Tweet
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
MICHAEL BIESECKER, Staff Writer
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 [email protected].
Questions raised about foam used on Durham dump fire
MICHAEL BIESECKER, Staff Writer
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 [email protected].
Comment