The Halon Effect

Ignorance, contrary to the popular saying, is so rarely bliss, and by the end of the year, ignorance of a particular piece of European legislation relating to Halon gases in fire extinguisher systems could leave thousands of businesses in the UK at serious risk, without insurance, with potentially disastrous consequences.

Halon is an extinguishant that has been used in fire suppression systems since the 1950s. The qualities of the gas make it especially effective in protecting valuable computer and IT equipment, and many high-tech manufacturing facilities have entrusted their installations to Halon’s protection.

Unfortunately, these near-miracle gases also have the highest ozone depleting potential of ANY chemicals in common use, and as such became a prime target within the Montreal Protocol for immediate elimination.

Montreal Protocol

This process began in 1993 when the manufacture of Halon was banned. Six years later, European Regulation EC/5748 detailed a specific timetable to phase out the use of Halon altogether, and to govern the collection and destruction of the various types of gas in use. Within this timetable, 31st December 2002 will be the last day that existing Halon systems may be re-charged (with recycled or reclaimed Halon), and by the same date the following year, all existing Halon systems will have to be decommissioned and the gases destroyed.

“The danger comes at various levels,” explains John Spencer, Managing Director of Chubb Fire. “Should any system discharge, either by accident or to deal with a real fire incident, it will actually be illegal to recharge it, and render the system completely useless. Until a new system can be purchased, installed and commissioned, a company’s most valuable assets will be left unprotected.

“This then has a knock-on effect in terms of insurance,” John continues. “Where protection of vital equipment is reliant upon a Halon system, it is most unlikely that insurance cover will be obtained after 2002 since this protection cannot be regarded as a permanent solution. Insurance cover may well be dependent upon an agreed timetable for the replacement of the Halon System.”

Risk Assessment

Replacing a fixed fire suppression system is not like throwing out the old extinguishers and installing the new.

“Various alternatives to Halon are readily available,” John continues, “but the planning, design and installation of a new system can take anything from six weeks to six months, depending on the complexity of the task and the size of the project.”

Step one in finding an effective alternative may involve a complete change in the fire protection strategy within a premises, which in turn will require a new risk assessment. Once this audit has been completed, step two is to design and plan a new system, ensuring that any new fire-fighting equipment installed meets the required Fire Safety Regulations applying to the site.

Next, the old system is decommissioned and the new technology installed. A Certificate of Conformity will be issued to confirm that the fire-fighting equipment is ready for use and meets all necessary regulatory criteria. The final step requires the removal and safe destruction of the Halon from the existing system, with certification to confirm that the disposal has been completed in accordance with current environmental regulations. Once installed, the area containing the fire suppression system is then ‘integrity tested’ (a mandatory requirement on an annual basis) to ensure the protected areas’ capacity to hold gas, should the system discharge.

Replacement technologies

Amongst the alternatives, a Halocarbon gas system is considered to be the replacement most similar in system design and function to the ‘old’ Halon technology. The most common Halocarbon for this use is FM200, a liquifiable gas, stored in liquid form and only achieving its operating gas state when released at the dispersion point. FM200 requires a relatively limited volume of stored liquid, and is the preferred choice where space is limited.

An Inert Gas System is another alternative. This works by reducing the concentration of Oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that will not sustain combustion (ie below 14%). Unlike Halon and halocarbons, inert gases are stored as high pressure gases and hence require a large number of high-pressure storage cylinders – with implications for space and weight.

Also working on the principle of reducing the Oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is a Carbon Dioxide flooding system. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring gas with zero ozone depletion potential. It is especially effective on deep-seated fires, and is safe for use on electrical equipment.

Another alternative – and one that is a relatively new technology for fire-fighting - is a water mist or fine water spray system. Fine sprays do not conduct electricity in the same way as a solid stream of water, and can therefore be considered for use on live electrical equipment. They can also be used on fire of flammable liquids, but not substances that react violently with water (ie reactive metals). Water mist systems cause no environmental damage, and although they may cause some water damage, this is considerably less than that associated with a sprinkler system.

Supply and demand

John is at great lengths to insist that his warnings are not scaremongering, and that the dangers are very real.

“Research suggests that many businesses are totally ignorant of the forthcoming legislation and/or have done little or nothing about it,” he concludes. “A further concern is that as the deadline for Halon replacement approaches, the demand for suppliers to fit new systems will outstrip supply, leaving a huge number of companies exposed.

“The dangers of leaving the Halon issue until the last minute cannot be underestimated.”

Chubb Halon Hotline – 0800 010106

Halon Users national Consortium – 01730 264040

Also in this Section