NFPA Staff to investigate anything. So when you peel back the layers
and see it for what it is, the NFPA 2001 Clean Agent Standard Technical Committee members make law here in the United States and that is very scary!
I think everyone needs to truly wake up and see what is going on here, because it is your life and your job and your company’s bloodline (datacenters) that are in jeopardy. These companies sitting on the NFPA 2001 Clean Agent Technical Committee are blocking our system from being utilized and there is no one policing the NFPA which is a privately held non-profit 20 million dollar a year company that has to answer to no one!
I have never been a big fan of clean agent systems. But because clients often insisted on them, we’ve put them on many jobs. Salesman called on us and we concerned ourselves with NFPA, local requirements and keeping abreast of new products, etc. While I still am not a fan of these systems, we all drank the cool-aid.
When I was first introduced to your product, I was very impressed. For the first time, we have an opportunity to prevent fires from starting rather then simply a system for putting them out once they start. I’ve spoken to some clients and otehr engineers about the system and their response has typically been that they will consider it when it has been approved by NFPA.
After following Bills efforts for almost two years, learning about the clear and present danger of our so called clean agent systems and seeing industry opposition bury a great product, I have to ask myself, why bother with NFPA?
I think most communities now interpret NFPA to require a water based system under almost all circumstances. Clean agents systems are considered supplemental and there by the owners choice. While this system could easily replace water based systems, is their anything in NFPA that prevents an engineer from recommending an hypoxic protection system, a building owners from installing an hypoxic protection system, a local official form accepting a hypoxic system or an insurance underwriter from offering a discount based on the risk of fire being reduced to practically nothing when a hypoxic system is installed?
We have all witnessed corporate types that stick with failed policies because they want to keep their head low, consultants that are afraid to adapt new technologies because you can’t be blamed for recommending the tried and true design that worked two years ago (even if its clearly a bit outdated today).
Given the truth about "clean agent" systems, are we not in fact taking a huge risk by continuing to recommend and install such systems?
Read the DCJ and you will see article after article about new products that save energy, how data center operators can save energy thru good design and proper consideration of operational environment. The technology is there, the know-how is here, the ability to build a next generation data center is in our hands. We don't lack for research and standards. Have we become so gutless that we are unable to move forward with building great data centers that aren't already obsolete when the doors open? Because all that it takes to move from mediocre results to superior results is a bit of guts!
I had just recommended NOVEC 1230 over FM 200 for a small but critical room at one of our manufacturing sites. It will have a double interlock pre-action system as a backup so as far as I'm concerned, I've met NFPA. This is the first I've heard about TFA and it bothers me. Can you provide more information on your product?
gwdMaine, Please send me an email to
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
. To size a system properly for an environment I would need to know the volume and the leakage rate which you should know before implementing any inert gas system. I look forward to your email and educating you further on the benefits of our technology.
Unfortunately the author is correct in that there are many misconceptions and a lot of spin out there from people trying to make a quick buck in the world of fire protection. Given the competion some have even resorted to scare tactics and greenwashing, hoping the audience will take their word for what it is and not look behind the curtain...
Below is a link to the OSHA response to a request to lower the allowable level of oxygen needed to be considered a normal working environment to below 19.5% in an attempt to get these "systems" approved for occupied spaces in the US. OSHA's response is rather interesting and matter of fact. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25743
Below is a link to OSHA's official report to the Senate on their thoughts and rationale for not recommending these "systems". http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27004
Take a look at question 2 and you will see how OSHA contradicts themselves and proves that I am right!
Question (2): How does OSHA measure oxygen availability for human respiration? "OSHA measures oxygen availability for human respiration using the percent of oxygen by volume in the workplace atmosphere."
Then they state "OSHA recognizes that partial pressure of oxygen is the metric that reflects oxygen availability to the respiratory system."
Which completely contradicts their previous statement and in the Respiratory Protection - 63:1152-1300 document OSHA State very clearly that I am right.
"Although OSHA realizes that the partial pressure of oxygen may be at or above 100 mm Hg even at some lower altitudes and lower oxygen concentrations, these lower-altitude, lower-concentration situations are generally unstable and can quickly deteriorate to life-threatening atmospheres. OSHA has accounted for those rare situations where the employer controls the environment to maintain a constant altitude-adjusted oxygen level through the exception in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of the final rule."
I forgot to mention that 2 of the companies that are members on technical committee members who vote "NO" to include our "Hypoxic Air" as a clean agent on the NFPA 2001 Clean Agent Standard are currently selling the systems. I appeal to the NFPA Standard Council to have these companies removed from the technical committee and the Standard Council voted "no" to have them removed. The amazing thing is that they do not have to give a reason or go on the record and show how they voted...
Where is the Justice?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I have never been a big fan of clean agent systems. But because clients often insisted on them, we’ve put them on many jobs. Salesman called on us and we concerned ourselves with NFPA, local requirements and keeping abreast of new products, etc. While I still am not a fan of these systems, we all drank the cool-aid.
When I was first introduced to your product, I was very impressed. For the first time, we have an opportunity to prevent fires from starting rather then simply a system for putting them out once they start. I’ve spoken to some clients and otehr engineers about the system and their response has typically been that they will consider it when it has been approved by NFPA.
After following Bills efforts for almost two years, learning about the clear and present danger of our so called clean agent systems and seeing industry opposition bury a great product, I have to ask myself, why bother with NFPA?
I think most communities now interpret NFPA to require a water based system under almost all circumstances. Clean agents systems are considered supplemental and there by the owners choice. While this system could easily replace water based systems, is their anything in NFPA that prevents an engineer from recommending an hypoxic protection system, a building owners from installing an hypoxic protection system, a local official form accepting a hypoxic system or an insurance underwriter from offering a discount based on the risk of fire being reduced to practically nothing when a hypoxic system is installed?
We have all witnessed corporate types that stick with failed policies because they want to keep their head low, consultants that are afraid to adapt new technologies because you can’t be blamed for recommending the tried and true design that worked two years ago (even if its clearly a bit outdated today).
Given the truth about "clean agent" systems, are we not in fact taking a huge risk by continuing to recommend and install such systems?
Read the DCJ and you will see article after article about new products that save energy, how data center operators can save energy thru good design and proper consideration of operational environment. The technology is there, the know-how is here, the ability to build a next generation data center is in our hands. We don't lack for research and standards. Have we become so gutless that we are unable to move forward with building great data centers that aren't already obsolete when the doors open? Because all that it takes to move from mediocre results to superior results is a bit of guts!