Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pdvsa: Manual de Ingenieria de Riesgos
Pdvsa: Manual de Ingenieria de Riesgos
PDVSA N° TITULO
APROB. Anibal Rosas FECHA MAR.99 APROB. Salvador Arrieta FECHA MAR.99
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 1
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
Indice
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1 Active Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2 Chemical Means of Extinguishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.3 Class A Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.4 Class B Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.5 Class C Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.6 Halocarbon Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.7 Inert Gas Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.8 Inherent Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.9 Lethal Concentration – 50% (Lc50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.10 Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (Loael) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.11 No Observed Adverse Effect Level (Noael) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.12 Normally Occupied Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.13 Physical Means of Extinguishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6 HALON SUBSTITUTION GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1 Risk Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2 Considerations for Halon Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7 HALON REPLACEMENT OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1 Gaseous Substitute Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2 Fire Alarm and Detection System Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3 Power Shut Tripping or De–energizing of Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8 FINAL DISPOSAL OF HALON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS PDVSA IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 2
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
1 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.
2 OBJECTIVE
This guide establishes the criteria that shall be applied to select halon alternative
fire protection system in new and existing installations.
3 SCOPE
This guide covers the halon substitute agents, non–halon based replacement
system and its final disposal.
4 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 3–5, 1994, Albuquerque.
2. Moore TA., Dierdorf DS., Skaggs SR.; Intermediate Scale (645 ft3) Fire
Suppression Evaluation of NFPA 2001 Agents. 1993 Halon Alternatives
Technical Working Conference, May 11–13, 1993, Albuquerque.
3. Skaggs SR., More TA.; Toxicology of Halogenated Halon Substitutes. Fire
Safety without Halon?, September 7–9, 1994, Zurich.
4. The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Inert Gas
Fire Extinguishing Agents, p. 8, Report No. 6.60/259, June 1997, London.
5. The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Inherent Fire
Safety Design Principles, p. 21, Report No. 6.48/231, December 1995,
London.
6. Kletz, T.A., An Engineers’s View of Human Error, published by the Institution
of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, U.K. 1985
7. The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Guidelines
on the Use of Water Mist Fire Extinguishment Systems in E&P Industry
Applications, p. 11–13, Report No. 6.49/235, March 1996, London.
8. Grosshandler W. L., Gann R. G, and Pitts W. M., National Institute of
Standards and Technology. April 1994. NIST SP 861 p.1.
9. Revised Taylor G. M.; Halogenated Agents and Systems. Section 6/ chapter
18 p. 281. National Fire Protection Association.
MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS PDVSA IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 3
Menú Principal Indice manual 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.
5 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,
oil–base 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 IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 4
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 5
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
Halon
Replacement
6.0
Fire Protection
Need Assessment
(Risk Analysis)
6.1
No Fire
Evaluation
Protection
Complete
Required
Yes
Consider
Non–Halon–based
Replacement System
6.2
Non–Halon
Install Yes
System
Non – Halon Performance
System Okay
No
Install Gaseous
Subtitute Agents
7.1
Evaluation
Complete
MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS PDVSA IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 6
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 7
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 8
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 9
Menú Principal Indice manual 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 knock–on
effects shall be estimated using atmospheric dispersion and consequence
analysis simulations of credible worst–case release scenarios as described in the
PDVSA document IR–S–02.
Adequate emergency access shall be considered in the design stage as a way to
limit the consequences of emergencies:
S Easy access to isolation and depressurization of equipment.
S Easy access and escape during emergencies.
S Possibility of manual activation of fixed fire fighting valves.
S Possibility of access to depressurization valves of failed equipment.
S 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 Use of dedicated piping is almost always preferred to multi–use piping.
S Group areas which require similar maintenance frequency
S Group areas which require similar fire protection
S Reduce the equipment for which replacement parts/materials are expensive or
hard to obtain
MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS PDVSA IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 10
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 11
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 12
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
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. Electrical equipment. Replace with CO2
b. Computer Equipment. Replace with CO2
MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS PDVSA IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 13
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 14
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
and by absorbing heat. The chemical is included on the EPA’s SNAP list, is UL
listed and FMRC approved under several manufacturers for both engineered and
pre–engineered systems, and meets the requirements of NFPA 2001.
The agent’s 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 FM–200
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 by–products 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 agent’s NOAEL level, occupants can
technically remain in the area for up to a minute after discharge.
FM–200 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.
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 15
Menú Principal Indice manual 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 re–ignition. 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 FM–200 prohibit pipe runs of over 150
feet as well as elevation changes associated with multiple stories. Therefore,
FM–200 must be stored in close proximity to the areas they protect.
1. Advantages
Agent cost FM–200 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. CEA–410 is a perflourobutane consisting of carbon and fluorine. The agent is
also known as FC–3–1–10 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 agent’s 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, CEA–410 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 CEA–410 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.
CEA–410 is a Perfluorocarbon (PFC) and produces toxic compounds similar to
FM–200 during decomposition. CEA–410 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 pre-
sented for live electrical equipment are from their testing.
MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS PDVSA IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 16
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
The design concentration for Inergen is 38%. This value is significantly higher
than Halon 1301’s 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 IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 17
Menú Principal Indice manual 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 41–42% 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 FM–200, 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. FE–13TM is the trade name for HFC–23. 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 FM–200 and CEA–410, FE–13TM 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 –40°F.
MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS PDVSA IR–S–12
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 18
Menú Principal Indice manual Indice norma
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 19
Menú Principal Indice manual 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 small–bore 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 .0015–6.0% 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.
PDVSA
REVISION FECHA
GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON
AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT 1 MAR.99
Página 20
Menú Principal Indice manual 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.
8.1 The venting of halon into the atmosphere for final disposal is totally prohibited.
8.2 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: