Download Climate Change and the HFC-Based Clean Extinguishing Agents

DuPont 4-page reprint
16/2/12
7:37 am
Page 1
CLEAN AGENTS
Dubai Metro. Protected
by FM-200
Climate Change
and the HFCBased Clean
Extinguishing
Agents
Mark L. Robin
DuPont Chemicals &
Fluoroproducts
No other issue related to the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) clean fire extinguishing
agents is perhaps more misunderstood than the issue of their environmental
impact.
T
his confusion in the clean agent marketplace
results from a lack of understanding of three
key issues. Each requires reviewing in detail
and provides factual information related to the use
and environmental impact of HFCs in fire suppression applications. The three issues are:
1 The meaning of global warming potential (GWP)
values.
2 The impact of HFCs used in fire suppression on
climate change.
3 Regulations related to HFCs in fire suppression
applications.
Background
Since their introduction in the early 1990s, the
HFC-based clean agents have been the most
INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
widely employed replacements for Halon 1301
worldwide, and there are currently hundreds
of thousands of HFC-based fire suppression
systems installed worldwide, protecting billions of
dollar’s worth of valuable and sensitive assets.
The HFC-based clean agents employed in total
flooding applications are FM-200 (CF3CHFCF3,
HFC-227ea), FE-25 (CF3CF2H, HFC-125), and
FE-13 (CF3H, HFC-23).
Table 1 (page 2) shows a small sample of some
of the facilities and equipment protected by HFCs.
Major corporations employing HFC-based fire
protection include Cisco, Westinghouse, Etisalat,
Sprint, Lockheed Martin, Exxon/Mobil, AT&T, GTE,
Nokia, Saudi Aramco, Intel, IBM, Mitsubishi and
Wal-Mart.
1
DuPont 4-page reprint
16/2/12
7:37 am
Page 2
CLEAN AGENTS
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE HFC-BASED CLEAN EXTINGUISHING AGENTS
Table 1. Examples of HFC Clean Agent System
Installations
Facility
National Museum of Pre-History, Taiwan
Eiffel Tower, France
Royal Thai Family Silk Museum, Thailand
Bangkok International Airport, Thailand
Smithsonian Institute, USA
US EPA Supercomputing Center, USA
Alexandria Library, Egypt
Dubai International Airport, UAE
Dubai Metro, UAE
King Saudi University, Saudi Arabia
Bouabieh Palace, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Aristoteles Museum, Greece
Dusseldorf International Airport, Germany
The success of HFCs in the clean agent
market is due to the fact that the HFCs offer the
best overall combination of the properties
desired in a Halon 1301 replacement, along
with being the most cost effective replacements.
All HFCs are characterised by zero ozone
depletion potentials (ODPs), and hence they do
not contribute to ozone depletion. As can be seen
below, the impact of HFCs employed in fire
suppression applications on climate change
(global warming) is minuscule, rendering the
HFCs a viable, sustainable replacement for
Halon 1301 in total flooding fire suppression
applications.
What are GWP Values, and What Do
They Mean?
A clear explanation of what GWP values are can
be found in Section A.1.6 of the recently published (2012) edition of NFPA 2001 Standard on
Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, which
demonstrates the fact that the GWP value considered by itself does not provide an indication of the
impact of an agent on climate change, stating: “It
is important to understand that the impact of a
gas on climate change is a function of both the
GWP of the gas and the amount of gas emitted.
For example, carbon dioxide (CO2) has one of the
lowest GWP values of all greenhouse gas
emissions (GWP=1), yet emissions of CO2 account
for approximately 85% of the impact of all
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”
The GWP value for a gas simply compares the
impact on climate change of the emission of the
gas to that of CO2. For example, a GWP value of
100 indicates that the emission of 1 kg of the gas
in question has the same impact on climate
change as the emission of 100 kg of CO2.
Impact of HFCs in Fire Suppression
Applications
The relative contribution or impact of any GHG to
climate change is readily found from an examination of the number of the “CO2 equivalents”
associated with the amount of gas emitted. CO2
equivalents are calculated by multiplying the
mass of agent emitted by its GWP value, and are
2
typically expressed in terms of “Tg of CO2 equivalents,” which can be calculated by multiplying the
mass of emissions (in Tg) by the GWP of the gas in
question.
Factual information related to the impact on
climate change of HFCs in fire suppression applications is available from several independent
sources. The US EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) has employed its vintaging model to
estimate the emissions of greenhouse gases from
various sources, and the most recent results are
shown in Table Two and Table Three, which
indicate the relative impact of GHG emissions (Tg
of CO2 equivalents) for the various GHGs and for
HFCs as a function of industry, respectively.
As can be seen from Tables Two and Three, the
impact (in Tg of CO2 equivalents) of HFC emissions
from fire suppression applications represents 100 x
(0.8/6633.2) = 0.012% of the total impact of all
GHGs. That is, the impact of HFC emissions from
fire protection applications represents approximately 0.01% of the impact of all GHG emissions.
Table 2. Relative Impact of GHG Emissions on
Climate Change
Gas
USA
Tg CO2 equivalents
% of Total
CO2
5505.2
83.0
CH4
686.3
10.3
N2O
295.6
4.5
HFC
125.7
1.9
PFC
5.6
0.1
SF6
14.8
0.2
Total
6633.2
100%
Source: US EPA 430-R-11-005 (2011)
Table 3. Relative Impact of HFC Emissions on
Climate Change
Gas
USA
Tg CO2
equivalents
% of Total
Refrigeration
104.9
83.5
Aerosols
9.1
7.2
Fire Protection
0.8
0.6
Foam
3.9
3.1
R-22 Manufacture
5.4
4.3
Solvents
1.3
1.0
Semiconductor
Manufacture
0.3
0.2
Total HFC
125.7
100%
Source: US EPA 430-R-11-005 (2011)
Recent results from the HFC Emissions Estimating Program (HEEP), which estimates the emissions
of HFCs from fire suppression, are in agreement
INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
DuPont 4-page reprint
16/2/12
7:37 am
Page 3
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE HFC-BASED CLEAN EXTINGUISHING AGENTS
CLEAN AGENTS
with the results of EPA’s vintaging model results for
the emission of HFCs from fire suppression applications. The HEEP analysis also indicates that the
emissions of HFCs from fire suppression applications have been steadily decreasing since 2007.
The clean agent industry has done an excellent job
of policing itself and reducing unnecessary discharges through its adherence to the Voluntary
Code of Practice (VCOP) for the Reduction of
Emissions of HFC & PFC Fire Protection Agents, a
partnership of the U.S. EPA, Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association (FEMA), Fire Suppression
Systems Association (FSSA), Halon Alternatives
Research Corporation (HARC) and National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED).
Emissions data is also available for EU-15 countries, and are summarized in Table Four and Table
Five [Annual European Union GHG Inventory
1990-2009 and Inventory Report 2011, 27th May
2011]. As is the case for US emissions, the EU-15
data indicates that the relative contribution of
HFCs in fire suppression applications to climate
change is minuscule; 100 x (2.6/3729) = 0.07% of
the impact of all GHG emissions.
Eiffel Tower. Protected
by FM-200
Table 4. Relative Impact of GHG Emissions on
Climate Change
EU-15
Gas
Tg CO2 equivalents % of Total
CO2
3063
81.5
CH4
311
9.0
N2O
280
7.7
HFC
66
1.6
PFC
2
0.1
SF6
6
0.1
Total
3729
100%
Table 5. Relative Impact of HFC Emissions on
Climate Change
EU-N15
Gas
Tg CO2
equivalents
% of Total
Refrigeration
50.1
75.9
Aerosols
7.6
11.5
Fire Protection
2.6
3.9
5.7
8.6
66.0
100%
Foam
R-22 Manufacture
Solvents
Semiconductor
Manufacture
Total HFC
Regulation of HFCs in Fire Suppression
Applications
The Montreal Protocol relates to ozone depleting
substances (ODSs), and not to zero ODP agents such
INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
as the HFCs, hence, HFCs are not subject to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol
and F-Gas Regulations are related to the reduction
of GHG emissions, but are solely concerned with
emissions reductions and do not limit or prohibit
the use of HFCs in fire suppression applications.
Regulators understand the science as illustrated
above; they understand the minuscule impact of
HFC emissions associated with fire suppression.
With regard to the regulation of any chemical,
no one can guarantee a lack of future regulations,
and speculation on this point serves only to confuse the industry and drive end users to non-clean
alternatives such as sprinklers. No one can guarantee that HFCs in fire suppression applications will
never be phased out — not without being able to
divine the future.
Can anyone guarantee that perfluoroketones
will not be phased out in the future? Unlike other
clean agents, perfluoroketones are characterised
by high chemical reactivity (for example, hydrolysis
when crossing the lung-air interface, cf. Novec
1230 Fire Protection Fluid Safety Assessment, 3M).
Even the inert gases have been challenged by
acoustic damage, high cylinder pressures, and
room over-pressurization. Regulations continuously
evolve as new science, information, and issues
develop in the marketplace, and no product is
immune to a changing regulatory future.
It is a fact, however, that with regard to regulations, HFCs in fire suppression applications are being
treated differently than HFCs employed in other
applications. Emissions of HFCs from fire suppression
applications are dwarfed by HFC emissions from
other applications such as refrigeration. Regulatory
bodies understand this, and to date HFCs in fire suppression applications have been subject to different
sets of regulations. A good example is the F-Gas
regulation in Europe, which has adopted, supported
and regulated good industry practices around
system filling, handling, and servicing of fire systems.
3
DuPont 4-page reprint
16/2/12
7:37 am
CLEAN AGENTS
Page 4
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE HFC-BASED CLEAN EXTINGUISHING AGENTS
F-22 Raptor. Protected
by FE-25
It is important when encountered with an assertion of impending legislative or regulatory action
related to HFCs in fire suppression applications to
always request two items:
1 A copy of the legislation
2 The location of the text that is specifically
related to HFCs in fire suppression applications.
This will avoid confusing specific targeted
information with broader market relevance, or
extrapolating an action in one target sector to
another entirely different sector, such as fire
suppression. The two following examples from a
recent article (Asia Pacific Fire Magazine, October
25, 2011) exemplify these risks.
In the article it stated that: “It has been
reported in the National Academy of Sciences that
if nothing changes, HFC emissions are likely to be
equivalent to between 9 to 19 percent of global
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” This
statement refers to the report, “The Large Contribution of Projected HFC Emissions to Future
Climate Forcing,” Velders, et. al., Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sciences, (106), 27, page 10949. The article
Based on US EPA data, the
impact of HFC emissions from
fire protection applications
represents approximately
0.01% of the impact of all
GHG emissions.
Mark L. Robin is Senior
Technical Services Consultant
at DuPont
For further information, go to
www.dupont.com
4
specifically relates to HFCs used in refrigeration, air
conditioning and insulating foam production
where emissions dwarf those of HFCs from fire
suppression applications. The report further indicates that HFC-227ea was not even included in
the analysis due to its small use and emissions. The
article supports the case for the use of alternative
technologies and emission reduction schemes for
highly emissive HFC uses, but offers no analysis or
comment on the use of HFCs with respect to fire
suppression.
The same article also refers to a petition to the
US EPA to delist acceptable SNAP substitutes: “In
May 2010, the US EPA received a petition to
selectively remove HFCs from the list of acceptable
substitutes under the EPA’s Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program (SNAP). This move
could have a large impact on the fire protection
sector…” The US EPA received the petition from
the National Resources Defence Council (NRDC) in
May of 2010. The petition is a request to remove a
single HFC, HFC-134a, from the list of acceptable
substitutes for CFC-12 in motor vehicle air conditioning systems maintained under EPA’s Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, and to
remove HFC-134a from such list in any other enduse category (for example, aerosols and stationary
refrigeration) where more benign alternatives are
available. Specifically, this was not a petition to
“selectively remove HFCs” from the SNAP list, but
a petition to remove one, highly emissive compound from specific refrigeration applications, for
which the user industry was already moving to
adopt a viable alternative. Before addressing the
original petition, the EPA required the petition to
limit the scope to new mobile air conditioning
applications in new passenger cars and light duty
vehicles only, and is now just beginning a process
to determine whether such a transition can occur.
Stakeholder input is currently being assessed, and
there has, to date, been no decision as to whether
or not such a transition will occur in this specific
market sector and application. As such it is
puzzling to see it asserted that this petition could
in some fashion affect the clean agent fire
suppression industry.
Conclusion
Factual information related to the impact on
climate change of HFCs in fire suppression
applications is available from several sources, and
this data demonstrates that the impact of HFC
clean agents on climate change is minuscule. As
a result, HFCs are expected to remain viable,
sustainable, and environmentally acceptable
replacements for Halon 1301 well into the
IFP
foreseeable future.
INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION