1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006

    Default Pyrocool Extinguishing Agent

    If anyone is using or thought about using Pyrocool Extinguishing Agents you may want to read this article. Here is the link for the published article.


    Questions raised about foam used on Durham dump fire

    DURHAM - In its rush to extinguish the stubborn fire that broke out at Durham's yard waste dump last month, the city itself might have gotten hosed.
    Durham agreed to pay a Virginia company, Pyrocool Technologies, $37,000 for a special fire extinguishing foam the company guaranteed would put out the smoldering massive piles of leaves and wood in less than a day. Durham quickly bought the product, which a media release from the city proclaimed to be the same foam used to put out fires at the World Trade Center following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
    But what Durham received and used over a two-day span to put out the fire might not be the same product used at ground zero.
    Underwriters Laboratories Inc., which issues the familiar UL label that certifies everything from home appliances to firefighting equipment, issued an advisory May 25 that a sample of Pyrocool it tested earlier this year is not the same foam the consumer protection lab previously certified.
    A link to that UL warning advisory pops up when the name "Pyrocool" is entered into common Internet search engines such as Google.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency made a separate inquiry into Pyrocool after contractors used the foam to battle fires in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
    "All I can say is that we forwarded all the information we had on Pyrocool to the office of the chief counsel for the inspector general In Washington," said Louis Fimoneaux, the operational support and emergency services director for FEMA in Baton Rouge, La. A spokeswoman for the Office of the Inspector General, Marta Metelko, said it does not comment on companies it might be investigating until the inquiry is complete and a public report is released.
    Informed about concerns involving Pyrocool, city officials said this week that they consider the matter closed. Fire Chief Bruce Pagan said Wednesday the city intends to pay the invoice for 800 gallons of Pyrocool concentrate sent under another corporate name, Environmental Technologies Inc.
    According to the Virginia State Commonwealth Commission, Environmental Technologies is listed as having the same street address in Monroe, Va., as that listed as the world headquarters for Pyrocool Technologies on that company's Web page.
    But the corporation records list Pyrocool Technologies Inc. as a "fictitious" business name used by a third firm, Metro Fire & Rescue of Monroe, Va. The state also has records of filings for several companies with similar names, all with the same address. The director of those companies is listed as Robert E. Tinsley, Jr.
    Tinsley, the president and CEO of Pyrocool Technologies, said he was "blown away" that FEMA could be concerned about his foam. As for the issue with UL, Tinsley said that was merely a "labeling issue." The product now selling under the name Pyrocool has the same ingredients as that used following 9/11, he said. The company's Internet site displays several pictures of the destruction at the World Trade Center.
    "We are the target of a smear campaign," Tinsley said, though he declined to say who was smearing him or why.
    After UL labs posted the Web address for Pyrocool Technologies on its consumer advisory in May, the company took down that site and launched a new one with a different address. Asked why he made the change, Tinsley said his old Web site had been "criminally hijacked."
    Stephen Angeliu, a senior project engineer for UL, said the Northbrook, Ill., watchdog is continuing to investigate Pyrocool.
    "We're notifying the public that if they bought this product it is not eligible to bear the UL mark," said Angeliu, who supervised the testing. "If we issue and advisory that lists a company's Web site and then they change their Web site, you can read into that what you want."
    Pagan, the fire chief, couldn't say whether the huge containers of Pyrocool delivered to Durham bore the UL seal of approval. Portions of the labels appear to have been scratched off, he said, including the list of ingredients.
    But whatever was in the drums, it appeared to be more effective in fighting the yard waste fire than water alone, he said.

    Staff writer Michael Biesecker can be reached at 956-2421 or mbieseck@newsobserver.com.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2006


    my department uses pyrocool foam without a problem hmm and it shows the ingrediants on their lbue 5 gallon jugs
    Originally Posted by the1141man
    IACOJ is what Firehouse should have been to begin with, and what it now couldn't even aspire to in its wildest dreams.- the1141man

    the opinions typed in the above space are mine and mine alone

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006

    Default Pyrocool

    FYI please read my email to the reporter - this was sent October 9, 2006 - no reply yet

    Dear Mr. Biesecker - I am a sales rep for Pyrocool. I read your article. You seem to have taken the time to got to the Pyrocool site, but a simple search of the UL site would have shown the following listing for the basic Pyrocool:

    UL Online Certifications Directory
    OCD Home Quick Guide Contact Us UL.com
    Wetting Agents
    Page Bottom


    Wetting Agents

    See General Information for Wetting Agents

    3540 S AMHERST HWY
    PO BOX 160
    MONROE, VA 24574 USA
    "Pyro-cool" wetting agent, a liquid concentrate for addition to water to produce a solution having a greater fire extinguishing efficiency than plain water.
    For use on fires in Class A and B materials when mixed with water in a proportion of not less than 0.4 percent by volume.
    Last Updated on 2006-04-25

    And a search of UL Canada would have shown the following listing for Pyrocool FEF:

    Wetting Agents, Extinguishing Media
    Page Bottom


    Wetting Agents, Extinguishing Media

    See General Information for Wetting Agents, Extinguishing Media

    3540 S AMHERST HWY
    PO BOX 160
    MONROE, VA 24574 USA

    Pyrocool FEF, 0.4%, wetting agent, liquid concentrate for addition to water to produce solutions having a greater fire extinguishing efficiency than plain water. For use on fires in Class A and Class B materials when mixed with water in a proportion of not less than 0.4 % by volume and applied at a rate of not less than 8 L/min/m2.
    Use of wetting agent solutions should be limited to equipment where the suitability of the wetting agent for use in that equipment has been determined.
    The concentrate is suitable for storage at a minimum temperature of 2C.

    Last Updated on 2004-01-21

    You have an obligation to ask Mr. Angeliu at UL to explain to you how a non-certified chemical is able to have a current listing on UL. You can also ask Mr. Angeliu to confirm that a UL Canada certification is meaningless and that consumers should avoid any products bearing the ULC symbol.

    I look forward to your article detailing your conversation with Mr. Angeliu.

    Regards, John Sexton

    EcoEnergy Systems Inc.

    Garden City, NY

    Phone 516 873 0504

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Incomplete Information

    This information is incomplete. The product in question was Pyrocool FEF, not the Class A product. See attached article posted by UL:


    Mr. Sexton, would you kindly comment on this article and what it means.

    Second, ULC is NOT UL, and what is not shared here is WHY Pyrocool FEF lost the UL certification. This is the product promoted more than the other.

    The posting for Pyrocool FEF was in 2004 that you included in your response, and clearly the UL certification was lost AFTER that.

    You guys just do not shoot straight. I have experienced this first hand. Good product, really poor execution from people in charge. Very unfortunate.

    Caveat Emptor, my friends. I have heard that there is a similar product that has been launched with great success, only can't remember the name. There are other products out there.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006


    Hey Researchfire,

    Where did you have your run in with the Lynchburg Boys?

    Check out this website: http://www.novacoolfire.com/ It looks like the same stuff to me only made by the original manufacturer of Pyrocool.

    I think what happened with the UL thing was that they were making all of their stuff at a non UL facility.

    I wonder what Sexton will say to that?

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default not listed

    i would hate to be pyrocool they must be having problems!!!!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Weird but true or Jokes?
    By adamkhalil in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2005, 04:06 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2003, 04:34 PM
  3. AFFF or FFFP
    By Lallo in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-18-2002, 08:34 PM
  4. Pyrocool or Micro-Blaze Out?
    By Fireman488 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-21-2001, 11:05 AM
  5. Extinguishing Sawdust Pile Fires
    By Capt57 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-15-2000, 05:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register