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