Halon Extinguisher Subsector Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Guidelines

This guideline is to assist those involved in the monitoring and evaluation of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) phaseout projects better understand the technical requirements of projects which phaseout halon 1211 by converting fire extinguisher filling operations from use of halon to alternative extinguishing agents including ABC powder and carbon dioxide. Each technical evaluation should be based on five criteria: ODS phaseout quantity, compliance with safety and environmental standards, product and process performance, ease of technology transfer, and adherence to implementation schedule. Technical evaluations will complement information compiled through financial evaluations to provide a complete picture of the success of Multilateral Fund the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (MLF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) ozone protection activities in supporting developing countries to comply with the Montreal Protocol (MP).

The information obtained through monitoring and evaluation of MLF and GEF ozone protection projects will be used by developing country governments to develop ODS phaseout polices, report on compliance with the MP, and to develop future projects for MLF or GEF financing. The information will also be used by the MLF (or GEF) Secretariat to report to the MLF (or GEF Council) and the Parties of the Protocol on the success of the MLF and GEF. Finally, the technical evaluation information will be used by the implementing agencies to evaluate the success of projects and help in designing future projects.

General Approach to Monitoring and Evaluation of ODS Phaseout Investment Subprojects

The evaluator should apply the five criteria by addressing the set of questions outlined below. Each question is followed by technical guidance specific to the halon extinguisher sub-sector. These questions are designed to help the evaluator assess the extent to which the beneficiary has executed the project for which it received funding support. For each project, the subproject appraisal report should guide the evaluation. The evaluator would confirm that the project was completed as proposed and that the equipment which has been installed is the equipment for which funding was approved and that use of halon 1211 has ceased as a result of the project.

Note:
It is assumed in the preparation of these guidelines that the inspector/evaluator has training or experience in auditing techniques, particularly those with respect to financial accounting, analysis of material balances, shipping/receiving records, inventory control as well as some quality assurance auditing background. The objective of these guidelines has been to provide specific guidance or indicators particular to portable extinguisher conversion projects.

Specific M&E Questions and Technical Guidance

1. How much ODS was phased out through the project and is there a risk of conversion back to ODS?

• One straightforward method for determining these baseline figures is to examine shipping and receiving records, invoices, inventory, etc. to establish consistency between halon used and portable extinguishers shipped. In almost all cases, the Halon 1211 is purchased from a chemical producer; hence, product received is generally an accurate way of estimating gross consumption which will include handling and leakage losses. Another approach would be to check valve purchase records.
  
  
• It is important to examine several years (prior to the phaseout) consumption/production records. If there are substantial differences between years, this may indicate that the 'baseline' year was artificially inflated.
  
  
• Where recovering/recycling equipment has been procured, the leakage fraction or handling losses should be substantially reduced after the equipment was placed in service.
  
  
• If servicing, re-charging, or hydrostatic testing is performed at the site, inventory and portable extinguisher shipping records will not directly correspond to 1211 product consumption, and quantities derived will need to reflect this.

• A key indicator is the CO₂ storage and filling system. There should be bulk storage of refrigerant CO₂ at low pressure or a large number of high pressure CO₂ storage cylinders.
  
  
• The cylinder technology for CO₂ extinguishers is quite distinct from 1211/ABC powder. CO₂ requires spun high pressure gas storage cylinders as opposed to lightweight steel, seamless or welded pipe with welded ends. No part of the CO₂ cylinder will be welded. These extinguishers do not have pressure gauges. Often, the cylinders (and/or valves) will be outsourced, a convenient way to check unit sales of CO₂ extinguishers.
  
  
• CO₂ extinguisher valves and nozzles will be quite different than those used for Halon 1211 or DCP.
  
  
• Nameplate and labeling information will be quite different as well as local fire authority approval.

All 1211 extinguisher conversions and subsequent 1211 phaseout assumes certain production and sale of DCP and CO₂ portables. They generally require higher unit sales levels than 1211 since the cost of DCP portables is less than 1211. These can be readily verified by examining records as well as by physical examination of the filling operation, raw materials, and finished product. All of these can be readily differentiated from 1211 by examining items listed in (c) above.

Any servicing of existing 1211 extinguishers will occur independently of plant filling operations. The stock of 1211 including required material should be relatively small and will in general be insufficient for any sustained production. Recharging of halon cylinders from recycled stock will not in general be performed by a mass production filling line operation. Servicing (versus new cylinder filling) can also be differentiated by obviously used portable shells of different manufacturer and dates of manufacturer.

There will, in general, be several large customers or local distributors for an extinguisher manufacturer. A simple visit to one or more of these will verify the product actually shipped and/or installed.

5. ODS equipment destruction.

The purpose of ODS phaseout projects is to convert the operations of ODS consuming enterprises to production with non-ODS. To realize the environmental benefit of these projects, ODS usage must be permanently discontinued. If, for example, the firm which carried out the conversion project transferred its old ODS based equipment to another firm which used the equipment to go into production with ODS, the environmental benefit of the original conversion project would be lost. Thus, any equipment which is replaced as part of a conversion to non-ODS technology should be destroyed or rendered unusable. Halon filling equipment is particular to halon usage and should be destroyed or rendered unusable following conversion to non-ODS. Halon filling equipment should not be used to create new servicing activities

2. Was the non-ODS technology implemented in a safe and environmentally sound manner?

3. How does the performance of the non-ODS technology compare to the ODS technology?

• In most cases, the extinguisher will require an independent approval by a national, regional, or government body or a third party authority such as an insurance organization. Such approval will often require 'follow up' inspection services for quality assurance. The existence of such approvals should be checked as a first order indicator of performance of the extinguisher. These approvals can then be used to verify that currently manufactured extinguishers meet the original design. The lack of any such testing or approval indicates that the portable may not meet any minimum performance requirement.
  
  
• In general, newly manufactured cylinders require hydrostatic testing. Evaluation of testing records will indicate the quality of cylinder manufacture. CO₂ cylinders will be tested at much higher pressures than ABC powder extinguishers.
  
  
• A good indication of filling operation quality is the net agent weight in each cylinder. The nameplate will record the tare weight. Spot checking gross weight will give a good indication of filling consistency.
  
  
• Loss of agent or pressurant generally occurs through the valve over time. It is difficult to assess this for relatively recently manufactured stock. Examination of pressure gauges on ABC powder extinguishers or by agent weight in CO₂ extinguishers on cylinders in stock is one approach. Evaluation of these parameters at either the distributors location or a large customer site is more reliable.
  
  
• One significant quality problem can occur with ABC powders that are not treated properly, stored in high humidity environments, and/or filled with moist air. Caking in the powder which must be quite fluid can occur.

Dry chemical fire extinguishing powders are either purchased already ground to proper size particles or ground and treated on site. Ensure that the powder used for filling is the proper composition (as per specifications or approvals). Evaluate procedures for ensuring proper powder sizing and ensure that any powder sizing and ensure that any powder treatment is being performed.

Two approaches to evaluate this are to depressurize the portable (or remove the CO2 cartridge) and check the top surface of the powder. A more direct approach is to discharge the extinguisher (at a suitable location into a suitable device), note the discharge time, and check against the specifications to ensure that all of the agent is discharged.

4. What difficulties, if any, were encountered in obtaining the CFC-free technology?
   
   The inspector should ascertain if the company had difficulty obtaining appropriate technology and note the cause of any problems and how they were addressed.
   
   
5. What technology-related difficulties were encountered in carrying out the conversion?
   
   Implementation of the project involves many steps that can affect the implementation schedule as well as the projects ultimate success. This section should discuss problems encountered during implementation which affected the project implementation schedule. For example, the evaluator should note any difficulties that were encountered during procurement, including preparation of the bidding documents, evaluation of the bids, etc., which slowed project implementation. Another example could be installation issues that were not fully addressed in the proposal and subsequently delayed project completion.