Is it Time to Modernize Your Hazard Fire-Protection System? Interview with Dimitri Dumerlin

Subscribe to Burns Insights + Innovations for the latest conversations with our team of infrastructure design and system integration experts.

In this edition, we talk with Project Manager Dimitri Dumerlin, LEED AP about how changes in regulations and fire suppression technologies are leading many facilities to adjust their hazard fire-protection systems.

For more, read our latest Insights article Fire Suppression Strategies for Maintaining Safety, Protecting Critical Equipment.

To contain a fire incident, the most common fire-protection system is the wet pipe sprinkler. It’s cost-efficient, fast-acting, and effective. But for some facilities, it’s not the way to go. What are special hazard fire-protection systems and when should they be deployed?

Dimitri Dumerlin (DD): They suppress fires in situations where water would otherwise destroy or damage high-value, highly sensitive equipment. If there’s a fire within a data center, you wouldn’t want to douse water on expensive electronics. Or if there’s a combustion of highly flammable materials, sprinklers may not be enough to contain the flames. Suppression agents can extinguish flames faster, cover an entire area, and do all that without ruining the facility’s equipment.

Of all the fire suppression agents, which ones are most prevalent?

DD: Systems using “clean agents” are electrically non-conducting and don’t leave behind chemical residues. They’ve been around for a long time. Halon, in particular, was the most widely used. It’s relatively inexpensive, very effectively disrupting chemical reactions that keep fires going. But Halon is one of the gases that helped deplete the ozone layer. Its time has passed. Manufacturers instead started producing FM-200. They're now phasing that out, too, because it’s a potent greenhouse gas. In the last year or two, some manufacturers and facility owners started moving away from the latest alternatives, such as NOVEC 1230, over concerns that they’re “forever chemicals” (PFAS). 

What solution do you recommend to clients? 

DD: There’s no one-size-fits-all approach when designing a fire-protection system. It’ll depend on the fire risks, building layout, whether anyone works inside the facility, and local codes. Room integrity is important. By that, I mean, some clean agents need to be within a sealed, airtight room — or otherwise the agents can leak out. Think of a boiler room: it has a whole lot of wall penetrations. How do you seal that room? You can’t. So clean agents may not be the right system. Other options include aerosol units, foams, carbon dioxide, or water mist systems.

Some fire protection contractors may continue to source and install discontinued fire suppression systems. What’s your advice to facility managers deciding whether to rely on a discontinued system?

DD: Everyone needs to decide what works best for their facility and their circumstances. That said, using a phased-out agent comes with a lot of risk. There are risks of supply shortages or higher replacement costs. If a suppression system discharges, you don’t want to be in a position where you can’t refill the tanks. We recommend our clients take a proactive approach, evaluating which fire safety strategies are pragmatic, affordable, safe and effective — now and for years to come.

Burns Engineering is a nationally respected provider of specialized engineering services, offering expertise to deliver complex power system, utility, transportation, and critical infrastructure projects. Follow us on LinkedIn for the latest company updates.