PDVSA

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

VOLUMEN 1

PDVSA N

TITULO

IRS12

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

1 0
REV.

MAR.99 OCT.95
FECHA

GENERAL REVISION APPROVED

DESCRIPCION FECHA MAR.99

20 21

L.T. L.T.

O. A. A. N.

H. M. J. R.

PAG. REV. APROB. Salvador Arrieta

APROB. APROB. FECHA MAR.99

APROB. Anibal Rosas

E1994

ESPECIALISTAS

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 1
Indice norma

Indice
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 Active Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical Means of Extinguishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class A Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class B Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class C Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Halocarbon Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inert Gas Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inherent Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lethal Concentration 50% (Lc50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (Loael) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No Observed Adverse Effect Level (Noael) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normally Occupied Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physical Means of Extinguishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Risk Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Considerations for Halon Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gaseous Substitute Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fire Alarm and Detection System Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power Shut Tripping or Deenergizing of Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 2 2 2 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

6 HALON SUBSTITUTION GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4
6 7

7 HALON REPLACEMENT OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13
13 18 19

8 FINAL DISPOSAL OF HALON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 2
Indice norma

INTRODUCTION
PDVSA adopted as a basic philosophy the elimination of the use of halon in new installations. Aditionally, in existing facilities, adequate replacement fire protection system shall be evaluated. Where this is not practical, all necessary efforts should be made to minimize atmospheric discharges of halon.

OBJECTIVE
This guide establishes the criteria that shall be applied to select halon alternative fire protection system in new and existing installations.

SCOPE
This guide covers the halon substitute agents, nonhalon based replacement system and its final disposal.

REFERENCES
1. Sheinson R.S., Eaton Hg., Black B., Brown R., Burchel H., Maranghides A., Mitchel C., Salmon G., Smith WD.; Halon 1301 Replacement Total Flooding Fire Testing, Intermediate Scale. Halon Options Technical Working Conference, May 35, 1994, Albuquerque. Moore TA., Dierdorf DS., Skaggs SR.; Intermediate Scale (645 ft3) Fire Suppression Evaluation of NFPA 2001 Agents. 1993 Halon Alternatives Technical Working Conference, May 1113, 1993, Albuquerque. Skaggs SR., More TA.; Toxicology of Halogenated Halon Substitutes. Fire Safety without Halon?, September 79, 1994, Zurich. The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing Agents, p. 8, Report No. 6.60/259, June 1997, London. The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Inherent Fire Safety Design Principles, p. 21, Report No. 6.48/231, December 1995, London. Kletz, T.A., An Engineerss View of Human Error, published by the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, U.K. 1985 The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Guidelines on the Use of Water Mist Fire Extinguishment Systems in E&P Industry Applications, p. 1113, Report No. 6.49/235, March 1996, London. Grosshandler W. L., Gann R. G, and Pitts W. M., National Institute of Standards and Technology. April 1994. NIST SP 861 p.1. Revised Taylor G. M.; Halogenated Agents and Systems. Section 6/ chapter 18 p. 281. National Fire Protection Association.

2.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 3
Indice norma

10. Butler J.H., Elkins J. W., Hall B. D., Cummings S. O., and Mintzka S. A., Adecrease in the Growth Rates of Atmospheric Halon Concentrations. Vol 359, p. 403. Nature. October 1992. 11. Atmospheric Chlorine: CFCs and Alternative Fluorocarbons. Http://www.afeas.org/atm_cl.html. EPA report, March 1998.

DEFINITIONS
5.1 Active Protection
Active design solutions require devices to monitor a process variable and function to mitigate a hazard. Active solutions are sometimes referred to as engineering controls. Examples are the use of a pressure safety valve or rupture disk to prevent vessel overpressure or an interlock of a high level sensing device to a vessel inlet valve and pump motor to prevent liquid overfill of the vessel.

5.2

Chemical Means of Extinguishment

Chemical agents extinguish fires by interfering with the chemical reactions of fire. Extinguishment is achieved faster than by physical means.

5.3

Class A Fires
Fires in ordinary combustible materials such as wood, cloth, paper, tapes, diskettes, rubber, and many plastics. These typically produce deep seated fires.

5.4

Class B Fires
Fires in flammable liquids, solvents, glycols, methanol, oils, greases, tars, oilbase paints, lacquers, and flammable gases

5.5

Class C Fires
Fires that involve energized electrical equipment where the electrical nonconductivity of the extinguishing media is of importance. Examples are fires resulting from overheated cable insulation or fire in an energized transformer or switchgear.

5.6

Halocarbon Agent
A clean agent that contains as primary components one or more of the elements fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine. Examples are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and fluoroiodocarbons (FICs).

5.7

Inert Gas Agent

A clean agent that contains as primary components one or more of the gases argon, nitrogen, helium or neon, or a blend of these, which may also contain carbon dioxide as a secondary components.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 4
Indice norma

5.8

Inherent Safety
Designs that eliminate or mitigate the hazard by using materials and process conditions that are less hazardous.

5.9

Lethal Concentration 50% (Lc50)

Concentration causing death in 50% of an animal test population.

5.10

Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (Loael)

The lowest concentration at which an adverse physiological or toxicological effect has been observed. For inhalation of halocarbons, the effect is usually cardiac sensitization.

5.11

No Observed Adverse Effect Level (Noael)

The highest concentration at which no adverse toxicological or physiological effect has been observed. For inhalation of halocarbons the effect looked for is usually cardiac sensitization.

5.12

Normally Occupied Area

An area continuously manned or where personnel are present for most of the time, or for which no documented access authorization is required.

5.13

Physical Means of Extinguishment

Physical agents extinguish fires by removing heat, thus removing one side of the fire triangle. This mechanism is much slower than chemical extinguishment and requires much higher agent concentrations.

HALON SUBSTITUTION GUIDELINES

In order to comply with the philosophy of elimination of the use of halon, the performance based approach presented in the decision tree shown in Figure 1 shall be followed.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 5
Indice norma

Fig 1. HALON SUBTITUTION EVALUATION

Halon Replacement 6.0

Fire Protection Need Assessment (Risk Analysis) 6.1

Evaluation Complete

No

Fire Protection Required

Yes

Consider NonHalonbased Replacement System 6.2

Install Non Halon System

Yes

NonHalon System Performance Okay No

Install Gaseous Subtitute Agents 7.1

Evaluation Complete

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 6
Indice norma

6.1

Risk Analysis
The risk analysis stipulated in Figure 1 shall address both the likelihood and the consequence of the fire hazard. The fire likelihood should take into account historical incident data when available. Sources or such information can be PDVSA experience or PDVSAs insurance underwriters. When such information is not readily available, the approach should use failure analysis concepts. Fault tree analysis is an effective technique for assessing the likely frequency of fires. A suggestive fault tree is provided in Figure 2. By assigning failure rates to the various events, the top event frequency can be estimated. The consequence analysis of the potential fire shall consider the following factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Primary asset damage and financial loss potential Time to repair damage and business interruption potential Personnel safety and injury potential Impairment of plant safety systems due to damage sustained Loss of critical business data

The risk level associated with the estimated frequency and consequences shall be assessed using approved PDVSA IRS02. Depending on the results of the risk assessment, refer to Figure 1 and continue the stipulated logic sequence. Fig 2. FAULT TREE

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 7
Indice norma

6.2
6.2.1

Considerations for Halon Replacement

Inherently Safer Design New Installations The adoption of design criteria to reduce the probability of occurrence for fires and for specifying materials, equipment or systems that limit fire propagation, constitute preventive actions which are more important than the decision to install an extinguishing system to reduce consequences. Therefore, the justification for a fire extinguishing system can be questioned when other design resources have not been considered to prevent the occurrence and development of an event. Examples of other design resources that can be considered are: Enclosures or divisions to confine / separate the risk Control of flammable materials and potential ignition sources Activation of power switches or process shutdown that stop the succession / extension of an event Providing materials of difficult combustion, fire resistant or that prevent flame propagation

Inherently safer designs eliminate or mitigate the hazard by using materials and process conditions that are less hazardous. The most important principles of inherent safety principles are summarized below (Ref. 6): S Intensification. Using small quantities of hazardous substances or eliminating them if possible. S Substitution. Replacing a material with a less hazardous substance S Attenuation. Using less hazardous conditions or a less hazardous form of a material. Selecting a process with a lower risk potential S Limitation of Effects. Designing facilities that minimize the impact of a release of a hazardous material or energy S Simplification. Designing facilities that make operating errors less likely. Reducing number of leak sources (flanges, valves, instrument connections, etc.), and minimizing the ignition sources. S Tolerance. Make equipment robust and that are forgiving of errors that are made, processes that go to bad quality, not to an uncontrolled reaction or condition. Design with sufficient material corrosion properties and toughness factors. Examples of these principles can help reduce the need for fixed extinguishing systems are given in the following sections. a. Intensification The process designer shall seek practical opportunities to reduce inventories of hazardous materials:

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 8
Indice norma

S Minimize the need for all intermediate hazardous material storage. S Minimize quantities of storage by assuring timely and reliable supply The amount of hazardous material that can be transported or contained in a pipe can be sizable, specially in larger plants, thus a point should be made to minimize these inventories: S Pipe size should not exceed the sized required for meeting the process requirements. The exception being if the pipe size is less than 2, because small piping is more vulnerable to failure. S Routing shall be as direct as possible to avoid unnecessary lengths of pipe but ensuring that pipe is routed to minimize potential for external impact, exposure to corrosive environments, etc. S Limit number of pipe fittings to those strictly required in order to reduce potential leak points. b. Substitution When possible, the designer should explore less hazardous materials for the process. For example, S Use of lower risk equipment such as non hydrogen evolving batteries S Use of non combustible materials for enclosures and the equipment and fluids housed within the enclosure (cast resin transformers in place of oilfilled transformers) c. Attenuation This measure reduces risk by using the least severe values in process parameters that are allowed in the process or a less hazardous form of the material. S Reduce to the minimum the potential pressure differential between different parts of the same equipment (such as a heat exchanger). d. Limitation of Effects Appropriate selection of the location where the equipment will be placed and the separation between the equipment and vulnerable areas is an effective way to limit the effects of an accidental release. The site or location of the storage tanks shall consider ways to minimize knockon effects on nearby facilities and offsite effects to the public in the event of release. S To avoid offsite effects, the toxic and flammable materials shall be stored as far as possible from the site fence. S Buffer zones between hazardous materials storage and offsite should be calculated and respected whenever possible. S appropriate distance must be maintained between the hazardous material unloading, storage and process areas.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 9
Indice norma

S Reduce number of junction boxes and other items that can cause ignition S Limit number of internal combustion machines to those strictly essential and locate them out of classified areas diverting the exhaust to an area where it cannot be an ignition source. S Avoid installation of hot fluid piping close to flammable fluid piping. S Locate daily service fuel tanks outside machinery enclosures. S Locate offices, control rooms, emergency electrical generator, fire fighting pumping systems upwind of hydrocarbon process or storage areas. S Locate open fire equipment such as process heaters upwind of hydrocarbon process or storage areas. S Locate flare and vent systems downwind of hydrocarbon process or storage areas. S Install power electrical cables and instrument cable in different cable trays. S Limit the enclosure volume of the areas where accumulation of hydrocarbons is possible. S Minimize the areas where corrosive products are present. Buffer zones and minimum distance between equipment to avoid knockon effects shall be estimated using atmospheric dispersion and consequence analysis simulations of credible worstcase release scenarios as described in the PDVSA document IRS02. Adequate emergency access shall be considered in the design stage as a way to limit the consequences of emergencies: S S S S S Easy access to isolation and depressurization of equipment. Easy access and escape during emergencies. Possibility of manual activation of fixed fire fighting valves. Possibility of access to depressurization valves of failed equipment. Possibility of close proximity to failed equipment to allow use of manual fire extinguishing equipment. S Possibility of access in the opposite direction to smoke diffusion. S Possibility of easy escape and evacuation of personnel not involved in emergency response. e. Simplification /Tolerance The designer should simplify the system to avoiding possibilities for human error. S S S S Use of dedicated piping is almost always preferred to multiuse piping. Group areas which require similar maintenance frequency Group areas which require similar fire protection Reduce the equipment for which replacement parts/materials are expensive or hard to obtain

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 10
Indice norma

S S S S 6.2.2 a.

Easy access during operation Easy and safe access for collection of samples Easy access to hot spots in electrical installation Immediate identification of release point

Fixed Systems New The decision to install a new fire protection systems shall be based on the results of an extensive risk analysis (see 6.1) to determine, firstly, if a protection system is needed, and secondly, to study any alternatives to halon. Such alternatives shall include consideration of inherently safer design options as discussed in. When the need for a halon replacement extinguishment system is confirmed, it is necessary to take into account the following recommendations: 1. Control rooms and computer processing rooms: Very early fire detection systems with alarm and a cut off of power system. Automatic CO2 extinguishing systems under the false floor. Preaction sprinkler systems, wetpipe fire sprinkler in the room, or in the absence of such systems, portable CO2 or water monitors. 2. Motor control rooms, telecommunication rooms, switch gear room, and general electrical and electronic equipment: Very early fire detection system with alarm and cut off of power system and automatic discharge of CO2. In this case, provisions shall be taken for the case of personnel present in the moment of the discharge. A preset alarm with retarding action is recommended to be used in the evacuation of the area or building before the system enter in uses. 3. Other infrequent applications such as floating roof tanks, turbines, vents, etc.: Apply the PDVSA Standards of the Risk Engineering Manual in each particular case. Following these Standards, halon will be substituted by foam in the case of tanks and by CO2 in the case of turbines and vents. 4. Explosion prevention and suppression: In PDVSA installations halon is not used for this particular application. However, it is normal practice to install gas detection systems with alarm at 20% of LFL (Lower Flammable Limit) and selective shutdown of equipment and/or plant at 40% of LFL, as it is specified in the PDVSA standards of the Risk Engineering Manual.

b.

Existing System Replacement The review of options for replacement of an existing halonbased extinguishment system shall be based on the result of an extensive risk analisis (see 6.1). If a fire

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 11
Indice norma

protection is required, an evaluation of approved halon substitutes shall be done (see Section 7.1) Software programs are available from agent suppliers for analysis of existing halonbased systems, which assess performance with substitute agents. If substitution is not a viable option for technical reasons, then nonhalon based replacement options recommended in Section 6.2.2.a shall be followed. For guidance in the selection of an acceptable replacement system, the following replacement system advantages and disadvantages should be considered. 1. Wet type sprinkler systems utilizing, recessed, quick response heads and if necessary, a CO2 system protecting the subfloor Advantages These water based systems are very economical and easy to install, easy to maintain, quick response heads will offer faster response (up to 3 times as fast) than standard heads and the recessed feature will eliminate the potential for mechanical damage, environmental friendliness of water, no agent storage space required, except for that of CO2. Disadvantages Potential water damage to sensitive energized equipment, need for fire pump and water tank. 2. Wet type sprinkler systems utilizing automatic, OnOff heads and if necessary, a CO2 system for protecting the subfloor. Advantages Water based systems are very economical, easy to maintain, OnOff heads will minimize the possibility of water damage by limiting the volume of water discharge, environmental friendliness of water, no agent storage space required, except for that of CO2. Disadvantages Potential water damage to sensitive energized equipment, need for a fire pump and water tank. Potential for mechanical damage to the OnOff heads due to the incapability to conceal or recess these types of heads (these heads typically extend 4 6 inches from the ceiling level), higher costs associated with OnOff heads (approximately 5 times more costly than standard and/or quick response heads) 3. Preaction, doubleinterlocking sprinkler system and if necessary, a CO2 system protecting the subfloor. Advantages Water based systems are very economical, easy to maintain, preaction, doubleinterlocking feature will reduce presence of false alarms by incorporating additional initiating features prior to alarm/activation,

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 12
Indice norma

environmental friendliness of water, no agent storage space required, except for that of CO2. Disadvantages Potential water damage to sensitive energized equipment, increase in cost vs. standard, wet system, need for a fire pump and water tank. c. Maintenance of Existing System Independently of the actions to be proposed, the following actions shall be carried out for any extinguishing system based on halon 1301 while it is maintained in operation. 1. 2. The live discharge test of halon are completely prohibited. Adopt the Door Fan Test for the protected environment instead of discharging the halon system to test its efficacy. The Door Fan Test allows determination of whether the system will achieve and maintain the minimum specific concentration for fire extinguishing and is currently the best alternative available to find leaks in a closed area and evaluate its integrity. Evaluate the reliability of the fixed systems, carrying out pressure test of the piping systems that confirm the absence of obstructions and that simulate the maximum flow through them. Ensure the distribution and discharge of the extinguishing agent, such that it is uniformly distributed in the protected environment. This must be done using computerized programs provided by the system design manufacturer. Review the fire detection systems that trigger the halon system to determine its actuation speed. In cases of low detection speeds, consider the redesign of the detection system to install one faster and more efficient, in order to allow a manual intervention before the halon system is discharged. Establish strict controls to prevent accidental discharges of the extinguishing agent. If this occur, do not proceed to recharge the system.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Revise the type of activation of the system and evaluate the characteristics of the protected asset, in order to determine the need for automatic activation. In so far possible, manual activation shall be adopted over automatic activation to prevent false discharges 6.2.3 Portable Extinguishers In case of existing halon portable fire extinguishers they will be replaced as indicated below: a. b. Electrical equipment. Replace with CO2 Computer Equipment. Replace with CO2

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 13
Indice norma

c. d.

Control Rooms. Replace with CO2 In any other circumstance, consider the use of water extinguishers, dry chemical powder and/or foam.

HALON REPLACEMENT OPTIONS

These are some recommendations for halon substitute agents including chemical agents, inert gases and powders. These recommendations reflect current industry practices and preferred halon alternative solutions.

7.1

Gaseous Substitute Agents

This alternative involves several agent options available in todays market, each varying in cost, effectiveness and chemical makeup. By types, the alternatives are divided into chemical agents, inert gases and powders. The chemical agents include FM200 and CO2. The most recognizable inert gas is Inergen (a mixture of argon, nitrogen and carbon dioxide). Aerosols fall into the powder category. These types of products are the least developed and have not received an Underwriter s Laboratories (UL) or Factory Mutual (FM) listing or approval. Substitute agents that are identified as HCFCs such as Halotron and NAFSIII should not be considered as viable options due to their phaseout deadline of 2020. To assist in limiting the numerous gaseous agent options to those approved and deemed safe and efficient, the following should be consulted: S UL S FM S NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems S U.S EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) List Both UL and FM will identify those agents and systems approved or listed for use, NFPA 2001 establishes requirements for design, maintenance and installation, and the SNAP list approves agents based on environmental effects and safety.

7.1.1

Approved Substitute Agents The following description and analysis includes those substitute agents that have received recognition, listings and/or approvals from UL, FM, SNAP and NFPA 2001:

a.

FM200 is the trade name for HFC227ea. The agent is a halocarbon and is a complex chemical mixture of hydrogen, carbon, and fluorine. Its full name is heptaflouropropane. As is true with most halocarbons, it extinguishes primarily by interfering with the production of free radicals, necessary for sustaining a fire,

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 14
Indice norma

and by absorbing heat. The chemical is included on the EPAs SNAP list, is UL listed and FMRC approved under several manufacturers for both engineered and preengineered systems, and meets the requirements of NFPA 2001. FM200 has a ODP of 0, an atmospheric lifetime of 32 years and a GWP of 0.7. This particular agent has the most extensive health and safety test toxicity information of any available Halon 1301 substitute. In fact, it has been designated as the replacement for the propellant (which is also identified as an ODC) in pharmaceutical metered dose inhalers similar to those used for asthma treatment. Thus, it is safe for the environment and for humans. The agents design concentration is between 7% and 8% (versus 4.2% for Halon 1301) and is effective in suppressing Class A, B, and C fires. This, coupled with the fact that the average weight by volume is 1.7 times that of Halon 1301, results in the requirement for more total agent when compared with Halon 1301 and the need for increased storage space. The average increase in storage capacity is approximately 12/3 times the amount required for Halon 1301. A FM200 system typically is designed with a system design pressure of 360 psi, which is similar to that of a low pressure Halon 1301 system. The agent is approved for use in occupied areas, however, the byproducts of extinguishment are more hazardous than those formed with extinguishment using Halon 1301. This is due to the fact that the agent does not include bromine. Therefore, it is recommended that the space in which it is used be evacuated prior to discharge, however, based on the agents NOAEL level, occupants can technically remain in the area for up to a minute after discharge. The decomposition products of FM200 can be damaging to electrical components, but it occurs with all hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). FM200 is no more damaging than Halon 1301 as it produces only HF in amounts equivalent to the HF and Hbr produced by Halon 1301. There are ways to minimize HF production including early fire detection and quick agent discharge. FM200 also has the potential of causing temperature related damage, but only if the agent impinges directly on equipment. The average temperature decrease in a room is 10_F. Nozzles should be positioned to prevent direct equipment contact with the discharging agent. It should be noted that the nature of the nozzles causes a radial discharge at ceiling level with the agent settling down on equipment. There has been no evidence of significant water condensation in tests using FM200 . Tests performed with FM200 on live electrical equipment have been

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 15
Indice norma

successful. Testing by the Modular Protection Corporation1 indicates that for low energy levels consistent with those found in electrical equipment the extinguishing concentration must be increased to 8%. This 8% value is the minimum test concentration, which did not result in reignition. A safety factor, 20% is typical, would increase concentrations to 9.6%, exceeding the NOAEL. Ideally, all agents needed at a facility could be stored in a single bulk storage area. However, the poor flow characteristics of FM200 prohibit pipe runs of over 150 feet as well as elevation changes associated with multiple stories. Therefore, FM200 must be stored in close proximity to the areas they protect. 1. Advantages Agent cost FM200 and recycled Halon 1301 is basically the same but requires approximately 1.67 times the storage space of Halon 1301, extensive health and safety test information available, possibility of using existing Halon 1301 system piping hardware (if low pressure system exists) 2. Disadvantages Design concentration (7%) close to NOAEL (9%), required agent storage proximity to protected areas due to agent flow restraints b. CEA410 is a perflourobutane consisting of carbon and fluorine. The agent is also known as FC3110 and is produced by 3M. The agent is on the SNAP list, is UL listed and FMRC approved, and meets the requirements of NFPA 2001. The agents design concentration is between 6% and 9.2%, weighs approximately twice as much as Halon 1301 and requires 1.67 times Halon 1301 by volume. This will result in an increase in agent storage space. The agent shows flow characteristics similar to Halon 1301 and could feasibly use the same piping used in Halon 1301 systems. The agent is approved for use in occupied areas. In fact, it is considered safe in concentrations up to 24%. However, CEA410 is not as environmentally acceptable as many of the other agents on the SNAP list due to a high GWP (5,500 based on a period of 100 years) and atmospheric lifetime of 2,500 years. As a result, an evaluation must be made to address the need to use CEA410 over greener alternatives. This evaluation must be available for review when requested by regulating agencies. The environmental impact of this agent may result in future restrictions on its use. CEA410 is a Perfluorocarbon (PFC) and produces toxic compounds similar to FM200 during decomposition. CEA410 has an added advantage in reducing the production of these toxic compounds by increasing the design concentration without exceeding the NOAEL. Increased design concentration has been shown
1

The Modular Protection Corporation has performed the only tests on live electrical equipment. All results presented for live electrical equipment are from their testing.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 16
Indice norma

to reduce decomposition products by quicker extinguishment. CEA410 also produces no damaging water condensation although discharge results in a noticeable fog. CEA410 has been successful in extinguishing live electrical equipment fires. Successful test concentrations where 8%, which, with a safety factor of 20%, yields a design concentration of 9.6%. Unlike with FM200, the NOAEL is not exceeded. Similar to FM200, the poor flow characteristics of CEA410 prohibit pipe runs of over 150 feet as well as elevation changes associated with multiple stories. Therefore, this agent must be stored in close proximity to the areas they protect. 1. Advantages

Requires approximately 1.67 times the storage space of Halon 1301, design concentrations (6% to 9.2%) well below NOAEL (40%), possibility that existing Halon 1301 pipe network may be reused (if low pressure Halon 1301 system exists). 2. Disadvantages Not as environmentally accepted as other agents, therefore, it is possibly subject to future regulations, only viable for use after documentation that other agents cannot be used per SNAP, high cost per pound vs. Halon 1301, required agent storage proximity to protected areas due to agent flow restraints. c. Inergen is the trade name for IG541. It is a mixture of two inert gases, nitrogen and argon, with CO2. Inergen extinguishes fires by reducing the oxygen level to under 15% which is the minimum oxygen concentration to support combustion in most circumstances. This is equivalent to a 37.5% Inergen concentration. CO2 is added to increase the respiration rate of occupants remaining in the room. This technique has come under question but nonetheless the agent has been deemed safe for use in occupied areas although evacuation is required within 30 seconds of discharge if agent concentration exceeds 42% and before the agent concentration reaches 52%. The agent is on the SNAP list, is UL, and is recognized by NFPA 2001. As typical of inert gas agents, Inergen has no ODP or GWP and is, therefore, safe from future regulations. The UL listing is for engineered and preengineered systems. The design concentration for Inergen is 38%. This value is significantly higher than Halon 1301s design concentration of 4.2%. In addition, it takes over 2 times the amount of agent by weight to protect the same volume space with Halon 1301. This equates to approximately 11 times the storage space of Halon 1301. Inergen systems are designed with a typical system pressure of 2,175 psi, which is substantially higher than that of a high pressure Halon 1301 system (600 psi).

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 17
Indice norma

Inergen offers advantages over HFCs and PFCs in corrosivity. Inergen results in no corrosive decomposition products. Inergen also does not produce a measurable temperature drop or water condensation. Preliminary tests with Inergen have yielded test concentrations of 4142% for extinguishing of live electrical fires. Test results have not yet been finalized or published but the preliminary figures yield design concentrations exceeding the 42% NOAEL. Inergen, relative to Halon 1301 and even FM200, is not very costly. This is due to the simple chemical composition of Inergen. Inergen is sold by the cubic foot and not by the pound. Inergen is the only agent, which lends itself well to long pipe runs that would be associated with central bulk storage location. Inergen can be transported as many as three typical stories vertically as well as a substantial distance horizontally. The largest drawback of Inergen is the large amount of agent needed for extinguishment. The agent requires substantially more storage space than Halon 1301. 1. Advantages Replacement or recharge of agent is less costly than that of Halon 1301, no environmental concerns (0 OPD, GWP, and atmospheric lifetime), design concentration (37.5%) below NOAEL (43%) 2. Disadvantages Large storage space required, approximately 11 times that of Halon 1301, no possibility of reusing existing Halon 1301 system pipe hardware d. FE13TM is the trade name for HFC23. The agent is chemically known as CHF3.. The agent is on the SNAP list, listed by UL, and approved by FMRC and NFPA 2001 recognized. The product extinguishes fire by interfering with the chemical chain reaction and absorbing heat. The agent weighs approximately 1.95 times Halon 1301, and it has a volume 2.8 times larger than Halon 1301. The design concentration is 18%. Therefore, larger storage space is required. As with FM200 and CEA410, FE13TM has flow characteristics similar to Halon 1301 and may be able to reuse existing Halon 1301 piping hardware. One advantage of the agent is its high NOAEL, 30%. Compared to its design concentration, 18%, there is considerable design flexibility before the NOAEL limits are reached. Another attribute that distinguishes itself from the other agent options is its effectiveness in cold environments up to 40F.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 18
Indice norma

In regards to environmental concerns, FE13TM has an ODP of 0 and an atmospheric lifetime of 280 years. 1. Advantages

Design concentration (18%) is well below NOAEL (30%), agent is effective in cold temperature up to 40F possibility that existing Halon 1301 pipe network may be reused. 2. Primary Disadvantage

High atmospheric lifetime compared to other substitute agents and therefore, possibly subject to future regulations.

7.2

Fire Alarm and Detection System Options

The fire alarm and detection system is critical for proper activation of both gaseous Halon 1301 substitute agents and waterbased systems (i.e., preaction system). There are two alarm and detection system options available: Standard system consisting of conventional spottype smoke or heat detectors, and early warning system (i.e., laser detectors or airsampling detection). The standard system will provide adequate detection and initiation of the fire suppression system. However, if the current investment of protected equipment or the facilitys safety objectives warrant early and faster detection and response to a fire emergency, then an early warning system can be implemented. Currently, the early warning alarm and detection system consists of either laser type detectors or air detection systems.

7.2.1

Laser Type Detection System The laser detector type system consists of a control panel, laser detectors and signal processing software. The control panel is equipped with an ultra highspeed microprocessor. The laser detectors operate on a photoelectric type detector principle, except that it utilizes a controlled laser diode, chamber and light trap to detect the smoke scattering of the laser (i.e., light). The chamber includes a mirror device which is electrically charged to detect dust and false alarms. These detectors have a sensitivity range of 0.031.0% per foot and have a coverage area of 400 ft@. These detectors are substantially more sensitive than typical photoelectric detectors which have a sensitivity range of 12% per foot. Finally, the software offers nine (9) levels of alarm sensitivity selection per detector, drift compensation, automatic testing, day/night compensation and maintenance alert capabilities. This system is UL listed, and the cost of these types of detectors, are approximately three (3) times the cost of standard photoelectric detectors.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 19
Indice norma

a.

Advantages Wider range of sensitivity detection, addressable system and components, which offers the capability of pinpointing fire location, more cost effective when compared to air type system when protecting relatively small areas less than 8,000 ft@ (or less than 20 detectors), continuously supervises all system components and wiring.

b.

Disadvantages Not retrofit friendly and system components are not compatible with other manufacturers, application in high air velocity areas such as clean rooms is questionable.

7.2.2

Air Sampling System An air type system consists of an aspirator or pump, control panel, detector, and filter air ductwork. Air samples are drain into the detector by the air aspirator utilizing the air ductwork equipped with smallbore ports. Once inside the detector, the air sample is exposed to a highly intensive light source. The scattering of this light source from particles in the air sample such as smoke will generate an alarm signal to the control panel. The detector has a wide sensitivity range of .00156.0% per foot. This range is even far more sensitive than that of the laser detection system. These systems are also UL listed and FMRC approved. Some manufacturers include VESDA, IFD Cirrus and Environment One.

a.

Advantages More sensitive than laser detection type system, retrofit friendly, detector and air network can be tied into any control panel type, more cost effective than laser detection system when protecting larger areas greater than 8,000 ft@ (or greater than 20 laser detectors).

b.

Disadvantages Air aspirator or pump life expectancy is only 7 years, system cannot supervise air network (i.e., ductwork and ports) for trouble conditions.

7.3

Power Shut Tripping or Deenergizing of Equipment

As with the waterbased, preaction sprinkler system, consideration should also be given to methods for turning off power or deenergizing electrical equipment. FM200 , CEA410 and Inergen have all been successfully used on electrical equipment. However, if an electrical malfunction was the cause of ignition, and electrical power is not removed, then the fire could reignite once the agent concentration in the room disperses. Additionally, higher concentrations are required to extinguish live electrical fires. In the case of FM200 and Inergen,

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA IRS12 REVISION FECHA

PDVSA
Men Principal

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

Indice manual

MAR.99

Pgina 20
Indice norma

this higher concentration exceeds the NOAEL, requiring evacuation of the space within 30 seconds of discharge. Leaving equipment energized also results in an increased extinguishing time, which translates into increased HF production. It should be also pointed out that providing this feature can be very difficult and costly due to varying electrical equipment type and age along with the supply of electricity.

FINAL DISPOSAL OF HALON

The final disposal of halon is an important topic and it is being discussed accordingly in order to establish an environmentally acceptable solution. While this final solution is being achieved, the following considerations shall be addressed.

8.1 8.2

The venting of halon into the atmosphere for final disposal is totally prohibited. Thought must be given to recycling those volumes of halon that have been decommissioned, and the two options mentioned below shall be taken into account: a. b. Redistribute within the Petrochemical and Petroleum Industry (IPPN), in the case of a need. Send to the supplier or, if not possible, to the manufacturer, for final disposal

Option b. (above shall be the preferred choice). In case that redistribution of halon is decided, the redistribution of halon within IPPN may be accomplished by implementing a halon Management Plan comprising of the following steps: S Depositing the halon inventory from the converted systems into a halon bank, to draw upon for critical systems.