Halons Technical Options Committee

Eliminating Dependency on Halons: Self-Help Guide for Low Consuming Countries, UNEP DTIE, 1999, ISBN: 92-807-1783-9, www.unep.fr/ozonaction.

Voluntary Code of Practice for the Reduction of Emissions of HFC & PFC Fire Protection Agents, developed and endorsed by FEMA, FSSA, HARC, NAFED, and EPA, March 2002, www.HARC.org.vcopdocument.pdf

Standards and Codes of Practice to Eliminate Dependency on Halons: Handbook of Good Practices in the Halon Sector, UNEP, 2001, United National publication ISBN 92-807-1988-1, http://www.uneptie.org/Ozonaction.

Guidance for the EPA Halon Emissions Reduction Rule (40 CFR Part 82, Subpart H), United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA430-B-01-001, February 2001, www.epa.gov/ozone.

Safety Guide for Decommissioning Halon Systems, Vol. 2 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Outreach Report: Moving Towards a World Without Halon, www.halon.org

Standard Practice for Handling, Transportation, and Storage of Halon 1301, Bromotrifluoromethane (CF₃Br), ASTM D5631-08, ASTM International, 2008.

11.0Destruction

11.1Introduction

Since the end of halon production for fire protection uses in 1994 in non-Article 5 countries, many Parties have used recycled halons to maintain and service existing equipment. This has allowed users to retain their initial equipment investment, allowed halons to retain a comparably higher market value to other ozone depleting substances (ODSs), and has resulted in very little halon being destroyed compared to other ODSs. With the end of halon production for fire protection uses worldwide, global inventory management and responsible disposal practices become important considerations to prevent emissions during a critical period of ozone layer recovery. The options for avoiding emissions of unwanted stockpiles of halons include destruction and transformation (also referred to as conversion) to useful chemical products.

Since the 2006 Assessment, considerable interest has focused on the potential ozone and climate benefits from the avoided emissions of ODS still remaining in equipment, products, and stockpiles. While the Montreal Protocol has been successful in ending production and consumption of ODS worldwide, it does not explicitly control emissions. The fear is that without additional incentives, there could be significant releases of these unwanted ODS from the millions of items of equipment each year that reach the end of their useful life or from stockpiles no longer needed.

ODS also have high global warming potentials (GWPs), and therefore their destruction has the potential to earn carbon credits through global carbon markets, broadly divided into the compliance market and the voluntary market. The compliance market for greenhouse gases (GHGs) is based on a legal requirement where, at an international (e.g., Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)) or national and regional level (e.g., European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)), those participating countries and/or states must demonstrate that they hold the carbon credit equivalents to the amount of GHGs that they have emitted in order to meet their GHG reduction targets or commitments. Presently, the voluntary market operates outside of the compliance market where individual companies or organisations voluntarily commit to actions and projects to offset their GHG emissions.⁴ Currently, only the voluntary carbon market has established standards for ODS destruction as carbon offsets projects. As of February 2010, there are two voluntary standards that recognise and/or have established credits for ODS destruction, but neither provides credits for halon destruction under their protocols. These are discussed further below.

This chapter considers the current issues related to these final options for halon disposal. Since much of the information with regard to halon destruction has remained unchanged since the 2006 HTOC Assessment (e.g., halon destruction technologies, halon transformation/conversion chemistry), some of this information is briefly summarised below and the reader is referred to the 2006 HTOC Assessment for more details.

11.2Destruction Technologies

In their 2002 report, the UNEP Task Force for Destruction Technologies (TFDT) developed screening criteria for technologies for use by Parties to the Protocol to dispose of surplus inventories of ODS. These technologies were assessed on the basis of:

• 
  Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE)
  
• 
  Emissions of dioxins/furans
  
• 
  Emissions of other pollutants (acid gases, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide)
  
• 
  Technical capability
  

Destruction of halons presents some unique considerations. A number of the technologies screened by the TFDT satisfied the criteria for the destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), but had not been tested for halon destruction. The TFDT, therefore, could not recommend such technologies for halon destruction, since the presence of bromine in halons can significantly alter the process parameters. In particular, molecular bromine tends to be formed and is very difficult to remove from the exhaust gases. Technologies that are recommended for CFC and HCFC destruction, but have not been tested for halon destruction, are described as potential technologies for halon destruction.

Based on the TFDT evaluation, 5 technologies were approved by the Parties for destruction of halons:

• 
  Liquid injection incineration
  
• 
  Gaseous/fume oxidation
  
• 
  Rotary kiln incineration
  
• 
  Argon plasma arc
  
• 
  Inductively coupled radio frequency plasma
  

More information on these approved technologies may be found in Chapter 3 of the TFDT report.

11.3Reported Destruction of Halons

Under Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol, Parties are required to report annual destruction of halons. Historically, very little halon has been reported as destroyed, supporting the findings in Chapter 8 of this report showing a significant global inventory of both halon 1301 and halon 1211. As discussed earlier in this report, this situation is attributable to the fact that the demand for halons has largely been met through the availability of substitutes and alternative technologies and to a limited extent halon recycling. Table 11-1 below lists the amounts of halons destroyed and reported under Article 7.

Table 11-1: Article 7 Reporting for Halon Destruction

HALON	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
1211 (MT)	1	0	6.5	0	3.9	1.1	14.2	265	184	84.4	332	307	112	13
1301 (MT)	0	6	3.7	29	50	22	18.5	242	296	29.8	32.9	168	47.7	6.3
2402 (MT)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.1	1.3	0
TOTAL (ODP MT)	3	60	37	290	512	223	227	3218	3514	551	1325	1089	819	102

(UNEP, 2010)