Confined space entry in aircraft fuel tanks
Aviation Infiltration
February 2007 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.
http://www.ohsonline.com/
Confined space entry in aircraft assembly and maintenance is fraught with unique
hazards, such as jet fuel.
by Shane McEwen
![]()
During the majority of
inspections and maintenance performed on aircraft fuel tanks, personnel must
enter the interior of the tanks. This type of entry is defined as confined space
entry and is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In
these spaces, personnel can be potentially exposed to dangers such as oxygen
deficiency and enrichment, explosive gases, and toxic effects from fuels and
maintenance chemicals.
The aircraft industry faces many
unique concerns that other industries do not encounter. The need for specialized
sampling equipment, the presence of chemicals that can kill gas sensors, and the
extremely limited entrance dimensions can affect emergency exit and recovery
situations.
Jurisdiction
The confusion as to which organization, OSHA or the Federal Aviation
Administration, has jurisdiction over confined space entry in aircraft was
alleviated in August 2000, when a memorandum of understanding between OSHA and
the FAA was signed giving OSHA jurisdiction. The memorandum can be found on
OSHA's Web site at
www.osha.gov. The FAA remains responsible for the safety of the aircraft
while OSHA establishes rules for the safety of the personnel entering the
confined space.
|
Conditions can change very rapidly due to the limited space in aircraft
fuel tanks. |
OSHA defines a confined space by
the following criteria:
Confined spaced entry may or may
not require a permit. A permit is required under any of the following
conditions:
By OSHA's definition, aircraft
fuel tank entry falls into the permit-required confined space (PRCS) entry
requirements; as stated in 29 CFR Part 1910.146, employers must:
The Dangers Within
Known hazards in typical confined space entry are oxygen deficiency or
enrichment and combustible gases. Hazards specific to fuel tank entry come from
the toxic and combustible effects from jet fuel and from some maintenance
compounds.
Confined space entry in aircraft
fuel tanks can be extremely dangerous. Conditions can change very rapidly due to
the limited space in the work areas. Entry and exit holes may be as small as one
foot by two feet. During the maintenance of these areas, small amounts of jet
fuel can become vapor, which is toxic and combustible and poses a serious hazard
to personnel.
In a confined space there is the
chance that oxygen levels can become depleted through oxidation or from
displacement of another gas. The typical concentration of oxygen in the
environment is 20.9%. When oxygen levels drop to 19.5% to 12%, judgment is
impaired, and personnel may experience an increased pulse and fatigue. If levels
drop further, from 12% to 6%, fatigue will worsen and nausea and vomiting will
occur. In the final stages of deprivation, when levels are between 6% and 0%,
convulsion and cardiac arrest can occur, resulting in death. When oxygen levels
fall below 19.5%, it is widely accepted that action should be taken.
|
Regulation |
Oxygen level |
|
29 CFR 1910.146 (PRCS) |
< 19.5% |
|
29 CFR 1910.134 (Respiratory Protection) |
< 19.5%1 |
|
ANSI Z117.1-1995 (Confined Spaces) |
< 19.5% |
|
ACGIH (Threshold Limit Value Booklet) |
18.0% |
Note:
1. Oxygen content below 16% at sea level is considered IDLH (Immediately
Dangerous to Life or Health)--oxygen deficient.
Increased levels of oxygen
dramatically promote combustion. Many standards (including 29 CFR 1910.146)
specify 23.5% as an oxygen-enriched environment. Other codes (such as 29 CFR
1915 and NFPA guidelines) are more stringent. A more conservative approach is to
use 22.5% as a hazardous condition threshold.
|
Jet
fuel presents both combustible and toxic hazards in confined space
entry. |
Jet Fuels
The most prevalent hazard in aircraft confined space entry comes from the fuel
that powers the aircraft. The common types of aircraft fuel are Jet A-1, Jet A,
Jet B, JP4, JP5, JP8, and aviation gas. Jet fuel presents both combustible and
toxic hazards in confined space entry.
Hazardous exposure levels came
into effect in 2003. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) lists the threshold limit values (TLVs) for jet fuel as an
eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 200 mg/m3 (total aerosol and vapor).
This converts to approximately 30 parts per million (ppm) when expressed in
isobutylene units. Typical gas monitors that employ photoionization detector
(PID) technology are calibrated to isobutylene.
Combustible lower explosive
limit (LEL) sensors are typically displayed in %LEL readings. The LEL is the
minimum concentration of a combustible gas or vapor in air that will ignite if a
source of ignition is present. The upper explosive limit (UEL) is the maximum
concentration in air that will support combustion. The range between the LEL and
UEL of a combustible gas or liquid is called the flammability range.
Concentrations within the flammability range will burn or explode if a source of
ignition is present.
Different jet fuels can have
different LEL and UEL levels. For example, 100% LEL of Jet A is equal to
approximately 6,000 ppm. In the past it was believed that LEL sensors could be
sufficient to detect for the hazards from jet fuels. As new toxic regulations
have come into place and more is learned about LEL sensors, it has been
determined that they are not capable of detecting hydrocarbons like jet fuel at
low enough levels to be useful for toxic-level detection.
ACGIH standards reference an
eight-hour TWA for jet fuel of approximately 30 ppm. The LEL concentration for
Jet A is 0.6% (6,000 ppm). If the combustible sensor alarm is set at 10% LEL,
with a properly calibrated instrument, it would take a concentration of 0.10 X
6,000 ppm = 600 ppm to trigger an alarm. Even if the alarm is set to 5% LEL, it
still would require a concentration of 300 ppm to trigger the alarm. These
values are considerably larger than the TLV for jet fuel.
PID technology is the preferred
detection method because of the low-level ppm measurement. The ultraviolet
(UV)-based technology is also immune to poisons that can kill the LEL sensor.
Not only is there a concern from chemicals like silicone that can show up in the
maintenance of aircraft, but tetraethyl lead can occur in jet fuel and aviation
gas; these compounds can render the sensor completely ineffective. There are
various other chemicals used in aircraft maintenance such as sealants, solvents,
and cleaning agents that have their own TLVs. Some specific compounds such as
methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, and xylene can be monitored efficiently using PID
technology.
|
UV-based technology is immune to poisons that can kill LEL sensors. |
Gas Detector Technology Improvements
For the aviation industry, a typical portable gas detector is configured with an
O2, LEL, and PID sensor combination. Improvements in technology have
allowed these detectors now to be small enough to be brought directly into the
fuel tank during the maintenance or inspection process. This has allowed an
added amount of safety as workers can now have a gas detector close to their
breathing zone and not just rely on external sampling as the sole safety factor.
Despite the advancements made in
gas detector technology and the portability of gas detectors, sampling equipment
is still important. Special equipment consideration must be made for the
sampling tubing and probes used in aircraft fuel tank confined space entry.
Devices made from polycarbonate plastic can degrade when exposed to jet fuel
fumes. There is also the concern that tygon-type sample tubing can absorb fumes
from the jet fuel, causing the sample to never get to the gas detector. TeflonŽ
or Teflon-lined tubing can be used as an alternative because it will not absorb
the gas.
Safety Considerations
Confined space entry in aircraft fuel tanks is hazardous and requires several
considerations. There must be an adequate level of ventilation and the ability
to increase ventilation during the confined space entry. To decrease the chance
of explosive or toxic environments, ventilation can be increased. Oxygen
deficiency can also be overcome with increased ventilation.
Maintenance equipment is another
safety consideration. All equipment that enters the confined space should be
classified as intrinsically safe so there is no chance that an ignition source
can be created. Respiratory equipment should be present under certain
circumstances. If there is a concern from chemical hazards or oxygen deficiency,
breathing apparatus should be brought into the confined space.
Constant communication between
the entrant and the crew assigned to monitor the confined space is important for
worker safety. If hazardous conditions change or the entrant becomes
unresponsive, a rescue scenario should be initiated.
Protecting workers in aircraft
fuel tanks during confined space entry requires knowledge of the hazards that
are present. Adherence to procedures and proper use of equipment will provide a
safe working environment.
This article appeared in the February 2007 issue of Occupational Health &
Safety.
Shane McEwen is Product Manager for the portables line at BW Technologies by
Honeywell. He can be reached at 1-800-663-4164 or
smcewen@bwtnet.com.