Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:07:25 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Andrew Gross <gross.drew**At_Symbol_Here**GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To: <A33B6EEB-612E-4158-9D5E-6E717F0FCF10**At_Symbol_Here**>

Pete, you made a mention in your comments about sprinklers.  I thought
about in personally and want to put forward the idea that perhaps the
lab is not a place for sprinklers, at least in the traditional sense
because of the risk of water reactive chemicals.  Hypothetically,
someone could be working with one of these joyous compounds or an oil
when a small fire breaks out.  Now a small fire just turned into a big
explosion.  I googled "laboratory sprinklers" and got nothing of use.
Perhaps for the time being, not putting suppression systems in labs is
an acceptable risk and one of us should decide to get rich and design
a system.  I personally don't think halon, CO2, Nitrogen or Dry based
systems would be a good idea either because it could add unnecessary
risk to those evacuating in addition to putting more random chemicals
into a chemical fire.

The best long term solution in my opinion would be a water based foam
system that is manually activated and included a localized shut off
valve this way that scientist can use their better judgment before
potentially creating a bigger disaster.  The water based foams will
put out all class A and B fires while keeping class C in check. The
problem I foresee with my thought is that the fire marshals in their
infinite wisdom (comment coming from a firefighter) might not approve
of a non automated system that can be shut down locally and without
cutting a lock.


On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Secretary ACS DCHAS
> From: "Reinhardt, Peter" 
> Date: June 10, 2010 10:40:25 AM EDT
> I must agree with Dan. Looking for someone to blame is unproductive, but
> implying that this is an acceptable risk is disgusting. Thankfully, there
> were no injuries or loss of life. The costs below do not include loss of
> research, loss of research material, loss of data on hard disks down the
> hall due to soot, interruption to teaching, research and other activities
> that building, relocation of occupants during recovery and rebuilding, et
> Higher education has spent the last decade putting sprinklers in all
> residence halls. Now we need to do the same for laboratories. (This was a
> unsprinklered lab.) It would be interesting to survey colleges and
> universities to see what % of labs are sprinklered.
> Pete
> Peter A. Reinhardt
> Director, Office of Environmental Health & Safety
> Yale University
> 135 College St., Suite 100
> New Haven, CT =A0 06510-2411
> (203) 737-2123
> peter.reinhardt**At_Symbol_Here**

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.