Halon and its Replacements - an Environmental Update

David Ball Consultant

Technical Advisor to Kidde International 17 November 1998

Presented By

Bob Glaser Walter Kidde Aerospace

Halon and its Replacements - an Environmental Update

• Montreal Protocol Update– Background– Effect to date– Recent Decisions

• Kyoto Protocol• Implications

Montreal Protocol - Chronology

1985 - Vienna Convention on Protection of the Ozone Layer (Parties: 166 at 1.7.98)

1987 - Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (165)

1990 - London Amendment (II/ ) (122) 1992 - Copenhagen Amendment (IV/ ) (80) 1995 - Vienna Adjustment (VII/ ) 1997 - Montreal Amendment (IX/ ) 1998 - Cairo, November

Montreal Protocol - Effect

• Predicted level of stratospheric chlorine loading

• Model and data presented in Report "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 1994" (Allbritton, Solomon et al)

Stratospheric Chlorine Loadingwithout Montreal Protocol

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Stra

tosp

heric

Chl

orin

eLo

adin

g (p

pt) No Protocol

Montreal Protocol (1987) - Provisions on Halons

• From 1.1.1992, Cap production at 1986 level

Stratospheric Chlorine Loadingwith Montreal Protocol

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Stra

tosp

heric

Chl

orin

eLo

adin

g (p

pt)

No Protocol

Montreal

London Amendments (1990)

• From 1.1.1995, Production halved (II/1)

• From 1.1.2000, Production banned (II/1)

• Possibility of "Essential Use" Production (II/3)

• If ODP>0, "Transitional Substance" with phase out date 2020-2040 (London Resolution)

Stratospheric Chlorine Loadingwith London Amendments

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Stra

tosp

heric

Chl

orin

eLo

adin

g (p

pt)

No Protocol

Montreal

London

Copenhagen Amendments (1992)

• From 1.1.1994, Production banned (IV/2)

• "Essential Use" Criteria defined (IV/25)– Necessary for the health, safety or critical for the

function of society (including cultural/intellectual)

AND

– No available technically and economically feasible alternatives acceptable for environment and health

• "Transitional Substance" phase out date advanced to 2015 (90% reduction) (IV/3)

Stratospheric Chlorine Loadingwith Copenhagen Amendments

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Stra

tosp

heric

Chl

orin

eLo

adin

g (p

pt)

No Protocol

Montreal

London

Copenhagen

Recent Findings on Tropospheric Chlorine Loading

• Montzka et al in Science, May 1996

• First observed decrease in tropospheric loading

• Stratospheric loading lags by 4-5 years

• Consistent with model

Stratospheric Chlorine:What was left for Vienna?

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Stra

tosp

heric

Chl

orin

eLo

adin

g (p

pt)

No Protocol

Montreal

London

Copenhagen

Options at Vienna• Methyl Bromide

– Elimination by 2001 reduces integrated ozone loss over next 50 years by 13%

• Halons– Avoiding release of stored agent reduces

integrated ozone loss over next 50 years by 10%

• HCFCs– Acceleration of phaseout to 2004 reduces

integrated ozone loss over next 50 years by 5%

Vienna Decision VII/12To recommend that all non-Article 5 Parties should endeavour, on a

voluntary basis, to limit the emissions of halon to a minimum by:(a)Accepting as Critical those applications meeting the Essential Use

criteria as defined in Decision IV/25, paragraph I (a);(b)Limiting the use of halons in new installations to Critical Applications;(c)Accepting that existing installations for Critical Applications may

continue to use halon in the future;(d)Considering the decommissioning of halon systems in existing

installations, which are not Critical Applications, as quickly as technically and economically feasible;

(e)Ensuring that halons are effectively recovered;(f) Preventing, whenever feasible, the use of halon in equipment testing

and for training of personnel;(g)Evaluating and taking into account only those substitutes and

replacements of halon, for which no other more environmentally suitable ones are available;

(h)Promoting the environmentally safe destruction of halons, when they are not needed in halon banks (existing or to be created).

Decision VII/12 - Key Points• Voluntarily minimise halon emissions by:• Limiting new halon use to Critical (meeting the

Essential Use criteria) Applications;• Considering decommissioning non-Critical

installations, as quickly as feasible;• Taking into account only replacements for

which no other more environmentally suitable ones are available;

• Promoting the environmentally safe destruction of halons not needed in banks.

Decision VIII/17 - Key Points

[Before extensive destruction of halon]:

• Studies (two) on future availability of halons for critical applications:

• If shortfall, TEAP/HTOC propose action;

• If surplus, TEAP/HTOC provide guidance on disposal or redeployment, bearing in mind needs of Article 5 Parties; identify potential barriers; suggest how to overcome them.

Decision IX/16 - Key Points

• TEAP to examine [again] feasibility of early decommissioning in non-Article 5 Parties of all [non-Critical] halon;

• Destruction or redeployment of stocks;

• Bearing in mind:– Article 5 needs;– efficacy of alternatives;– decommissioning and destruction

experience.

Recent Decisions - Implications

Changes in Political Complexion of the Montreal Protocol:

• Criticality = Use Control

• Pressure to decommission proactively

• Pressure to destroy halon

• Consider other environmental issues

Kyoto Protocol (1)

• Completed 10 December 1997• Carbon dioxide equivalent

emissions from Annex 1 (industrialised) Parties to reduce by 5.2% on average by 2008-2010

• Promised reductions: Europe 8%; USA 7%; Canada and Japan 6%; etc

• "Demonstrable progress" by 2005

Kyoto Protocol (2)• Gases covered: carbon dioxide,

methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride*, hydrofluorocarbons* and perfluorocarbons*

• * option of 1995, not 1990, baseline• Assessment is of total reduction -

no requirements for individual gases• Credit for carbon sinks

Kyoto Protocol (3)

• Emissions trading possible• No targets for developing countries• Credit for non-Annex 1 reductions• Signing 3.98 to 3.99; takes effect 90

days after 55 Parties and 55% of 1990 Annex 1 emissions have signed

• Next Meeting Buenos Aires 11.98

Halon and its Replacements - an Environmental Update

• Montreal Protocol - Political Changes– Use Control– Proactive decommissioning– Pressure to destroy halon

• Kyoto Protocol

Summary: Ozone Depletion Issues: International recognition that ozone 1985

layer protection was needed. Plan to reduce CFC production. CAP @ 1987

1986 Level. Production limit halved & ban date 1990

set @ Y2K. Production ban moved forward 6 yrs. 1992

to 1994. First use limit “Critical Applications 1995

Only”. Destruction of excess recommended.

Summary (cont’d)

Global Warming Issues: International recognition that global 1992 warming gases needed to be limited. Agreement to reduce global warming 1997 gases.

• Including most Halon Alternative Agents.

Conclusions:• Chemical induced environmental damage has led to:

• Continuously Tightened Controls &

• Ever Broadening Scope

• The aviation community as one of the few remaining users of Halons will incur increased political scrutiny and oversight.

• Some Alternative Agents which were OK under the Montreal Protocol are likely to be impacted by KYOTO Protocol in the long term.

Recommendations:• Aviation community needs to proactively limit the use of Halons.

• Replace Halons where possible (in order of doability).

• Lavatory bin• Cabin portables• Engine nacelle• Cargo compartments

• Limit discharges• Minimize testing• Test with surogates• Maintain equipment

Recommendations Cont’d:• Environmental impact must be a key design consideration on future fire suppression applications.

• Design decision rationale should be permanently documented showing the trade off’s considered.

• Halon banking and forecasting of future needs is essential to protect the existing world supply of Halon from destruction.

• Proactive political involvement in environmental rule making is necessary to assure that aviations needs are properly understood and considered.