FM 200 fire suppression system

Christina Amato <xamato [at] yahoo__com> writes

>As a follow up to the previous discussion on fire suppression
>systems, we would like to add a few questions. We are researching

>the FM-200 fire suppression system for use in one of our book vaults
>with compact shelving. We are interested in hearing about which
>systems other institutions are using, as well as actual experiences
>with the FM-200 system specifically. Are there any health issues
>associated with the gas? Has there been any research done on how the
>gas affects pigments or other materials? Is there any data available
>on its effectiveness in extinguishing fires: has anybody heard
>of/seen a tank run empty, resulting in the fire not being
>extinguished? Are institutions using a back- up system with it, and
>if so, what kind? We would appreciate any information on the
>subject.




As a follow up to the previous discussion on fire suppression
systems, we would like to add a few questions. We are researching
the FM-200 fire suppression system for use in one of our book vaults
with compact shelving. We are interested in hearing about which
systems other institutions are using, as well as actual experiences
with the FM-200 system specifically. Are there any health issues
associated with the gas? Has there been any research done on how the
gas affects pigments or other materials? Is there any data available
on its effectiveness in extinguishing fires: has anybody heard
of/seen a tank run empty, resulting in the fire not being
extinguished? Are institutions using a back- up system with it, and
if so, what kind? We would appreciate any information on the
subject.

Check the DuPont MSDS-your questions regarding health issues and
materials incompatibilities are covered there. Protecting materials
stored in compactor units is hard because suppressant--whether gas
or water- has to get to the fire to put it out. When it goes off the
entire tank contents is released and hopefully puts out the fire,
but if it doesn't work, there is no backup.

Gas systems are not gentle- I stood in a room and operated a similar
unit three times over a couple hours in a demonstration run by the
manufacturer- the blast from the nozzles was like standing behind a
jet engine, the noise deafening, and the temperature plummeted
causing condensation- and it failed to put out our test fires 3
times in a row. These systems are great in engine, generator or
electrical switching rooms, in computer facilities, and aboard
aircraft and ships, but I'm not convinced they are particularly
useful for heritage collections. They blow things around, everything
gets wet from condensation, and they won't work if someone leaves a
door open which lowers the gas/air ratio.

If your institution is attended 24/7 and an aspirating smoke
detection system installed and monitored on site your risk is going
to be relatively low- your trained staff have time to react when a
fire is small and can be managed with a fire blanket, portable
extinguisher or fire hose. In the case of a relatively small
'vault', your risks are probably electrical fault and arson. The
electrical risk can be eliminated by switching outlets and lights
from outside the vault- no power, no risk- and arson deterred with
security cameras. If the surrounding areas are all covered by
sprinklers, the risk may be low enough not to require a suppression
system inside the vault.

The worst thing that can happen is for fire to injure or kill
people, damage or destroy your collections or damage or destroy your
building- in that order. Whatever fire systems you choose, or if you
choose to use no fire suppression in a low risk area, be clear on
your priorities, consider the risks and speak with experts at your
peak fire authority and the insurance bodies.

Thomas Dixon
Melbourne Australia





                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 25:31
                Distributed: Saturday, December 31, 2011
                       Message Id: cdl-25-31-002
                                  ***