PDVSA

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

VOLUMEN 1

PDVSA N

TITULO

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON AS FIRE

EXTINGUISHING AGENT

IRS12

MAR.99

GENERAL REVISION

20

L.T.

O. A.

H. M.

OCT.95

APPROVED

21

L.T.

A. N.

J. R.

REV.

FECHA

APROB. Anibal Rosas

E PDVSA, 1983

DESCRIPCION
FECHA MAR.99

PAG. REV.
APROB. Salvador Arrieta

APROB. APROB.
FECHA MAR.99

ESPECIALISTAS

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 1
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

Indice
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13

Active Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemical Means of Extinguishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Class A Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Class B Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Class C Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Halocarbon Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inert Gas Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inherent Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lethal Concentration 50% (Lc50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (Loael) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No Observed Adverse Effect Level (Noael) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Normally Occupied Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Physical Means of Extinguishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4

6 HALON SUBSTITUTION GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1
6.2

Risk Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Considerations for Halon Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6
7

7 HALON REPLACEMENT OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

7.1
7.2
7.3

Gaseous Substitute Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fire Alarm and Detection System Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power Shut Tripping or Deenergizing of Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13
18
19

8 FINAL DISPOSAL OF HALON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 2
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

INTRODUCTION
PDVSA adopted as a basic philosophy the elimination of the use of halon in new
installations. Aditionally, in existing facilities, adequate replacement fire
protection system shall be evaluated. Where this is not practical, all necessary
efforts should be made to minimize atmospheric discharges of halon.

OBJECTIVE
This guide establishes the criteria that shall be applied to select halon alternative
fire protection system in new and existing installations.

SCOPE
This guide covers the halon substitute agents, nonhalon based replacement
system and its final disposal.

REFERENCES
1.

Sheinson R.S., Eaton Hg., Black B., Brown R., Burchel H., Maranghides A.,
Mitchel C., Salmon G., Smith WD.; Halon 1301 Replacement Total Flooding
Fire Testing, Intermediate Scale. Halon Options Technical Working
Conference, May 35, 1994, Albuquerque.

2.

Moore TA., Dierdorf DS., Skaggs SR.; Intermediate Scale (645 ft3) Fire
Suppression Evaluation of NFPA 2001 Agents. 1993 Halon Alternatives
Technical Working Conference, May 1113, 1993, Albuquerque.

3.

Skaggs SR., More TA.; Toxicology of Halogenated Halon Substitutes. Fire

Safety without Halon?, September 79, 1994, Zurich.

4.

The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Inert Gas
Fire Extinguishing Agents, p. 8, Report No. 6.60/259, June 1997, London.

5.

The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Inherent Fire
Safety Design Principles, p. 21, Report No. 6.48/231, December 1995,
London.

6.

Kletz, T.A., An Engineerss View of Human Error, published by the Institution

of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, U.K. 1985

7.

The Oil Industry International Exploration & Production Forum; Guidelines

on the Use of Water Mist Fire Extinguishment Systems in E&P Industry
Applications, p. 1113, Report No. 6.49/235, March 1996, London.

8.

Grosshandler W. L., Gann R. G, and Pitts W. M., National Institute of

Standards and Technology. April 1994. NIST SP 861 p.1.

9.

Revised Taylor G. M.; Halogenated Agents and Systems. Section 6/ chapter

18 p. 281. National Fire Protection Association.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 3
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

10. Butler J.H., Elkins J. W., Hall B. D., Cummings S. O., and Mintzka S. A.,
Adecrease in the Growth Rates of Atmospheric Halon Concentrations. Vol
359, p. 403. Nature. October 1992.
11.

Atmospheric
Chlorine:
CFCs
and
Alternative
Fluorocarbons.
Http://www.afeas.org/atm_cl.html. EPA report, March 1998.

DEFINITIONS
5.1

Active Protection
Active design solutions require devices to monitor a process variable and function
to mitigate a hazard. Active solutions are sometimes referred to as engineering
controls. Examples are the use of a pressure safety valve or rupture disk to
prevent vessel overpressure or an interlock of a high level sensing device to a
vessel inlet valve and pump motor to prevent liquid overfill of the vessel.

5.2

Chemical Means of Extinguishment

Chemical agents extinguish fires by interfering with the chemical reactions of fire.
Extinguishment is achieved faster than by physical means.

5.3

Class A Fires
Fires in ordinary combustible materials such as wood, cloth, paper, tapes,
diskettes, rubber, and many plastics. These typically produce deep seated fires.

5.4

Class B Fires
Fires in flammable liquids, solvents, glycols, methanol, oils, greases, tars,
oilbase paints, lacquers, and flammable gases

5.5

Class C Fires
Fires that involve energized electrical equipment where the electrical
nonconductivity of the extinguishing media is of importance. Examples are fires
resulting from overheated cable insulation or fire in an energized transformer or
switchgear.

5.6

Halocarbon Agent
A clean agent that contains as primary components one or more of the elements
fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine. Examples are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs),
perfluorocarbons
(PFCs),
and
fluoroiodocarbons (FICs).

5.7

Inert Gas Agent

A clean agent that contains as primary components one or more of the gases
argon, nitrogen, helium or neon, or a blend of these, which may also contain
carbon dioxide as a secondary components.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 4
Men Principal

5.8

Indice manual

Indice norma

Inherent Safety
Designs that eliminate or mitigate the hazard by using materials and process
conditions that are less hazardous.

5.9

Lethal Concentration 50% (Lc50)

Concentration causing death in 50% of an animal test population.

5.10

Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (Loael)

The lowest concentration at which an adverse physiological or toxicological effect
has been observed. For inhalation of halocarbons, the effect is usually cardiac
sensitization.

5.11

No Observed Adverse Effect Level (Noael)

The highest concentration at which no adverse toxicological or physiological
effect has been observed. For inhalation of halocarbons the effect looked for is
usually cardiac sensitization.

5.12

Normally Occupied Area

An area continuously manned or where personnel are present for most of the time,
or for which no documented access authorization is required.

5.13

Physical Means of Extinguishment

Physical agents extinguish fires by removing heat, thus removing one side of the
fire triangle. This mechanism is much slower than chemical extinguishment and
requires much higher agent concentrations.

HALON SUBSTITUTION GUIDELINES

In order to comply with the philosophy of elimination of the use of halon, the
performance based approach presented in the decision tree shown in Figure 1
shall be followed.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 5
Men Principal

Indice manual

Fig 1. HALON SUBTITUTION EVALUATION

Halon
Replacement
6.0

Fire Protection
Need Assessment
(Risk Analysis)
6.1

Evaluation
Complete

No

Fire
Protection
Required

Yes

Consider
NonHalonbased
Replacement System
6.2

Install
Non Halon
System

Yes

NonHalon
System
Performance
Okay
No

Install Gaseous
Subtitute Agents
7.1

Evaluation
Complete

Indice norma

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 6
Men Principal

6.1

Indice manual

Indice norma

Risk Analysis
The risk analysis stipulated in Figure 1 shall address both the likelihood and the
consequence of the fire hazard. The fire likelihood should take into account
historical incident data when available. Sources or such information can be
PDVSA experience or PDVSAs insurance underwriters. When such information
is not readily available, the approach should use failure analysis concepts. Fault
tree analysis is an effective technique for assessing the likely frequency of fires.
A suggestive fault tree is provided in Figure 2. By assigning failure rates to the
various events, the top event frequency can be estimated.
The consequence analysis of the potential fire shall consider the following factors:
1.

Primary asset damage and financial loss potential

2.

Time to repair damage and business interruption potential

3.

Personnel safety and injury potential

4.

Impairment of plant safety systems due to damage sustained

5.

Loss of critical business data

The risk level associated with the estimated frequency and consequences shall
be assessed using approved PDVSA IRS02.
Depending on the results of the risk assessment, refer to Figure 1 and continue
the stipulated logic sequence.
Fig 2. FAULT TREE

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 7
Men Principal

6.2

Indice manual

Indice norma

Considerations for Halon Replacement

6.2.1

Inherently Safer Design New Installations

The adoption of design criteria to reduce the probability of occurrence for fires and
for specifying materials, equipment or systems that limit fire propagation,
constitute preventive actions which are more important than the decision to install
an extinguishing system to reduce consequences. Therefore, the justification for
a fire extinguishing system can be questioned when other design resources have
not been considered to prevent the occurrence and development of an event.
Examples of other design resources that can be considered are:

Enclosures or divisions to confine / separate the risk

Control of flammable materials and potential ignition sources

Activation of power switches or process shutdown that stop the succession

/ extension of an event

Providing materials of difficult combustion, fire resistant or that prevent flame

propagation

Inherently safer designs eliminate or mitigate the hazard by using materials and
process conditions that are less hazardous. The most important principles of
inherent safety principles are summarized below (Ref. 6):
S Intensification. Using small quantities of hazardous substances or eliminating
them if possible.
S Substitution. Replacing a material with a less hazardous substance
S Attenuation. Using less hazardous conditions or a less hazardous form of a
material. Selecting a process with a lower risk potential
S Limitation of Effects. Designing facilities that minimize the impact of a release
of a hazardous material or energy
S Simplification. Designing facilities that make operating errors less likely.
Reducing number of leak sources (flanges, valves, instrument connections,
etc.), and minimizing the ignition sources.
S Tolerance. Make equipment robust and that are forgiving of errors that are
made, processes that go to bad quality, not to an uncontrolled reaction or
condition. Design with sufficient material corrosion properties and toughness
factors.
Examples of these principles can help reduce the need for fixed extinguishing
systems are given in the following sections.
a.

Intensification
The process designer shall seek practical opportunities to reduce inventories of
hazardous materials:

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 8
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

S Minimize the need for all intermediate hazardous material storage.

S Minimize quantities of storage by assuring timely and reliable supply
The amount of hazardous material that can be transported or contained in a pipe
can be sizable, specially in larger plants, thus a point should be made to minimize
these inventories:
S Pipe size should not exceed the sized required for meeting the process
requirements. The exception being if the pipe size is less than 2, because
small piping is more vulnerable to failure.
S Routing shall be as direct as possible to avoid unnecessary lengths of pipe but
ensuring that pipe is routed to minimize potential for external impact, exposure
to corrosive environments, etc.
S Limit number of pipe fittings to those strictly required in order to reduce potential
leak points.
b.

Substitution
When possible, the designer should explore less hazardous materials for the
process. For example,
S Use of lower risk equipment such as non hydrogen evolving batteries
S Use of non combustible materials for enclosures and the equipment and fluids
housed within the enclosure (cast resin transformers in place of oilfilled
transformers)

c.

Attenuation
This measure reduces risk by using the least severe values in process parameters
that are allowed in the process or a less hazardous form of the material.
S Reduce to the minimum the potential pressure differential between different
parts of the same equipment (such as a heat exchanger).

d.

Limitation of Effects
Appropriate selection of the location where the equipment will be placed and the
separation between the equipment and vulnerable areas is an effective way to
limit the effects of an accidental release.
The site or location of the storage tanks shall consider ways to minimize knockon
effects on nearby facilities and offsite effects to the public in the event of release.
S To avoid offsite effects, the toxic and flammable materials shall be stored as far
as possible from the site fence.
S Buffer zones between hazardous materials storage and offsite should be
calculated and respected whenever possible.
S appropriate distance must be maintained between the hazardous material
unloading, storage and process areas.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 9
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

S Reduce number of junction boxes and other items that can cause ignition
S Limit number of internal combustion machines to those strictly essential and
locate them out of classified areas diverting the exhaust to an area where it
cannot be an ignition source.
S Avoid installation of hot fluid piping close to flammable fluid piping.
S Locate daily service fuel tanks outside machinery enclosures.
S Locate offices, control rooms, emergency electrical generator, fire fighting
pumping systems upwind of hydrocarbon process or storage areas.
S Locate open fire equipment such as process heaters upwind of hydrocarbon
process or storage areas.
S Locate flare and vent systems downwind of hydrocarbon process or storage
areas.
S Install power electrical cables and instrument cable in different cable trays.
S Limit the enclosure volume of the areas where accumulation of hydrocarbons
is possible.
S Minimize the areas where corrosive products are present.
Buffer zones and minimum distance between equipment to avoid knockon
effects shall be estimated using atmospheric dispersion and consequence
analysis simulations of credible worstcase release scenarios as described in the
PDVSA document IRS02.
Adequate emergency access shall be considered in the design stage as a way to
limit the consequences of emergencies:
S
S
S
S
S

Easy access to isolation and depressurization of equipment.

Easy access and escape during emergencies.
Possibility of manual activation of fixed fire fighting valves.
Possibility of access to depressurization valves of failed equipment.
Possibility of close proximity to failed equipment to allow use of manual fire
extinguishing equipment.
S Possibility of access in the opposite direction to smoke diffusion.
S Possibility of easy escape and evacuation of personnel not involved in
emergency response.
e.

Simplification /Tolerance
The designer should simplify the system to avoiding possibilities for human error.
S
S
S
S

Use of dedicated piping is almost always preferred to multiuse piping.

Group areas which require similar maintenance frequency
Group areas which require similar fire protection
Reduce the equipment for which replacement parts/materials are expensive or
hard to obtain

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 10
Men Principal

S
S
S
S
6.2.2
a.

Indice manual

Indice norma

Easy access during operation

Easy and safe access for collection of samples
Easy access to hot spots in electrical installation
Immediate identification of release point

Fixed Systems
New
The decision to install a new fire protection systems shall be based on the results
of an extensive risk analysis (see 6.1) to determine, firstly, if a protection system
is needed, and secondly, to study any alternatives to halon. Such alternatives shall
include consideration of inherently safer design options as discussed in. When the
need for a halon replacement extinguishment system is confirmed, it is necessary
to take into account the following recommendations:
1.

Control rooms and computer processing rooms:

Very early fire detection systems with alarm and a cut off of power system.
Automatic CO2 extinguishing systems under the false floor.
Preaction sprinkler systems, wetpipe fire sprinkler in the room, or in the
absence of such systems, portable CO2 or water monitors.
2.
Motor control rooms, telecommunication rooms, switch gear room, and
general electrical and electronic equipment:
Very early fire detection system with alarm and cut off of power system and
automatic discharge of CO2. In this case, provisions shall be taken for the
case of personnel present in the moment of the discharge. A preset alarm
with retarding action is recommended to be used in the evacuation of the
area or building before the system enter in uses.
3.
Other infrequent applications such as floating roof tanks, turbines, vents,
etc.:
Apply the PDVSA Standards of the Risk Engineering Manual in each
particular case. Following these Standards, halon will be substituted by
foam in the case of tanks and by CO2 in the case of turbines and vents.
4.
Explosion prevention and suppression:
In PDVSA installations halon is not used for this particular application.
However, it is normal practice to install gas detection systems with alarm at
20% of LFL (Lower Flammable Limit) and selective shutdown of equipment
and/or plant at 40% of LFL, as it is specified in the PDVSA standards of the
Risk Engineering Manual.
b.

Existing System Replacement

The review of options for replacement of an existing halonbased extinguishment
system shall be based on the result of an extensive risk analisis (see 6.1). If a fire

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 11
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

protection is required, an evaluation of approved halon substitutes shall be done

(see Section 7.1) Software programs are available from agent suppliers for
analysis of existing halonbased systems, which assess performance with
substitute agents. If substitution is not a viable option for technical reasons, then
nonhalon based replacement options recommended in Section 6.2.2.a shall be
followed. For guidance in the selection of an acceptable replacement system, the
following replacement system advantages and disadvantages should be
considered.
1.

Wet type sprinkler systems utilizing, recessed, quick response heads and
if necessary, a CO2 system protecting the subfloor
Advantages
These water based systems are very economical and easy to install, easy
to maintain, quick response heads will offer faster response (up to 3 times
as fast) than standard heads and the recessed feature will eliminate the
potential for mechanical damage, environmental friendliness of water, no
agent storage space required, except for that of CO2.
Disadvantages
Potential water damage to sensitive energized equipment, need for fire
pump and water tank.

2.

Wet type sprinkler systems utilizing automatic, OnOff heads and if

necessary, a CO2 system for protecting the subfloor.
Advantages
Water based systems are very economical, easy to maintain, OnOff heads
will minimize the possibility of water damage by limiting the volume of water
discharge, environmental friendliness of water, no agent storage space
required, except for that of CO2.
Disadvantages
Potential water damage to sensitive energized equipment, need for a fire
pump and water tank. Potential for mechanical damage to the OnOff heads
due to the incapability to conceal or recess these types of heads (these
heads typically extend 4 6 inches from the ceiling level), higher costs
associated with OnOff heads (approximately 5 times more costly than
standard and/or quick response heads)

3.

Preaction, doubleinterlocking sprinkler system and if necessary, a CO2

system protecting the subfloor.
Advantages
Water based systems are very economical, easy to maintain, preaction,
doubleinterlocking feature will reduce presence of false alarms by
incorporating additional initiating features prior to alarm/activation,

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 12
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

environmental friendliness of water, no agent storage space required,

except for that of CO2.
Disadvantages
Potential water damage to sensitive energized equipment, increase in cost
vs. standard, wet system, need for a fire pump and water tank.
c.

Maintenance of Existing System

Independently of the actions to be proposed, the following actions shall be carried
out for any extinguishing system based on halon 1301 while it is maintained in
operation.
1.

The live discharge test of halon are completely prohibited.

2.

Adopt the Door Fan Test for the protected environment instead of
discharging the halon system to test its efficacy. The Door Fan Test allows
determination of whether the system will achieve and maintain the minimum
specific concentration for fire extinguishing and is currently the best
alternative available to find leaks in a closed area and evaluate its integrity.

3.

Evaluate the reliability of the fixed systems, carrying out pressure test of the
piping systems that confirm the absence of obstructions and that simulate
the maximum flow through them.

4.

Ensure the distribution and discharge of the extinguishing agent, such that
it is uniformly distributed in the protected environment. This must be done
using computerized programs provided by the system design manufacturer.

5.

Review the fire detection systems that trigger the halon system to determine
its actuation speed. In cases of low detection speeds, consider the redesign
of the detection system to install one faster and more efficient, in order to
allow a manual intervention before the halon system is discharged.

6.

Establish strict controls to prevent accidental discharges of the extinguishing

agent. If this occur, do not proceed to recharge the system.

Revise the type of activation of the system and evaluate the characteristics
of the protected asset, in order to determine the need for automatic
activation. In so far possible, manual activation shall be adopted over
automatic activation to prevent false discharges
6.2.3

Portable Extinguishers
In case of existing halon portable fire extinguishers they will be replaced as
indicated below:
a.

Electrical equipment. Replace with CO2

b.

Computer Equipment. Replace with CO2

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 13
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

c.

Control Rooms. Replace with CO2

d.

In any other circumstance, consider the use of water extinguishers, dry

chemical powder and/or foam.

HALON REPLACEMENT OPTIONS

These are some recommendations for halon substitute agents including chemical
agents, inert gases and powders. These recommendations reflect current
industry practices and preferred halon alternative solutions.

7.1

Gaseous Substitute Agents

This alternative involves several agent options available in todays market, each
varying in cost, effectiveness and chemical makeup. By types, the alternatives
are divided into chemical agents, inert gases and powders. The chemical agents
include FM200 and CO2. The most recognizable inert gas is Inergen (a
mixture of argon, nitrogen and carbon dioxide). Aerosols fall into the powder
category. These types of products are the least developed and have not received
an Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or Factory Mutual (FM) listing or approval.
Substitute agents that are identified as HCFCs such as Halotron and NAFSIII
should not be considered as viable options due to their phaseout deadline of
2020.
To assist in limiting the numerous gaseous agent options to those approved and
deemed safe and efficient, the following should be consulted:
S UL
S FM
S NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems
S U.S EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) List
Both UL and FM will identify those agents and systems approved or listed for use,
NFPA 2001 establishes requirements for design, maintenance and installation,
and the SNAP list approves agents based on environmental effects and safety.

7.1.1

Approved Substitute Agents

The following description and analysis includes those substitute agents that have
received recognition, listings and/or approvals from UL, FM, SNAP and NFPA
2001:

a.

FM200 is the trade name for HFC227ea. The agent is a halocarbon and is
a complex chemical mixture of hydrogen, carbon, and fluorine. Its full name is
heptaflouropropane. As is true with most halocarbons, it extinguishes primarily
by interfering with the production of free radicals, necessary for sustaining a fire,

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 14
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

and by absorbing heat. The chemical is included on the EPAs SNAP list, is UL
listed and FMRC approved under several manufacturers for both engineered and
preengineered systems, and meets the requirements of NFPA 2001.
FM200 has a ODP of 0, an atmospheric lifetime of 32 years and a GWP of 0.7.
This particular agent has the most extensive health and safety test toxicity
information of any available Halon 1301 substitute. In fact, it has been designated
as the replacement for the propellant (which is also identified as an ODC) in
pharmaceutical metered dose inhalers similar to those used for asthma
treatment. Thus, it is safe for the environment and for humans.
The agents design concentration is between 7% and 8% (versus 4.2% for Halon
1301) and is effective in suppressing Class A, B, and C fires. This, coupled with
the fact that the average weight by volume is 1.7 times that of Halon 1301, results
in the requirement for more total agent when compared with Halon 1301 and the
need for increased storage space. The average increase in storage capacity is
approximately 12/3 times the amount required for Halon 1301. A FM200
system typically is designed with a system design pressure of 360 psi, which is
similar to that of a low pressure Halon 1301 system.
The agent is approved for use in occupied areas, however, the byproducts of
extinguishment are more hazardous than those formed with extinguishment using
Halon 1301. This is due to the fact that the agent does not include bromine.
Therefore, it is recommended that the space in which it is used be evacuated prior
to discharge, however, based on the agents NOAEL level, occupants can
technically remain in the area for up to a minute after discharge.
The decomposition products of FM200 can be damaging to electrical
components, but it occurs with all hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). FM200 is no
more damaging than Halon 1301 as it produces only HF in amounts equivalent
to the HF and Hbr produced by Halon 1301. There are ways to minimize HF
production including early fire detection and quick agent discharge.
FM200 also has the potential of causing temperature related damage, but only
if the agent impinges directly on equipment. The average temperature decrease
in a room is 10_F. Nozzles should be positioned to prevent direct equipment
contact with the discharging agent. It should be noted that the nature of the
nozzles causes a radial discharge at ceiling level with the agent settling down
on equipment.
There has been no evidence of significant water condensation in tests using
FM200 .
Tests performed with FM200 on live electrical equipment have been

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 15
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

successful. Testing by the Modular Protection Corporation1 indicates that for low
energy levels consistent with those found in electrical equipment the
extinguishing concentration must be increased to 8%. This 8% value is the
minimum test concentration, which did not result in reignition. A safety factor,
20% is typical, would increase concentrations to 9.6%, exceeding the NOAEL.
Ideally, all agents needed at a facility could be stored in a single bulk storage area.
However, the poor flow characteristics of FM200 prohibit pipe runs of over 150
feet as well as elevation changes associated with multiple stories. Therefore,
FM200 must be stored in close proximity to the areas they protect.
1.

Advantages

Agent cost FM200 and recycled Halon 1301 is basically the same but requires
approximately 1.67 times the storage space of Halon 1301, extensive health and
safety test information available, possibility of using existing Halon 1301 system
piping hardware (if low pressure system exists)
2.

Disadvantages

Design concentration (7%) close to NOAEL (9%), required agent storage

proximity to protected areas due to agent flow restraints
b.

CEA410 is a perflourobutane consisting of carbon and fluorine. The agent is

also known as FC3110 and is produced by 3M. The agent is on the SNAP list,
is UL listed and FMRC approved, and meets the requirements of NFPA 2001.
The agents design concentration is between 6% and 9.2%, weighs approximately
twice as much as Halon 1301 and requires 1.67 times Halon 1301 by volume. This
will result in an increase in agent storage space. The agent shows flow
characteristics similar to Halon 1301 and could feasibly use the same piping used
in Halon 1301 systems.
The agent is approved for use in occupied areas. In fact, it is considered safe in
concentrations up to 24%. However, CEA410 is not as environmentally
acceptable as many of the other agents on the SNAP list due to a high GWP (5,500
based on a period of 100 years) and atmospheric lifetime of 2,500 years. As a
result, an evaluation must be made to address the need to use CEA410 over
greener alternatives. This evaluation must be available for review when
requested by regulating agencies. The environmental impact of this agent may
result in future restrictions on its use.
CEA410 is a Perfluorocarbon (PFC) and produces toxic compounds similar to
FM200 during decomposition. CEA410 has an added advantage in reducing
the production of these toxic compounds by increasing the design concentration
without exceeding the NOAEL. Increased design concentration has been shown

The Modular Protection Corporation has performed the only tests on live electrical equipment. All results presented for live electrical equipment are from their testing.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 16
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

to reduce decomposition products by quicker extinguishment. CEA410 also

produces no damaging water condensation although discharge results in a
noticeable fog.
CEA410 has been successful in extinguishing live electrical equipment fires.
Successful test concentrations where 8%, which, with a safety factor of 20%,
yields a design concentration of 9.6%. Unlike with FM200, the NOAEL is not
exceeded.
Similar to FM200, the poor flow characteristics of CEA410 prohibit pipe runs
of over 150 feet as well as elevation changes associated with multiple stories.
Therefore, this agent must be stored in close proximity to the areas they protect.
1.

Advantages

Requires approximately 1.67 times the storage space of Halon 1301, design
concentrations (6% to 9.2%) well below NOAEL (40%), possibility that existing
Halon 1301 pipe network may be reused (if low pressure Halon 1301 system
exists).
2.

Disadvantages

Not as environmentally accepted as other agents, therefore, it is possibly subject

to future regulations, only viable for use after documentation that other agents
cannot be used per SNAP, high cost per pound vs. Halon 1301, required agent
storage proximity to protected areas due to agent flow restraints.
c.

Inergen is the trade name for IG541. It is a mixture of two inert gases, nitrogen
and argon, with CO2. Inergen extinguishes fires by reducing the oxygen level
to under 15% which is the minimum oxygen concentration to support combustion
in most circumstances. This is equivalent to a 37.5% Inergen concentration.
CO2 is added to increase the respiration rate of occupants remaining in the room.
This technique has come under question but nonetheless the agent has been
deemed safe for use in occupied areas although evacuation is required within 30
seconds of discharge if agent concentration exceeds 42% and before the agent
concentration reaches 52%.
The agent is on the SNAP list, is UL, and is recognized by NFPA 2001. As typical
of inert gas agents, Inergen has no ODP or GWP and is, therefore, safe from
future regulations. The UL listing is for engineered and preengineered systems.
The design concentration for Inergen is 38%. This value is significantly higher
than Halon 1301s design concentration of 4.2%. In addition, it takes over 2 times
the amount of agent by weight to protect the same volume space with Halon 1301.
This equates to approximately 11 times the storage space of Halon 1301.
Inergen systems are designed with a typical system pressure of 2,175 psi, which
is substantially higher than that of a high pressure Halon 1301 system (600 psi).

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 17
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

Inergen offers advantages over HFCs and PFCs in corrosivity. Inergen results
in no corrosive decomposition products. Inergen also does not produce a
measurable temperature drop or water condensation.
Preliminary tests with Inergen have yielded test concentrations of 4142% for
extinguishing of live electrical fires. Test results have not yet been finalized or
published but the preliminary figures yield design concentrations exceeding the
42% NOAEL.
Inergen, relative to Halon 1301 and even FM200, is not very costly. This is
due to the simple chemical composition of Inergen. Inergen is sold by the cubic
foot and not by the pound.
Inergen is the only agent, which lends itself well to long pipe runs that would be
associated with central bulk storage location. Inergen can be transported as
many as three typical stories vertically as well as a substantial distance
horizontally.
The largest drawback of Inergen is the large amount of agent needed for
extinguishment. The agent requires substantially more storage space than Halon
1301.
1.

Advantages

Replacement or recharge of agent is less costly than that of Halon 1301, no

environmental concerns (0 OPD, GWP, and atmospheric lifetime), design
concentration (37.5%) below NOAEL (43%)
2.

Disadvantages

Large storage space required, approximately 11 times that of Halon 1301, no

possibility of reusing existing Halon 1301 system pipe hardware
d.

FE13TM is the trade name for HFC23. The agent is chemically known as CHF3..
The agent is on the SNAP list, listed by UL, and approved by FMRC and NFPA
2001 recognized. The product extinguishes fire by interfering with the chemical
chain reaction and absorbing heat.
The agent weighs approximately 1.95 times Halon 1301, and it has a volume 2.8
times larger than Halon 1301. The design concentration is 18%. Therefore, larger
storage space is required. As with FM200 and CEA410, FE13TM has flow
characteristics similar to Halon 1301 and may be able to reuse existing Halon
1301 piping hardware.
One advantage of the agent is its high NOAEL, 30%. Compared to its design
concentration, 18%, there is considerable design flexibility before the NOAEL
limits are reached. Another attribute that distinguishes itself from the other agent
options is its effectiveness in cold environments up to 40F.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 18
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

In regards to environmental concerns, FE13TM has an ODP of 0 and an

atmospheric lifetime of 280 years.
1.

Advantages

Design concentration (18%) is well below NOAEL (30%), agent is effective in cold
temperature up to 40F possibility that existing Halon 1301 pipe network may be
reused.
2.

Primary Disadvantage

High atmospheric lifetime compared to other substitute agents and therefore,

possibly subject to future regulations.

7.2

Fire Alarm and Detection System Options

The fire alarm and detection system is critical for proper activation of both gaseous
Halon 1301 substitute agents and waterbased systems (i.e., preaction system).
There are two alarm and detection system options available:
Standard system consisting of conventional spottype smoke or heat detectors,
and early warning system (i.e., laser detectors or airsampling detection).
The standard system will provide adequate detection and initiation of the fire
suppression system. However, if the current investment of protected equipment
or the facilitys safety objectives warrant early and faster detection and response
to a fire emergency, then an early warning system can be implemented.
Currently, the early warning alarm and detection system consists of either laser
type detectors or air detection systems.

7.2.1

Laser Type Detection System

The laser detector type system consists of a control panel, laser detectors and
signal processing software. The control panel is equipped with an ultra
highspeed microprocessor. The laser detectors operate on a photoelectric type
detector principle, except that it utilizes a controlled laser diode, chamber and light
trap to detect the smoke scattering of the laser (i.e., light). The chamber includes
a mirror device which is electrically charged to detect dust and false alarms.
These detectors have a sensitivity range of 0.031.0% per foot and have a
coverage area of 400 ft@. These detectors are substantially more sensitive than
typical photoelectric detectors which have a sensitivity range of 12% per foot.
Finally, the software offers nine (9) levels of alarm sensitivity selection per
detector, drift compensation, automatic testing, day/night compensation and
maintenance alert capabilities.
This system is UL listed, and the cost of these types of detectors, are
approximately three (3) times the cost of standard photoelectric detectors.

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 19
Men Principal

a.

Indice manual

Indice norma

Advantages
Wider range of sensitivity detection, addressable system and components, which
offers the capability of pinpointing fire location, more cost effective when
compared to air type system when protecting relatively small areas less than
8,000 ft@ (or less than 20 detectors), continuously supervises all system
components and wiring.

b.

Disadvantages
Not retrofit friendly and system components are not compatible with other
manufacturers, application in high air velocity areas such as clean rooms is
questionable.

7.2.2

Air Sampling System

An air type system consists of an aspirator or pump, control panel, detector, and
filter air ductwork. Air samples are drain into the detector by the air aspirator
utilizing the air ductwork equipped with smallbore ports. Once inside the
detector, the air sample is exposed to a highly intensive light source. The
scattering of this light source from particles in the air sample such as smoke will
generate an alarm signal to the control panel. The detector has a wide sensitivity
range of .00156.0% per foot. This range is even far more sensitive than that of
the laser detection system. These systems are also UL listed and FMRC
approved. Some manufacturers include VESDA, IFD Cirrus and Environment
One.

a.

Advantages
More sensitive than laser detection type system, retrofit friendly, detector and air
network can be tied into any control panel type, more cost effective than laser
detection system when protecting larger areas greater than 8,000 ft@ (or greater
than 20 laser detectors).

b.

Disadvantages
Air aspirator or pump life expectancy is only 7 years, system cannot supervise air
network (i.e., ductwork and ports) for trouble conditions.

7.3

Power Shut Tripping or Deenergizing of Equipment

As with the waterbased, preaction sprinkler system, consideration should also
be given to methods for turning off power or deenergizing electrical equipment.
FM200 , CEA410 and Inergen have all been successfully used on electrical
equipment. However, if an electrical malfunction was the cause of ignition, and
electrical power is not removed, then the fire could reignite once the agent
concentration in the room disperses. Additionally, higher concentrations are
required to extinguish live electrical fires. In the case of FM200 and Inergen,

MANUAL DE INGENIERIA DE RIESGOS

PDVSA

GUIDE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO HALON

AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT

PDVSA IRS12
REVISION

FECHA

MAR.99

Pgina 20
Men Principal

Indice manual

Indice norma

this higher concentration exceeds the NOAEL, requiring evacuation of the space
within 30 seconds of discharge. Leaving equipment energized also results in an
increased extinguishing time, which translates into increased HF production.
It should be also pointed out that providing this feature can be very difficult and
costly due to varying electrical equipment type and age along with the supply of
electricity.

FINAL DISPOSAL OF HALON

The final disposal of halon is an important topic and it is being discussed
accordingly in order to establish an environmentally acceptable solution. While
this final solution is being achieved, the following considerations shall be
addressed.

8.1

The venting of halon into the atmosphere for final disposal is totally prohibited.

8.2

Thought must be given to recycling those volumes of halon that have been
decommissioned, and the two options mentioned below shall be taken into
account:
a.

Redistribute within the Petrochemical and Petroleum Industry (IPPN), in the

case of a need.

b.

Send to the supplier or, if not possible, to the manufacturer, for final disposal

Option b. (above shall be the preferred choice). In case that redistribution of halon
is decided, the redistribution of halon within IPPN may be accomplished by
implementing a halon Management Plan comprising of the following steps:
S Depositing the halon inventory from the converted systems into a halon bank,
to draw upon for critical systems.