Hypoxic Air & Preventing Fires

Fire Protection

Wednesday, 23 January 2008 13:55

Written by Bob DeCoufle

The following article was condensed from our complete story in the February print issue of the Data Center Journal which will be available to our subscribers in two weeks. The story covers a new fire prevention technology called hypoxic air venting and the struggle one manufacturer is having in getting this new technology accepted with fire protection and worker safety organizations in the United States. 

Hypoxic Air Venting
A new concept in fire protection has emerged and it has promise. First, let me state that according to FirePASS®, the company that has the patent on this technology, this is not a fire protection system, but rather a fire prevention system.

This new technique utilizes hypoxic air venting instead of inert gases that is commonly found in clean agent suppression systems. Hypoxic air is a reduced oxygen concentration that is introduced mechanically into the air on a constant basis to create an air oxygen level between 15-16%. Hypoxic is a mixture which commonly has 5% of the oxygen content substituted by nitrogen. According to product reports, inert air has predetermined oxygen levels and safely vents the space to be protected continuously. The product is safe to breathe, but prevents fire ignition in common materials. 

Hypoxic Air and health risk
Hypoxic air is simply a reduction in the normal oxygen concentration levels. Typically our sea level atmosphere contains approximately 21% oxygen. At higher elevations such as the mountains the level of oxygen is reduced. In air travel the level of oxygen is also reduced.

Hypoxic mixture, strictly, contain less than 21% oxygen, although often a minimum boundary of 16% is used even though there is no study or documentation that states that inert air less than 21 and as low as 13% oxygen poses a risk. 

Originating in Russia, athletes have been using hypoxic air training for years. Worldwide there are millions of people who live their whole lives at high elevations. Millions more travel each year to altitude locations for skiing. Modern jets pressurize to an equivalent of about 8000’ and teams of flight crews and passengers have been exposed to 6-10 hour flights at high altitude with hypoxic air. A typical long-haul airline flight will have an oxygen availability corresponding to 15% at sea level.

Hypoxic air is extremely common and most of us have been exposed to it. If you have traveled on a commercial jet then you have been exposed to hypoxic air.

How does a Hypoxic Air system protect my Data Center?
Hypoxic air systems specifically that patented by FirePASS® works by providing effluent ventilation of the protected facility with hypoxic air produced by hypoxic generators from ambient air. Pipes, nozzles or other equipment in the protected room is generally not required.

The inert air is continuously generated on site. The hypoxic generators are coupled with the building air conditioning system or to inlet ducts thus avoiding invasive installations in existing facilities allowing your data center to continue its operation even while being installed.

The hypoxic air environment corresponds in oxygen availability for respiration to the partial pressure of oxygen at 9,000', which is near equivalent to airline travel.

Is Hypoxic Air fire prevention available today?
No, because at the moment hypoxic air solutions like that patented by FirePASS is not currently on the list of approved clean agents listed by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) or accepted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). These roadblocks prevent the ability for specifying engineers to recommend the product.

Recently FirePASS submitted a formal appeal to the National Fire Protection Agency to consider a proposed Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) 886 on the 2008 edition of NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems. The basis of the amendment was to include their hypoxic air prevention system as part of the list of approved clean agents found under the NFPA 2001 standard.

In January of 2008 a formal statement was issued on the decision rendered on October 4, 2007 which indicated that the appeal was rejected. Based on the formal written decision and the transcripts of the council comments it is our opinion that there is a lack of clear understanding of the product based on the information provided by the appellant.

It makes good sense that the NFPA technical committee fully comprehends the reprocutions of any product or procedure that it reviews since the NFPA standard is so heavily relied upon.

There is no question that the NFPA should be applauded for the work they do in helping to protect the public. The process for getting a proposal approved through the NFPA has several checks and balances which are good; however we raise some concerns with the process and those who render these decisions on behalf of the public.

Further investigation shows that the NFPA technical committee approval process lacks any investigation or research beyond the technical competency of the committee member and the information provided by the appellant. In addition, our research into those who serve on most committees are employed and sponsored to participate with the NFPA by their employers which in many cases are competing interests which may have a bias. 

At the same time, FirePASS has been attempting to work a regulatory issue with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the safety limitations of hypoxic air.  An OSHA regulation requires employees to wear a supplied side air respirator in atmospheres with O2 content of less than 19.5 % by volume. FirePASS has since submitted a permanent variance to this ruling and in December of 2007 OSHA declined the variance.

According to an interview with Jay D. Keough, a certified Industrial Hygienist, a review of the supporting documentation reveals that OSHA’s standard for employees would not expose them to environments in which the O2 partial pressure is less than 100 mm Hg (a unit of pressure equal to 0.001316 atmosphere; named after Torricelli).

However, according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) the acceptable range is between 95 and 122 mm Hg. According to ANSI, atmospheres as those with O2 partial pressure of 95 to 122 mm Hg, which corresponds to 12.5% to 16% O2 by volume at sea level is not immediately dangerous to life. 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health also lists the partial pressure of O2 as the most important factor. Unfortunately the OSHA regulation refers to the percentage of O2 rather than the partial pressure of O2, even though all of the scientific evidence indicates that O2 partial pressure is the main factor affecting health.

We cannot confirm the reason for using this measurement.  By using the percentage of O2 rather than the partial pressure of O2 as its standard, OSHA has created a situation that would allow people to work at the top of Mount Everest, where the percentage of O2 is 21%, but the partial pressure of O2 is dangerously low.

Conversely, the regulation requires respirators when the percentage of O2 is less than 19.5 without regard to the partial pressure. When the percentage of O2 is converted to its equivalent partial pressure, 19.5% O2 corresponds to an altitude of 1,900 feet, which means that, according to OSHA, employees working above this altitude should wear a breathing support device.

Anyone who has flown on a commercial airplane knows that the flight attendants are not required to wear air-supplying respirators even though the O2 availability for human respiration corresponds to a percentage of O2 that is less than 19.5.

It would appear that it is time for OSHA to revisit its standard.

Summary
Hypoxic air venting appears to be a technology that is greatly misunderstood. Few studies on such a system have been performed because it is a relatively new technology in the fire protection industry.

It is clear that hypoxic environments from the airline industry to sports training have been in existence for many years. The studies on hypoxic air revolving around the airline industry and sports training only provide a basic warning to those who may be of poor health, but endorse these environments as safe.

Now that this new technology with potential is before us it is time for regulating agencies and groups to become better familiarized with the technology. We as the public who would utilize this product have the right to know that a formal process without bias and adequate research and information is making a decision on our behalf. 

Technologies like that presented by FirePASS and others should be carefully reviewed, analyzed, debated and voted upon in the best interest of the public. 

If you would like to learn more about FirePass and their Hypoxic Air Venting technology you can visit them at http://www.firepass.com/ or contact Bill Costello at bcostello@firepass.com.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed