Upload
blaze-sullivan
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Current Issues in FM-200®
Presented at the KFP International Sales Meeting 3rd February 2001
Current Issues in FM-200®
Dave Smith
Suppression Business Manager, KFP
General attributes of FM-200®
Selling against Inergen Update on environmental issues The PBPK toxicity model LPCB listing and LPS 1230 Hi-Flo FM-200®
General Attributes and Properties of FM-200®
Fast & Efficient Performance
Removes heat so fire can’t sustain itself
FM-200® Chemical/Physical Extinguishing Mechanism
Physical
Chemical
80%
Physical
Chemical 20%
80%
20%
Halon 1301 FM-200®®
Oxygen Dilution Upon Addition of an Extinguishing Agent
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n -
Vo
l %
10
20
30
40
50
60
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
0
12.3%NASA Minimum
Pass Out
Impaired Performance Zone
UnimpairedPerformance Zone
Oxygen Concentration - Vol %
Inert Agents
FE 13TM
FM-200®
9
How Is FM-200® Now Applied?
Cup Burner Conc. [Heptane] = 5.8%
Use Concentration [Minimum] = 7.5% with ISO 14520 Safety Factor of 30%
Maximum Discharge Time limited to 10 Seconds
FM-200® Is Fast and Effective
Reaches extinguishing concentration
within 10 seconds
Highly penetrative gas provides
homogeneous dispersion to
protect entire area
Provides ACTIVE Fire Protection
Why is Rapid Discharge Important?
Fire growth may be fast, even for Class A fires
Heat and smoke damage is strictly limited
10 seconds vs 1 minute + represents a real advantage
Minimising damage results in
Minimum business interruption
Limited data loss
Minimum cost of remedial action
Halo 1301
CO2
Inert Gas
Compact storage space requirements
Fast & Efficient Performance
FM-200®
Inert Gas
Halon 1301
CO2
Space and Weight Efficiency
CO2 requires 3 times number of cylinders
Non liquified [compressed gas] extinguishants can require 10 times number of cylinders
FM-200® requires 1.6 - 2 times more space and weight than Halon 1301
Why is Low Space and
Weight Important?
Weight critical for marine applications
Space is primary concern for land-based systems
The bottom line is cost!
Office space in USA costs ca. $30-50/sq. ft/yr
Add lighting, heating, cooling etc
Suppression system space is non value-adding
US EPA Recommendations on the use of FM-200®
LOAEL: Maximum Design Concentration if Occupants will be exposed for less than 1 minute
NOAEL: Maximum Design Concentration if Occupants could be exposed for more than 1 minute
Minimum Design Concentration
Minimum Extinguishing Concentration
10.5
123456789101112
0
%
9.0
7.0
5.8
Human Safety
FM-200® is completely safe for use in occupied spaces.
FM-200® Is Clean
No Residue To Clean Up No Damage To Electronic Equipment, Magnetic
Media, Documents, or Irreplaceable Objects
FM-200® Is People Safe
No effect on respiratory system No significant loss of visibility by obscurity Non-toxic Acceptable for occupied spaces Safer than Halon 1301
FM-200® is Viable,
Long Term Protection
UL Component Recognised Agent
UL Listed Systems
FM Approved
Recognised and Accepted By NFPA 2001, ISO 14520
The Future of FM-200®
FM-200® is the most accepted and specified fire suppression agent in the world.
FM-200® Versus Inerts
Inerts do not preserve Halon benefits and are deficient relative to FM-200®
Not fast acting
Lengthy discharge times of
60-90 seconds typically
Hence lengthy fire-out times,
increasing likelihood of fire/smoke
damage and reduced O2 levels
FM-200® Versus Inerts
What is ‘Inergen’?
IG-541 comprises nitrogen [52%],
argon [40%], carbon dioxide [8%]
Acts by oxygen depletion to O2 levels that cannot support combustion
Claim that CO2 component stimulates respiration which increases O2 uptake
FM-200® vs Inergen
FM-200® has physical/chemical dual extinguishing action
Inergen acts purely physically, reducing O2 levels below 14%
HAG Review states that Halocarbons are more efficient flame extinguishants than inert gases FM-200® has a significant weight and space advantage
Who guarantees the composition of the Inergen blend?
FM-200® vs InergenMarketing Aspects
Tyco has previously adopted negative marketing strategies rather than focusing on features and benefits of their own product
Negative marketing material features misleading and inaccurate statements
FM-200® production phase-out
Bans in certain countries
Thermal decomposition products
FM-200® vs InergenPerformance
FM-200® reaches 95% of Design Conc. in 10 seconds or less
Inergen systems require at least 60 seconds Every second counts! FM-200® Design Concentration is typically 7.5% Inergen displaces approx. 40% of the enclosure air and
requires pressure relief devices to prevent overpressurisation and damage to structures
Who has ultimate liability for an overpressurisation event?
FM-200® vs InergenFire Suppression Performance [1]
Hughes Associates/Great Lakes study showed that 38.1% Inergen failed to extinguish some magnetic tape fires
‘Successful’ extinguishments took 2.5-3 mins
K-F testing showed that 39.5% Inergen failed to prevent reignition of a 12” wood crib
FM-200® at 7% consistently extinguished without reignition
FM-200® vs InergenFire Suppression Performance [2]
Some ‘successful’ Inergen extinguishments are caused by fire ‘blow-out’
Tyco video ‘Still The Shortest Minute’
Wood crib extinguished in 22 seconds
Inergen concentration at this time was only 25.1%
n-heptane fire extinguished in 17 seconds
Inergen concentration was only 23.2%
FM-200® vs InergenHuman Safety
Loss Prevention Council warns that CO2 levels of up to 3% cause rapid breathing which increases uptake of toxic fire gases
HAG also concerned that elevated CO2 levels increase toxic gas uptake
NIST report suggests that toxic fire gases are more toxic in increased CO2 and depressed O2
environments
FM-200® vs InergenHuman Safety
Human response is severely hampered at
14% O2
What if the fill of the room is increased?
What if the fire has already depletedthe oxygen below ambient?
FM-200® vs InergenEnvironmental Factors[1]
Tyco claims that Inergen is composed of naturally-occurring gases having no environmental impact
Actually, Inergen contains 8% CO2 which is a Global Warming Gas
Capture of the gases has a Global Warming Impact
Inergen systems require more steel cylinders than
FM-200® whose manufacture has a substantial
and immediate effect on the environment
FM-200® vs InergenEnvironmental Factors [2]
Modern Fixed Systems rarely discharge
Discharge frequency of FM-200® systems is less than 1% per year
Discharge testing has been eliminated
Systems use sophisticated early detection systems
Agent is readily recovered for recycling or reprocessing
FM-200® emission rates are very low Tyco claims of emission rates of 5% are wrong!
FM-200® vs Inergen Focus on FM-200 Environmental Profile
Zero Ozone Depletion Potential [ODP]
Low direct environmental impact owing to low atmospheric lifetime
Low indirect impact owing to small number of low pressure cylinders required
Ability to recover and recycle FM-200®
FM-200® vs Inergen put the Environmental Issue into Perspective
All fire suppression systems have some environmental impact including inerts
A fire has a much greater environmental impact than a fire suppression system
Fixed fire suppression systems rarely discharge
FM-200® vs InergenCost Issues
Installed system cost of FM-200® and Inergen Systems is about the same
Additional cost of pressure venting for inerts often gives FM-200® an overall cost advantage
Refill cost is less for Inergen gas but overall refill costs are substantial
FM-200® vs Inergen Government-Mandated Restrictions on FM-200
Tyco claims impending restrictions on FM-200®
There is no substance behind this erroneous claim!
The Fire Industry Consortium has a voluntary agreement with the UK Government that fixed fire suppression systems are non-emissive
FM-200® vs InergenAlleged Bans on FM-200
Tyco claims that FM-200® is banned in some countries
No country has explicitly banned FM-200®!
Switzerland has controls on chemical agents in general but FM-200® is approved for many essential uses
Denmark restricts the use of all chemical agents except Halons 1211 and 1301
This law predates the advent of FM-200® by almost ten years!
Environmental Issues
Objectives for Environmental Responsibility
To provide the most effective fire protection system
To have a responsible attitude to the environment
To allow the fire industry the freedom to make an environmentally responsible choice
Halons in Europe
Sample of European Positions
UK Germany France ItalyNetherlands
Halon use restriction? No Yes No Yes Yes
Installation ban? No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mandatory removal? No Yes No Yes No
Recharge ban? No Yes Yes No
Commission of the European Communities
Brussels, 14.08.1998
COM [1998] 398 final
98/0228 [SYN]
Proposal for a Council Regulation [EC] on substances that deplete the ozone layer
Council of EU Directive2037/2000
Recognition that ozone-depletion remains very significant
More stringent restrictions applied to OD substances including Halons 1211, 1301
Draft document replaces Regulation No. 3093/94, December 1994
Ratified mid 2000
Council of EU Directive
Covers import, export, sale, use, recovery, recycling, reclamation
Halon usage previously governed by national legislation
Halon replenishment banned from December 31st 2002
Halon usage banned from December 31st 2003
Few critical uses [primarily military, aircraft, inerting]
Council of EU Directive
Draft agreed by Environment Council, 21st December 1999
Published in EC Official Journal, June 2000
Regulation replaced 3093/94 20 days after publication
‘Critical’ Uses
Aerospace
Military
Offshore
Channel Tunnel
Impact of EU Regulation on Fire Protection Industry
Accelerated opportunities for Halon replacement
Must address Halon recovery, recycling and banking
Industry must minimise Halon ditching
Long-Term Availability
Agent of choice for the leading fire suppression system manufacturers
No international production controls or limits
Supported by a Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, a global corporation committed to improving fire protection worldwide
Two Distinct Environmental Issues
Ozone Depletion
Covered by Montreal Protocol and amendments and EU Regulation
FM-200® not affected as zero ODP
Halons and ‘transitional’ substances are subject to restrictions
Global Warming
Global Warming and Kyoto
What is Global Warming?
Mechanism by which man-made gas releases cause significant increases in global mean temperatures
‘Greenhouse Effect’ shift energy balance as accumulated gases transmit incoming solar radiation but block outgoing IR from earth’s surface
Is Global Warming Real?
Discernible anthropogenic effects
with wide natural variability
Not unequivocal; some skepticism exists
Political decision that potential
consequences are too serious
to delay remedial action
The Kyoto Protocol
Completed December 1997
Organised by UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Purpose to ‘reduce greenhouse gas emissions by harnessing the forces of the global marketplace to protect the environment’
The Greenhouse Gases
Carbon Dioxide, CO2
Methane, CH4
Nitrous oxide, N2O Hydrofluorocarbons Perfluorocarbons Sulphur Hexafluoride, SF6
Kyoto Concepts
‘Basket’ of gases regarded collectively w.r.t. emission goals
GWPs relative to CO2 = 1
Emissions of gases expressed on a carbon equivalent [CE] basis
Kyoto Goals
Emissions reductions ref to 1990 levels for CO2, CH4, N2O, 1995 levels for HFCs, PFCs, SF6
Reduction goals e.g. USA 7%, EU 8%, Japan 6%, UK 12.5%
Over 5 year period beginning 2008
Carbon sinks counted
Emissions trading allowed
Target is emission not production
Fire Suppression and Kyoto
Target is reduction of emission not production [Montreal Protocol]
Actual emission rates from fixed systems are less than 1% p.a.
Fixed systems are non-emissive!
COP 6 in The Hague, November 2000
High hopes leading to Conference
Failure to progress aims of Kyoto
National Governments remain free to establish unilateral global warming measures
Fire Industry Approach
Fact that use of FCs in fixed fire protection is significant and growing substantially
Fact that FC gas emissions are very small fraction of overall Kyoto target emissions
Objective to achieve recognition that fixed fire protection is a non-emissive use of FCs
Approach must be active; consider voluntary Code of Practice
UK Industry Position
UK Govt/FIC agreement that fixed fire protection systems are non-emissive
Fire protection industry supports Kyoto goals
Role of FCs recognised in ODP phase-out process
Status of FCs confirmed
UK Voluntary Code
Equipment Standards
Standards on installation, inspection, maintenance
Elimination of non-mandated discharge testing
Agent reclamation and recycling
Annual reporting of emissions
Periodic industry and Govt review
HFC’s in Europe
Representation led by Eurofeu
Expert advisers
Prof Goran Holmstedt, University of Lund, Sweden
Mikael Weis, Danish Shipowners Association
Thomas Gangkofner, HSE Germany
Key Points
HFC’s are needed in fire protection in some cases
The contribution of HFCs in fire fighting in global warming is minuscule and will remain so
Emissions can be reduced still further without the need for restrictions on use
Why are HFC’s necessary in fire protection?
Protection of life and the environment is of primary concern
Fire losses and deaths due to fire continue to rise
Selecting the most appropriate agent/system for each fire hazard is critical
HFC’s are chosen selectively
Ca. 95% of fire extinguishing systems do not use HFCs
Non-HFCs are used in ca. 75% of Halon replacement applications
For the remaining 25% of Halon replacement applications, there is no viable alternative
Reasons for using HFCs: Speed, Space, Safety
Speed of Extinguishment
HFCs are fastest acting of all fire fighting systems
Consequences of delayed extinguishment
Human life at risk
Threat to environment
Destruction of high value assets and property
Resulting in more global warming
System Space Requirements
HFCs require far fewer cylinders than inert gas systems
Halon replacement is more readily accomplished using HFCs
Space and weight are often crucial factors
Human Safety
HFCs are proven to be safe to breathe for long periods
HFCs are non-toxic at extinguishing concentrations
There is no maximum time limit prescribed for HFC exposure [c.f. inerts]
Many bodies, e.g. Danish Shipowners, positively want HFCs to be available for selection
Conclusion 1
HFCs are needed for fire protection in a limited but vital number of cases where speed, space and human safety are critical conditions
TEAP Report‘HFCs are important Halon substitutes primarily in occupied areas
where space and weight are constrained, or speed of suppression
are important’
HFC fire fighting systems are used in virtually every country in the world
Conclusion 2
The contribution of HFCs in fire fighting to global warming is minuscule and will remain so. HFCs are needed for fire protection in a limited but vital number of cases where speed, space and human safety are critical conditions
TEAP Report
‘HFCs are important Halon substitutes primarily in occupied areas
where space and weight are constrained, or speed of
suppression are important’
HFC fire fighting systems are used in virtually every country in the world
Conclusion 2
Total EU global warming emissions 1995
Mtonne CO2 equivalent
HFCs 0.9%
PFCs 0.5%
SF6 0.4%
Others [primarily CO2] 98.2%
Conclusion 2
EU HFC emissions in 1995
Mtonne CO2 equivalent
HFC23 manufacture 86%
Refrigeration 11%
General aerosols 3%
Others [inc HFCs] 0%
Conclusion 2
Projected total EU global warming emissions in 2010
Mtonne CO2 equivalent
HFCs 1.8%
PFCs 0.6%
SF6 0.5%
Others 97.1%
Conclusion 2
Projected EU HFC emissions in 2010
Mtonne CO2 equivalent
Refrigeration 42%
Foams 21%
HFC23 15%
General aerosols 11%
MDIs 7%
Others [inc fire protection] 4%
Conclusion 2
Why is the HFC contribution so low?
HFC fire fighting systems are essentially non-emissive
HFCs can be recycled and recovered at the end of the systems’ life
EU advisers: emissions are 5% of installed base and falling
Conclusion 2
Emissions from HFCs in fire protection are insignificant and will remain so based on current growth predictions
UNEP [1992]
‘When used only as fire suppressants, there is no likely emission scenario of these compounds [i.e.HFCs] which result in measureable environmental impact’
Conclusion 3
The already mimimal emissions can be reduced still further without the need for restrictions on usage
ECOFYS does not propose any abatement options for HFC emissions in fire fighting
MARCH agrees ‘there is little technical potential to reduce HFC emissions any further
EUROFEU: we can reduce projected HFC emissions by 50% by 2010
Conclusion 3
How can HFC emissions be reduced further?
Risk assessments to determine if an active fire protection system is required
HFCs to be used only where they are demonstrated to be the best choice taking into account human safety, cleanliness, speed of suppression, space/weight and cost
Select the effective HFC with the lowest GWP
Review and strengthen emission control strategies to ensure HFC systems remain non-emissive
Conclusion 3
Can the industry deliver reduced emissions?
YES!
Records show emissions are down from ca. 15% for Halons to less than 5% currently
The industry has instigated Government/industry agreements in Europe, e.g. UK, Netherlands
Agreements include target levels for emissions reduction and continuous monitoring of progress
Summary
HFCs are needed in some applications to ensure adequate protection against loss of life and environmental damage
HFC emissions are genuinely insignificant and will remain so based on projections to 2010
Fixed fire suppression systems are non-emissive; industry has already reduced emissions and plans further reductions by 2010
Toxicity and the PBPK Model
Safety for People
Safety in use depends on:
The inherent nature of the product
Concentration of the product
Time of exposure
Tests on FM-200®
Over 70 different studies [by Great Lakes and the Pharmaceutical Industry]
Respiratory sensitisation
Central Nervous System Effects
The tests are structured to determine the NOAEL/LOAEL
Extremely low toxicity
LC50 rats >80%
The first adverse effect is cardiac sensitisation in stressed conditions
Results on FM-200®
FM-200® Toxicity
FM-200® is the most extensively-tested Halon alternative
FM-200® is safer than Halon 1301
Designated as a CFC propellant replacement in metered dose inhalers!
Human Safety
FM-200® is so safe, it has been designated as a replacement for CFCs as propellant in medical inhalers.
Current Exposure Limits Interpretation
Problems with present interpretation
No account of exposure time
Effect = Dose x Time Relates exposure solely to very severe dog
cardiac test No discrimination between adverse effects of
products
Proposed Toxicity Limits Determination
Led by US EPA utilising Conc./time
model [PBPK Model]
Based on human uptake in bloodstream Relates to CS LOAEL [5 min exposure] Will allow higher exposure levels for defined
times
The PBPK Model
NFPA 2001, Section 1-5.1.2.1: For Halocarbons in Normally Occupied Areas:
Concentrations up to NOAEL allowed with no restrictions on egress time
Concentrations > NOAEL up to the LOAEL allowed if egress possible in “X” minutes
X = time at which blood level equals LOAEL according to the PBPK model
Concentrations >LOAEL not allowed
PBPK Modeling
5 minute maximum exposure is an arbitrary time limit
At an FM-200® concentration equal to the LOAEL [10.5% v/v], blood level corresponding to the LOAEL is not reached after 10 hours
The LPS 1230 Issue
BFPSA LPCB
The LPS 1230 Issue
Current LPCB Approval applies to
Components listed in LPCB document
Systems Design Manual
Background to LPCB Issue
LPCB approvals folio lacks actual systems performance approval
Test Protocol addressed in LPS 1230
Pre-issued to BFPSA members 17.2.98
Debate relating to technical and commercial implications
LPS 1230 Key Technical Issues
Test protocol not analogous to other national/international requirements
Historical Halon/CO2 practice
UL 1058 [UL2166]
ISO 14520
VdS [Sept ‘96]
Prospect of multiple testing to meet LPCB and ISO systems approvals
LPS 1230 Key Technical Issues
‘First time’ success is stipulated
Preliminary testing is essential under effectively identical conditions
Significant manpower/cost implications over those of LPCB programme itself
LPS 1230 Key Technical Issues
Single agent concentration for Class A and B fire types
No account taken of physical differences between solid/liquid fuels
Contrary to historical and current approaches
Halon/CO2 practice
UL, ISO, VdS
LPS 1230 Key Technical Issues
Class B Fires are special hazard!
Direct ventilation increases fire intensity
Narrow-walled trays cause radiative feedback and raise fuel to Tauto
LPS 1230Further Technical Issues
Inadequate definitions [e.g. MEC, design conc., discharge time]
Class A fire extinguishment to eliminate ‘glowing embers’
Undefined pressure relief/structural integrity limits
‘Optional’ acid gas measurements are ill-defined
Concluding Comments
Existing test protocol is ISO + and is unreasonably stringent
Kidde pressed for changes through BFPSA
Sale of LPC/LPCB to BRE influenced process
BFPSA Position
Primary aim
LPCB to accept testing and listing to ISO 14520 only
Additional interim aim
Amendments to technical detail of LPS 1230 procedures
The Outcome
LPCB will list agents on conduct of ‘generic’ gas testing to ISO 14520 Annex C
LPCB will list also systems components
Full systems listing may only be achieved by conduct of LPS 1230 Test Protocol
Further revisions to the LPS to be agreed through Technical Panel B
Options Open to the OEMs
Great Lakes expected to proceed with generic agent testing
OEM to decline other listing elements?
OEM to retain/achieve components listing but resist systems testing to LPS?
OEM to proceed with components and systems listing?
A commercial decision looms
ISO 14520 Standard Safety Factor
Original NFPA 2001 and BFPSA Code of Practice stipulate 20% SF over Minimum Extinguishing Concentration
NFPA 2001 revision now issued
ISO 14520 has passed final vote
CEN equivalent vote failed
Derogation to allow ISO to appear as BS from Jan 2001
Safety Factors in ISO and NFPA
ISO 1452030% SF applied to all fuel types; no differentiation between auto and manual systems
NFPA 2001 Revision20% SF retained for automatic systems protecting Class A hazards
Class A value linked to heptane cup burner results
30% for manual systems and all Class B hazards
Additional increments to be applied according to system complexity
Design Concentrations Resulting from NFPA and ISO Standards
Current MEC Current MDC ISO MDC
Class A 5.8% 7% 7.5%
[wood crib]
Class A n/k n/k n/k
[plastics]
Class B 6.6% 8% 8.6%
[heptane]
Adherence to Standards
Increasing promotion of third party approvalsLeading to greater customer/insurer/specifier demand
LPC/LPCB in UK and VdS in Germany driving third party accreditation in Europe
ISO/CEN certain to dominate European markets
Confidence in Existing Systems
Reliability of installed base…customers question…
Why do ISO and NFPA differ?
Why has the safety factor been increased in ISO?
Are my existing system acceptable?
Are new Standards to be applied to existing system upgrades?
Issues to be handled by UK, USA and Eurofeu Trade Associations
Potential Issues Relating to NFPA/ISO Dichotomy
Approach of Kidde Fenwal as Design Authority with respect to its OEMs
Position adopted by K-F, Fike and Chemetron in the USA
Position of Hygood/ADT, Fike UK and Cerberus in Europe
Status of European approvals [expected to stipulate ISO/CEN]
Avoid loss of business through confused marketing position
Avoid loss of business through price penalty
Avoid loss of business through diminished confidence in installed base
Hi-Flo FM-200®
A major technical and economic advance in clean agent fixed fire protection
Product launch Summer 2001
Why are New Generation FM-200® Systems Desirable?
Standard FM-200® systems comprise containers superpressurised with nitrogen
Nitrogen is highly soluble in liquid FM-200®
[more so than for Halon]
On discharge, champagne-like mixture of
FM-200® /nitrogen flows through manifold
Mass flow rate is limited
Practical limitations include relatively short system-risk distance
What is Hi-Flo FM-200®?
Dual container system
Pure FM-200® under its own vapour pressure
High pressure nitrogen at 125 bar
Actuation releases nitrogen to FM-200® cylinder headspace via pressure reducer
Virtually eliminates nitrogen absorption into agent
Hi-Flo FM-200®
Hi-Flo FM-200®
Hi-Flo FM-200®
Hi-Flo FM-200® Schematic
Benefits of Hi-Flo FM-200®?
Significantly improved agent flow characteristics
2-3 times flow distance relative to standard system
Wider flexibility in system design
Potential for smaller dia. distribution pipework at lower material costs
Potential for lengthier and/or more complex distribution of agent from central source
Potential to replace Halon 1301 systems using existing pipework
Significant installation cost savings
Where will Hi-Flo FM-200® prove invaluable?
Larger high value asset protection
Facilities where complex and/or lengthy pipe routing is required which is beyond the capability of the standard system
Halon replacement applications
What is the Timetable of Events?
Engineering development through 2000 and into 2001
Parallel work on 3” GCV valve and
360 L/400 kg cylinder
UL testing under way
Product launch in Summer 2001
Initially non-3rd party certified
‘Kidde-approved’ as responsible
‘Design Authority’
UL listing by end 2001
Hi-Flo FM-200®
Autumn 2001 addition to FM-200® product range
Extended performance characteristics
Ideal for larger/complex applications
Cost-effective as direct Halon 1301 replacement