GAPS Guidelines GAP.13.6.

A Publication of Global Asset Protection Services LLC

CLEAN AGENT HALON REPLACEMENTS

INTRODUCTION
Global Asset Protection Services (GAPS) insures many facilities in the electronics,
telecommunications, research, defense and aerospace industries, all of which have special fire
protection needs because they are so susceptible to contamination. Since the initial use of halon as a
commercial extinguishing agent, GAPS has been very particular about design and installation
practices and has insisted on very thorough acceptance testing. Over the years, these efforts have
resulted in improved, more effective systems.
The use of halon has vastly declined since halon was first suspected of being an ozone depleter. The
speed of this decline was hastened by the position taken by GAPS on May 12, 1989 to stop
recommending halon in insured properties. On November 25, 1992, the Montreal Protocol was
amended by international consensus to stop halon production by January 1, 1994. Many potential
halon users have since decided to use other agents for their basic protection needs.

POSITION
Many hazards previously protected by halon can be protected by sprinklers alone or in combination
with an alternative clean agent. GAPS does not recommend any specific clean agent but will
generally recommend that gaseous agent systems be used where appropriate. Consider only listed
clean agent systems or those in the process of listing. Include a thorough acceptance test in system
cost.
For a clean agent system to be acceptable to GAPS, the following must apply:
• Agent viability has been proven for the specific hazard.
• The agent must be acceptable to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
• The agent and system installation must be in compliance with NFPA 2001 as interpreted by
GAPS. See GAP.13.6.1.
• Equipment must be listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory such as Underwriters
Laboratories Inc.
• System performance has been demonstrated.
Status Of Existing Systems
In certain jurisdictions, Halon systems may remain in service provided the system is properly
maintained. Some jurisdictions, however, have mandated the removal of Halon systems. The
European Union mandated the decommissioning of Halon systems by December 31, 2003, except for
except for “critical uses”, such as certain military or aerospace uses.
In jurisdictions where Halon use is still permitted, special precautions should be taken. Corporate
management should have its halon phase-out plan of action ready for implementation. If halon
systems are to remain in service, inventory all halon systems corporate wide, assess the importance
of each system, and determine the quantities of replacement agent that may be needed in the

100 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Copyright 2015, Global Asset Protection Services LLC

Global Asset Protection Services LLC and its affiliated organizations provide loss prevention surveys and other risk management, business continuity and facility asset
management services. Unless otherwise stated in writing, our personnel, publications, services, and surveys do not address life safety or third party liability issues. The
provision of any service is not meant to imply that every possible hazard has been identified at a facility or that no other hazards exist. Global Asset Protection Services LLC
and its affiliated organizations do not assume, and shall have no liability for the control, correction, continuation or modification of any existing conditions or operations. We
specifically disclaim any warranty or representation that compliance with any advice or recommendation in any document or other communication will make a facility or
operation safe or healthful, or put it in compliance with any law, rule or regulation. If there are any questions concerning any recommendations, or if you have alternative
solutions, please contact us.
 GAP.13.6.0

foreseeable future. Locate sources of recycled halon for purchase. Some large companies have
purchased halon reserves, which are being held by their local halon distributor.
Many companies are voluntarily decommissioning halon systems because they fear that:
• Future continuation of protection may be jeopardized.
• The environment may be further harmed.
• Government-imposed decommissioning may occur at inopportune time.
• Halon may become a controlled substance requiring costly destruction.
• Halon maintenance costs will substantially increase.
Where halon systems are to be taken out of service, GAPS recommends that alternative protection
be installed. In many cases, properly designed sprinkler protection may provide sufficient protection.
Your local GAPS representative can discuss protection alternatives.
If a facility is contemplating removing halon or replacing it with another agent, do not discharge halon
into the atmosphere. Contact the local extinguishing system servicing company to obtain appropriate
reclaiming and recycling procedures. The Fire Suppression Systems Association (FSSA) has
reported several incidences where containers being moved by inexperienced people has resulted in
accidental discharge of the container in an uncontrolled manner. The following is an excerpt of their
Safety Alert:
“In all of the incidents reported to FSSA the cause of the accidents were attributable to improper
handling of the cylinders by untrained and unqualified personnel. In all cases actuating devices
had not been removed from the valves and anti-recoil devices and protection caps were not
installed prior to removal of the cylinders from service.
These unsafe practices pose a threat to life and property. In the interest of public safety. FSSA
recommends that the following guidelines be followed:
• IMPORTANT: If any work is to be performed on the fire suppression system, a qualified fire
suppression system service company, trained and experienced in the type of equipment
installed, should be called to do the work.
• Personnel involved with fire suppression system cylinders must be thoroughly trained in the
safe handling of the containers as well as in the proper procedures for installation, removal,
handling, shipping and filling; and connection and removal of other critical devices, such as
discharge hoses, control heads, discharge heads, initiators and anti-recoil devices.
• The procedures outlined in the Operation and Maintenance Manuals, Owner’s Manuals,
Service Manuals, etc., that are provided by the Manufacturer, for the specific equipment
installed, must be followed.
• Most fire suppression system cylinders are furnished with valve outlet anti-recoil devices and
in some cases cylinder valve protection caps. DO NOT disconnect cylinders from the system
piping, or move or ship the cylinders, if the anti-recoil devices or protection caps are missing.
Obtain these parts from the Distributor of the Manufacturer’s equipment, or the equipment
Manufacturer.
• These devices are provided for safety reasons and must be installed at all times, except when
the cylinders are connected into the system piping or being filled.
• All control heads, pressure operated heads, initiators, discharge heads, or other type actuation
devices must be removed before disconnecting the cylinders from the system piping; and anti-
recoil devices and/or protection caps immediately installed before moving or shipping the
cylinders. Most fire suppression system equipment varies from manufacturer to manufacturer,
therefore it is important to follow the instructions and procedures provided in the equipment
Manufacturer’s manuals. These actions should only be undertaken by qualified fire
suppression system service company personnel.”

GAPS Guidelines
2 A Publication of Global Asset Protection Services LLC
 GAP.13.6.0

System Review
Handle all submittals for review in accordance with established GAPS procedures specified in
GAP.13.0.2. Design all systems to allow evacuation prior to discharge, since evacuation after
discharge could lead to insufficient agent to effectively extinguish the fire. On very rare occasions, the
system may be specifically designed to provide protection during evacuation. In those cases, provide
an extended discharge taking into account unclosable openings or provide a second complete
discharge for property protection once the enclosure is sealed. Also, the agent selection and design
should account for exposure limits listed in NFPA 2001.
The review of submittals using equipment in the process of being listed can proceed. The contractor
must make any necessary changes to bring the system in conformance with the revised listing
requirements as a result of final listing.
System Acceptance
Perform an enclosure integrity test to ensure that the enclosure will not leak excessively and that the
enclosure can handle the pressures developed during discharge. Acceptance test all completed
engineered installations in accordance with established GAPS procedures following GAP.13.0.5,
GAP.13.0.5.A and GAP.13.0.5.2.
Discharge tests can still be conducted for inert gas clean agents in lieu of an enclosure integrity test.
Discharge tests are typically not conducted for halocarbon clean agents due to the high agent cost. In
any case, it is recommended that no one be in the enclosure during system discharge.

DISCUSSION
GAPS has always been a strong proponent of sprinkler protection for many of the occupancies in
which halon protection is often used. In addition, GAPS pursues sprinkler protection in combination
with most special extinguishing system installations. Sprinklers protect the structure and limit fire
spread. The special extinguishing system, on the other hand, may keep fire from developing to the
point of opening sprinklers and protects equipment before major damage can occur. With sprinkler
protection alone, larger losses are expected due to the damage incurred while waiting for sprinkler
head response.
In the computer room environment, if a fire occurs within the equipment, the loss of that piece of
equipment can be expected before sprinklers operate. That same piece of equipment may have been
saved if a special extinguishing system had operated first. Fires which occur outside of computer
equipment can be protected efficiently by overhead sprinklers; however, sufficient heat may be
generated to damage equipment and sensitive data media. Carbon dioxide systems have provided
effective fire extinguishment in unoccupied spaces such as underfloor areas where there may be
insufficient space for effective sprinkler distribution.
Recognizing that most Halon 1301 applications are for computer room occupancies, GAPS is
reaffirming its position that wet pipe sprinkler systems conforming to NFPA 13; smoke detection
conforming to NFPA 72 with interlocks to shut off computer room power, where appropriate; an
underfloor carbon dioxide system conforming to NFPA 12 and GAP.13.3.1 is acceptable protection. In
some cases, carbon dioxide may be used inside equipment enclosures.
Agent Acceptable to the USEPA - The USEPA released the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) report in The Federal Register on May 12, 1993. The report addresses the new clean agents
and indicates the restrictions that are placed on them by the USEPA. It will be updated as other new
agents are submitted. See Table 1 for information on agent identification.
The evaluation of these materials from a toxicity and physiological effects standpoint requires an
understanding of some of the terminology. For halocarbon agents the No Observable Adverse Effect
Level (NOAEL) is the highest concentration at which no adverse physiological and toxicological effect
was observed on animals under test. The Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) is the

GAPS Guidelines
3 A Publication of Global Asset Protection Services LLC
 GAP.13.6.0

lowest concentration at which an adverse physiological and toxicological effect has been observed on
animals under test. The major effect normally observed is cardiac sensitization.

TABLE 1
Clean Agent Identification
Agent Chemical Name Trade Name Primary Manufacturer
HFC-23 Trifluoromethane FE-13 E. I. DuPont
HFC-227ea Heptafluoropropane FM-200 Chemtura
FE-227 E. I. DuPont
IG-01 Ar Argon Minimax
IG-55 N2 and Ar Argonite Ginge-Kerr
IG-541 N2, Ar and CO2 Inergen Ansul
FC-3-1-10 Perfluorobutane CEA-410 3M
CFI 1311 Iodotrifluoromethane Triodide Pacific Scientific
HCFC Blend A Blend of 3 HCFCs and a scavenger NAF S-III North American Fire Guardian
HFC-125 Pentafluoroethane FE-25 E. I. duPont
Ecaro-25 Fike
FK-5-1-12 Novec 1230 3M

The health concern for inert gas clean agents is asphyxiation due to lower oxygen levels. For inert
gases the No Effect Level (the functional equivalent of the NOAEL) corresponds to 12% minimum
oxygen. The Low Effect Level (the functional equivalent of the (LOAEL) corresponds to 10% minimum
oxygen in the atmosphere.
Clean agents acceptable to USEPA for total flooding applications include:
• HFC-23 is acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, normally nonoccupied areas, inerting
and explosion suppression systems.
• HFC-227ea is acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, normally nonoccupied areas,
inerting and explosion suppression systems.
• IG-01 is acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, normally nonoccupied areas and, inerting.
• IG-55 is acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, normally nonoccupied areas and, inerting.
• IG-541 is acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, normally nonoccupied areas and,
inerting.
• FC-3-1-10 is acceptable for “Specific Uses” only. Specific uses as defined by the USEPA are
“applications involving the protection of public safety or national security; telecommunications or
computer related equipment related to public safety or national security; life support functions; and
for explosion inertion/suppression with flammable liquids and gases.”
• HCFC Blend A is acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, normally nonoccupied areas and
explosion suppression systems. This is a Class II substance which is expected to be phased out
by the year 2030.
• HFC-125 is not acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, but is acceptable for use in
normally nonoccupied areas, and explosion suppression systems.
• HBFC-22B1 is acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, normally nonoccupied areas and
explosion suppression systems. This substance is expected to be phased out by January 1, 1996.
• CFI 1311 is not acceptable for use in normally occupied areas, but is acceptable for use in
normally nonoccupied areas, and explosion suppression systems.
System Compliance with an NFPA Standard - NFPA 2001 restricts the use of the clean agents at
concentrations with relation to the NOAEL and LOAEL levels. Clean agents may be used at
concentrations up to the NOAEL in normally occupied spaces. In no case should the exposure
exceed 5 minutes. For concentrations exceeding the NOAEL, exposure times should be limited in

GAPS Guidelines
4 A Publication of Global Asset Protection Services LLC
 GAP.13.6.0

accordance with NFPA 2001, Section 1.5.1.2. for Halocarbon agents and Section 1.5.1.3 for Inert
Gas agents.
Agent discharge should be delayed to allow for evacuations prior to discharge. Delaying agent
discharge for a nominal period controls loss of agent by allowing time for:
• People to evacuate safely before the agent is discharged.
• All doors to close.
• Ventilation dampers, including electro-thermal links (ETLs) on damper releases to operate.
• Ventilation fans to shut down and fan blades to stop moving.
• Sounding pre-discharge alarms.
The rescue of incapacitated individuals could take 10 min or more. Personnel providing rescue should
not enter the protected space during or after agent discharge without proper protective gear..
For flame extinguishment, NFPA 2001 requires the minimum design concentration for Class B fuels
be at least 20% higher than the extinguishing concentration for the specific fuel, determined by test,
using a cup burner apparatus. The minimum design concentration for surface fire Class A fuels must
be at least 20% higher than the extinguishing concentration determined by test as part of the
equipment listing procedure. Presently there are no test procedures in NFPA 2001 to determine
minimum design concentrations for deep seated fires.
NFPA 2001 does not support performing a discharge test as part of the overall system acceptance. In
today’s more environmentally aware society, it is difficult to justify discharging materials into the
environment. To replace the functions of a discharge test, it is necessary to evaluate what the
discharge test determines:
• Room tightness - The ability to reach and hold the minimum specified concentration until the fire
is completely extinguished and the fire department has arrived. This can be confirmed by periodic
door fan testing if appropriate design constraints are enforced. The door fan test can be used to
evaluate the tightness of single compartment rooms. Complex rooms with interconnected
openings must be avoided.
• Integrity of the piping system during the thrust of discharge - Static pressure testing can
identify major sources of weakness in the integrity of the piping system. Puff testing only proves
that a path exists from the pressure source to the nozzles. Dynamic pipe movement is not tested;
therefore, pipe supports and bracing must be carefully designed to ensure that no hazardous pipe
movement occurs.
• Accurate agent mixing in the protected area - Lacking a discharge test, there are some
features to enhance confidence in the overall system. It is imperative that the listing organizations
investigate agent characteristics such as the agent’s gasification efficiency, its stratification effects,
the effects of obstructions, and agent settling. These characteristics should be evaluated by
standard test methods in the laboratory environment.
• Operation of the container discharge apparatus - Although internal dip tubes and check valves
operate during an actual discharge, there are few problems with these devices as a result of
extensive testing associated with equipment listings.
Equipment Listed by a Nationally Recognized Laboratory - Equipment must be listed by a
nationally recognized testing laboratory such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Part of the approval
system includes preparation of the final design manuals. Design manuals can be obtained from the
equipment manufacturers.
Development of Test Parameters, Procedures and Equipment - The system must be in
compliance with GAP.13.6.1. Many features of a special extinguishing system installation require
review. The first and most important is the appropriateness of the agent selected. Review history of
prior installations, extinguishment and false trips. There is as yet little practical experience with these
new clean agent systems. The testing associated with the listing of a manufacturer’s product is limited
and does not necessarily represent the full system capabilities.

GAPS Guidelines
5 A Publication of Global Asset Protection Services LLC