Actually, if the cylinders in question are oxidizers and inert gases, it would be a good idea to put an oxygen deprivation sensor in the room, annunciating outside the door (and with adequate signage so that everybody knows what it means). Many such sensors require periodic calibration, so choose one you can commit to maintaining. If the room is unventilated, then the International Fire Code requires a detector and alarm.
On Jun 26, 2019, at 07:23, Richard Palluzi <000006c59248530b-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU> wrote:--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.orgFollow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchasThe problem with blast radius or explosive equivalent is what is the basis for the incident. I am sure it will be a very big number if you start from assuming ALL the cylinders fail simultaneously which is a difficult situation to be credible. How about one cylinder failing? Even that is exceptionally rare. A more likely scenario is a leak which - assuming the area is properly ventilated per code requirements - is probably going to result in nothing to a fire. And yes, even a small fire could set off another cylinder which could then add to the conflagration.
A closed gas room is actually one of the code recommended ways to store gas cylinders particularly toxic or highly toxic materials. While the cylinders and piping should be grounded, the chance of an ESD setting off the cylinders is incredibly low so I know of no such installation that would require ESD shoes.
Recognizing that the AV is in the room might suggest several mitigative measures that are prudent, credible, and reasonable (albeit not free)).
- Review the system that allowed the AV to be put in the room and modify it so that it does not happen in the future.
- Rearrange the cylinders in the room to put them as far as possible from the AV (at least the flammable ones).
- Rearrange the ventilation in the room so the supply (fresh) air sweeps over the AV then on to the cylinders to be exhausted.
- Enclose the AV in a sealed box. If you wanted to go even further, purge it per NFPA 496.
- Add a combustible gas detector to the room.
In effect, do an adequate hazard analysis and risk assessment.
Richard PalluziPE, CSP
Pilot plant and laboratory consulting, safety, design,reviews, and training
Richard P Palluzi LLC72 Summit DriveBasking Ridge, NJ 07920908-285-3782
Nora,Have you tried to have your professors calculate the explosive power stored in that room and translate it to something relatable to your management, like blast radius.
A few questions- largely out of my ignorance-
Is it prudent to store all of those cylinders in a closed room?
If you have cylinders in a closed room, wouldn't it be prudent to have gas monitoring in place to alert you if a tank leaks?
Wouldn't you be required to have ESD shoes to enter such room?
If the AV rack is hardwired to the wall, is it properly grounded?
** External Email **Hello all,
Curious to get this group's input- I recently discovered a large A/V rack in the gas cylinder room of my university's science building. The A/V rack is hardwired into the wall, and is NOT spark-proof/hospital grade. It could make sparks at any time. In the same room, we have full cylinders of compressed oxygen, nitrous oxide, and air. The room itself likely has flammable construction. We probably have about 50 employees in the building, plus hundreds of students during the academic terms.
All the science faculty are (rightly) having a conniption fit and demanding that the A/V rack be moved to another room. However, the city fire chief inspected and said that "cylinders were properly stored and there was no open flame in the room", so no move was necessary, as no code was violated. So now the administration is dragging its feet, saying that the rack doesn't need to be moved (and IT suggested that we should just plug it back in).
Are there resources out there to convince the higher level of Administration that this situation is inherently hazardous and worth the resources to correct? Besides pedantically explaining the fire triangle/tetrahedron to them and bringing up the Apollo 1 fire? Or are the entire biology, chemistry, physics and nursing faculty (and I) all over-reacting?
Thanks for your help,
Nora DunkelChemical Safety OfficerWebster University314-246-2244 (office)
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
Electronic Transmission Confidentiality NoticeThe information contained in this electronic transmission is private, confidential, the property of the sender, and intended for the use of the recipient(s), only. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information for any purpose is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender, YBrinker**At_Symbol_Here**fele.com, immediately by e-mail and then delete this message. Thank you.
[FE.EN.1]--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post