### ASSESSMENT OFFIREFIGHTER EXPOSURE TO HALOTRON (HCFC-123) DURING EXTINGUISHANT EFFICIENCY TESTING CONDUCTED AT THEUNITED STATES NAVAL AIR STATION INBEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA

Submittedto: Global Change Division Office ofAir andRadiation Environmental Protection Agency EPA ContractNo. 68-D90068

Work Assignment No. 4-44

and

American Pacific Corporation 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

May 24, 1993

### ASSESS:MENT OF FIREF1GHTEREXPOSURE TO HCFC-123 DURINGEXTINGUISHANTEFFICffiNCYTESTS CONDUCTED AT TFfF. 

### UNITED STATES NAVALAIRSTATION INBEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA

Submitted

### to: Global Change Division Office ofAirand

### Radiation EnvironmentalProtectionAgency EPA ContractNo. 68-090068

Work

### Assignment No. 

### 4-44

and

American

### Pacific Corporation 3770 HowardHughes Parkway 

### Las Vegas, Nevada89101

submittedby:- Meridian Research, 

### Inc. 1010 WayneAvenue, Suite 1220 SilverSpring, MD 20910



### May 24, 1993ASSESSMENT OFFIREFIGHTEREXPOSURE TO HCFC-123 DURINGEXTINGUISHANTEFFICIENCYTESTS CONDUCTED AT THE UNITED STATES NAYAL AIR STATION 

### IN BEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA



### I. PURPOSE 

### Under Title IV, Section 612 ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to develop regulations governing the use ofsubstitute materials for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) and halons. The statute requires the replacement, to the maximum extent practicable, ofthese materials with alternatives that reduce the overall risks to humans and the environment. In order to make these determinations, EPA must evaluate the risks potentiallyassociated with exposures ofconsumers, workers, and the general population to alternative compounds. One such alternative to the use ofhalon fire extinguishing agent is Halotron I, which contains HCFC-123 (2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane) as the primaryactive ingredient. Recently, concerns regarding the potential toxicity ofHCFC-123 and associated risks to exposed workers have arisen from the results ofanimal toxicity testing; in response to these findings, the EJ. duPont deNemours Co., the sole U.S. manufacturer ofHCFC-123,recommended that exposures to HCFC-123 not exceed 10 parts per million (ppm) parts ofair 

### as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), 1,000 ppmfor 30-minute exposures, or 2,500 ppmfor 1-minute exposures. On October21 and 22, 1992, Meridian Research, Inc. conducted an exposure assessment survey to determine the extent offrrefighter exposure to HCFC-123 during the use ofHalotron I fire extinguishing agent. The surveywas sponsoredjointlyby the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and American Pacillc Corporation,which manufactures Halotron I. 

### The exposure assessment surveywas performed during actual fuefighting exercises being conducted to examine the effectiveness ofHalotron I.

1II. FACILTIYAND FIRE SCENARIO DESCRIPTION The extinguishant effectiveness testing was conducted in a specially designed flre figb.ting test area at the Beaufort Naval Air Station. The fire pitconsisted ofa circular
area about 40 feet in diameter surrounded by a 12-inch high asphalt berm. The pit was sectioned bya small concrete curb to form a smallerinternalpit ofapproximately 800 square feet in area, and was equipped with an automatic fuel charging system and a drain for removing water,fuel, and extinguishant. All ofthe tests were conducted within this outdoor flre pit by members ofthe air station's Crash, Fire, and Rescue Division. JP-5jetfuel was used in all ofthe fire tests, and both halon and Halotron I extinguishing agents were tested. The testing program consisted offour separate trials for each offour different flre scenarios,for a total of 16 trial events, thatwere designed to represent actualflight line fue situations encountered byrescue personnel. Wherever possible, steps were taken to ensure consistencybetween trials for each fue scenario. The amount offuel used for each trial was kept constantby draining the fuel-holding containers after each event, and approximatelythe same pre-burn time was used for each trial. The first flre scenario tested was the pan (or small pit) fire, inwhich a 6-foot by 12-foot by 8-inch-deep metal containerwas filled with water; 10 gallons ofJP-5 were introduced and allowed to float in a thin layer on the water. During the four HalotronI events, the wind speed ranged from 

### 05 to 1 mile perhour (mph), with occasional light gusts to 3 mph, as measured bya SPER Scientific anemometer. The firefighter situated himselfupwind ofthe fire and used a 20-pound hand-held Halotron I extinguisher to fight the flre. The extinguishant discharge times for these events were between 4 and 5 seconds and at no time during the event was the firefighter required to move into the smoke cloud generated during the test. The second flre test scenario was a simulated dual-engine frre, which utilized 5 gallons ofJP-5 fuel in each of2 engine nacelle mock-ups. The mock-ups were placed roughly 6 feet offthe ground on metal support frames. This type offrre was also fought with a 20-pound hand-held extinguisher, and the firefighter began from an upwind

2position. Although the discharge times for this test were extremelybrief,between 2 and 3 seconds, the firefighter was required to walk around the mock-ups to check the back side ofthe nacelles to ensure that the fire was completelyextinguished; in two ofthe four trials, this required the firefighter to stand for a few seconds in the visible cloud of smoke generated during the test. The third fire scenario was a running fuel fire, in which a single engine nacelle mock-up on a metal supportframe was placed in a 6-foot by 12-foot pan. Five gallons of JP-5 fuel were placed in each the engine mock-up and in the pan. Fuel was allowed to trickle from the engine mock-up to the pan below, and both the engine and pan were ignited. The firefighter remained upwind during these tests, and fought the fire with a 20-pound hand-held unit by extinguishing the panfire first and then extinguishing the fire in the engine mock-up. The discharge times for these events were between 6.8 and 16.6 seconds, and the wind was gusting slightly at about 4 mph. The large pitfire was the fmal type offire test performed during these exercises. This test used 100 gallons ofJP-5 floated on a layer ofwater contained in an 800 squarefoot area ofthe fire test pit. Prior to ignition, the fuel for this test was spread evenlyon the waterbydragging a spreader-board across the surface. For these trial events, the firefighter used a semi-portable 150-pound Halotron I extinguisher,which remained on a wheeled cart and was equipped with a long hose and nozzle assembly that allowed the firefighter sufficient mobility to move around a large area. The firefighter attacked the fires from an upwind direction. Wind speed during these tests ranged from no appreciable wind speed to approximately 8 mph. The discharge time for these tests ranged from 11 to 37 seconds. During the second trial, the firefighter did not succeed in extinguishing the fire and was observed to have stood for a few seconds in the visible smoke cloud before withdrawing from the area. During all ofthe fire tests performed for this survey, the firefighter wore a full complement ofprotective clothing that included self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). However, the exposure results obtained from this survey are representative of exposures that would likely occur during similar fire events ifthe firefighter was not wearing SCBA.

3ill. SAMPLINGMETHODS AND ANALYSIS This exposure surveyinvolved collecting personal breathing zone air samples representing the exposure ofthe frrefighter during each ofsixteen frre events. Air samples were taken using a 1-literTedlarbag attached to an SKC Model 224 personal sampling pump. In addition, air sampling for the pyrolysis products ofHCFC-123 (including hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride) was performed using Draeger colorimetric detector tubes. The 1-literTedlarbags used to collect air samples during all events were attached to the back ofthe firefighter's protective hood piece. A standard sampling cassette holder equipped with a halfcassette was attached near the firefighter's breathing zone. Tygon tubing was used to connect the cassette holder to the sampling pump air inlet and from the exhaust port ofthe pump to the Tedlarbag. The flow rate ofthe pump was set between0.75 liter per minute and 1.75 liters per minute, depending on the expected duration ofHalotron I discharge. On 11 ofthe 16 trials, the firefighter was equipped with both a Tedlar bag and a Draegercolorimetric detector tube specific for eitherhydrogen fluoride (HF) or hydrogen chloride (HCl). An SKC Model 224 personal sampling pump was used to draw air through the Draeger tube at flow rates specified by the manufacturer. The flow rates for the.Draeger tubes were 650 

### eelminute and 800 

### eelminute for the HCl and HF tubes, respectively. Results from the Draegercolorimetric detector tubes were obtained immediatelyafter each trial. The 1-literTedlar bag samples were analyzed using gas chromatography (GC) by

a laboratoryaccredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (Gascoyne Laboratories, Inc., Baltimore,Maryland). The column used by Gascoyne was 

### 5 percent Krytrox 143 AC on Graphpac GB with a 60/80 mesh that was 10 feet by 118 inch SS and had a flow of30 ml/minute (helium). The following GC conditions were noted: injection temperature 22SOC; detector temperature 25<J>C; a run time of 16 minutes; and

an oven temperature of7<?C (isothermal). A Perkins-Elmer gas chromatograph with a sigma 1B analyzer equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a sigma 1B integrator/GC control was used for analysis. Injections were done with a gas-tight

4

### syringe. Ten percent ofthe samples were analyzed in duplicate as a qualitycontrol procedure. To examine the stabilityofHCFC-123 in Tedlar bags, Gascoyne performed a decayrate studyusing 10, 100, and 1000 ppm concentrations ofHCFC-123 spiked into Tedlar bags. The spiked samples were held at room temperature and alloquats were withdrawn for analysis atvarious intervals over a 3-day period. The results ofthis decay rate study are shown in Attachment 1, and demonstrate that there was no significant sample loss over the 3-day test period.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 shows the results ofall exposure monitoring performed during this survey. Personal breathing zone samples ofHCFC-123 taken during firefighting exercises did not exceed 1,000 ppmfor any ofthe four fire scenarios. In addition,breathing zone measurements for HCl and HF were well below established IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) concentrations of 100 and 30 ppm, respectively. Two of the four samples takenfor HF met the American Conference ofGovernmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value (TLV) 

### of3 ppm as a ceiling limit. However, it should be noted that carbonyl fluoride, a potential decomposition product of HCFC,.:I23, is likely to reactpositivelywith the HF Draeger tube; thus, actual concentrations ofHF in the frrefighter's breathing zone mayhave beenlower than that detected. None ofthe HCl samples met or exceeded the ACGIH 5 ppm TLV-Ceiling limit. Comparison ofthe exposure monitoring results with DuPont's allowable exposure limits for HCFC-123 and the ACGIH TLV's HF and HCI shows that, under the conditions ofthese tests, the Halotron I fire extinguishing agent is safe to use from the perspective ofworker health. The highest concentrations ofHCFC-123 and its pyrolysis products arose during the dual engine fire trials. Although the discharge time for this 

### test fire was extremely brief(3 seconds orless), the frrefighter was required to walk 

### around the engine mock5

### Table 1. 

### Results of**HCFC~123** 

### Exposure Monitoring Conducted During OutdoorFireflghtingExercises

Discharge HCFC-123 Duration Concentration Results From Sample No. Type ofTest Trial No. (seconds) (ppm) Draeger Tubes

1 PanFire 1 4 100 2 Pan Fire 2 4 31 HCl Tube/ND 3 Pan Fire 3 4 ND HF Tube/ND 4 Pan Fire 4 

### 5 23 

### 5 Dual Engine Fire 1 3 100 6 Dual Engine Fire 2 2 720 HF Tube/3 ppm 7 Dual Engine Fire 3 2 94 HCl Tube/ND 8 Dual Engine Fire 4 2 870 HCI Tube/15 ppm 9 Running Fuel Fire 1 11.6 24 HC1 Tube/ND 10 Running Fuel Fire 2 16.6 24 HF Tube/ND 11 Running Fuel Fire 3 10.6 7.1 12 Running Fuel Fire 4 6.8 15 13 Pit Fire 1 33 12 HCI Tube/ND 14 Pit Fire 2 37 17 

### HFTube/3 ppm 15 Pit Fire 3 11 

### + HCl Tube/ND 16 Pit Fire 4 13.9 

### 85 HCI Tube/ND

ND Not Detected.



### + Detectedbelowquantitation limit.



### 6ups to ensure that the flre was completelyextinguished. This meant that the flreflghter had to move to the downwind side ofthe flre. On two ofthe four trials (trial numbers 2 and 4. sample numbers 6 and 8). the frreflghter was observed to be standing in the smoke cloud while he checked the engines. These two trials resulted in the highest concentrations both ofHCFC-123 and its pyrolysis products. Trial 2 resulted in an HCFC-123 exposure of720 ppm and a hydrogen fluoride exposure of3 ppm, and Trial 4 resulted in an HCFC-123 exposure of870 ppm and a hydrogen chloride exposure of 15 ppm. The lowest HCFC-123 sample reported during this type oftest was 94 ppm (Trial 3). The pitfrre, which was fueled by 100 gallons ofthe JP-5jetfuel, required the longest discharge times ofanyofthe fire scenarios; however, the resulting exposures to HCFC-123 were generallyless thanfor anyofthe other three fire scenarios. This suggests thatthe position ofthe frreflghter relative to the direction ofagent discharge and the wind are more importantfactors influencing the magnitude ofexposure than is the amount ofagent discharged.

7ATTACHMENT I

# ~et£1.CU1Jtt2 

# 'lfiahnra±nries,**~n.c~**

. Baltimore, MD 21224**~m~~w~** (410)633-1800 FAX NO. (410) 633-6553 (800) GAS-COYN 

### Report No. 92-10-487 

### Report Date! November 19, 1992 

### Report To: Meridian Research Page! 2 of 4

Elansed 0 

### hours 8 

### hours 24 

### hours
32 

### hours 48 

### hours 72 

### hours

Notes: Time Decay Rate Study of Laboratory Prepared HCFC-123 

### in Air 

### Samples Theoretical Value = 8.9 

### ppm

7.7, 7.7 7.5, 7.5 .8•0 t 8.2 8.6, 9.5 8.4, 8.2 8.7, 8.0 

### Theoretical Value 

# = 89 

### ppm

76, 82 80, 78 79, 100 120, 91 84, 91 100, 125 

### Theoretical Value 

# = 890 

### pcm

1100, 1100 940, 950 1000, 1000 1000, 1000 1000, 1000 900, 920



### (1) Results are expressed in 

### parts per million (ppm). (2) Duplicate analyses are reported for each time period. (3) Analysis performed w-ith parameters outlined in method submitted to Gascoyne Laboratories, Inc.· by Meridian Research- (4) All analyses were performed 

### ± 1 hour of target analysis time. (5) 

### Analyst(s): JMRfSJN; Date Test Completed: 11/06/92

### ~- William L. Lock Laboratory Director