OÜ Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskus
| Registrikood 10057662
| Marja 4d, 10617 Tallinn
| tel 611 2900 | faks 611 2901 |
[email protected] | www.klab.ee
Kaitseministeerium Meie 18. märts 2025 nr. 1-9/71
Sakala 1, 15094 Tallinn
[email protected]
Kriitilised haloonid
Austatud Oliver Tüür
Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskus OÜ pöördub Kliimaministeeriumi ülesandel taas
Kaitseministeeriumi poole, et koondada kokku kaitseotstarbeliste rakenduste haloonikasutuste
andmed ning seekord ka laiemate teemadega (teatud haloonikasutuste lõpetamine).
Haloonid on kõrge osoonikihti kahandava potentsiaaliga ained, mille kasutus on lubatud vaid
erandjuhtumitel (s.h kaitseotstarbel). Haloonide kriitilise tähtsusega kasutusotstarbe nõuded on
kehtestatud kõnealuse määruse 9. artiklis. Haloonide kriitiliste kasutuste tähtajad on kehtestatud
kõnealuse määruse V lisas.
1. Sooviksime teada, kas eelmisel aastal laevadel raporteeritud kriitiliste haloonide
kasutusalad ja kogused on jäänud samaks või on muutunud? Kas maha
monteerimise plaan aastateks 2026-2028. aastaks on jätkuvalt jõus? Kas tankidelt
maha monteerimise plaan 2025. aastaks on jäänud samaks?
2. Mis puudutab Kaitseväe õhusõidukeid, siis oleks samuti vaja uuendatud ülevaadet,
millistel all loetletud kasutusaladel on Eesti Kaitseväe õhusõidukitel kasutusel
haloonid ja milline on haloonide jaotus (tüübiti ja kg-põhiselt):
- Tavaliselt mehitamata lastiruumide kaitseks - paiksed süsteemid
- Kabiinide ja meeskonnaruumide kaitseks - käsitulekustutid
- Mootorigondlite ja abijõuallikate kaitseks - paiksed süsteemid
- Kütusepaakide tuleohutuks muutmiseks - paiksed süsteemid
- Kuivruumide kaitseks - paiksed süsteemid.
Samuti soovime teada, kas 2024. a oli lekkeid ning kui suur on haloonide laovaru.
Ootame vastust hiljemalt 31. maiks 2025.a.
Küsimuste tekkides palume ühendust võtta Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskuse õhukvaliteedi- ja
kliimaosakonna vanemspetsialisti Ene Kriisiga (tel 56635620, e-post
[email protected]).
3. Õhusõidukite kabiinide ja meeskonnaruumide kaitseks kasutavate halooni
käsitulekustutite maha monteerimise tähtaeg.
Juhime tähelepanu, et vastavalt EL-i määruse 2024/590 V lisale on kabiinide ja
meeskonnaruumide kaitseks kasutavate halooni käsitulekustutite maha monteerimise tähtaeg
31. detsember 2025.a.
Lisame kirjale infoks osoonikihti kahandavate ainete Montreali protokolli tuletõrjegaaside
tehniliste valikute komitee viimase aruande, kus saab infot asendusgaaside kohta ka
militaarkasutuseks just selles valdkonnas.
Ühtlasi soovime Teid jätkuvalt informeerida, et Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskus peab
Kliimaministeeriumiülesandel Tallinnas, Suur Sõjamäe 34 Eesti riiklikku osoonikihti
kahandavate ainete ja fluoritud kasvuhoonegaaside käitlemiskeskust, kus hoiustatakse muu
hulgas ka Eesti kriitilisteks kasutusteks mõeldud haloone.
Käitluskeskuse võimaluste kohta saab täpsemalt lugeda veebilehel:
http://www.klab.ee/o3/osooniburoo/kaitluskeskus/. Kui Teie haldusalas peaks tekkima vajadus
haloone või külmaaineid ära anda, puhastada või kriitilisteks kasutusteks asendada, siis võib
julgesti meie käitluskeskuse poole pöörduda (Kontakt: Tõnu Reintamm, tel 58559947,
[email protected]).
Samuti võib Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskuse poole julgesti pöörduda erinevates
külmutusseadmete ja tulekustutusega seotud küsimustes – nõustame kehtivate keskkonnanõuete
osas Kliimaministeeriumiga sõlmitud lepingu alusel.
Edaspidist head koostööd soovides
Lugupidamisega
(allkirjastatud digitaalselt)
Margus Kört
Juhatuse esimees
Tel 6112900
Ene Kriis 372 56635620
[email protected]
Lisa: Montreali protokolli tuletõrjegaaside tehniliste valikute komitee viimane aruanne (2022)
i
UNEP
REPORT OF THE FIRE SUPPRESSION TECHNICAL OPTIONS
COMMITTEE*
DECEMBER 2022
2022 ASSESSMENT REPORT
* Formerly known as the Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC)
iii
Montreal Protocol
On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
Report of the
UNEP Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee
December 2022
Volume 1
2022 ASSESSMENT REPORT
The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman
Co-ordination: Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee
Composition of the report: Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee
Reproduction: UNEP Ozone Secretariat
Date: December 2022
Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from:
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya
This document is also available in portable document format from the UNEP Ozone
Secretariat's website:
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with
acknowledgement of the source of the material.
ISBN: 978-9914-733-96-9
iv
Disclaimer
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committees Co-
chairs and members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, and the companies and
organizations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or
environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial
operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and
waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation - more
information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements will
become available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.
UNEP, the TEAP Co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committees Co-chairs and
members, and the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing this
information, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with
respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind
whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure
contained herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety,
environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information.
Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes
only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product,
either express or implied by UNEP, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Co-chairs
or members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee Co-chairs or members, the TEAP
Task Forces Co-chairs or members or the companies or organizations that employ them.
Acknowledgements
The UNEP Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee (FSTOC) acknowledges with
thanks the outstanding contributions from all individuals and organizations that provided
technical support to Committee members.
The opinions expressed are those of the Committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of
any sponsoring or supporting organizations.
The following persons were instrumental in preparing this report:
Co-chairs
Adam Chattaway Collins Aerospace UK
All Russian Research Institute for Fire Russian
Dr. Sergey Kopylov
Protection Federation
Dr. Daniel P. Verdonik Jensen Hughes, Inc. US
Members
Mohammed Jane Alam Jahnabad Trading Bangladesh
Jamal Alfuzaie Consultant - retired Kuwait
FMV (Swedish Defence Materiel
Johan Åqvist Sweden
Administration)
Youri Auroque European Aviation Safety Agency France
Dr. Michelle M. Collins Consultant- EECO International US
Khaled Effat A.
Modern Systems Engineering - MSE Egypt
Mohamed
Carlos Grandi Independent Consultant Brazil
Laura Green Hilcorp US
Elvira Nigido A-Gas Australia Australia
Emma Palumbo Safety Hi-tech Europe srl Italy
Erik Pedersen Consultant – World Bank Denmark
Dr. R.P. Singh Institute of Defence Scientist and Technologist India
Donald Thomson MOPIA Canada
Nohmi Bosai Ltd & Fire and Environment
Mitsuru Yagi Japan
Prot. Network
Consulting Experts
Clare Bowens The Gas Xchange UK
Sidney de Brito Embraer Brazil
Thomas Cortina Halon Alternatives Research Corporation US
Joshua Fritsch US Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center US
Nohmi Bosai Ltd & Fire and Environment
Matsuo Ishiyama Japan
Prot. Network
All Russian Research Institute for Fire Russian
Nikolai Kopylov
Protection Federation
U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center
Steve McCormick US
Huntington Ingalls Industries
John G. Owens 3M Company US
John J. O’Sullivan Bureau Veritas UK
Mark L. Robin Chemours US
Joseph A. Senecal FireMetrics LLC US
Peer Reviewers
The Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee also acknowledges with thanks the
following peer reviewers who took time from their busy schedules to review the draft of this
report and provided constructive comments. At the sole discretion of the Fire Suppression
Technical Options Committee, these comments may or may not have been accepted and
incorporated into the report. Therefore, listing of the Peer Reviewers should not be taken as an
indication that any reviewer endorses the content of the report, which remains solely the
opinion of the members of the Committee. The Peer Reviewers for the 2022 Assessment report
are listed below.
Dr. Ian Campbell Parker-Meggitt US
John Demeter Wesco US
Alan Elder Johnson Controls UK
Jeff Gibson American Pacific US
US Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center
Dr. Steve Hodges US
Huntington Ingalls Industries
Brendan Karchere ConocoPhilips US
Michael Kiamanesh Waysmos US
Alistair Manning UK Met Office UK
George McEachen Boeing US
Thibault Pelletier Airbus France
Fred Penden Carrier US
Bill Polits A-Gas US
Al Thornton Chemours US
Bristol University
Luke Western UK
Global Monitoring Lab, NOAA
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Renaming of the Halons Technical Options Committee as the Fire Suppression
Technical Options Committee........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Alternate Refrigerants and their Potential Flammability (Chapter 2) ............................... 1
1.3 Impact of Existing and Possible Future Regulations on the Fire Protection Sector
(Chapter 3) ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs, and HFCs (Chapter 4) ................................................... 2
1.5 Enduring Uses of Halons, HCFCs and HFCs (Chapter 5) ................................................ 3
1.5.1 Section 5.1 – Civil Aviation .................................................................................. 3
1.5.2 Section 5.2 – Military Uses................................................................................... 3
1.5.3 Section 5.3 – Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Pipeline.................... 4
1.6 Global Emissions and Banking (Chapter 6)...................................................................... 4
1.6.1 Halon 1301 ............................................................................................................ 4
1.6.2 Halon 1211 ............................................................................................................ 5
1.6.3 Halon 2402 ............................................................................................................ 5
1.6.4 HFCs 6
1.6.5 Global Halon, HCFC, and HFC Banking (Agent Management) .......................... 7
1.7 Emission Reduction Strategies and Banking (Chapter 7) ................................................. 7
1.8 Destruction (Chapter 8)..................................................................................................... 8
1.9 Alternatives to HFCs (Chapter 9) ..................................................................................... 8
1.10 References ......................................................................................................................... 9
2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Renaming of the Halons Technical Options Committee as the Fire Suppression
Technical Options Committee......................................................................................... 11
2.2 Changes Following the 2018 Assessment Report ........................................................... 11
2.3 Safety Information .......................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Hazard of Pressurized Cylinders ......................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Toxicological Hazards / Asphyxia ...................................................................... 12
2.3.3 Acid Gas Decomposition Products ..................................................................... 13
2.4 Alternate Refrigerants and their Potential Flammability ................................................ 13
2.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Refrigerant Toxicity ............................................................................................ 14
2.4.3 Refrigerant Flammability Classifications Using ASTM Standard E 681. .......... 14
2.4.4 Concerns over Flammability ............................................................................... 15
2.4.5 New Standards or Tests under Development ...................................................... 15
2.5 References ....................................................................................................................... 15
3 Impact of Existing and Possible Future Regulations on the Fire Protection Sector
......................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Kigali Amendment / HFC Phasedown ............................................................................ 17
3.1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 17
3.1.2 HFC Phasedown Regulations ............................................................................. 19
3.1.3 Impact on Fire Protection.................................................................................... 19
3.2 Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) ................................................. 20
3.2.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 20
3.2.2 EU REACH......................................................................................................... 21
3.2.3 UK REACH ........................................................................................................ 21
3.2.4 Impact on Fire Protection.................................................................................... 21
3.3 Halon Regulations........................................................................................................... 22
3.3.1 European Union .................................................................................................. 22
3.4 Aviation Halon Regulations ............................................................................................ 23
3.4.1 European Union .................................................................................................. 24
3.5 Transboundary Shipments of ODS and HFCs ................................................................ 24
3.6 Carbon Markets............................................................................................................... 25
3.6.1 HFC Recycling.................................................................................................... 25
3.6.2 Halon Destruction ............................................................................................... 25
3.7 References ....................................................................................................................... 26
4 Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs, and HFCs ..................................... 29
4.1 Halons 29
4.1.1 The Success of Halons in Fixed Systems ........................................................... 29
4.2 New Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 29
4.3 Initial Substitutes in the Former Halon Sector ................................................................ 30
4.3.1 General 30
4.3.2 Alternatives in General Use ................................................................................ 30
4.3.3 Agent Alternatives for Fixed Systems ................................................................ 31
4.3.4 Recent Developments since the 2018 Assessment Report .................................. 36
4.3.5 Paths Forward ..................................................................................................... 37
4.3.6 Water Mist ........................................................................................................... 37
4.3.7 Aerosol Extinguishing Agents ............................................................................ 39
4.3.8 Agent Alternatives in Portable (Handheld) Extinguishers .................................. 39
4.3.9 References ........................................................................................................... 41
5 Enduring Uses of Halon, HCFCs, and High-GWP HFCs ......................................... 43
5.1 Civil Aviation .................................................................................................................. 43
5.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 43
5.1.2 Relevant Decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol ............................... 43
5.1.3 Estimated Halon Usage and Emissions............................................................... 44
5.1.4 Halon Banks ........................................................................................................ 50
5.1.5 Status of Halon Replacement Options for Aviation ............................................ 51
5.1.5.4 Industry 55
5.1.6 Crash Rescue Vehicles ........................................................................................ 57
5.1.7 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 58
5.1.8 References ........................................................................................................... 58
5.2 Military Applications ...................................................................................................... 60
5.2.1 Overview 60
5.2.2 Military Ground Vehicle Applications ................................................................ 63
5.2.3 Military Aviation Applications ............................................................................ 67
5.2.4 Military Naval Applications ................................................................................ 68
5.2.5 Summary 69
5.2.6 References ........................................................................................................... 69
5.3 Pipelines / Oil and Gas.................................................................................................... 70
5.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 70
5.3.2 Existing Facilities................................................................................................ 72
5.3.3 Offshore Facility Considerations ........................................................................ 72
5.3.4 Article 5 Party Considerations ............................................................................ 73
5.3.5 New Facilities ..................................................................................................... 73
5.3.6 Emerging Regulatory Impacts ............................................................................ 74
5.4 Telecommunications and Computer Rooms (Electronics) ............................................. 74
5.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 74
5.4.2 Data by Region ................................................................................................... 75
5.4.3 Nuclear Power Plants .......................................................................................... 79
5.4.4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 82
5.4.5 References ........................................................................................................... 82
5.5 Shipbreaking ................................................................................................................... 82
5.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 82
5.5.2 Update from the 2018 report ............................................................................... 84
5.5.3 References ........................................................................................................... 88
6 Global Estimates of Halons and HFC Fire Extinguishing Agent Quantities .......... 89
6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 89
6.2 Emissions and Inventories of Halons .............................................................................. 90
6.2.1 Halon 1301 .......................................................................................................... 90
6.2.2 Halon 1211 ........................................................................................................ 102
6.2.3 Halon 2402 ........................................................................................................ 114
6.3 HCFC Estimates ........................................................................................................... 126
6.4 HFC Estimates .............................................................................................................. 126
6.4.1 HFC-227ea Estimates ....................................................................................... 126
6.4.2 HFC-125 Estimates ........................................................................................... 129
6.4.3 HFC-23 Estimates ............................................................................................. 130
6.4.4 HFC-236fa Estimates ........................................................................................ 130
6.4.5 References: ........................................................................................................ 130
6.5 Global Halon, HCFC, and HFC Banking (Agent Management) .................................. 132
6.5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 132
6.5.2 Pathway to Halons, HCFC, and HFC Management and Banking .................... 132
6.5.3 Agent Recycling Considerations....................................................................... 134
6.5.4 Current Situation in Global Banking ................................................................ 137
6.5.5 HCFC and HFC Banking .................................................................................. 138
6.5.6 Halon 1301 and 1211 Banking.......................................................................... 143
6.5.7 Halon 2402 Banking ......................................................................................... 151
6.5.8 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 155
6.5.9 References ......................................................................................................... 155
7 Emission Reduction and Recycling Strategies for Halons and Other Halogenated
Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents ....................................................................................... 157
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 157
7.2 Alternative Fire Protection Strategies ........................................................................... 157
7.3 Halogenated Fire Extinguishant Use Minimization ...................................................... 158
7.4 Maintenance Programmes ............................................................................................. 158
7.4.1 Personnel Training ............................................................................................ 159
7.4.2 Risk Management and Best Practices ............................................................... 160
7.4.3 Hazard and Enclosure Review .......................................................................... 160
7.5 Detection and Releasing Systems ................................................................................. 160
7.6 Agent Transfer and Storage .......................................................................................... 160
7.7 Minimizing Discharge of Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Agents ................. 162
7.8 Recommended Practices for Recycling Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire
Extinguishing Agents .................................................................................................... 162
7.8.1 Standard Methods for Treatment of Halons and Other Gaseous Halogenated Fire
Extinguishing Agents ......................................................................................................... 162
7.8.2 Specifications for Agent Treatment, Testing and Certification ......................... 163
7.8.3 Agent Contamination ........................................................................................ 163
7.8.4 Firefighting Efficiency ...................................................................................... 164
7.8.5 Agent Contamination Mitigation Strategies ..................................................... 164
7.9 Policies, Awareness Campaigns, and Codes of Practice ............................................... 165
7.9.1 Policies, Regulations, and Enforcement ........................................................... 165
7.9.2 Carbon Markets................................................................................................. 167
7.9.3 Awareness Campaigns ...................................................................................... 167
7.9.4 Standards and Codes of Practice ....................................................................... 168
7.10 Decommissioning, Transportation, and Destruction..................................................... 169
7.11 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 170
7.12 References ..................................................................................................................... 171
8 Destruction................................................................................................................... 173
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 173
8.2 Recent Developments ................................................................................................... 173
8.3 Approved Destruction Technologies ............................................................................. 174
8.4 Transport of ODS, HCFCs, and HFCs for Destruction ................................................ 178
8.5 References ..................................................................................................................... 178
9 Alternatives to HFCs .................................................................................................. 179
9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 179
9.1.1 Evolution of Fire Protection Approaches .......................................................... 179
9.1.2 FSTOC Interpretation of Criteria Listed in Decision XXVI/9 Paragraph 1(a) . 180
9.2 Sectors and Applications Where HFCs are Used .......................................................... 182
9.3 Where Can Alternatives to HFCs be Used? .................................................................. 183
9.3.1 Civil Aviation .................................................................................................... 183
9.3.2 Military Ground Vehicles .................................................................................. 186
9.3.3 Military Naval Applications .............................................................................. 188
9.3.4 Military Aviation Applications .......................................................................... 190
9.3.5 Oil and Gas ....................................................................................................... 191
9.3.6 General Industrial Fire Protection ..................................................................... 193
9.3.7 Merchant Shipping ............................................................................................ 194
9.4 Effect of Proposed PFAS Regulations on Alternatives to HFCs in Fire Protection ..... 195
9.4.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 195
9.4.2 Implications for Alternatives to HFCs in Fire Protection ................................. 195
9.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 196
9.6 References ..................................................................................................................... 198
Appendix A: List of Acronyms............................................................................................... 199
Appendix B: Definitions ......................................................................................................... 204
Appendix C: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2021 for
Halon 1301 ............................................................................................................................... 211
Appendix D: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2021 for
Halon 1211 ............................................................................................................................... 223
Appendix E: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2021 for
Halon 2402 ............................................................................................................................... 235
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Phase Out Dates in EC Reg. 1005/2009 Annex VI .................................................... 22
Table 3.2: Comparison of EU and ICAO Halon Replacement Requirements ............................ 24
Table 4.1: Minimum Agent Design Concentration and Agent Quantity for Surface Class A Fire
Applications (at 20°C) ................................................................................................................ 33
Table 4.2: Historical Positives and Negatives of Alternative Agents for Systems .................... 34
Table 4.3: Fire Extinguishing Data for HB-55............................................................................ 36
Table 4.4:Toxicological and Environmental Properties of HB-55 .............................................. 36
Table 4.5: Attributes of Water Mist ............................................................................................. 37
Table 5.1: Worldwide Halon 1301 Bank as of the End of 2022 (tonnes) ................................... 47
Table 5.2: Assumptions and Results for Eight Drawing Down Halon 1301 Scenarios .............. 47
Table 5.3: Options for Portable (Handheld) Extinguishers for Aircraft Use .............................. 53
Table 5.4: Equivalent Concentrations for CF3I, FK-5-1-12, HFC-125, and CO2 for Aircraft
Engine Nacelles .......................................................................................................................... 54
Table 5.5: Phase-Out Dates for Military Applications within EU .............................................. 62
Table 5.6: Select Crew Casualty Criteria .................................................................................... 65
Table 5.7: Swedish Key Elements of Crew Casualty Criteria .................................................... 66
Table 5.8: Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Industry Fire Protection, Agents Use by
Application.................................................................................................................................. 71
Table 5.9: HFC Consumption by Tonnes in Egypt1.2 .................................................................. 77
Table 5.10: HFC expected consumption by Tonnes in Egypt ..................................................... 78
Table 5.11: HFC Expected Market Volume by Sector in Tonnes1,2,3 .................................... 78
Table 5.12: Installed and Reserve Halon 1301 in Seven NPPs in the US. ................................. 81
Table 5.13: Halon 1301 Charge Sizes for Passenger Ships and Tankers (ICF, 2015) ................ 83
Table 5.14: Halon 1301 Recovered from Shipbreaking in 2021 from Bangladesh .................... 84
Table 5.15: Global Shipbreaking Statistics, 2021 ....................................................................... 86
Table 6.1: FSTOC Halon 1301 Model Summary (in metric tonnes) .......................................... 93
Table 6.2: Halon 1301 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes .............................................. 96
Table 6.3: FSTOC Halon 1211 Model Summary (in metric tonnes) ........................................ 105
Table 6.4: Halon 1211 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes ............................................ 108
Table 6.5: FSTOC Halon 2402 Model Summary, in Metric Tonnes ........................................ 116
Table 6.6: Halon 2402 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes ....................................... 119
Table 6.7: Amount of Halon Alternatives in Installed Systems (Measured by the Fire and
Environment Protection Network) ............................................................................................ 141
Table 6.8: Cumulative Production of Halons in India .............................................................. 146
Table 6.9: Quantities of Halon by Sector in Italy in 2020 ........................................................ 147
Table 6.10: Total quantities of halons in fixed systems and portable extinguishers in Italy
................................................................................................................................................... 147
Table 6.11: Amount of Halons in Installed Systems in Japan in Metric Tonnes1,2,3,4 ............... 149
Table 8.1: List of Technologies Approved and Subject to Review that are Either Not Approved,
Not Determined, Based on Annex II, MOP-30 ........................................................................ 176
Table 9.1: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Fire Protection ............................................ 183
Table 9.2: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Engine Nacelle and APU ............................ 184
Table 9.3: Summary of “In-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Lavatory Waste Receptacles ....... 185
Table 9.4: Summary of “Not-in-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Lavatory Waste Receptables 185
Table 9.5: Summary of “In-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Crew Compartments ................... 186
Table 9.6: Summary of “Not-in-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Crew Compartments............ 187
Table 9.7: Summary of “In-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Non-occupied Compartments ..... 187
Table 9.8: Summary of “Not-in-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Non-occupied Compartments
................................................................................................................................................... 188
Table 9.9: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Machinery and Other Unoccupied Spaces.. 190
Table 9.10: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Computer and Control Rooms .................. 191
Table 9.11: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Hydrocarbon Production ........................... 192
Table 9.12: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Normally Occupied Spaces ...................... 193
Table 9.13: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Non-occupied Spaces ............................... 194
Table 9.14: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Fire Protection .......................................... 197
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Refrigerant Classification According to ASHRAE Standard 34 .............................. 14
Figure 3.1: HFC Phasedown following the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol – (a)
Article 5 parties and (b) non-Article 5 parties ................................................................ 18
Figure 4.1: Approximate Global Market Share by System Type ................................................ 32
Figure 5.1: Halon 1301 Supply and Demand.............................................................................. 45
Figure 5.2: Supply and emissions sources for the aviation industry........................................... 46
Figure 5.3: Estimated Halon 1301 Run-out Date (Scenario 1, 1.4% Global Emission Rate) ... 48
Figure 5.4: Estimated Halon 1301 Run-out Date (Scenario 4, 4.4% Global Emission Rate) ... 49
Figure 5.5: Estimated Halon 1301 Run-out Date (Scenario 6, 2% Global Emission Rate) ...... 49
Figure 5.6: Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Aviation. Source: Flightradar24 ...... 50
Figure 5.7: Fire Protection Agents in Telecommunications and Computer Rooms in Japan, .... 76
Figure 5.8: Approximate Market Share in Egypt by System Cost in 2020................................. 76
Figure 5.9: Approximate HFC-227ea Market Share in Egypt by Sector in 2020 ....................... 77
Figure 5.10: Egyptian Market Share: HFCs vs. Alternatives1,2,3.............................................. 79
Figure 5.11: Total Residual Amount of Halon 1301 Remaining in Service, ICF (2015) ........... 84
Figure 5.12: Comparison of Amounts of Halon 1301 installed with FSTOC Estimates in 2018
Assessment Report .......................................................................................................... 86
Figure 5.13: Number of Ships Broken in 2021, by Country....................................................... 87
Figure 5.14: Gross Tonnage of Ships Broken in 2021, by Country ............................................ 87
Figure 6.1: Forecast of Regional Distribution of Halon 1301 Bank from the FSTOC Model ... 94
Figure 6.2: Comparison of Global Halon 1301 Emissions from Updated Vollmer et al., (2016)
and the FSTOC Model .................................................................................................... 95
Figure 6.3: Forecast of Regional Distribution of the Halon 1211 Bank from the FSTOC Model
106
Figure 6.4: Comparison of Halon 1211 Emissions from 1Sigma of Updated Vollmer et al.,
(2016) and the FSTOC Model ...................................................................................... 107
Figure 6.5: Forecast of Regional Distribution of the Halon 2402 bank from the FSTOC Model
117
Figure 6.6: Comparison of Halon 2402 Emissions from 1 Sigma of Updated Vollmer et al.,
(2016) and the FSTOC Model ...................................................................................... 118
Figure 6.7: Comparison of HFC-227ea Emissions from SAP Ozone Assessment Report (2022)
and the FSTOC Model .................................................................................................. 128
Figure 6.8:Distribution of Installed Fire Suppression Systems in Russia ................................ 142
Figure 9.1: Estimated Trend in Fire Protection Systems Installed............................................ 180
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Renaming of the Halons Technical Options Committee as the Fire Suppression
Technical Options Committee
The Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) role has broadened over the years. Its initial
focus was solely on halons and their alternatives. Over time, the HTOC also focused on
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) agents and their alternatives and more recently on
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and their alternatives. As a result, the expertise of the HTOC was much
wider than just considering alternatives to halons.
Another aspect of this broader role is that of safety aspects beyond general agent toxicity and fire
protection systems, both in terms of the high pressures of fire protections system cylinders and the
increasing use of flammable refrigerants, as HFCs are phased down in the refrigeration, air-
conditioning, and heat pump sector, as outlined in section 2.3.
In the light of this, in November 2022, the parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted Decision
XXXIV/11, which inter alia, renamed the Halons Technical Options Committee as the Fire
Suppression Technical Options Committee (FSTOC). This change was welcomed by the committee.
For this report, all references to the committee’s current and past work, actions, and opinions are
referred to as the FSTOC. All references to the previous reports are referred to as the HTOC.
1.2 Alternate Refrigerants and their Potential Flammability (Chapter 2)
The FSTOC continues to express concern with expanded use of alternative refrigerants owing to
their potential flammability and yet-to-be-determined effects on firefighting systems (e.g., agent
effectiveness, by-products generated, etc.). In addition to industry standard tests for measuring
flame propagation (e.g., the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34 and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Standard 817), new methods are being developed to address these concerns. These issues are of
particular concern to the military sector or other applications that may be subject to extreme
environments.
1.3 Impact of Existing and Possible Future Regulations on the Fire Protection Sector
(Chapter 3)
HFC phasedown regulations in non-Article 5 parties are having a bigger impact on the cost and
availability of HFC fire suppressants than initially anticipated by the FSTOC. It is the FSTOC’s
experience that HFCs contained in fire protection equipment have historically enjoyed a relatively
high level of recycling and reuse. As the supply of newly produced HFCs for fire protection
decreases in response to phasedown regulations, recycling becomes even more important as an
alternative source of supply and is likely to increase in the future.
Commercially used fire suppression agents such as HFCs, fluoroketone (FK)-5-1-12, and
3,3,3-trifluoro-2-bromo-propene (2-BTP) are now classified as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
and European Union (EU) definitions. Five European countries are preparing a proposal for a
Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) restriction that
could prohibit the manufacture, import, sale and use of PFAS and products containing PFAS at
Page 1 of 241
some future date. Restricting or prohibiting the sale or use of these agents could have significant
impacts on the ability of users to effectively protect a range of hazards from fire and explosion. On
December 20, 2022, 3M Corporation announced that it will cease manufacture of all PFAS by the
end of 2025, 3M (2022). This includes the fire suppressant FK-5-1-12. The FSTOC will continue
to monitor this situation.
The misapplication of the Basel Convention continues to provide a significant challenge in relation
to accessing facilities capable of reclaiming or destroying Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) and
HFCs from an international movement perspective, especially for countries without reclamation
facilities.
In the 2018 Assessment report, the FSTOC was of the opinion that the initial 10% reduction in HFC
production would not have a significant impact on the fire protection sector. In contrast, for
example, what we have seen in the United States of America (US) is that there has already been
significant impact on the cost of HFCs. The FSTOC believes this is for the following reasons:
• HFCs used for fire extinguishing are high-GWP,
• the allocation mechanism in the US is GWP-weighted,
• market factors mean that producers and importers have to decide which HFCs to
manufacture or import, based on their GWP and future market needs.
The combined effect of these factors means that the HFC phasedown in the US is having a large
effect on the production and consumption of HFC fire extinguishants. The US HFC phasedown
began on January 1, 2022, and it has already had a significant impact on the pricing of HFCs for fire
protection.
In the EU, the European F-gas Regulation has a much greater level of quota reduction and for the
period 2021-2023, the reduction is 55% of the 2015 baseline. A 2020 report by the European
Environment Agency (EEA) estimates the total supply of newly-produced HFCs (production and
consumption) for fire protection in the EU has decreased by over 90% since the phasedown began
in 2015, EEA (2020). It appears that the use of HFCs in the EU has been replaced in part by
FK-5-1-12 and inert gases.
In Japan, the use of HFCs for fire protection has been gradually decreasing in response to adoption
of the Kigali Amendment and other efforts to prevent global warming. The amount of HFCs newly
installed for fire protection in 2021 in Japan is about 30% of the most installed year, 2012.
The FSTOC anticipates additional impacts to the fire protection sector as the Kigali amendment
phasedown continues and begins to impact additional regions and parties. This could reduce
commercial viability of production of some HFC fire extinguishing agents in the future. This has
implications for HFC banking to support enduring uses.
1.4 Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs, and HFCs (Chapter 4)
A new agent, Halocarbon Blend 55 (a 50/50 weight% blend of FK-5-1-12 and hydrochlorofluoro-
olefin (HCFO)-1233zd(E)), was added to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) list. It was adopted into National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 2001, NFPA (2022) as “HB-55,” and in the International Standard ISO
14520-17, ISO (2022) designated as “Halocarbon Blend 55.”
Page 2 of 241
As a result of the HFC phasedown, the market share of both inert gas (IG) and FK systems is
growing at the expense of HFC systems in total flooding fire extinguishing systems.
For portable extinguishers, no new agents have been developed to commercialization since 2018.
There are still two in-kind alternatives to halons, HCFCs, and HFCs, namely FK-5-1-12, and
2-BTP. In some circumstances carbon dioxide (CO2) can be used.
In the US only, 2-BTP is currently approved for use by the US EPA only in handheld extinguishers,
and engine nacelle and APUs on aircraft, EPA (2016). In July 2022, the EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which would widen allowable non-residential uses, EPA (2022).
There were no adverse comments to the NPRM related to 2-BTP.
On December 20, 2022, 3M corporation announced that it will cease manufacture of all PFAS by
the end of 2025, 3M (2022). The FSTOC has been informed that this includes the fire suppressant
FK-5-1-12. The FSTOC will continue to monitor this situation.
1.5 Enduring Uses of Halons, HCFCs and HFCs (Chapter 5)
1.5.1 Section 5.1 – Civil Aviation
Civil aviation emissions of halon 1301 are thought to be a significant part of global emissions.
Owing to the COVID-19 Pandemic there was a 60% decrease in civil aviation flight hours in 2020.
However, emissions of halon 1301 did not go down at all, suggesting most aviation emissions are
not occurring during flight operations. The FSTOC continues to liaise with the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other aviation stakeholders to better understand the sources of
emissions and identify opportunities to reduce them. As part of this, the Halon Recycling
Corporation has produced a best practice guidance document on reducing emissions and ensuring
quality during servicing of aviation fire extinguishers, HRC (2022).
The FSTOC has identified several issues affecting the availability and quality of recovered halons
from all fire protection sectors, but especially from the civil aviation sector. This has been reported
in the last two HTOC progress reports and the situation may be getting worse.
As a response to Decision XXX/7, the run-out date for halon 1301 has been re-evaluated, using the
latest estimated size of the halon 1301 bank. Depending on the modelling scenario, the run-out
dates are estimated to be in the range of 2030 to 2049, compared with 2032 to 2054, as detailed in
the 2018 Assessment report.
1.5.2 Section 5.2 – Military Uses
Many commercially available extinguishing agents have been assessed against the range of unique
military fire protection requirements. In summary:
• Alternatives to halons have been adopted in military applications where they have been
found to be technically and economically feasible.
• For new designs, there are many instances where the original halon or high-Global Warming
Potential (GWP) HFC is the only solution that will meet stringent design requirements
associated with military applications and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
• The military sector does not represent a large enough market segment to influence chemical
manufacturers to continue production of required HFCs or investigate new alternatives.
Page 3 of 241
• It is not believed that any new chemicals, beyond that noted in section 1.3 above, will be
commercially available for the military to evaluate as viable replacements in the foreseeable
future.
1.5.3 Section 5.3 – Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Pipeline
Enduring uses of halon 1301 and halon 2402 systems in the hydrocarbon production and
transportation pipeline sector are mainly associated with existing facilities with explosion
prevention (inerting) and fire protection (suppression) requirements in inhospitable locations with
harsh climatic conditions such as the Alaskan North Slope in the US, the North Sea in Europe,
Eastern Europe, and the Russian Federation.
• Alternatives to halons and HFC have been adopted where they have been found to be
technically and economically feasible.
• There are instances where the original halon or high-GWP HFCs are the only solutions that
will meet hazard management requirements and will continue to be so for the foreseeable
future.
• This sector does not represent a large enough market segment to influence chemical
manufacturers to continue production of required HFCs or to investigate new alternatives.
• It is not believed that any new chemicals, beyond that noted in section 3 above, will be
commercially available for evalution in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, existing facilities will likely remain protected by halon or HFCs resulting in enduring
uses of halons, HFC-23 and HFC-227ea throughout the facility lifetime.
1.6 Global Emissions and Banking (Chapter 6)
There are two independent methods to estimate emissions of halon 1301: 1) the FSTOC model
which takes account of the total amount of recorded production, allows for production losses,
destruction, and emissions from the bank and 2) emissions estimates derived from atmospheric
concentration measurements, in this case measured by the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases
Experiment (AGAGE) network. Historically the agreement between these completely independent
methods has been remarkably good for halons 1301 and 1211. However, since 2010, the emissions
derived from atmospheric measurements have been consistently higher for halons 1301 and 1211
than those estimated by the FSTOC model.
1.6.1 Halon 1301
The FSTOC halon 1301 model emissions compare well with the annual mean emissions derived
from mixing ratios (atmospheric concentrations) from the latest data using the methodology of
Vollmer et al. (2016) (hereafter referred to Vollmer) until about 1998 where the FSTOC model
emissions are generally lower than the mean. FSTOC estimates generally fall within +/-1 sigma
uncertainty of the mean except for 2011 – 2012, where the FSTOC model estimates are slightly
lower than the -1 sigma value.
Differences are seen during the periods of increasing and decreasing emissions from 1999-2000,
2010-2016 and 2018-2021, instead of the decay pattern expected from emissions from a finite
global bank. A potential source could have been from fire protection systems from shipbreaking
Page 4 of 241
activities, but that is not anticipated in recent years as recovered halon 1301 has a significant market
value and it is reported that halon is currently handled carefully during shipbreaking. Another
possible source for these emissions could be from halon 1301 production and use as a feedstock for
the pesticide Fipronil and several other chemicals, whose emissions would not be accounted for in
the FSTOC model but would be included in the Vollmer estimates. However, the amount of halon
1301 that is from feedstock production and use would need to be at the higher end of the Medical
and Chemicals (MC)TOC-estimated emissions of 7.5%. The FSTOC is seeking additional
information on halon 1301 feedstock production, use, and emissions to better understand if the
higher levels of emissions can be attributed primarily to feedstock use versus from the fire
protection bank.
Using mean emission estimates from Vollmer provides a global bank estimate range of 26,250 –
27,500 metric tonnes compared to 35,000 metric tonnes for the FSTOC model. This difference is
becoming significant as the amount of halon that is available to support enduring fire protection
uses becomes smaller over time. The Vollmer data also provide a much higher mean annual
emission rate for 2021 of nearly 5.5% of a 26,500 metric tonne bank. This is more than double the
approximately 2.25% composite rate from the FSTOC model and much higher than the 2%+/-1%
rate developed by Verdonik and Robin (2004). The combination of a potential higher emission rate
than generated by the FSTOC model and a smaller bank of halon 1301 could also imply that there is
going to be a significant reduction in available halon 1301 to support ongoing needs in civil
aviation, oil and gas, militaries, etc., which could result in a much earlier run-out date.
1.6.2 Halon 1211
The FSTOC projected regional distribution of the global bank of halon 1211 shows that at the end
of 2022, almost 80% of the estimated 20,500 metric tonnes is equally divided between the North
America region and the Western Europe and Australia region with about 20% estimated to remain in
Article 5 parties. The estimate for Article 5 parties is significantly lower than projected in the 2010
Assessment, which is a reflection of FSTOC concerns with halon 1211 bank management. This
trend continues with lower emissions rates expected in the North America region and the Western
Europe and Australia region resulting in these regions containing over 90% of the global bank in the
next 20 years.
Both the mean and +1 sigma uncertainty emissions from Vollmer are higher than the cumulative
production reported to the FSTOC meaning that the bank would be completely exhausted. However,
the bank cannot be exhausted as there are still emissions in Northwest Europe being measured and
halon 1211 is still widely used on civil aircraft. This suggests that either more halon 1211 has been
produced than reported to the FSTOC (and thus more emissions) and/or the emissions are at the
lower end of the Vollmer estimates.
1.6.3 Halon 2402
The FSTOC model emission rates as a function of the size of the bank have been updated for this
assessment. The current model aligns the emission rates for 2402 with those currently used for
halon 1301, with the exception of Japan, which uses the same emission factors as for North
America. The FSTOC estimates that the majority of halon 2402 remains in the former Countries
with Economies in Transition (CEITs), but also with significant quantities remaining in Europe.
Page 5 of 241
The FSTOC model estimate of emissions is generally higher than the mean estimate of emissions
from the updated Vollmer data from about 1980 until 2020 and near or above the +1 sigma
uncertainty until 2018. The Vollmer data show increasing emissions from 2016 – 2021, with the
FSTOC estimate going below the mean but staying within +/-1 sigma uncertainty. This increase
would not be expected from an average emission rate of the bank unless something has changed. It
has been reported to the FSTOC that there is a major decommissioning programme underway in
Vladivostok, Russia that could account for an increase in emissions. As emissions would be
expected to be kept to a minimum, but not totally avoidable, the level of increase in emissions
suggests that this effort involves a sizeable amount of decommissioning. It is presumed that this
recovered halon 2402 will remain in the global bank to support enduring uses of halon 2402.
Vollmer emissions estimates provide a mean bank range of 15,500–- 19,500 metric tonnes. This is
compared with the FSTOC model estimate of a remaining bank of 13,000 metric tonnes. It should
be noted that the FSTOC model does not include emissions from the reported use of halon 2402 as a
process agent which would place the FSTOC model emissions and bank estimate within the range
of uncertainty of the estimates using the Vollmer data.
1.6.4 HFCs
Unlike halons, the majority of which were exclusively used for fire protection, HFC-227ea is also
used in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) and in foam blowing. Therefore, to estimate the global
emissions from fire protection, it was necessary to create a model that can separate the annual
emissions into those three categories of use. The model was initially developed in 2018 in
coordination with a Medical and Chemicals (MC)TOC co-chair and a Rigid and Flexible Foams
(F)TOC co-chair and has been updated in 2022. The model uses best estimates of annual global
production capacity of HFC-227ea beginning in 1993 and carried out until 2021.
The annual emission rate from the fire protection bank was updated to be 3% from 2011 – 2021.
Emissions from production were updated ranging from 0.1% to 1.25% per the latest MCTOC
estimates.
The HFC-227ea model emissions and the emissions derived from atmospheric measurements are in
excellent agreement, with the HTOC model results generally between the +/-1 sigma uncertainly in
the atmospheric derived estimates.
The model estimates the global fire protection bank of HFC-227ea to be 178,000 metric tonnes.
Based on emission estimates from the US and Northwest Europe, the FSTOC estimates that more
HFC-227ea is in Article 5 parties than in non-Article 5 parties.
There are several known applications of HFC-125 in fire protection including some military uses
but these are estimated to be quite small. Since the largest use of HFC-125 is as a blend in several
refrigerants, it is not possible to estimate the amount of HFC-125 used in or emitted from fire
protection systems using atmospheric measurements alone.
Unlike HFC-227ea and HFC-125, which are purposely produced, HFC-23 is a byproduct of
HCFC-22 manufacturing. As a result, it is not possible to estimate the amount of HFC-23 used in
fire protection from atmospheric measurements. HFC-23 is typically limited to use in cold
temperature applications. Its use is expected to be small compared to HFC-227ea.
Page 6 of 241
As was the case for HFC-227ea and HFC-125, there are other non-fire protection uses of
HFC-236fa. However, unlike HFC-227ea, there is little information available on the relative
take-up of HFC-236fa in the fire protection market. At this time, there is not sufficient information
to estimate HFC-236fa installed quantities or emissions in the fire protection sector.
1.6.5 Global Halon, HCFC, and HFC Banking (Agent Management)
A bank is defined as all agent contained in fire extinguishing cylinders and storage cylinders within
any organization, country, or region. Likewise, the ‘global bank’ is all agent presently contained in
fire equipment plus all agent stored at recycling centres, at fire equipment companies, at users’
premises, etc., i.e., it is all agent that has been produced but has yet to be emitted or destroyed. The
collection, reclamation, storage, and redistribution of fire extinguishing agents is referred to as
“Banking”. These concepts and terminologies apply to all fire suppression gases including halons,
HCFCs, HFCs, and their alternatives.
FSTOC continues to see issues regarding the loss of historical knowledge due to the length of time
over which the Montreal Protocol activities have been implemented. A significant number of
individuals are new to the Protocol, finding themselves now responsible for halon management but
not being familiar with the issues surrounding halons, HCFCs, HFCs, and their alternatives use,
recycling, and banking. Lack of understanding about long-term needs for halon 1301 has also
resulted in halon destruction. FSTOC notes that this lack of experience and historical knowledge is
becoming more challenging as it works with various parties and organizations on issues related to
acquiring halons to meet their continuing needs. Parties may wish to address awareness
programmes to re-establish this loss in institutional memory.
1.7 Emission Reduction Strategies and Banking (Chapter 7)
Avoidable halon and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agent releases account for greater
emissions than those needed for fire protection and explosion prevention. Clearly such releases can
be minimized.
• Do not use halons in new fire protection applications or new designs of equipment where
alternatives exist.
• Take advantage of opportunities to re-evaluate the need for existing halon systems or
extinguishers and replace with suitable alternatives where it is technically and economically
feasible to do so.
• Do not use HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs in fixed systems unless approved by the facility
owner and a full risk analysis has been performed by a fire professional with expertise in
their use and specifications, and the agent was deemed the only viable option taking into
consideration safety, efficacy, economics, and environmental effects.
• Encourage the application of risk management strategies and good engineering design to
take advantage of alternative fire protection schemes.
• Educate and train personnel on system characteristics.
• Manage storage of halon and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishant reserves and
perform routine leak detection.
Page 7 of 241
• Implement national Awareness Campaigns on all environmental concerns (ODS, GWP,
Climate Change).
• Develop or adopt Technical Standards and Codes of Conduct.
• Develop databases and implement record keeping on halon, HCFC and HFC installed base
quantities, transfers, and emissions.
• Develop halon, HCFC, and HFC fire extinguishing agent management plans including end
of useful life considerations.
• Ensure “Responsible Use” of halons and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing
agents.
1.8 Destruction (Chapter 8)
The FSTOC maintains the position that destruction should only be employed as the final disposition
option when halons, HCFCs, HFCs, and their alternatives are too contaminated and cannot be
reclaimed to an acceptable purity.
The world’s first pilot halon destruction for carbon offset occurred in February 2021 in the US,
using internally sourced halon 1301 for the creation of carbon credits which were traded in the
voluntary carbon market. The FSTOC is concerned that destroying halon 1301 for carbon credits
could contribute to global shortages / regional imbalances of halon 1301 to support long-term
enduring uses.
When local access to reclamation or destruction services is not available, the classification of halons
as hazardous waste by some the parties results in applying the Basel Convention, The Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which continues to obstruct
the international movement of halons. In the future this could also affect other fire extinguishing
agents.
The FSTOC is not aware of any new information, such as test data, relating to already approved
destruction technologies.
1.9 Alternatives to HFCs (Chapter 9)
The fire protection industry has worked on developing alternatives to halons, HCFCs, and now
HFCs for over four decades as environmental concerns have evolved. Extensive research was
conducted initially to identify alternatives to halons, while simultaneously implementing
improvements to maintenance, servicing, and storage of halons, user awareness and training,
replacement of halon systems where practical, as well as highly improved risk management. The
evolution of alternatives has proceeded along the path of selection of chemicals with the most
similar characteristics followed by research and development including testing, certification,
toxicity and safety analyses, standards development, and commercialization. In that process, several
HFCs were developed through to commercialization (note: both the agent and hardware must
successfully pass all testing and certifications). Following the commercialization of HFCs,
development of further alternatives continues, and other chemicals were developed including
FK-5-1-12, 2-BTP, CF3I, and some combinations with inert gases, water mist, or solid particulates.
This evolution has been fairly linear, as makes sense, in that the most likely candidates would be the
most commercially viable due to the extensive cost of research and development.
Page 8 of 241
For fire protection applications, information where alternatives to HFCs are available are provided
for applications in the following subsectors of use: civil aviation; military ground vehicles, naval,
and aviation applications; oil and gas, general industrial fire protection, and merchant shipping. For
an alternative to be acceptable, it must have passed all six Decision XXVI/9 criteria, 1) it is
commercially available, 2) technically proven, 3) environmentally sound, 4) economically viable
and cost effective, 5) safe to use, and 6) easy to service, according to FSTOC’s interpretation of
these criteria. FSTOC notes that some alternatives are actually halon alternatives rather than HFC
alternatives. Furthermore, in some sectors or applications, HFCs were not used and there are no
alternatives to the halons available, e.g., in aircraft cargo compartments. In these cases, it seems
appropriate to state that, currently, alternatives to HFCs are not applicable (N/A).
On December 20, 2022, the 3M corporation announced that it will cease manufacture of all PFAS
by the end of 2025, 3M (2022), including the fire suppressant FK-5-1-12. The FSTOC understands
that there are other manufacturers of this agent. Clearly, this is an evolving situation, and the
FSTOC expects to understand more fully the potential impacts to HFCs and their alternatives in the
future.
1.10 References
3M (2022): 3M Press Release, December 20, 2022. https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-
PFAS-Manufacturing-by-the-End-of-2025
EEA (2020): “Fluorinated greenhouse gases 2020” EEA Report No. 15/2020,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/fluorinated-greenhouse-gases-2020.
EPA (2016): Federal Register December 1, 2016, pages 86778-86895. “Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: New Listings of Substitutes…Final Rule”
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12-01/html/2016-25167.htm
EPA (2022): Federal Register July 28, 2022. Proposed Rule. “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Listing of Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program in Refrigeration, Air
Conditioning, and Fire Suppression.” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/28/2022-
14665/protection-of-stratospheric-ozone-listing-of-substitutes-under-the-significant-new-
alternatives
HRC (2022): “Halon 1301 Use in Civil Aviation: Guidance for Reducing Emissions and
Contamination During Servicing and Maintenance”, Halon Recycling Corporation, March 2022.
www.halon.org/hrc-av-outreach
Page 9 of 241
2 Introduction
2.1 Renaming of the Halons Technical Options Committee as the Fire Suppression
Technical Options Committee
The Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) role has broadened over the years. Its initial
focus was solely on halons and their alternatives. Over time, the HTOC also focused on
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) agents and their alternatives and more recently on
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and their alternatives. As a result, the expertise of the HTOC was much
wider than just considering alternatives to halons.
Another aspect of this broader role is that of safety aspects beyond general agent toxicity and fire
systems, both in terms of the high pressures of fire protections system cylinders and the increasing
use of flammable refrigerants, as HFCs are phased down in the refrigeration, air-conditioning, and
heat pump sector, as outlined in section 2.3.
In the light of this, in November 2022, the parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted Decision
XXXIV/11, which inter alia, renamed the Halons Technical Options Committee as the Fire
Suppression Technical Options Committee (FSTOC). This change was welcomed by the committee.
For this report, all references to the committee’s current and past work, actions, and opinions are
referred to as the FSTOC. All references to the previous reports are referred to as the HTOC.
2.2 Changes Following the 2018 Assessment Report
The 2018 Assessment report was issued in three volumes: the main Assessment report and two
Supplementary reports, one covering Civil Aviation and one covering banking of halons, HCFCs,
and HFCs. In addition, the FSTOC updated all five Technical Notes in 2018. This was a significant
effort, so the FSTOC has decided to streamline its reports and Technical Notes as follows: the 2022
Assessment report is now a single volume, and the five existing Technical Notes have been
rewritten as three and one new one has been created as follows:
Technical Note A: Technical Note #3, Revision 3 - Explosion Protection: Halon Use and
Alternatives has been incorporated as a chapter into Technical Note #1, Revision 5 - Fire Protection
Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs and HFCs. This combined Technical Note is now called Technical
Note A.
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
Technical Note B: Technical Note #2, Revision 3 - Emission Reduction Strategies for Halons and
Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents has been combined with Technical Note #4,
Revision 2 - Recommended Practices for Recycling Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire
Extinguishing Agents. This combined Technical Note is now called Technical Note B.
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
Technical Note C: Technical Note #5, Revision 2 – Destruction Technologies for Halons and Other
Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents has been updated and renamed Technical Note C.
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
Page 11 of 241
Technical Note D: Decision XXVII/2, paragraph 4 states:
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to conduct periodic reviews of
alternatives, using the criteria set out in paragraph 1 (a) of decision XXVI/9, in 2022 and
every five years thereafter, and to provide technological and economic assessments of the
latest available and emerging alternatives to hydrofluorocarbons.
To respond to this decision, the FSTOC has summarized the information on alternatives to HFCs in
Chapter 9 of this report. It will also be published as FSTOC Technical Note D. Placing this
information as a stand-alone document confers several advantages: the information is presented in a
clear and systematic manner, it should be easy for the parties to find, and finally it should be easy
for the FSTOC to update in 5 years’ time.
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
2.3 Safety Information
The Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals defines
“Gases under Pressure” as gases that are contained in a receptacle at a pressure of 200 kPa (gauge)
or more at 20°C, or which are liquefied or liquefied and refrigerated. Cylinders containing gases
under pressure are safe if treated properly, but if handled incorrectly or damaged, they can be
extremely dangerous; the main hazards associated are described below.
2.3.1 Hazard of Pressurized Cylinders
Cylinders holding gas under pressure contain a high amount of stored energy. If a cylinder valve is
breached (e.g., breaks off when the cylinder falls and strikes a hard surface, etc.), the stored energy
in the cylinder is released as thrust. The cylinder can accelerate to speeds great enough to penetrate
concrete walls. The pressure in a cylinder will increase when subjected to increased temperatures.
Cylinders are designed with a pressure relief valve, but if this valve fails, then the cylinder can fail.
Caution is needed to ensure that systems and apparatus used with these cylinders are not over-
pressurized, which could lead to forceful rupture and flying fragments.
The following data sources provide more information on the hazards of pressurized cylinders:
https://ehs.unl.edu/sop/s-gases_under_pressure_haz_risk_min.pdf
https://www.osha.gov/compressed-gas-equipment
https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/techmeascylinder.htm
2.3.2 Toxicological Hazards / Asphyxia
Hazards associated with gases under pressure include oxygen displacement and toxic gas exposures,
as well as the physical hazards associated with high pressure systems. When released from the
confines of a cylinder, gases under pressure will expand to occupy several hundred or even a
thousand times the space. This can displace breathing air and result in an oxygen-deficient
atmosphere and a person can be overcome quickly and without warning. If a gas is cryogenic, it can
cause brittle fracture of components and freeze skin or mucus membranes upon contact. Special
storage, use, and handling precautions are necessary to control these hazards.
Page 12 of 241
In general, personnel should not be exposed unnecessarily to atmospheres into which gaseous fire
extinguishing agents have been discharged. Mixtures of air and halon 1301 have low toxicity at fire
extinguishing concentrations and there is little risk posed to personnel that might be exposed in the
event of an unexpected discharge of agent into an occupied space. The exposure criteria were
developed by the United State of America (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in the 1990s and have not
changed since then. The highest agent concentration for which no adverse effect is observed is
designated the “NOAEL” for “no observed adverse effect level”. The lowest agent concentration for
which an adverse effect is observed is designated the “LOAEL” for “lowest observed adverse effect
level”.
In the case of inert gases, the usual concern is the residual oxygen concentration in the protected
space after discharge. For vaporizing liquid agents, the primary health concern is cardiac effects
arising as a consequence of absorption of the agent into the blood stream. It is evaluated according
to a specific dose and exposure time protocol. This means of assessing vaporizing liquid agents has
been further enhanced by application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, or
“PBPK”, which accounts for exposure times. Some agents have their use concentration limits based
on PBPK analysis. The approach is described in more detail in Annex G, ISO 14520-1 (2016).
2.3.3 Acid Gas Decomposition Products
Decomposition of any of the halogenated vaporizing liquid agents in the fire extinguishing process
produces acid-gas by-products (mostly hydrofluoric acid (HF) and carbonyl fluoride (COF2)) that
are both toxic and corrosive. It should be noted that the fire itself will generate combustion by-
products, which may also be toxic and corrosive. The amount of these decomposition products
formed is directly related to the size of the fire, the volume of the space, and the time needed to
establish the extinguishing concentration. Large, fast developing fires, such as flammable liquid
hazards, produce life safety challenges (toxicity) to those entering a space after extinguishment but
before it has been properly ventilated. There is the additional risk of corrosive effects of acid-gas
deposition on sensitive contents (e.g., electronics).
2.4 Alternate Refrigerants and their Potential Flammability
2.4.1 Introduction
Flammability is the ability of a substance to burn or ignite, causing fire or combustion. For
flammable substances, two important chemical characteristics that contribute to the flammability of
a liquid substance are its flash point and vapor pressure. The flash point of a substance is the lowest
temperature at which it can vaporize to form an ignitable mixture in air while the vapor pressure
indicates the evaporation rate. Higher vapor pressures lead to lower flash points and therefore
higher flammability. Standard tests exist to determine the lower and upper concentration limits of a
combustible substance that is capable of propagating a flame under specified conditions. These
limits therefore define the range of concentrations in which the substance is flammable in air and
establish guidelines for safe handling, specifically in assessing ventilation requirements for the
handling of gases and vapors.
Applicable standards (e.g., American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34) categorize mildly flammable gases by evaluating their lower
Page 13 of 241
and upper explosive limits, heat of combustion, burning velocity, or exhibition of flame
propagation, in conformity with EN-1839 and ISO-817. Note that the terms lower and upper
explosive limit are considered synonymous with lower and upper flammability limit.
Figure 2.1 summarizes how the refrigerant safety and flammability classifications are assigned by
ASHRAE Standard 34.
Figure 2.1: Refrigerant Classification According to ASHRAE Standard 34
The FSTOC believes that the A2L classification may not be understood by the wider refrigeration
and air conditioning industry and the hazards of A2L refrigerants, which are still flammable after
all, may not be fully appreciated.
2.4.2 Refrigerant Toxicity
In ASHRAE 34, there are two classes for toxicity: 1) lower toxicity (Class A) and 2) higher toxicity
(Class B). Class A refrigerants are refrigerants for which toxicity has not been identified at
concentrations less than or equal to 400 parts per million (ppm) by volume, based on data used to
determine threshold limit values (TLV)-time weighted average (TWA) or consistent indices.
Class B refrigerants are refrigerants for which there is evidence of toxicity at concentrations below
400 ppm by volume, based on data used to determine TLV-TWA or consistent indices.
2.4.3 Refrigerant Flammability Classifications Using ASTM Standard E 681.
Class 1 (no flame propagation) is for refrigerants (single compound or blends) that do not show
flame propagation when tested at 60°C/140°F and 101.3 kPa/14.7 psia.
Page 14 of 241
Class 2 (flammable) is for single compound refrigerants or refrigerant blends that exhibit flame
propagation when tested at 60°C/140°F and 101.3 kPa/14.7 psia, have a heat of combustion less
than 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb), and have a lower flammability limit (LFL) greater than 3.5% by
volume.
Class 2L (mildly flammable) is for single compound refrigerants or refrigerant blends that exhibit
flame propagation when tested at 60°C/140°F and 101.3 kPa/14.7 psia, have a heat of combustion
less than 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb), have a lower flammability limit (LFL) greater than 3.5% by
volume, and have a maximum burning velocity of 10 cm/s (3.9 in./s) or lower when tested at
23°C/73.4°F and 101.3 kPa/14.7 psia.
Class 3 (highly flammable) is for single compound refrigerants or refrigerant blends that exhibit
flame propagation when tested at 60°C/140°F and 101.3 kPa/14.7 psia, and that either have a heat
of combustion of 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or a lower flammability limit (LFL) of
3.5% by volume or lower.
2.4.4 Concerns over Flammability
FSTOC continues to express concern with expanded use of alternative refrigerants owing to their
potential flammability and yet to be determined effects on firefighting systems (e.g., agent
effectiveness, by-products generated, etc.). Flammable refrigerants need additional care in system
design, installation, and servicing. This could be a significant issue in Article 5 parties, where
additional training will be required. Parties may wish to consider providing addition funds for
training / capacity building in Article 5 parties where flammable refrigerants are being used as part
of the HFC phasedown.
2.4.5 New Standards or Tests under Development
In addition to industry standard tests for measuring flame propagation (ASHRAE-34/ISO-817), new
methods are being developed to address these concerns. One is the Japanese High-Pressure Gas
Safety Act and its related regulations amended specifically to categorize “mildly flammable gases”
or Class A2L Refrigerants.
These references contain useful information regarding refrigerant classification and safety
considerations: EPA (2022), ASHRAE (2020), Bacharach (2019), and Certifico (2020).
2.5 References
ASHRAE (2020): “Factsheet: Update on New Refrigerants Designations and Safety
Classifications”,
https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/refrigeration/factsheet_ashrae_englis
h_20200424.pdf
ASTM (2015): ASTM E681-09(2015), “Standard Test Method for Concentration Limits of
Flammability of Chemicals (Vapors and Gases)”
Bacharach (2019): “Understanding Refrigerant Safety Classification”,
https://www.mybacharach.com/understanding-refrigerant-safety-classifications/
Page 15 of 241
Certifico (2020): “ISO 817 Refrigerants – Designation and Safety Classification”,
https://certifico.com/chemicals/documenti-chemicals/221-documenti-riservati-chemicals/10484-iso-
817-refrigerants-designation-and-safety-classification
EPA (2022): “Refrigerant Safety”, https://www.epa.gov/snap/refrigerant-safety
Page 16 of 241
3 Impact of Existing and Possible Future Regulations on the Fire Protection
Sector
3.1 Kigali Amendment / HFC Phasedown
3.1.1 Background
In October 2016, at the 28th Meeting of the parties (MOP) in Kigali, Rwanda, Decision XXVIII/1
contained an amendment to add HFCs to the Montreal Protocol and slowly phase down their
production and consumption. The terms “production” and “consumption” in this context have
specific meanings, taken from Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol:
1. "Production" means the amount of controlled substances produced, minus the amount
destroyed by technologies to be approved by the Parties and minus the amount entirely used
as feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. The amount recycled and reused is not
to be considered as "production".
2. "Consumption" means production plus imports minus exports of controlled substances.
Unlike the controls on ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) that require a complete phaseout of
production and consumption of controlled substances, the controls on HFCs are intended to only
significantly reduce production and consumption on a global warming potential (GWP) basis, but
not eliminate it. Under the Kigali Amendment, the production phasedown began in most non-
Article 5 parties with a 10% reduction in 2019 and will end with an 85% reduction in 2036. For
most Article 5 parties, the phase down would begin with a production freeze in 2024 and end with
an 80% reduction in 2045. The amendment provides for a slight delay in the phasedown schedules
for a group of parties in Eastern Europe and a group of parties with high ambient temperatures. The
phasedown timeline is presented in Figure 3.1, taken from a UNEP factsheet, UNEP (2016).
Page 17 of 241
Figure 3.1: HFC Phasedown following the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol – (a)
Article 5 parties and (b) non-Article 5 parties
Page 18 of 241
3.1.2 HFC Phasedown Regulations
Many non-Article 5 parties including those of the European Union (EU), Canada, Japan, Australia,
US, and the Russian Federation have implemented regulations to phase down the production of
HFCs that follow, or have been adjusted to follow, the Kigali Amendment schedule. Most of these
regulations are based on a quota or allowance allocation system that controls the manufacture and
import of HFCs. Many of these regulations also include controls on specific HFCs in specific
sectors in addition to the production phasedown. For example, the EU regulations include a
prohibition on the sale of fire protection equipment containing HFC-23 as of 2016. In addition, a
proposal released in April 2022 by the European Commission would prohibit the sale of fire
protection equipment containing all HFCs as of January 1, 2024, unless their use is required to meet
safety standards. Regulations in Australia, Canada, Japan, and the US do not currently include
controls on HFCs used in fire protection.
To meet their obligations under the Kigali Amendment, Article 5 parties have set up systems to
monitor the import and export of HFCs. In addition, many Article 5 parties are currently developing
phasedown strategies and working on production and import/export quota systems to ensure
compliance with the January 1, 2024 production freeze.
3.1.3 Impact on Fire Protection
In the 2018 Assessment report, the FSTOC anticipated that the initial 10% reduction in non-Article
5 parties would not have a significant impact on the availability of HFCs for fire protection. It was
reasoned that the use of HFCs in fire protection is extremely small in comparison to other uses, the
emissions are low, and sales of HFCs in most non-Article 5 parties were either declining or flat. In
contrast, for example, what we have seen in the US is that there has already been significant impact
in cost of HFCs. The FSTOC believes this is for the following reasons:
• HFCs used for fire extinguishing are high-GWP,
• the allocation mechanism in the US is GWP-weighted, and
• market commercial factors mean that producers and importers will need to decide which
HFCs to manufacture or import, based on their GWP and future market needs
The combined effect of these factors means that the HFC phasedown in the US is having a large
effect on the production and consumption of HFC fire extinguishants. The US HFC phase down
began on January 1, 2022, and it has already had a significant impact on the pricing of HFCs for fire
protection.
For the EU, a 2020 report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates the total supply
of newly produced HFCs (production and consumption) for fire protection in the EU has decreased
by over 90% since the phasedown began in 2015. It appears that the use of HFCs in the EU has
been replaced in part by FK-5-1-12 and inert gases.
In Japan, the use of HFCs for fire protection has been gradually decreasing in response to adoption
of the Kigali Amendment and other efforts to prevent global warming. The amount of HFCs newly
installed for fire protection in 2021 in Japan is about 30% of the most installed year, 2012.
The FSTOC anticipates additional impacts to the fire protection sector as the Kigali amendment
phasedown continues and begins to impact additional regions and parties. This could reduce
Page 19 of 241
commercial viability of production of some HFC fire extinguishing agents in the future. This has
implications for HFC banking to support enduring uses.
It is the FSTOC’s experience that HFCs contained in fire protection equipment have historically
enjoyed a relatively high level of recycling and reuse. As the supply of newly produced HFCs for
fire protection decreases in response to phase down regulations, recycling becomes even more
important as an alternative source of supply and is likely to increase in the future.
3.2 Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
3.2.1 Background
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) refers to a class of chemicals that contain
fluorine atoms bonded to carbon atoms. Historically, PFAS was used to describe longer chain
compounds that were used in products such as paper, textiles, leather, carpets, and firefighting
foam. The regulation of PFAS initially focused on the eight-carbon chemicals perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). More recent PFAS definitions have
broadened to include over 4,000 different fluorinated compounds ranging from gases to liquids to
solids and including carbon chain lengths as short as a single carbon. As a result, some of these
PFAS definitions now encompass HFCs and HFC alternatives such as hydrofluoro-olefins (HFOs)
and fluoroketones (FKs).
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines PFAS as follows:
“PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or
methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted
exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (–CF3) or a perfluorinated
methylene group (–CF2–) is a PFAS.” The OECD definition of PFAS would encompass the
following fire suppression chemicals: FK-5-1-12, HFC-227ea, HFC-125, HFC-236fa,
2-bromotrifluoropropene (BTP), hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) Blend B, HCFC-123 and
Halocarbon Blend 55 (50/50 weight% FK-5-1-12 and hydrochlorofluoro-olefin
(HCFO)-1233zd(E)).
Regarding the PFAS definition, OECD states “The term “PFASs” is a broad, general, non-specific
term, which does not inform whether a compound is harmful or not, but only communicates that the
compounds under this term share the same trait for having a fully fluorinated methyl or methylene
carbon moiety.” In addition, OECD notes “It also does not conclude that all PFASs have the same
properties, uses, exposure and risks.”
It should be noted that other countries or organizations may have different definitions of PFAS that
may not encompass all of the same fire suppression agents as the OECD definition. It should also
be noted that some in the atmospheric science community have reasoned that the definitions for
PFAS need to be revised so that they no longer include substances such as HFCs and HFC
alternatives that environmentally degrade to produce trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) as the longest
perfluorinated carboxylic acid.” Wallington (2021).
Page 20 of 241
3.2.2 EU REACH
In July 2021, five European countries - Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark -
declared their intention to submit to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) a proposal for a
REACH restriction covering all PFAS chemicals as defined above. The proposed restriction could
have the impact of prohibiting the manufacture, import, sale or use of substances that fall under the
PFAS definition at some future date. REACH restrictions usually include exemptions (derogations)
for uses that have no alternatives. The expected date of submission of the PFAS restriction proposal
to ECHA is January 2023. Based on the current schedule, if a PFAS REACH restriction is adopted,
it would likely be completed in 2025 and become effective sometime after that.
3.2.3 UK REACH
In November 2021, UK REACH initiated a call for evidence on PFAS in preparation for
development of a regulatory management options analysis (RMOA). The UK REACH definition of
PFAS is similar to the OECD definitions and would encompass the same fire protection agents.
3.2.4 Impact on Fire Protection
A restriction on PFAS that incorporates HFCs and HFC alternatives could have a substantial impact
on future availability and use of these alternatives in the EU unless specific exemptions for fire
protection uses were included. Restricting or prohibiting the sale or use of HFCs and HFC
alternatives could affect the ability of some users in the EU to effectively protect a range of special
hazards from fire and explosion.
For example, if 2-BTP were to be included in PFAS restrictions, it would be devastating to the
aviation industry’s efforts to replace halons. 2-BTP is the result of a 20-year search for an
alternative to halon 1211 in aviation hand-held fire extinguishers. It is currently replacing halon
1211 as a drop-in (same size extinguisher, slight increase in weight) on most new production
aircraft, and all existing aircraft in the EU are expected to be retrofitted to 2-BTP by 2026. It took
15 years to develop and gain approval and there are no other in-kind (vaporizing liquids that do not
require clean-up) candidate agents for this use that would not be considered PFAS by this definition.
Not-in-kind alternatives (i.e., those that would require clean-up) have been tested for this use and
failed to pass the minimum performance standards. In addition, vaporizing liquid agents are
amongst the current candidates to replace halons in engine and cargo uses. Having them included in
a REACH restriction would also derail the aviation industry’s efforts to replace halons.
On December 20, 2022, 3M announced that it will cease manufacture of all PFAS by the end of
2025, 3M (2022), including the fire suppressant FK-5-1-12. The FSTOC understands that there are
other manufacturers of this agent. Clearly, this is an evolving situation, and the FSTOC expects to
understand more fully in the future how these proposed regulations will affect both HFCs and their
alternatives.
Page 21 of 241
3.3 Halon Regulations
3.3.1 European Union
The EU banned all non-critical uses of halons in 2003. Critical uses are listed in the current Annex
VI to Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2009, EC (2009). Annex VI was revised in 2010 as per
Commission Regulation (EC) No 744/2010 to contain “cut-off dates” for the use of halons in new
designs of equipment or facilities and “end dates” when all halon systems or extinguishers in a
particular application must be decommissioned (i.e., ‘retrofit’), EC (2010). The remaining critical
uses are shown in Table 3.1. All of the remaining critical uses have already passed their cut-off
dates, so only end dates are shown.
Table 3.1: Phase Out Dates in EC Reg. 1005/2009 Annex VI
End Date: All
Type of Type of
Category Purpose Halons
Extinguisher Halon
Decommissioned
1301
1.1 For the protection of
1. On military engine compartments Fixed system 1211 2035
ground 2402
vehicles 1.2 For the protection of 1301
Fixed system 2040
crew compartments 2402
2.1 For the protection of
1301
normally occupied Fixed system 2040
2402
machinery spaces
2.2 For the protection of 1301
normally unoccupied Fixed system 1211 2035
engine spaces 2402
2.3 For the protection of
2. On military normally unoccupied 1301
Fixed system 2030
surface 1211
electrical compartments
ships 2.4 For the protection of
Fixed system 1301 2030
command centres
2.5 For the protection of
Fixed system 1301 2030
fuel pump rooms
2.6 For the protection of 1301
flammable liquid Fixed system 1211 2030
storage compartments 2402
3.1 For the protection of
Fixed system 1301 2040
machinery spaces
3. On military 3.2 For the protection of
Fixed system 1301 2040
submarines command centres
3.3 For the protection of
Fixed system 1301 2040
diesel generator spaces
Page 22 of 241
3.4 For the protection of
Fixed system 1301 2040
electrical components
4.1 For the protection of 1301
normally unoccupied Fixed system 1211 2040
cargo compartments 2402
4.2 For the protection of
Portable 1211
cabins and crew 2025
extinguisher 2402
compartments
4.3 For the protection of 1301
4. On aircraft engine nacelles and Fixed system 1211 2040
auxiliary power units 2402
4.4 For the inerting of 1301
Fixed system 2040
fuel tanks 2402
1301
4.6 For the protection of
Fixed system 1211 2040
dry bays
2402
7. In land-based
command and
communication 7.1 For the protection of
1301
facilities normally occupied Fixed system 2025
2402
essential to spaces
national
security
The European Commission released a proposal in April 2022 for a revised ODS regulation that
would replace Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2009. The proposal includes two changes to the list of
critical uses of halons: 1) the cut-off date for the use of halons in cargo compartments on aircraft
would be pushed back from 2018 to 2024 to align with the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) requirements and 2) the use of halons in fixed systems in land-based command and
communication facilities essential to national security would be removed from the list. In addition,
the proposal would prohibit the destruction of halons “unless there is documented evidence that the
purity of the recovered or recycled substance does not technically allow its reclamation and
subsequent re-use.”
3.4 Aviation Halon Regulations
ICAO has established dates for the replacement of halons for all four applications where they are
used on board aircraft.
• in lavatory fire extinguishing systems used in aircraft produced on or after December 31,
2011
• in hand-held fire extinguishers used in aircraft produced on or after December 31, 2018; and
• in engine and auxiliary power unit fire extinguishing systems used in aircraft for which
application for type certification will be submitted on or after December 31, 2014
Page 23 of 241
• in cargo compartment fire suppression systems used in aircraft for which an application for
type certification will be submitted on or after November 28, 2024
It is important to note that these changes to ICAO standards are not requirements. States are
expected to try to meet these standards, but they are allowed, and do, file “differences” which
explain how they will not meet the standards, in part or whole. This means that they can and will
continue to use halons or allow the use of halons past these dates for aircraft in their registry.
Operation of such aircraft may, however, not be accepted by another State.
3.4.1 European Union
The following on-board uses of halons in aviation remain on the critical use list under Regulation
(EC) No 1005/2009: hand-held, engine nacelle, APU, cargo compartment, and fuel tank inerting. As
shown in Table 3.1, these critical uses are subject to end dates when all equipment containing
halons must be decommissioned or retrofitted to a different agent. This differs from the approach in
the ICAO resolution, which focuses on eliminating the use of halon in new production aircraft and
new designs only. Flexibility provisions have, however, been put in place in Regulation (EC) No
1005/2009. For specific cases, derogations from the end dates for existing applications or the cut-off
dates for new designs can be granted where it is demonstrated that no technically and economically
feasible alternative is available.
Additionally, Regulation (EC) No 2015/640 includes requirements for the use of halon alternative
agents in the built-in fire extinguishers of lavatories and in the portable fire extinguishers of large
aircraft and large helicopters manufactured after a certain date (forward fit date). The time scale in
Regulation (EC) No 2015/640 for halon replacement reflects the dates given in ICAO Annex 6. The
forward fit dates set in Regulation (EC) No 2015/640 do not contradict, but complement, the end
dates given in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. Table 3.2 compares the EU and ICAO
halon replacement dates.
Table 3.2: Comparison of EU and ICAO Halon Replacement Requirements
Handheld Engine
Requirement Lavatory Cargo
Extinguisher / APU
EC Cutoff Date 2011 2014 2014 20181
New Design Aircraft
ICAO 2011 2018 2014 2024
EC End Date 2020 2025 2040 2040
Current (includes retrofit)
Production Aircraft
ICAO 2011 2018 NA NA
1 - The cut-off date for the use of halons in cargo compartments on aircraft would be pushed back
from 2018 to 2024 to align with ICAO requirements
3.5 Transboundary Shipments of ODS and HFCs
A significant challenge in relation to accessing facilities capable of reclaiming or destroying ODS
Page 24 of 241
and HFCs from an international movement perspective, especially for countries without reclamation
facilities, relates to the Basel Convention, The Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal, UNEP (1989). Under the Basel Convention, CFCs and halons are not
contained in Annex VIII (list of hazardous wastes) and there are no technical guidelines for the
environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, or containing, ODS within the Basel
Convention. As a consequence, the parties to the Montreal Protocol decided in Decision VII/31:
Status of recycled CFCs and Halons under the Basel Convention that international transfers of
controlled substances of the Montreal Protocol that are recovered but not purified to usable purity
specifications prescribed by appropriate international and/or national organizations, including ISO,
should only occur if the recipient country has recycling facilities that can process the received
controlled substances to these specifications or has destruction facilities incorporating technologies
approved for that purpose.
Depending on how the exporting country classifies the extinguishing agents destined for
reclamation (i.e., whether they are defined as ‘hazardous waste’ or not), the Basel Convention can
apply, thereby adding another layer of complexity, especially when the reclamation facility is in a
country that is not a party to the Basel Convention. The complexities relate to inconsistencies with
classification of the material; increased administrative efforts, increased costs associated with
shipping, increased time to process Basel paperwork by each port adding time to the journey;
difficulties locating a carrier that is prepared to carry the ‘hazardous waste.’ These are all challenges
that arise from a lack of clarity in agent classification. Therefore, parties may wish to consider
setting up an awareness campaign directed at the relevant agencies to avoid these issues.
3.6 Carbon Markets
The carbon market is becoming an important instrument in addressing climate change with
increased focus by policy makers and government officials around the world creating carbon
pricing instruments such as carbon taxes and emission trading schemes. Some of these instruments
mandate a compliance-based system for companies that are obligated to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions. Also important is the increase in the voluntary carbon market used by companies to
voluntarily purchase carbon offsets as part of reducing their carbon footprint.
3.6.1 HFC Recycling
As an example of carbon offsets or credits, the American Carbon Registry (ACR — a private
voluntary US greenhouse gas registry), amended one of its methodologies in April 2022 to produce
the ‘Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals from Certified Reclaimed HFC Refrigerants, Propellants,
and Fire Suppressants, Version 2.0.’ Included in this version of the methodology for the first time is
HFC-227ea. The methodology is underpinned by the premise that the use of certified reclaimed
HFCs negates the need to manufacture new HFCs that would be a future emission. Companies in
the US can submit projects to generate carbon credits. After independent validation and verification
confirms that the projects meet the criteria of the methodology, they will generate voluntary credits
that can be traded in the market.
3.6.2 Halon Destruction
Page 25 of 241
The world’s first pilot halon destruction for carbon credits occurred in February 2021 in the US,
using internally sourced halon 1301 (2,687 pounds or 1.22 tonnes) and halon 1211 (884 pounds or
0.40 tonnes) for the creation of carbon credits that were traded in the voluntary carbon market.
The project was performed under the ACR Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring,
Reporting and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions and Removal from the
Destruction of Ozone Depleting Substances and High-GWP Foam Version 1.1 (ACR 2017). This
methodology allows for the destruction of halon 1211 and halon 1301 from fire equipment or
systems and excludes the destruction of halon 1301 originating in stockpiles. The recycled halon for
the pilot project was recovered from decommissioned or retired equipment and destroyed using a
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) approved destruction technology (i.e., rotary
kiln incineration), resulting in the creation of 3,384 tCO2e (metric tonnes CO2 equivalent) credits
from the project. The credits were then sold to a large reputable US information technology (IT)
company.
The creation of carbon credits from the destruction of halons or the re-use of reclaimed HFCs
signals that carbon markets are starting to have influence on industry behavior, and in the future we
may see an increase in the number of carbon offset projects that could have an impact on fire
extinguishing agent supply and demand.
The FSTOC is concerned that large scale destruction of halon 1301 for carbon credits could
contribute to global shortages / regional imbalances of halon 1301 for enduring uses.
To ascertain the future impact of these types of programmes, the FSTOC will continue to monitor
the international compliance and voluntary carbon markets.
3.7 References
3M (2022): 3M Press Release, December 20, 2022. https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-
PFAS-Manufacturing-by-the-End-of-2025
ACR (2017): Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals from the Destruction of Ozone Depleting
Substances and High-GWP Foam, Version 1.1, September 2017,
https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/destruction-of-
ozone-depleting-substances-and-high-gwp-foam/acr-destruction-of-ods-and-high-gwp-foam-
september-2017-v1-1.pdf
EC (2009): REGULATION (EC) No 1005/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:286:0001:0030:EN:PDF
EC (2010): COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 744/2010 of 18 August 2010 amending
Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that
deplete the ozone layer, with regard to the critical uses of halons. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:218:0002:0008:EN:PDF
UNEP (1989): The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal, https://www.unep.org/resources/report/basel-convention-control-
transboundary-movements-hazardous-wastes
Page 26 of 241
UNEP (2016): The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol: HFC Phase-down, UNEP
OzonAction Factsheet,
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26589/HFC_Phasedown_EN.pdf?sequence
=1&isAllowed=y
Wallington (2021): Wallington et al., “The case for a more precise definition of PFAS”, Environ.
Sci. Processes Impacts 2021 (23) 1834-1838.
Page 27 of 241
4 Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs, and HFCs
4.1 Halons
Before discussing alternatives to halons, HCFCs, and HFCs, it is helpful to add some historical
context explaining the evolution of gaseous fire extinguishing systems.
4.1.1 The Success of Halons in Fixed Systems
The wide adoption of the halons was based on two things:
1. First was the awareness of the need for the protection of “essential electronics centers” after
numerous catastrophic fires, the most highly publicized being the fire that destroyed the
computer facilities in the US Department of Defense at its Pentagon Headquarters in 1959,
Jones (2015).
2. The second driver was system cost where, to the surprise of many, it became obvious that halon
systems cost less than CO2 systems, therefore the lowest cost offering in gaseous extinguishing
systems.
In the beginning of the migration of former halon applications to other fire protection methods, it
became obvious that the search for equal cost, equal effectiveness, equally safe and environmentally
acceptable alternatives to the halons was an unachievable task. That awareness drove users to not-
in-kind alternatives including pre-action water sprinklers, water mist, dry chemical, foam, and CO2.
With the halt of production of the halons, the use of CO2 systems increased significantly, especially
in the protection of machinery spaces on merchant ships.
The movement of 50-75% of halon application to non-in-kind by those who had chosen halons for
their applications in the past was driven for the most part by the cost of the in-kind alternatives. The
fire protection sector is extremely cost-driven. Further, end users are generally not skilled in
selecting and purchasing fire extinguishing systems. When one cannot differentiate on other system
features, including very important ones such as fire performance and environmental characteristics,
the tendency is to make purchasing decisions based on cost.
4.2 New Alternatives
Detailed discussion of substitutes for halons, HCFCs, and high GWP HFCs is given in FSTOC
Technical Note A, FSTOC (2022a).
Before discussing fire extinguishant alternatives to halons, HCFCs, and HFCs, it is helpful to
review the recent developments in new halogenated fire extinguishant research and development.
Since the withdrawal of HCFO-1233zd(E) for consideration as a single-component total flooding
alternative fire protection agent for halon 1301, HFC-227ea, HFC-125, or HFC-23 in the major
standards bodies in the US and in ISO in 2017, the only progress on potential alternatives is
represented by HB-55; refer to section 4.3.4.2. Generally speaking, the FSTOC is of the opinion
that although research to identify potential new fire protection agents from existing candidates is
continuing, it could take a quite a long time before new alternatives could have a significant impact
on the fire protection sector. This is mainly due to the lengthy process of testing,
approval/certification, and market acceptance of new fire protection equipment types and agents.
Page 29 of 241
This is also broadly consistent with the 2015 recommendation of the civil aviation working group
on cargo bay halon alternatives, that the earliest possible date to set a mandate for non-halon
systems in new aircraft designs was 2024 (i.e., nine years from when the recommendation was
made). However, there is also no assurance that any new agents will be developed at that time since
the most promising chemical groups have already been thoroughly evaluated. Thus, for the
foreseeable future, the fire protection industry will have to manage with the currently available fire
suppression agents/blends and will need to re-evaluate agents and technologies that were initially
rejected in the hopes of finding other alternatives with better properties, such as CF3I and inert gas
systems.
4.3 Initial Substitutes in the Former Halon Sector
4.3.1 General
Research to find substitutes for halons initially began after the announcement of the Montreal
Protocol. Many substances can be used to extinguish flames. However, preferred halon substitutes
would have to satisfy important environmental and safety criteria, namely, they would have to have
acceptable ozone-depleting potentials (ODPs), GWPs, and atmospheric lifetimes, be effective
extinguishants, and have sufficiently low toxicity that under normal use the discharge of agent in
occupied spaces would not harm people. Other important preferred features include being
electrically non-conductive, and “clean,” meaning leaving no non-volatile residue in protected
spaces.
In the US, the EPA, under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, assumed
responsibility for the assessment of certain criteria of prospective substitutes for ODS, including
fire extinguishants. The EPA reviewed substitutes on the basis of environmental and health risks,
including factors such as ODP, GWP, toxicity, flammability, and exposure potential. The EPA
maintains lists of substitutes that are deemed acceptable, acceptable with use restrictions, or
unacceptable as fire extinguishing agents for use in total flooding and streaming applications. The
SNAP lists are available on the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-fire-
suppression-and-explosion-protection.
For any agent to be recognized by National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 2001 Standard on Clean
Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, NFPA (2022), or ISO 14520 Gaseous Fire Extinguishing
Systems – Physical Properties and System Design, ISO (2015), it must first be evaluated in a
manner equivalent to the process used by the US EPA SNAP program or other internationally
recognized fire extinguishant approval institutions. Many materials are included in the SNAP lists
for total flooding and streaming use, which parties may investigate for suitability to fire protection
applications of interest. Note, however, inclusion of an agent on the SNAP list does not necessarily
mean it is an appropriate choice and additional application-specific evaluation and listings may be
required.
4.3.2 Alternatives in General Use
In-kind agents that satisfy the above requirements have been introduced to the marketplace for use
in fixed systems for total-flooding applications and for use in portable equipment as streaming
agents. There are several total-flooding agent alternatives that are SNAP-listed for use in occupied
spaces, and that are included in ISO 14520 and NFPA 2001, as follows:
Page 30 of 241
• Inert gas (IG) agents: IG-01, IG-100, IG-55, and IG-541
• Vaporizing liquids: FK-5-1-12, HFC-23, HFC-125, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HB-55
Fewer in-kind agent options have been identified as substitutes for halon 1211, as discussed in
section 4.3.8.
4.3.3 Agent Alternatives for Fixed Systems
There are several in-kind alternatives to halons for most applications. These started with HCFCs
and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), followed closely by HFCs and IGs, and more recently by an FK. The
HCFCs and PFCs are no longer used in new total flooding fire extinguishing systems and their use
is limited to supporting existing systems. Today, for all practical purposes, there are three types of
in-kind alternatives to the ozone-depleting fire extinguishants (halons and HCFCs) used in new fire
extinguishing systems - these are HFCs, IGs, and an FK. The FK and IGs also represent low-GWP
and no-GWP alternatives, respectively, to the high-GWP HFCs.
Of the HFCs, the most widely used continues to be HFC-227ea. HFC-125 is used in many
applications served by HFC-227ea but in lower quantities. HFC-125 is used as the extinguishing
agent in some military ground vehicle and aircraft engine nacelles due to its higher volatility.
HFC-23 has found limited use, generally in applications involving low temperature where the
agent’s low boiling point allows rapid vaporization of the agent. For many of these low temperature
applications, HFC-23 or halon 1301 are the only viable fire extinguishing options.
ISO 14520 parts 12, 13, 14, and 15 report properties of four inert gas agents for use as alternatives
to halon 1301 in fire extinguishing systems. They are listed below in descending order of minimum
extinguishing concentration (MEC) as determined by the cup burner test using heptane as the test
fuel. Gas mixture compositions are in volume per cent.
• IG-100 (100 % nitrogen)
• IG-541 (52 % nitrogen + 40 % argon + 8 % carbon dioxide)
• IG-55 (50 % nitrogen + 50 % argon)
• IG-01 (100 % argon)
Until the introduction of the agent FK-5-1-12 to the market in the early 2000s, HFCs (most notably
HFC-227ea) and IG systems as a group had achieved some degree of equilibrium in the fixed
system market. More recently, the FK agent has been trending upwards at the expense of the HFCs,
most notably HFC-227ea. With the vaporizing liquids, anecdotal information has suggested the split
in market share is 55% HFCs and 45% FK-5-1-12 when measured in terms of agent weight sold in
systems. However, the market share in terms of systems may be quite different: since the molecular
weight of FK is almost double that of HFC-227ea, and their design concentrations are similar, the
ratio of installed systems favors HFC-227ea more strongly than the market share by weight.
There are regional differences in the use of vaporizing liquid agents versus inert gas agents.
Generally, the Americas more often use vaporizing liquid agents whereas Europe shows a
preference for IG systems including all four types. In the Americas, the split is estimated at 80%
vaporizing liquid agent systems versus 20% IG systems on a system basis. In Europe, the split is
Page 31 of 241
believed to be closer to 50/50 between vaporizing liquid agent systems and IG systems. On a
worldwide basis, the market share of the systems sold appears to be evenly split between the
vaporizing liquid agent systems and inert gas systems as shown in Figure 4.1.
Principal Gaseous
Fire Extinguishing
System Sales
25% 25% 50%
HFCs FK Inert Gases
Figure 4.1: Approximate Global Market Share by System Type
4.3.3.1 Vaporizing liquid versus Inert Gas Agents
Vaporizing liquid agents typically are stored in nitrogen-pressurized system cylinders at in-cylinder
storage densities from about 500 kg/m3 to 1400 kg/m3, depending on their liquid density. Inert gas
agents are stored in high-pressure cylinders, typically at 200 or 300 bar, which results in cylinder
agent storage densities of about 220 to 400 kg/m3. Thus, IG systems require more cylinder volume
per kilogram of agent than for the vaporizing liquid agents. The early IG systems were limited to a
maximum cylinder size of 83 litres pressurized to 150 bar. More recent versions are pressurized to
300 bar, representing a 38% increase in stored agent mass per cylinder. High-pressure cylinders of
140 litres capacity are now available. The increased storage pressure and the increased cylinder
capacity has brought the inert gas systems to a cost level that is more competitive with the
vaporizing liquid agent systems.
It is a common practice, when discussing agent requirements, to consider the required agent
concentration in terms of volume percent. This approach can be misleading because it does not
allow direct comparison of the agent weight (mass), cylinder count, and the floor space required.
Table 4.1 illustrates how differences in agent properties relate to minimum mass quantities required
to protect a typical Class A fire hazard (Class A fires consist of solid combustibles such as wood,
coal, paper, plastic, straw, cloth, rubber, or any other solid material). Understanding the agent and
cylinder quantities required is central to assessing the system cost and facility floor space
requirements for decision making.
Page 32 of 241
Table 4.1: Minimum Agent Design Concentration and Agent Quantity for Surface Class A
Fire Applications (at 20°C)
Minimum
Reference Minimum
design
ISO 14520 Agent agent quantity1,
concentration,
Subpart kg/m3
vol. %
2 CF3I 2 4.6 0.389
5 FK-5-1-12 5.3 0.778
8 HFC-125 11.2 0.640
9 HFC-227ea 7.9 0.625
11 HFC-236fa 8.8 0.632
12 IG-01 41.9 0.902
13 IG-100 40.3 0.601
14 IG-55 40.3 0.728
15 IG-541 39.9 0.721
17 Halocarbon Blend 55 7.8 0.674
1
Agent quantities were calculated in accordance with ISO 14520-1, sections 7.6.2 for halocarbon
agents, and 7.6.3 inert gas agents
2
CF3I is approved for non-occupied spaces only
Decomposition of any of the vaporizing liquid agents in the fire extinguishing process produces by-
products (including hydrofluoric acid (HF) and carbonyl fluoride (COF2)) that are both toxic and
corrosive. It should be noted that the fire itself will generate combustion by-products that may also
be toxic and corrosive. The amount of these decomposition products formed is directly related to
the size of the fire, the volume of the space, and the time needed to establish the extinguishing
concentration. Applications where large, fast developing fires are likely, such as in flammable liquid
hazards, produce life safety challenges (toxicity) to those entering a space after extinguishment but
before it has been properly ventilated. There is additional risk of corrosive effects of acid-gas
deposition on sensitive contents (e.g., electronics).
Mitigation techniques to limit HF and COF2 generation have been developed for some systems that
use HFC-227ea.
• The U.S Army has successfully tested and fielded HFC-227ea systems with a 5 to 10
percent addition by weight of sodium bicarbonate powder for the protection of crew
compartments of their armoured vehicles. The powder exits the extinguisher before the
HFC-227ea, thus knocking down flames before the HFC-227ea arrives to complete the
extinguishment. This technique has also been evaluated with FK-5-1-12. However, it was
Page 33 of 241
not able to sufficiently mitigate the HF and COF2 generation. By-products were reduced
proportionally, but levels remained above acceptable limits. Additionally, it was found that
FK-5-1-12 and sodium bicarbonate are not compatible when mixed directly together, see
section 5.2.2.1 for more details.
• The U.S. Navy uses a somewhat similar technique in some larger shipboard spaces where
there is significant concern over toxic by-product formation. In these larger systems, a water
spray simultaneously discharges with HFC-227ea. The water spray cools the very hot
combustion gases in the protected space thereby reducing chemical agent hydrolysis, the
process that forms acid gases. However, most Navy shipboard systems use HFC-227ea only
(no water spray cooling) and rely on design concentrations that are higher than their
commercial counterparts to more rapidly extinguish fires and reduce toxic decomposition
products. This is practical because personnel are instructed to activate these systems as they
exit the space. In addition, there is an approximate 30-second delay after an alarm which
allows ventilation shutdown as well as time for any remaining personnel to exit the space
before the system discharges.
In addition, HFC-236fa has been used as a halon replacement in the crew compartments of military
vehicles at a higher concentration, which also serves to mitigate HF and COF2 generation.
4.3.3.2 Comparison of HFC, FK, and IG Systems
When considering employing a system with HFCs, or their potential in-kind alternatives
(FK-5-1-12 or one of the IGs), end users must consider several factors including system cost,
weight and footprint, environmental impact, performance at low application temperatures, and
impact of FK agent decomposition products (mainly HF and COF2). Often, users with numerous
systems throughout their facilities will standardize on a particular agent or system type to simplify
maintenance. Table 4.2 indicates some of the positive and negative attributes of alternative agents
for fire protection systems.
Table 4.2: Historical Positives and Negatives of Alternative Agents for Systems
System
Positive Negative
Type
HFC-227ea • Smallest agent quantity • High GWP100 (3220)*
• Least expensive • Decomposition in flames
• HF and COF2 mitigation produces HF and COF2
techniques developed • Potentially impacted by the HFC
• Acceptable volatility at phasedown under Kigali
low application Amendment to the Protocol
temperatures
• Acceptable for use in
normally occupied areas
Page 34 of 241
HFC-125 • High volatility at low • High GWP100 (3500)*
application temperatures • Decomposition produces HF and
(e.g. aircraft engine COF2
nacelles) • Potentially impacted by the HFC
• Acceptable for use in phasedown under Kigali
normally occupied areas Amendment to the Protocol
HFC-23 • Very high volatility makes • Very high GWP100 (14,800)*
this the only practical • Decomposition in flames
choice in some at low- produces HF and COF2
temperature applications. • Potentially impacted by the HFC
• Acceptable for use in phasedown under Kigali
normally occupied areas Amendment to the Protocol
FK-5-1-12 • Negligible GWP (<1) • ~24 % more agent by weight
• Not affected by HFC required than HFC-227ea
phasedown • Higher cost than HFC-227ea
• Acceptable for use in • Decomposition in flames
normally occupied areas produces HF and COF2
• Relatively low vapor pressure
imposes design limitations with
respect to low-temperature
applications
Inert Gas • Cost ~ FK-5-1-12 • Cost greater than for HFC-227ea
• No decomposition • High cylinder storage space and
products weight
• No environmental impact • IG-541 contains CO2, which is
• Acceptable for use in intended to increase blood
normally occupied areas oxygenation and cerebral blood
flow in low oxygen atmospheres.
The design concentration should
result in no more than 5% CO2.
* GWP100 values are taken from the 4th IPCC Assessment Report (also known as AR4 values),
IPCC (2007).
In regions where the HFC phasedown has begun, the cost of HFC-227ea appears to be rising and
therefore the historical economics between alternatives are now changing. It is too early to
understand fully the impacts of these changes. The FSTOC will continue to monitor the impacts to
the market.
Page 35 of 241
4.3.4 Recent Developments since the 2018 Assessment Report
4.3.4.1 CF3I
CF3I was first evaluated in the late 1990’s, but following some adverse toxicity results, attention
was focused elsewhere. Specifically, its cardiotoxic NOAEL and LOAEL are 0.2 volume% and 0.4
volume%, respectively, which are both well below its MEC. This precludes this agent’s use in
normally occupied spaces, although it is approved for non-occupied spaces under the US SNAP
program. CF3I is closest to a “drop-in” replacement agent for halon 1301 in terms of space and
weight. This is because iodine can undergo the same catalytic radical recombination reactions as
bromine, which makes it a very efficient fire extinguishing agent.
The FSTOC is aware that the civil aviation industry is currently refocusing on CF3I, primarily as an
engine nacelle / auxiliary power unit (APU) fire extinguishing agent. It was also investigated for
civil aviation cargo compartment applications, but it failed a key test, Shaw (2019). For more
information on CF3I and possible aviation applications refer to section 5.1.5.3 of this report. It is
possible that this agent may have expanded use in other applications which are not normally
occupied. Recently, under SNAP Rule 25, EPA proposed to allow 2-BTP as total flooding agent for
use in normally unoccupied spaces under 500 ft3, EPA (2022).
4.3.4.2 Halocarbon blend 55 (HB-55)
While HCFO-1233zd(E) was removed from the NFPA 2001 Standard for fire extinguishing agents,
HB-55 was added to the US EPA SNAP list as “HCFO-1233zd(E)/C6- perfluoroketone blend.” It
was adopted into NFPA 2001 (2022) as “HB-55,” and in ISO Standard 14520-17 (2022) designated
as “Halocarbon Blend 55.” Agent Characteristics are listed in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4. All data are
taken from ISO 14520, Part 17.
Table 4.3: Fire Extinguishing Data for HB-55
Fuel Extinguishing Design Concentration
concentration (Vol%) (Vol%)
Class A: Wood 6.0
Class A: PMMA 5.4*
Class A: PP 5.4* 7.8
Class A: ABS 5.4*
Class B (Heptane, cup burner) 5.5
Class B (Heptane, room test) 6.0 7.8
*The test apparatus for the three polymeric fuel tests was different to the apparatus previously used
to determine the extinguishing concentration for other agents.
Table 4.4:Toxicological and Environmental Properties of HB-55
Property Value
4-hour LC-50 > 11 Vol%
NOAEL 8.7 Vol%
LOAEL > 8.7 Vol%
100-year GWP 1
ODP 0.000
Page 36 of 241
4.3.5 Paths Forward
Post Kigali, it is likely that the market share of HFCs will continue to decline. It is too early to say
how the market share of IG and FK systems will change, as the effect of the proposed PFAS
restrictions (see section 3.2 above) is not known at this time. These proposed regulations may
change users’ perceived importance of the positives and negatives in Table 4.2. The impact of
HB-55 remains to be seen. The FSTOC will continue to monitor this rapidly changing situation.
4.3.6 Water Mist
Water mist systems strive to generate and distribute within a protected space very small water mist
droplets which serve to extinguish flames by the combined effects of cooling and oxygen dilution
by steam generated upon water evaporation. Technologies used to generate fine water mists include:
• Low pressure single fluid atomization
• High pressure single fluid atomization
• Dual-fluid atomization
• Hot water steam generation
Table 4.5 summarizes key attributes of water mist technology.
Table 4.5: Attributes of Water Mist
Agent Water mist
Applicable NFPA 750, FM 5560, UL 2167, VdS 3188en, VdS 2498, EN 14972
Standards (series)
For use in occupied spaces.
Efficacy Uses approximately 10 % of the total water quantity discharged by
traditional sprinkler system to suppress fires, where tested.
Toxicity Active antifreeze ingredient Glycol mist poses inhalation toxicity risk.
Risk of burn or frostbite at temperature extremes.
Safety
Characteristics Active antifreeze additives can pose risk of explosions, NFPA (2014),
QRFS (2018)
No adverse characteristics. Water mist does not contribute to
stratospheric ozone depletion or to greenhouse warming of the
Environmental atmosphere.
Characteristics
Water containing additives may, however, have other environmental
contamination risks, e.g., foams, antifreeze and other additives
Water mist systems offer some advantages due to their low environmental impact, ability to
suppress three-dimensional flammable liquid fires under defined conditions, and reduced water
application rates relative to automatic sprinklers in certain applications. More recent innovations
Page 37 of 241
include use of nitrogen with water mist to achieve inert gas extinguishing effects and use of dual-
fluid (air-water) nozzles to achieve ultrafine droplets and adjustable spray patterns (by varying the
air-water ratio). Several systems have been approved by national authorities for use in relatively
narrow application areas. To date, these applications include shipboard machinery spaces,
combustion turbine enclosures, flammable and combustible liquid storage spaces as well as light
and ordinary hazard sprinkler application areas.
The performance of a water mist system is strongly dependent on its ability to generate sufficiently
small droplet sizes and distribute adequate quantities of water throughout the compartment. Factors
that affect the ability of achieving that goal include velocity, distribution, and spray pattern
geometry, as well as the momentum and mixing characteristics of the spray jet and test enclosure
effects. Hence, the required application rate varies by manufacturer for the same hazard. Therefore,
water mist must be evaluated in the combined context of a suppression system and the risk it
protects and not just an extinguishing agent.
Single fluid systems utilize water delivered at 7 - 200 bar pressure and spray nozzles that deliver
droplet sizes in the 10 to 100 µm diameter range. Dual systems use air, nitrogen, or another gas to
atomize water at a nozzle. Both types have been shown to be promising fire suppression systems.
The major difficulties with water mist systems are those associated with design and engineering.
These problems arise from the need to distribute and maintain an adequate concentration of mist
throughout the space while momentum of hot fire gases, ventilation, gravity, and water deposition
loss on surfaces deplete the concentration. Engineering analysis and experimental programmes for
specific mist products (with unique droplet distribution and concentration) are employed to
minimize the uncertainty.
EPA listed water mist systems composed of potable water and natural sea water as acceptable
without restriction. However, water mist systems comprised of mixtures in solution must be
submitted to EPA for review on a case-by-case basis.
Water mist does not contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion or to global warming. Water
containing additives may, however, have other environmental contamination, safety, and toxicity
risks, e.g., foams, antifreeze, and other additives.
Water mist systems can create two issues:
1. If there is a fire, the smoke creates carbon, which in turn will surround the water particles and
create a "dirty" water droplet that can then conduct electricity and defeat the whole purpose of a
clean fire suppression action.
2. If there is no fire and the system goes off accidentally (also known as cold discharge), the water
droplets will not absorb heat/expand, and instead lead to water pooling at the floor, which is
where most of the electric cables are fed, creating a potentially dangerous situation.
Hybrid water-mist systems use water mist combined with an inert gas, usually nitrogen, to gain
extinguishing benefits of both inert gas and water mist. At least three companies manufacture and
install hybrid water mist systems. Regarding aircraft applications, in 2017, one water mist-nitrogen
system passed all the criteria of the International Aircraft Systems Fire Protection Working Group
(IASFPWG) Minimum Performance Standard (MPS) for cargo bays, Dadia (2017).
Page 38 of 241
4.3.7 Aerosol Extinguishing Agents
Another category of technologies being developed and introduced are those related to fine solid
particulates and aerosols. These take advantage of the well-established fire suppression capability of
solid particulates, with potentially reduced collateral damage associated with traditional dry
chemicals. To date, a number of aerosol generating extinguishing compositions and aerosol
extinguishing means have been developed in several countries. They are in production and are used
to protect a range of hazards.
One principle of these aerosol extinguishants is in generating solid aerosol particles and inert gases
in the concentration required and distributing them uniformly in the protected volume. Aerosol and
inert gases are formed through a burning reaction of the pyrotechnic charge. An insight into an
extinguishing effect of aerosol compositions has shown that extinguishment is achieved by
combined action of two factors such as flame cooling due to aerosol particles heating and
vaporizing in the flame front as well as a chemical action on the radical level. Solid aerosols must
act directly upon the flame. Gases serve as a mechanism for delivering the aerosol towards the seat
of a fire. For more information on aerosols refer to FSTOC Technical Note A, FSTOC (2022a).
4.3.8 Agent Alternatives in Portable (Handheld) Extinguishers
There have been several in-kind alternatives to halon 1211 commercialized in a sustainable manner
over time beginning with HCFC blends, followed by HFCs and then by FK-5-1-12 and more
recently by 2-BTP. PFC based extinguishants proposed before 2000 were not sustainable based on
low performance and high GWPs and were withdrawn from the market in that period. Historically,
according to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC (2005), only a very limited
amount of the original halon market had gone to in-kind alternatives. This is based mainly on the
much higher cost of the in-kind alternatives compared originally to halon 1211 and now to the not
in-kind alternatives. HCFC Blend B has been employed in non- residential applications as well as
notable military applications in wheeled type (65-150 lbs each / 29.5 – 68 kg) for airport flightlines
since 1999. This remains to be the case. 2-BTP is currently limited to use on civil aircraft, but the
US EPA is considering widening the acceptable uses restrictions of 2-BTP in streaming applications
(non-residential use except for commercial home office and personal watercraft) and total flooding
fire suppression systems applications (in normally unoccupied spaces under 500 ft3, EPA (2022).
Nevertheless, this agent will remain a much higher cost agent than the not-in-kind agents.
In addition to cost being a barrier, the fire extinguishing performance of HCFC Blend B (mainly
HCFC-123), HFC-236fa, and FK-5-1-12 do not have, to greatly varying degrees, the fire
extinguishing performance of halon 1211, meaning that greater quantities of agent (and larger
extinguisher units) are required to achieve an equivalent extinguisher rating. All three produce high
levels of HF and COF2 when applied to flames, especially flammable liquid type fires. If 2-BTP is
approved for additional uses beyond civil aviation, it is likely that portable extinguishers will be
developed that use smaller quantities of agent than the current halon, HCFC, and HFC alternatives.
HFC-227ea has achieved UL Solutions (formerly known as Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL))
listings, UL-2129, UL (2017), as a streaming agent in certain equipment types.
Page 39 of 241
In one very specialized portable system application, the US Army has developed a mixture of
HFC-227ea and very finely ground sodium bicarbonate to replace halon 1301 portable
extinguishers used in cockpits and other manned spaces of their helicopters.
When considering buying a new portable extinguisher, an end user has a choice between in-kind,
which depending on local regulations can include halon 1211, HCFC Blend B, HFC-236fa,
FK-5-1-12, and not-in-kind alternatives such as dry chemical, water/foams, and CO2. Prior to the
phaseout of halon 1211 production, it was common for end users to pay a cost multiple over 7 times
to get a clean agent halon 1211 unit versus an extinguisher using a dry chemical agent. Where
powder contamination is not allowed, use of a dry chemical extinguisher would be avoided. With
today’s halogenated in-kind alternatives (HCFC Blend B, HFC-236fa, and FK-5-1-12) that cost
multiple is in the range of 5 to 10x and that difference can be a difficult task to overcome even
where the use of a clean agent is justified. Industry consensus is that the market for HCFC/HFC/FK
type clean agent extinguishers is approximately 20% of the previous halon 1211 market size. The
other 80% of demand is being filled primarily by (1) dry chemical extinguishers where a clean
agent is not required, or (2) by CO2 units where a clean agent is required.
HCFC Blend B, with its modest ODP and GWP, has been and continues to be an important
alternative to halon 1211. HCFC Blend B is more attractive than its non-ODS alternative HFC-
236fa from an environmental standpoint owing to HFC-236fa’s very high GWP. Some believe that
HCFC Blend B should be preferred to HFC-236fa. The low GWP, non-ODS, in-kind alternatives
FK-5-1-12 and CO2 are also HFC-236fa alternatives.
In addition, 2-BTP has been commercialized for use in portable extinguishers on civil aircraft. Its
effectiveness is similar to halon 1211, with several manufacturers offering units for sale. Under
SNAP Rule 25, the US EPA proposed to allow 2-BTP as streaming agent for non-residential use,
except home offices and boats, EPA (2022).
4.3.8.1 Summary
For portable extinguishers, no new agents have been developed recently. Of the current agents,
HCFC Blend B is subject to a key raw material phaseout with associated challenges, HFC-236fa is
a high-GWP agent subject to a phasedown, leaving 2-BTP and FK-5-1-12. As discussed above, the
EPA is proposing to widen the approved uses for 2-BTP.
Testing of FK-5-1-12 in additional applications is ongoing with the aim of expanding its role as
both an HCFC and HFC replacement. For example, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
has tested FK-5-1-12 in civil aviation rescue and firefighting (ARFF) vehicles as a potential
replacement for HCFC Blend B, which would also avoid the need to try to use HFC-236fa in that
application (i.e., serve as an HFC alternative). In all experimental configurations, FK-5-1-12
required more agent by both weight and volume than HCFC Blend B. However, many standards for
ARFF are switching to combinations of a clean agent, dry chemical and aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF). The number of ARFF appliances and the amount of fire extinguishing agent is scaled
according to the size of aircraft landing at the airport. For more information refer to FAA FAR Part
139, FAA (2022).
Page 40 of 241
4.3.9 References
Dadia (2017): Minimum Performance Standard Aircraft Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement
Fire Suppression Systems Testing, https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/ppt/systems/Nov17Meeting/Dadia-
1117-MPSClass-C.pptx
EPA (2022): Federal Register July 28, 2022. “Proposed Rule Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Listing of Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program in Refrigeration, Air
Conditioning, and Fire Suppression”. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/28/2022-
14665/protection-of-stratospheric-ozone-listing-of-substitutes-under-the-significant-new-
alternatives
FAA( 2022): “Part 139 Airport Certification”
https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/part139_cert/#regulations
FSTOC (2022a): Technical Note A, Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs, and HFCs.
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
IPCC (2007): IPCC “Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf
Jones (2015): Jones, M., “The Pentagon Goes up in Flames”,
https://boundarystones.weta.org/2015/06/26/pentagon-goes-flames-1959).
NFPA (2014): “Current Requirements for Sprinkler Systems Containing Antifreeze – A Summary”,
https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Public-Education/By-topic/Home-fire-sprinklers/Current-
requirements-for-sprinkler-systems-containing-antifreeze.ashx
QRFS (2018): “The Use of Antifreeze in Fire Protection Systems”, https://blog.qrfs.com/107-the-
use-of-antifreeze-in-fire-protection-systems/
Shaw (2019): D J Shaw, “Boeing Cargo MPS Alternate Agent Test Results
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2019Conference/files/Cargo_Halon_Replacement_II/ShawBoeingAltern
ateAgent/ShawBoeingAlternateAgentPres.pdf
Page 41 of 241
5 Enduring Uses of Halon, HCFCs, and High-GWP HFCs
5.1 Civil Aviation
5.1.1 Introduction
5.1.1.1 Use of Halons on Aircraft
Although the incidence of in-flight fires is low, the consequences in terms of loss of life are
potentially devastating, and the use of halon to help guard against such events has been a key aspect
of aircraft fire safety. Aviation applications of halon are among the most demanding uses of the
agents and require every one of their beneficial characteristics. Particularly important are the
following:
• dispersion and suppression effectiveness, which must be maintained even at the low
temperatures encountered at high altitude,
• minimal toxic hazard to the health and safety of ground maintenance staff and passengers
and flight crew, who could be exposed to the agent and any decomposition products for
periods as long as several hours, and
• weight and space requirements of the agent and associated fire protection system.
Also significant are short- and long-term damage to aircraft structure or contents resulting from the
following:
• the agent or from its potential decomposition products in a fire,
• avoidance of clean-up problems,
• suitability for use on live electrical equipment,
• effectiveness on the hidden fire, and
• the installed cost of the system and its maintenance over its life.
While alternative methods of fire suppression for ground-based uses have been implemented, the
status of halon in the civil aircraft sector must be viewed in three different contexts: 1) existing
aircraft, 2) newly produced aircraft of existing models, and 3) new models of aircraft. Although
research and development is ongoing, all aircraft continue to depend on halon for the majority of
their fire protection applications. Given the anticipated 25 to 30-year lifespan of a newly produced
civil aircraft, this dependency could continue beyond the time when recycled halon is readily
available. The civil aviation industry must look either to their own stockpiles of halon or to the
limited amounts of recycled halon available on the open market to avoid grounding aircraft because
of a lack of appropriate fire protection. In the four years since the last Assessment report, it appears
that the aviation industry continues efforts to stockpile halon.
5.1.2 Relevant Decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
There have been numerous decisions by the parties to the Montreal Protocol relating to future
availability of halons. The most recent was Decision XXX/7, made at the 30th MOP in Quito,
Page 43 of 241
Ecuador in November 2018, which requested “that Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
through its Halons Technical Options Committee:
(a) Continue engaging with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the
International Civil Aviation Organization, consistent with paragraph 4 of decision XXVI/7 and
paragraph 1 of decision XXIX/8, to better assess future amounts of halons available to support
civil aviation and to identify relevant alternatives already available or in development;
(b) Identify ways to enhance the recovery of halons from the breaking of ships;
(c) Identify specific needs for halon, other sources of recoverable halon, and
opportunities for recycling halon in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Protocol and parties not so operating; and
(d) Submit a report on halon availability, based on the above-mentioned assessment and
identification activities, to the parties in advance of the forty-second meeting of the Open-
Ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;”
Three of the four requests are open ended; only paragraph (d) had a specific deliverable. In the
absence of a more recent decision, the FSTOC is continuing to work on the requests (a), (b), and
(c).
5.1.3 Estimated Halon Usage and Emissions
5.1.3.1 Introduction
At present, the halon demands of civil aviation and most other existing uses of halons (e.g., oil and
gas, military, etc.) are being met by recycling agent being withdrawn from applications in other
industries and decommissioned aircraft. As reported to parties in the Decision XXVI/7 and the
XXIX/8 reports, the FSTOC expresses concern that these sources of supply will be dramatically
reduced or completely exhausted long before the aircraft now being built and fitted (and potentially
still designed) with halon systems are retired. Although FSTOC has previously reported that this
might result in civil aviation requesting a party to submit an Essential Use Nomination (EUN), the
impact could be broader. Since most other existing users do not have long-term, dedicated
stockpiles, they are also vying for the same halon supplies that civil aviation does. This supply and
demand is illustrated in Figure 5.1 (taken from ICF (2018)).
Page 44 of 241
Figure 5.1: Halon 1301 Supply and Demand
From the latest data using the methodology of Vollmer et al. (2016), (see Section 6.2.1 for further
information) halon 1301 emissions did not change during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though
the number of flight hours dropped significantly. Therefore, it is believed that the emissions from
the aviation industry occur predominantly during extinguisher service and overhaul operations,
which are time-based not flight hours-based. This is shown in Figure 5.2 where the size of the
emissions arrow is indicative of the amount of halon 1301 emitted.
The timeframe when halon is no longer available to civil aviation could also be the timeframe when
halon is no longer available to other users that do not have dedicated, long-term stockpiles, who
might then also feel the need to submit an EUN(s). The analysis below projects when this could
happen based on varying use and emission scenarios.
Page 45 of 241
Computer rooms: 7,331 tonnes
Ship-breaking: 199 tonnes
Aviation: 90 tonnes
Total ~ 7,620 tonnes
Figure 5.2: Supply and Emissions Sources for the Aviation Industry
5.1.3.2 Estimated Halon 1301 Supplies
The FSTOC previously reported on the potential availability of halon 1301 to support civil aviation
using six scenarios initially developed by ICF, ICF (2015) and reported to the parties under
decision XXVI/7, ICF (2015), TEAP (2015). This was updated to eight scenarios in a response to
Decision XXIX/8, TEAP (2018) to estimate halon 1301 resources needed to service the existing
aviation fleet, account for aviation growth through 2060, and to also service continuing non-
aviation applications. The scenarios account for different potential supply of halon 1301, as
estimated by the FSTOC (see 6.2.1 for the latest FSTOC estimates) and assumes various annual
emission rates from all halon 1301 aviation applications (i.e., 2.3%-2.8%, 5%, 7.6%, or 15%) and
varying emission rates for non-aviation sources (i.e., between 0.1% and 5%) The highest annual
aviation emission rate (i.e., 15%) was estimated using the global average annual halon emission rate
of about 4% from Vollmer et al. (2016) and the proportion of halon emissions from the aviation
sector. In addition, the FSTOC is aware of anecdotal information that supports this potentially high
emission rate. A draft reevaluation of this analysis was obtained by FSTOC, ICF (2022) and is used
for this update.
These scenarios did not model uptake of halon 1301 alternatives for engine nacelles, cargo
compartments, or APUs in existing systems and newly manufactured aircraft, nor are retrofits
included. Although ICAO requires new aircraft designs to use halon alternatives in engine and APU
applications beginning on December 31, 2014, and for cargo bays beginning in 2024 (dates for the
EU are even earlier), there are no aircraft designs currently available to meet that requirement.
Starting in 2010, newly manufactured mainline aircraft are assumed to no longer use halon lavatory
extinguishing systems, while a declining portion of the fleet still contains halon lavatory
extinguishing systems (i.e., in aircraft manufactured before 2010).
Page 46 of 241
The eight scenarios model +/- 10% of the total worldwide supply of halon 1301 that could be
available to civil aviation as of the end of 2022 at 7,620 metric tonnes (i.e., a low and a high of
approximately 6,858 and 8,382 metric tonnes respectively), as shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Worldwide Halon 1301 Bank as of the End of 2022 (tonnes)
Source Available to Civil Quantity
Aviation? (tonnes)
Japan No 16,455
Military installed No 2,250
Military reserves No 1,992
Oil and gas facilities No 1,500
Nuclear installed No 361
Nuclear reserves No 131
Aviation Installed No 4,001
Unavailable Bank (Total) 6,234
Computer facilities Yes 7,331
Maritime Yes 199
Aviation bank/stockpile Yes 90
Available Bank (Total) 7,620
Worldwide Bank Total 34,310
The general assumptions for all scenarios modeled and the years in which the available halon 1301
is expected to be sufficient to meet demand in each scenario are summarized in Table 5.2. The best-
case and worst-case scenarios are highlighted in yellow.
Table 5.2: Assumptions and Results for Eight Drawing Down Halon 1301 Scenarios
Scenario Total Annual Annual Global Year Available
Available Emission Emission Overall Supply Runs Out
Supply in Rate Rate (non- Emission
2018 Latest
2022 (tonnes) (Aviation) Aviation) Rate
Estimate Estimate
1 6,858 2.3 – 2.8% 0.1 – 3% 1.4% 2048 2045
2 6,858 7.6% 0.1 – 3% 1.9% 2038 2035
3 6,858 5.0% 1 – 5% 2.3% 2040 2037
4 6,858 15.0% 1 – 5% 3.9% 2032 2030
5 8,382 2.3 – 2.8% 0.1 – 3% 1.6% 2054 2049
6 8,382 7.6% 0.1 – 3% 2.0% 2042 2037
7 8,382 5.0% 1 – 5% 2.3% 2045 2040
8 8,382 15.0% 1 – 5% 3.8% 2034 2031
Page 47 of 241
Based on the results of this draft analysis, the estimated available halon 1301 supply for replacing
emissions from most existing active fire protection systems in aviation and non-aviation
applications (i.e., oil and gas facilities, nuclear facilities, and military installed/reserves) as well as
new aviation demand are projected to run out by years 2030 to 2049, depending on the total
worldwide supply in 2022 and annual emission rates. This is two to five years earlier than projected
in 2018 and is mainly the result of less halon 1301 projected to be available to civil aviation. For
example, more halon 1301 is projected by the FSTOC in 2022 to be in Nuclear Power Plants
(NPPs) than was projected in 2015 and 2018 (see 5.4.3 for the FSTOC analysis of installed halon
1301 in NPPs globally).
Three of the modelled scenarios are shown in Figure 5.3, Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 below. In all
cases the dashed line at year 2022 represents the transition from actual to modelled data.
Figure 5.3: Estimated Halon 1301 Run-out Date
(Scenario 1, 1.4% Global Emission Rate)
Page 48 of 241
Figure 5.4: Estimated Halon 1301 Run-out Date
(Scenario 4, 4.4% Global Emission Rate)
Figure 5.5: Estimated Halon 1301 Run-out Date
(Scenario 6, 2% Global Emission Rate)
As aircraft fire extinguishing agent containers are typically hermetically sealed, the incidence of
leakage is likely to be low. It is now believed that the majority of these emissions occur during
servicing. A small proportion may be due to the extinguishers being actuated, which may be by
Page 49 of 241
accident, or following a fire signal. As stated earlier, the incidence of in-flight fires is low, so it is
likely that the majority of aircraft-related emissions are due to false alarms; anecdotal data from
industry shows that cargo bay system smoke detector false alarms are the largest driver of civil
aviation industry discharges of halon 1301, Blake (2000). The latest generation of “discriminating”
smoke detectors use more than one criterion to detect smoke and therefore exhibit much lower false
alarm rates.
The attribution of aviation related emissions to service-related activity has been supported by the
recent data on halon 1301 emissions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Figure 5.6, taken from the
TEAP 2022 Progress report, TEAP (2022), shows the dramatic reduction in commercial flight
activity in 2020.
Figure 5.6: Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Aviation. Source: Flightradar24
Data from Flightradar24; https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics,
Retrieved 28 April 2022
The data for the latest estimates of global emissions based on atmospheric abundances though 2021
do not show any significant decrease in halon 1301 emissions during 2020, see Figure 6.2 in section
6.2.1. Since we know that civil aviation flight hours dropped by 60% during the pandemic, this
suggested that global emissions for at least 2020 did not correlate well with civil aviation flight
operations. In other words, total global emissions do not seem to be dependent on the number or
duration of civil aviation flights. This does not necessarily mean that civil aviation is not the cause
of some of or even a significant amount of the emissions but rather that a different part of the
aviation lifecycle such as fire extinguisher maintenance could be responsible for much of these
emissions.
5.1.3.3 Potential for Smaller Global Halon 1301 Bank
5.1.4 Halon Banks
At present, the halon demands of aviation are being met by recycling agent withdrawn from
applications in other industries. As illustrated above, this source of supply will be dramatically
reduced, and is likely to be exhausted, long before the aircraft now being built and fitted with halon
systems are retired.
Page 50 of 241
Civil aviation original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and operators who have not already done
so are strongly advised to:
• determine their emission rate and, where possible, take actions to reduce it to the lowest
level whilst still maintaining safety,
• consider whether the installed stocks of halon they own are sufficient to meet their long-
term needs (taking into account the possibility that contaminated halon may have penetrated
their own stocks),
• ascertain whether these stocks are being properly managed to ensure they are available for
their needs,
• determine whether it is necessary to procure and store additional agent now, while it is
relatively easy to do so, to meet long-term demands, and
• continue to implement policies that eliminate or minimize discharge in testing, training, and
maintenance.
Further information on halon banks can be found in Chapter 6 of this report.
5.1.5 Status of Halon Replacement Options for Aviation
Halons are used for fire suppression on civil aircraft in:
• lavatory trash receptacles,
• portable (handheld) extinguishers,
• engine nacelles and APUs, and
• cargo compartments.
All new installations of fire extinguishing systems for engines and cargo compartments use halon
1301, and some new installations of handheld extinguishers still use halon 1211. With the exception
of lavatory trash receptacles and some handheld extinguishers, there has been no system-wide,
large-scale retrofit of halon systems or portable extinguishers with available alternatives in the
existing worldwide fleet of aircraft.
Key to the acceptance of one or more of the approved substitutes has been their ability to
demonstrate fire extinguishing performance equivalence to halon in specific applications. As such,
substitutes for halons in civil aviation fire extinguishing systems are evaluated and approved
according to the relevant MPS and testing scenarios developed by the International Aircraft Systems
Fire Protection Forum (IASFPF). The status of the development of these MPS for the above
applications and the alternatives tested to these MPS are discussed below.
Page 51 of 241
5.1.5.1 Lavatory Trash Receptacle
Halon 1301 has historically been used in lavatory trash receptacle systems, which are designed to
extinguish trash receptacle fires in the lavatories of pressurized cabins. Trash receptacles are
required to be installed with a lavatory extinguishing system that automatically discharges into the
container in the event of a Class A fire (Class A fires consist of ordinary combustibles such as wood,
paper, fabric, and most kinds of trash). All lavatory extinguishing systems using halon alternatives
must meet the Minimum Performance Standard (MPS), Marker (1997), that includes the ability to
extinguish a Class A fire and in the case of discharge while not creating an environment that
exceeds the chemical agent’s maximum acceptance level for toxicity.
Research and testing have shown that there are suitable alternative suppression systems using the
high-GWP agents HFC-227ea or HFC-236fa for this application that are “a drop-in” replacement
from a space and weight perspective, meet the toxicological requirements, and cost the same or less
than the halon systems being replaced.
Virtually all current production aircraft are fitted with halon replacement agents. Some older legacy
platforms have not yet been transitioned to the replacement agent, and to do so would require Type
Certification / Aircraft Manuals to be updated. In some cases, this is happening; in others it is not.
In addition, several airlines are replacing existing halon 1301 lavatory extinguishing systems with
these halon-free alternatives during scheduled maintenance activity.
There are no approved low-GWP alternatives for this application to replace HFC-227ea,
HFC-236fa, or halon 1301, and the FSTOC is not aware of any research to develop one. Given that
the quantities of fire extinguishing agent in this application are very small (~0.25% of the total
quantity installed on aircraft), and emission rates are low, replacing these agents is viewed as low
priority by industry at this time.
5.1.5.2 Portable (Handheld) Extinguishers
All handheld extinguishers intended to replace halon 1211 extinguishers must meet the MPS to
ensure their performance and safety. These standards require that any handheld extinguisher for
aviation use be listed by UL or an equivalent listing organization. To be listed, the extinguisher must
be able to disperse in a manner that allows a hidden fire to be suppressed and does not cause any
unacceptable visual obscuration, passenger discomfort, or toxic effects where people are present. In
addition to the MPS, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has published an Advisory
Circular, FAA (2011), which provides guidance on firefighting effectiveness, selection, location and
mounting of extinguishers, and how to obtain certification of a handheld extinguisher for civil
aviation use.
The MPS was published in August 2002, Webster (2002). As of 2022, four halon alternatives,
HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HCFC Blend B, and 2-BTP, have successfully completed all of the
required handheld UL™ and MPS tests and are commercially available. Table 4.1 shows that these
alternatives have increased space and weight characteristics, environmental concerns of high GWP
for the two HFCs, and production phaseout for HCFCs under the Montreal Protocol for the HCFC
blend. Qualification and installation certification by airframe manufacturers and regional authorities
are needed prior to airline use. Based on these issues, airframe manufacturers chose not to pursue
qualification and installation certification for these ODS or high GWP alternatives. However, as
reported in the 2018 Assessment report, testing of 2-BTP has been completed. Being “chemically-
Page 52 of 241
acting” (i.e., it contains a bromine atom) this agent has a lower space and weight impact compared
to other alternatives, as shown in Table 5.3. The agent has received regulatory approval in both the
US and the EU.
Table 5.3: Options for Portable (Handheld) Extinguishers for Aircraft Use
(a) Imperial units
Agent Total Dimensions
GWP
Agent Weight Weight (H x W x D, ODP
(100 year)
(Pounds) (Pounds) inches)
Halon 1211 2.5 3.93 17 x 4.8 x 3.25 7.91 18901
2-BTP (Option 1) 3.75 5.6 15.75 x 5 x 3.5 0.00282
0.0052
2-BTP (Option 2) 3.5 5.0 13.78 x 4.47 x 3.54 (3D-model)
HCFC Blend B 5.5 9.3 15 x 5 x 4.25 0.011 771
HFC-236fa 4.75 9.5 15.9 x 8 x 4.5 0 98201
HFC-227ea 5.75 9.8 16.6 x 6.5 x 4.4 0 35801
(b) S.I. Units
Agent Total
Dimensions GWP
Agent Weight Weight ODP
(H x W x D, mm) (100 year)
(kg) (kg)
Halon 1211 1.13 1.78 432 x 122 x 83 7.91 18901
2-BTP (Option 1) 1.70 2.54 400 x 127 x 89 0.00282
0.0052
2-BTP (Option 2) 1.59 2.27 350 x 114 x 90 (3D-model)
HCFC Blend B 2.50 4.22 381 x 127 x 108 0.011 771
HFC-236fa 2.16 4.31 404 x 203 x 114 0 98201
HFC-227ea 2.61 4.45 422 x 165 x 112 0 35801
Notes:
1. ODP and GWP values from WMO (2010). Note that ODP of HCFC Blend B was rounded
up from 0.0098
2. ODP value from Patten and Wuebbles (2010). Note that ODP/GWP values can vary
depending on the assumed geographical distribution of the release. The latitudes considered
include the US and EU.
This transition to 2-BTP for newly produced transport category aircraft is well underway. Several
manufacturers have developed and certified handheld extinguishers, which have been selected by
major aircraft OEMs. This agent is gradually replacing halon 1211 on a platform-by-platform basis.
Retrofit of halon 1211 portable (handheld) extinguishers in civil aviation is required in the EU by
the end of 2025. For general aviation, halon 1211 is still the only approved agent for portable
extinguishers.
Page 53 of 241
5.1.5.3 Engine and APU Compartment
Halon 1301 is typically used in engine nacelles and APUs to protect against Class B (liquid fuel)
fires. The requirements of fire suppression systems for engine nacelles and APUs are particularly
demanding, since these compartments contain fuels and other volatile fluids in close proximity to
high temperature surfaces. HFC-125 has been used successfully as an alternative to halon for engine
fire protection on US military aircraft developed since the early 1990s. In addition, HFC-125 is
used on a military derivative of a large commercial aircraft (Boeing 767; military derivative KC-46,
Pegasus). HFC-125 has increased space and weight characteristics. It is also included in the Kigali
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol for phasedown. Based on these issues, particularly the
additional weight, civil airframe manufacturers have chosen not to pursue qualification and
installation certification for HFC-125 in engine nacelles and APUs.
The current MPS was published in 2010, FAA (2010) but is under revision by the FAA. A deadline
for publication of the revised standard has not been defined as yet. Three potential replacement
agents, HFC-125, CF3I, and FK-5-1-12 were tested against the then current version of the MPS and
halon 1301 equivalent concentrations were determined, Ingerson (2007). The equivalent
concentrations relative to halon 1301 are presented in Table 5.4 along with historical data for CO2,
FAA (1977).
Table 5.4: Equivalent Concentrations for CF3I, FK-5-1-12, HFC-125, and CO2
for Aircraft Engine Nacelles
Agent Equivalent Mass Mass Ratio Volume Ratio
Concentration (kg/m3)2 to Halon to Halon
(Volume%) 1 1301 1301
Halon 1301 6 0.401 1 1
CF3I 7.1 0.617 1.54 1.13
FK-5-1-12 6.1 0.904 2.25 2.17
HFC-125 17.6 1.08 2.70 3.50
CO2 34 0.943 2.35 5.02
1
Per FAA Advisory Circular AC20-100, FAA (1997), this concentration should be
maintained throughout the protected zone for a minimum of 0.5 second.
2
Halon 1301 calculated from National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA)12A, NFPA (2018),
and replacement agents from ISO14520, ISO (2015), using a temperature of 20°C
From Table 5.4, it is clear that CF3I is closest to a “drop-in” replacement for halon 1301 for engine
nacelle and APUs. This is because iodine can undergo the same catalytic radical recombination
reactions as bromine, which makes it is a very efficient fire extinguishing agent. Therefore, this
agent was evaluated in the late 1990’s, but following some adverse toxicity results, attention was
focused elsewhere. However, given the lack of significant progress over the last two decades, the
civil aviation industry is refocusing attention on CF3I as an engine nacelle and APU fire
Page 54 of 241
extinguishing agent. It should be noted that CF3I is the only halon alternative that has low ODP, low
GWP, and would not be subject to the proposed EU PFAS REACH restriction, refer to section 3.2.
An engine nacelle system using FK-5-1-12 was developed but it failed a US FAA required live fire
test using a cold soaked fire protection agent to simulate low temperature use, FAA (2011). Also, an
engine nacelle system based on a dry chemical failed a required full-scale test. At this time, the
system manufacturer is carrying out further work to improve the performance of the dry chemical
system with the intent of returning to the FAA to retest.
5.1.5.4 Industry Activity
The civil aviation industry decided in 2013 to define common non-halon fire extinguishing
solution(s) and formed the Engine/APU Halon Alternatives Research Industry Consortium. In 2015,
this was renamed the Halon Alternatives for Aircraft Propulsion Systems (HAAPS) consortium. The
consortium consists of aircraft OEMs Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer, and Textron. the Ohio
Aerospace Institute is acting as administrator. Other stakeholders (fire extinguishing system
suppliers and distributors, chemical companies, airline operators, engine manufacturers,
universities, consultants, etc.) were also engaged in this process. The consortium has mapped out a
three phase, multi-year approach for alternatives development. Phase I (administrative start-up),
with a signed Joint Collaboration Agreement in place, and Phase II (formal creation of Technical
and Non-Technical Task Teams), which included the initial FAA engagement, preliminary
certification path proposals development, high level Request for Information and the down select
finalists have been completed. Two primary solutions candidates were selected to be evaluated on
next phase. After Statement of Work and Technical Readiness Level definitions, Phase III has
commenced in 2020 for in-depth agent development and evaluation and testing of selected
candidates. Phase III is planned to take 2 to 3 years to complete HAAPS activities. Thereafter,
airframer members will proceed with independent certification activities to incorporate a solution
into their projects, using the information developed under HAAPS, e.g., certification path, means of
compliance agreements, and test and qualification data, etc.
The FSTOC notes that the progress of this consortium is slower than was originally forecast by the
consortium as reported in both the 2014 and 2018 HTOC Assessment reports.
Except for the customized approval for use of phosphorous tribromide in one model of business jet,
the only approved agents for use in civil aviation engine nacelles and APUs remains halon 1301 and
HFC-125 on a military derivative of a large commercial aircraft (Boeing 767; military derivative
KC-46).
5.1.5.5 Cargo Compartments
In passenger aircraft, the cargo compartments are typically located below the passenger cabin or
occupy both the main and lower deck on freighter aircraft. Note, in freighter aircraft only the lower
deck is protected with halon; the main deck is considered a Class E cargo compartment where fire
suppression is handled differently than other cargo compartments. Fire suppression typically is
accomplished by depressurising the Class E cargo compartment and landing as quickly as possible
before the fire re-establishes itself. One large freight carrier has reportedly developed a foam system
for additional fire protection for the main deck.
Page 55 of 241
In the case of a fire in the lower deck cargo compartment, a rapid discharge of halon 1301 is
deployed into the protected space to suppress the fire, which is followed by a discharge that is
released slowly to maintain a concentration of halon to prevent re-ignition. The slow discharge is
maintained until the plane has landed to protect against any reduction in the concentration of halon
caused by ventilation or leakage.
Lower deck cargo compartment fire suppression systems must be able to meet the requirements of
four fire tests required in the Cargo Compartment MPS last updated in 2012, Reinhardt (2012).
The system must be able to suppress both a Class A deep-seated fire and a Class A fire inside a
cargo container. The system must be able to extinguish a Class B fire (flammable liquid such as jet
fuel) within 5 minutes, and prevent the explosion of a hydrocarbon mixture, such as might be found
in aerosol cans. In addition, the system must have sufficient agent/suppression capability to be able
to provide continued safe flight and landing from the time a fire warning occurs, which could be in
excess of 350 minutes, depending on the aircraft type and route planned.
A fifth fire threat is being added to the MPS, in part to address the hazard of shipping lithium-ion
batteries in aircraft cargo compartments. The FAA has set up the MPS Cargo Compartment Task
group to update the MPS, to include a new test element. As well as including lithium-ion batteries
the proposed test includes a liquid fuel, ethanol, and cardboard boxes with shredded office paper, so
the test is referred to as the “Multiple Fuel Fire Challenge”. The timescale for the updated MPS to
be issued is not known at this time.
To date, there have been no cases of halon 1301 replacement with an alternative agent in cargo
compartments of civil aircraft. All the single-component vaporizing liquid agents that have
undergone the exploding aerosol can test, HFC-125, 2-BTP, and FK-5-1-12, have been shown to
cause an undesired increase in the test compartment pressure if discharged at a concentration below
which the agent will suppress a fire or deflagration event, FAA (2004). The cargo MPS now
requires that pressure increase not occur upon application of a suppressant agent in a quantity less
than that needed to suppress a fire or deflagration event. On this basis, all the single halogenated
agents tested so far have been found to be unacceptable.
Several approaches are being developed by industry. One fire suppression system manufacturer
presented data at the IASFPF in 2016 showing that inert gas alone is capable of passing the Cargo
Compartment MPS, FAA (2016). Another fire suppression system manufacturer, in conjunction
with the FAA, presented data showing a combination of water mist and nitrogen (IG-100) can pass
the current MPS, FAA (2017a), and the lithium-ion battery fire threat, referred to above,
FAA (2017b).
Commercial development of both the inert-gas-only and the water mist/nitrogen cargo fire
suppression systems continues. The FAA has completed proof-of-concept testing for a blend of
2-BTP and CO2, FAA (2018). MPS testing was successfully conducted in 2019, FAA (2019). Cargo
compartment fire extinguishing systems are sized assuming an empty cargo compartment, as that
represents the worst case in terms of the discharged agent concentration. In practice, the cargo
compartments are usually not empty, so in the event of a fire, the discharged agent concentration is
much higher than the design. Whilst this represents an advantage in terms of fire suppression
performance it can also have consequences in terms of agent toxicity and/or reduced oxygen
concentration. It should be noted that this blend of 2-BTP and CO2 is toxic at its design
Page 56 of 241
concentration. While cargo compartments are classified as unoccupied areas, animals are allowed to
be transported in cargo bays and would be put at risk with this blend.
In 2013, the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA)
formed the Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Working Group (CCHRWG) to begin to
recommend to ICAO a viable date for establishing halon deadline on aircraft cargo compartments.
This group suggested the end of 2024 as the time by which a cargo compartment fire suppression
system containing a replacement agent could be developed and applied for approval in a completely
new aircraft type. This is known as applying for a “Type Certificate”. This date was accepted by
ICAO and adopted as Resolution A39/13 during its 39th assembly in 2016.
Although its primary task has been accomplished, the CCHRWG continues to monitor the progress
of halon replacement activity in cargo compartments, with periodic reporting to ICAO’s Air
Navigation Committee, supporting the ICAO 2024 deadline for new type certification applications
submitted on or after 28 November 2024. To avoid confusion with ICAO working groups it has
been renamed the Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Advisory Group (CCHRAG). In 2018,
the CCHRAG performed a technical assessment of potential solutions to evaluate the viability to
meet that deadline, resulting in a report published for the 40th ICAO General Assembly in 2019, as
Information Paper, ref. A40-WP/93, ICAO (2019). This assessment was updated in 2021 and
reported as working paper A41-WP/96, ICAO (2022) to the 41st ICAO General Assembly held from
27 September - 7 October 2022. The CCHRAG assessed that the ICAO deadline of 2024 is still
achievable assuming timely mitigation of risks associated with worldwide regulatory aspects and
continued industry efforts to overcome the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition,
A41-WP/96 included the following: “However, the assessment notes regulatory and schedule risks
that could lead to delay, in particular upcoming regulatory action on PFAS (per- and
polyfluoroalkyl) substances under development in the EU.”
5.1.6 Crash Rescue Vehicles
In addition to on-board civil aircraft applications, halon 1211 was used in some Aircraft Rescue and
Fire Fighting (ARFF) or Crash Rescue vehicles on airport ramps. After full scale fire testing in
1993-94, the US FAA approved HCFC Blend B as a halon 1211 replacement for this application in
the US in 1995. However, because HCFC Blend B is an ODS, national regulations may limit its use
for this application in other countries. Since 1995, a significant number of US airports have
installed these systems. As such, the TEAP considered that there was some likelihood that there
might be ARFF applications that would continue to need clean agents in the 2020 - 2030 timeframe
that currently can only be met with halon 1211 or HCFC Blend B.
Decision XXX/2 allows the use of newly produced HCFCs in fire protection applications existing
on 1 January 2020 for the period 2020 - 2029 for non-Article 5 parties. The decision also allows
Article 5 parties to use HCFCs in equipment existing on 1 January 2030 through 2039. After these
dates, this application will need to rely on recycled / reclaimed agent.
FK-5-1-12 has been tested by the US Air Force in historical 68 kg (150 pound) halon 1211 sized
wheeled units and found to require more weight and volume than halon 1211 or HCFC Blend B.
Owing to its slightly lower liquid density compared with halon 1211, a slightly larger wheeled unit
was needed. A useful reference to wheeled units can be found at Amerex (2022). Although the
Page 57 of 241
fluoroketone has been shown to be effective in wheeled units and one truck mounted ARFF system,
it is not yet approved for use in other ARFF vehicles. Therefore, at this point, there will still be a
need to use HCFCs.
5.1.7 Conclusions
Halon alternatives that weigh more and/or take up more space, are unlikely to be implemented by
civil aviation airframe manufacturers for the aircraft that are in service. As such, the civil aviation
sector is poised to be reliant upon halons for at least the next 30 years, the projected life of aircraft
currently being produced. Although the FSTOC previously reported that this situation might result
in civil aviation submitting an EUN, the impact could be broader. Since most other enduring users
of halon 1301 do not have long-term, dedicated stockpiles, they are competing for the same halon
supplies that civil aviation is reliant upon. The timeframe when halon is no longer available to civil
aviation could also be the timeframe when halon is no longer available to other who might feel the
need to submit an EUN. Depending upon the amount of halon available to support ongoing uses and
the rate of emissions from all uses, the timeframe for this to happen is estimated to be between 2039
and 2049. It should be noted that these timescales are not consistent with the EU phaseout dates for
ozone depleting substances.
5.1.8 References
Amerex (2022): https://www.amerex-fire.com/products/fire-extinguishers/
Blake (2000): Blake, D., “Aircraft Cargo Compartment Smoke Detector Alarm Incidents on U.S.-
Registered Aircraft, 1974-1999”, FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN00/29.
EPA (2018): The U.S. phaseout of HCFCs: Projected Servicing Demand in The U.S. Air-
Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Fire Suppression Sectors for 2020-2030.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
04/documents/draft_report_the_us_phaseout_of_hcfcs_projected_servicing_demands_in_the_u.s._a
ir_conditioning_refrigeration_and_fire_suppression_sector_2020-2030_0.pdf
FAA (1977): AC20-100 – “General Guidelines for Measuring Fire-Extinguishing Agent
Concentrations in Powerplant Compartments”,
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-100.pdf
FAA (2004): Reinhardt, J. W.,“Behavior of Bromotrifluoropropene and Pentafluoroethane When
Subjected to a Simulated Aerosol Can Explosion” FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN04/4
FAA (2010): “Minimum Performance Standards for Halon 1301 Replacement in the Fire
Extinguishing Agents/Systems of Civil Aircraft Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Compartments”,
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/MPSErev04_MPSeRev04doc-02submtd.pdf.
FAA (2011a): AC 20-42D – Hand Fire Extinguishers for Use in Aircraft.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/do
cumentID/888491
FAA (2011b): Forced-flow Fire Testing with “cold”-soaked FK-5-1-12, Final Results
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/Nov11Meeting/Ingerson-1111-coldGAS.pdf
FAA (2016): Chattaway, A.,“Cargo Compartment Testing at UTAS FPS”
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/May16Meeting/Chattaway-0516-Cargo.pdf
Page 58 of 241
FAA (2017a): Dadia, D. & Kirbach, K., “Minimum Performance Standard Aircraft Cargo
Compartment Halon Replacement Fire Suppression Systems Testing”
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/ppt/systems/Nov17Meeting/Dadia-1117-MPSClass-C.pptx
FAA (2017b): Dadia, D. & Kirbach, K., “Minimum Performance Standard Aircraft Cargo
Compartment Halon Replacement Fire Suppression Systems Testing – Challenge Fire Test”
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/ppt/systems/Nov17Meeting/Dadia-1117-MPSChallengeFire.pptx
FAA (2018): Dadia, D., “Proof of Concept Testing – Cargo Halon Replacement”
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/ppt/systems/Oct18Meeting/Dadia-1018-ProofOfConceptTesting.pptx
FAA (2019): Casey, J, “Full-Scale Evaluation of Novec™ 1230”, FAA Report DOT/FAA/TC-
19/27.
HTOC (2011): Halons Technical Options Committee United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) 2010 Assessment Report of the Halons Options Committee. March 2011. ICAO State letter
reference AN 3/25.1-10/2
HTOC (2018): 2018 Halons Technical Options Committee Assessment Report
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/HTOC_assessment_2018.pdf
ICAO (2019): International Civil Aviation Organization, 40th General Assembly, Working Paper
A40-WP/93, https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a40/Documents/WP/wp_093_en.pdf
ICAO (2022): International Civil Aviation Organization, 41st General Assembly, Working Paper
A41-WP/96, https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a41/Documents/WP/wp_096_en.pdf
ICF (2015) ICF International, “Projections of Halon 1301 Supply and Demand for Aviation
Applications, June 2015”.
Ingerson (2007): Ingerson, D, “Engine Nacelle Halon Replacement”, International Aircraft
Systems Fire Protection Working Group Meeting, April 16-17, 2007
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/April07Meeting/ingerson-0407-Engine.pdf
ISO (2015): ISO 14520, “Gaseous fire-extinguishing systems” https://webstore.ansi.org
Marker (1997): Marker, T., “Development of a Minimum Performance Standard for Lavatory
Trash Receptacle Automatic Fire Extinguishers”, DOT/FAA/AR-96/122, Final Report, February
1997” https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ar96-122.pdf
NFPA (2018): NFPA 12A Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2018 Edition, 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts, 02169.
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-
standards/detail?code=12A
O’Sullivan (2005): “National airlines and halon data,” Data compiled by a British Airways
technical expert, personal communication.
Patten and Wuebbles (2010), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Report “2-Bromo-3,3,3-
Trifluoropropylene Ozone Depletion Potentials and Global Warming Potentials” dated December
22, 2010, author Kenneth Patten and Donald Wuebbles.
Page 59 of 241
Reinhardt (2012): Reinhardt, J., “Minimum Performance Standard for Aircraft Cargo
Compartment Halon Replacement Fire Suppression Systems (2012 Update)” DOT/FAA/TC-
TN12/11
TEAP (2015): Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, June 2015, Volume 1
Progress Report, https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/TEAP_Task-Force-XXVI-
9_Report-June-2015.pdf
TEAP (2018): Report of the Technology And Economic Assessment Panel, September 2018,
Volume 2, Decision XXIX/8 On the Future Availability of Halons and Their Alternatives,
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/TEAP-Decision-XXIX-8_future-availability-of-
halons-and-their-alternatives_September2018_0.pdf
TEAP (2022): TEAP May 2022: Progress Report (Volume 1),
https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-EETF-report-may-2022.pdf
Webster (2002): Webster, H., “Development of a Minimum Performance Standard for Hand-held
Fire Extinguishers as a Replacement for Halon 1211 on Civilian Transport Category Aircraft”, H
Webster, DOT/FAA/AR-01/37, Final Report, August 2002. https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-
37.pdf
WMO (2010), World Meteorological Organization Report No. 52 – “Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Depletion: 2010.”
https://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2010/index.shtml
5.2 Military Applications
5.2.1 Overview
Military fire protection systems are unique in that they must protect personnel and platforms from
the consequences of combat damage and also protect against ‘peacetime’ fires. Fires due to combat
events are generally very fast-growing and relatively large. Fire protection systems are required to
counter these threats, often while allowing occupants to remain in the affected spaces. A point to
consider when choosing extinguishing agent for spaces that are normally occupied (e.g., shipboard
command centres, military vehicle crew spaces, etc.) is whether the enclosure must remain
operational during combat operations or can be evacuated. If the enclosure must stay occupied
during a fire event, then a limited number of agents are available for consideration due to toxicity
concerns. However, if evacuation of the enclosure is an option, a wider range of agents is available,
similar to commercial applications.
The full range of halon alternatives have been investigated for these ground, sea, and air
applications, including CO2, inert gases, high-GWP HFCs, dry chemicals, and other gaseous
chemicals. For some of these specialized applications, high-GWP HFCs have been the only
alternatives demonstrated to meet these stringent requirements. Therefore, many militaries have
transitioned from halons to high-GWP HFCs. Owing to the wide adoption of these HFCs, and the
lack of alternatives, their continued use will be required for the foreseeable future.
Significant research has shown that there are no alternatives to the halons or HFCs that meet all
military performance requirements. Owing to the production and consumption phasedowns of high-
GWP HFCs (see section 3.1) and potential PFAS restrictions (see section 3.2), the military sector
Page 60 of 241
needs be prepared for the diminishing availability of these chemicals. Given that the military sector
is not a significant user of these chemicals in terms of global demand, industry sources have
informed militaries that they have no plans to invest additional resources to develop alternative
chemicals specifically for these unique applications. Therefore, military investigations into
alternatives are limited to those chemicals that are used for other commercial applications (e.g.,
foam blowing, refrigeration, etc.). The likelihood of identifying a new chemical that meets these
military requirements is becoming lower due to previous research conducted into all available
chemical families. Thus, reliance on reserves from strategically-secure sources is likely to be
required.
The parties’ defence ministries and military organizations continue to carefully manage their limited
supplies of halons for future uses where alternatives cannot be implemented. These reserves are
critical to the sustainment strategies of weapon systems for the remainder of their service lives. At
this point, no militaries are reporting insufficient supplies to support most anticipated future military
needs. The FSTOC is aware of shortages of halons only for parties whose national regulations
restrict the imports of halons. In fact, the FSTOC knows of at least one military that has determined
that it has an excess of halon 1301 and has made this surplus available to other parties for mission-
critical applications. While initial estimates for dedicated military halon banks may have been larger
than ultimately required, surpluses indicate the positive effect of the halon replacement programmes
and ongoing conservation efforts.
Many of today’s fielded weapon systems and support equipment will remain in service for the
foreseeable future. Barring mandatory decommissioning, their mission-critical halon fire protection
systems will need to be supported, to at least 2050 and likely beyond. However, the EU requires
phaseout of halons in military uses as shown in Table 5.5 (Commission Regulation EU, 2017/605),
EU (2017). Presently, EU cut-off dates are under review and the dates might be brought forward for
some applications, and possibly extended for others. Given that the latest end date for halon in these
military critical use applications is currently 2040, the replacement processes would have to be
initiated in the near future since fleet retrofits can take a decade or more to complete due to funding
and logistics constraints.
There are no universal fire protection requirements for military applications. For example, some
navies rely on halons as a key element of their fire protection strategy for submarines while others
prohibit this use due to concerns regarding the potential hazards from combustion by-products
generated during the air purification process. These by-products may include acid gases such as
hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen bromide (HBr), and/or hydrogen chloride (HCl) as well as
carbonyl species such as carbonyl fluoride (COF2) and carbonyl chloride (COCl2, also known as
phosgene), depending on the chemical composition of the extinguishing agent used. These toxic
gases are of particular concern for the military where fires may be more intense than non-combat
fires and egress from the fire zone is not always possible. Similarly, combustion by-products are a
key consideration for agent selection in ground vehicle crew compartment fire extinguishing
systems for some militaries while others have not established limits for these potentially toxic
compounds. However, it should be noted that measuring the total average fluorine, chlorine or
bromine levels is not an adequate method to determine effects on humans.
Page 61 of 241
Table 5.5: Phase-Out Dates for Military Applications within EU
CRITICAL USES OF HALONS
Cut-off End date
Category of date (31 (31
Type of Type of
equipment or Purpose/Applications December December
extinguisher halon
facility of stated of stated
year)1 year)2
1. On military 1301
1.1. For the protection of Fixed
ground vehicles 1211 2010 2035
engine compartments system
2402
1.2. For the protection of crew Fixed 1301
2011 2040
compartments system 2402
1.3. For the protection of crew Portable 1301
2011 2020
compartments extinguisher 1211
2. On military 2.1. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2040
surface ships normally occupied machinery system 2402
spaces
2.2. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2035
normally unoccupied engine system 1211
spaces 2402
2.3. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2030
normally unoccupied electrical system 1211
compartments
2.4. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2030
command centres system
2.5. For the protection of fuel Fixed 1301 2010 2030
pump rooms system
2.6. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2030
flammable liquid storage system 1211
compartments 2402
2.7. For the protection of Portable 1301 2010 2016
aircraft in hangars and extinguisher 1211
maintenance areas
Page 62 of 241
3. On military 3.1. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2040
submarines machinery spaces system
3.2. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2040
command centres system
3.3. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2040
diesel generator spaces system
3.4. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2040
electrical compartments system
7. In land-based 7.1. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2025
command and normally occupied system 2402
communications spaces
facilities
7.2. For the protection of Portable 1211 2010 2013
essential to
normally occupied extinguisher
national
spaces
security
7.3. For the protection of Fixed 1301 2010 2020
normally unoccupied system 2402
spaces
1
the date after which halons must not be used for fire extinguishers or fire protection systems
in new equipment and new facilities for the application concerned
2
the date after which halons shall not be used for the application concerned and by which date
the fire extinguishers or fire protection systems containing halons shall be decommissioned
5.2.2 Military Ground Vehicle Applications
Parties continue to reduce dependence on halons for vehicle fire protection and in some cases avoid
the use of high GWP HFCs. For example, several parties have replaced halon 1301 in crew and/or
engine protection systems with agents based on HFC227-BC, a SNAP listed agent blend of HFC-
227ea and sodium bicarbonate-based dry chemical, HFC-236fa, or FK-5-1-12. Additionally, the UK
has converted the engine compartment fire protection systems of all its in-service armoured fighting
vehicles to HFCs (HFC-227ea or HFC-236fa) and replaced halon portable extinguishers with dry
chemical in its vehicle crew compartments. CO2 extinguishers have also replaced halon portable
extinguishers on all Swedish and many US military vehicles.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the phasedown of high-GWP HFC production will have a significant
impact on the military sector as availability of these chemicals declines. Owing to the relatively
small market size of military HFC uses, this will have a disproportionate effect on military
applications. As industry works to implement alternatives, these same alternatives may not be
suitable for military applications with their unique requirements. If militaries use fire extinguishing
agents that are not widely supported by industry owing to their low demand, then supply constraints
will be accelerated as chemical manufacturers phase down or stop production. The military sector
demand is not large enough to drive industry to continue production of required HFCs. Therefore, it
is recommended that militaries ensure that an adequate supply and/or stockpile is available to meet
anticipated future needs. Reliance on reclaimed chemicals could be a feasible option for the short-
Page 63 of 241
to mid-term. However, for long-term sustainment plans to be successful, availability and quality of
the agents need to be considered.
High-GWP HFCs are also used as refrigerants in multiple military applications and will have
similar supply constraints as will fire suppressants and require unique safety considerations for
applicability in military applications. At least one alternative (HFO-1234yf) being widely adopted
commercially has been shown to have significant flammability concerns when subjected to military
threats. Therefore, alternative refrigerants which may be suitable for commercial applications
should be evaluated for acceptable performance and safe use against military-unique environments
and threats.
The following discussion of the agent selection process for crew compartments of ground combat
vehicles by the militaries of several parties illustrates how different approaches could be taken and
different agent selections are being made for the same military application.
5.2.2.1 United States
The U.S. Army conducted live-fire testing of ground vehicle crew automatic fire extinguishing
systems (AFES) to evaluate several potential halon 1301 replacements, including the high-GWP
HFC alternatives HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, and HFC-125, with and without sodium bicarbonate
(NaHCO3) dry chemical, water with zero-GWP freeze-point additives, and NaHCO3 alone (referred
to as neat). HFC-227ea and HFC-236fa mixed with NaHCO3, and a proprietary aqueous agent,
demonstrated acceptable performance. The HFC-227ea/NaHCO3 blend and aqueous system were
down-selected for further testing. The HFC-236fa based blend also met requirements but was not
chosen because of its higher GWP and higher boiling point compared to HFC-227ea. The
HFC-227ea/NaHCO3 blend was subsequently SNAP-listed by the US EPA as HFC227-BC and is
the only halon alternative deployed to protect the crew compartments of U.S. Army ground vehicles
McCormick et al. (2000); McCormick et al. (2006); Hodges (2006).
The evaluation method involved fuel-spray live-fire tests designed to simulate the fireball
development and blast overpressure that follows a ballistic penetration of the vehicle armour and
fuel tank. The test vehicle was instrumented so that results could be judged against the casualty
criteria developed by the US Army medical community, Ripple and Mundie (1989). These criteria
were derived to allow vehicle occupants to remain in the compartment for at least five minutes
during and following a fire suppression event without being subjected to immediate or delayed
incapacitation. Key elements of the criteria are summarized in Table 5.6.
In a follow-on effort, lower GWP extinguishing agents were evaluated as part of ongoing vehicle
modernization efforts. Several agents were investigated, including FK-5-1-12, FK-5-1-12 with dry
chemical, water with additives, and neat dry chemicals, using several extinguisher technologies.
The basic conclusion, Hodges and Mccormick (2010) and (2013), was that no low-GWP alternate
to halon 1301 or HFC227-BC was available that had an acceptable space and weight allowance.
The Army continues to research low- and zero-GWP potential alternatives but thus far has come to
a similar conclusion. Overall, it has been found that low GWP alternatives are more reactive,
resulting in shorter atmospheric lifetimes and therefore lower GWPs, and also generate much higher
levels of toxic gases compared to the more stable, higher GWP chemicals, Hodges and Chapman
Page 64 of 241
(2018). This is of particular concern to the military sector as occupants often must stay in the
protected space following fire suppression.
Table 5.6: Select Crew Casualty Criteria
Parameter Requirement
Fire Suppression Extinguish all flames without reflash
Less than second degree burns
Skin Burns Thermal, 10-sec dose ≤ 1316°C-sec (2400°F-sec) and heat flux ≤ 3.9
cal/cm²
Lung damage < 0.8 bar (11.6 psi)
Overpressure
Ear damage ≤ 0.28 bar (4 psi)
Agent Concentration Not to exceed exposure limits per the applicable NFPA standard
Acid and Carbonyl Gases, 5 min dose
Toxic Gases HF + HBr + 2∙COF2 < 746 ppm-min
Other gases (e.g., CO2, CO, NOX, HCN) are also measured
Oxygen Levels Not below 16%
5.2.2.2 Sweden
In the mid-1990s, Sweden joined forces with Germany to take the lead in Europe to evaluate
alternate agents and systems for crew and engine compartments of military vehicles. Several live-
fire test programmes were carried out over the years that involved fuel-spray tests developed to
simulate the blast overpressure that follows a ballistic penetration of the armour and fuel tank (in
conformity with Level 4 of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Standardization Agreement
(STANAG) 4317, NATO (2018)). The crew casualty criteria used are similar to those in Table 5.6 ,
apart from overpressure where the Swedish/German criteria allow a maximum of 5.5 psi (0.38 bar)
and the allowed by-product dose is lower and evaluated over ten minutes vs. five as shown in Table
5.7 , Schepers (1999) and (2000).
Page 65 of 241
Table 5.7: Swedish Key Elements of Crew Casualty Criteria
Parameter Requirement
Fire Suppression Extinguish all flames without reflash
Less than second degree burns
Skin Burns Thermal, 10-sec dose ≤ 1316°C-sec (2400°F-sec)
and heat flux ≤ 3.9 cal/cm²
Lung damage < 0.38 bar (5.5 psi)
Overpressure
Ear damage ≤ 0.28 bar (4 psi)
Not to exceed exposure limits per the applicable NFPA
Agent Concentration
standard
Acid and Carbonyl Gases, 10 min dose
HF + HBr + 2 COF2 < 300 ppm-min
Toxic Gases
Other gases (e.g., CO2, CO, NOx, HCN) are also
measured
Oxygen Level Not below 16%
The agents selected for initial testing were
• HFC-227ea,
• HFC-236fa,
• HFC-125,
• HCFC Blend B (HCFC-123 and argon),
• HFC Blend B (HFC-134a, HFC-125 and carbon dioxide),
• Water mist with additives,
• HFC-227ea mixed with NaHCO3,
• FK-5-1-12, and
• FK-5-1-12 with NaHCO3 (this blend is not stable as the two materials react)
As a result of these tests, HFC-236fa and water mist were shortlisted for crew compartment
applications. After additional evaluations, Sweden and Germany selected HFC-236fa which
fulfilled all Swedish casualty criteria for this application. As of today, it is the only agent apart from
halon 1301 approved for use in their vehicle crew compartments. Although it has a lower GWP and
atmospheric lifetime, HFC-227ea was not selected because of the smaller margin between its design
concentration and its human exposure limits compared to HFC-236fa.
Overall, on main battle tanks, armoured and light armoured vehicles in Sweden, halon 1301 has
either been replaced or is scheduled to be replaced when the vehicles go through modification or
maintenance. By the end of 2022, the intention was that all halon 1301 systems on these vehicles
would be replaced. Sweden, Germany, and many other European armies (Denmark, Finland,
Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, and Portugal)
are now using HFC-236fa for all new and retrofit engine and crew compartment applications for
ground vehicles.
Page 66 of 241
5.2.2.3 Brazil
Brazil has deployed FK-5-1-12 in the crew AFES of its Guarani medium wheeled personnel
carriers, U.S. Army/MOD Brazil (2018). Using test methods and performance criteria similar to
the US Army, testing verified the following:
• fires were extinguished in less than 250 ms without reflash,
• temperatures were less than the threshold of second-degree burns,
• overpressures did not exceed the threshold for lung damage, and
• oxygen levels of 16% or greater were maintained.
However, it should be noted that combustion by-products were not addressed during the verification
process. These toxic gases need to be considered carefully for occupied applications as previously
discussed.
5.2.3 Military Aviation Applications
To date, many military aviation applications continue to rely on halons as the only viable options
owing to their fire extinguishing capabilities under the wide range of operating conditions that are
likely to be experienced by military aircraft.
HFC-125 has been successfully implemented as an alternative to halon 1301 for engine and APU
fire protection on U.S. military fighters and helicopters developed since the early 1990s. In
addition, HFC-125 is used on a military derivative of a large commercial aircraft recently put in
service (KC-46 Pegasus, a military derivative of the Boeing 767), USAF (2022). Military aircraft
are designed to have a minimum service life of 30 years, so support for the current systems will be
required beyond 2050; it is unlikely these systems will be converted to a lower-GWP agent in the
foreseeable future since no replacement has been identified to date.
In the US, there has been success in replacing the standard 150 lb. halon 1211 wheeled
extinguishing units employed on military flight lines with similarly sized units containing either
HCFC Blend B or FK-5-1-12 at facilities operated by the military inside and outside the US. These
units are UL™ listed and have somewhat lower fire extinguishing capability than the halon 1211
units employed for more than 30 years at US military sites.
There are only two standard halon alternative portable extinguishers (5B:C and 2B:C, UL 711
(2018) approved for military aircraft. However, there are many different sizes of portable
extinguishers installed on military aircraft and helicopters. The process of getting an extinguisher
approved for use on aircraft is costly and time consuming. The FSTOC is concerned that there will
be difficulties in replacing these other extinguishers as there are currently no standardized test
methods, classifications, or certification procedures for these other-sized extinguishers.
Page 67 of 241
5.2.4 Military Naval Applications
For naval vessel applications, the FSTOC is aware of acceptable alternatives to halons for almost all
applications in new designs. However, due to technical and economic challenges associated with
retrofits, halons continue to be used in critical legacy applications, including on some submarines
and in certain ship areas.
In naval vessels, a wide range of agents that include both high-GWP and low/zero-GWP fire
suppressants - which serve as both halon and HFC alternatives - are being used for the main
machinery and other spaces of new vessels operated by some parties. These include HFC-227ea,
fine water spray, hybrid HFC-227ea/water spray, FK-5-1-12, foam, and CO2 systems. However,
CO2 systems are prohibited in all spaces on new US naval vessels owing to crew safety
considerations based on the toxicity of CO2 that occurs well below concentrations needed to
extinguish fires, see EPA (2000) and NFPA 12 (2022). Militaries that use CO2 systems rely on
warnings, established egress procedures, and training for safe usage.
On Norwegian naval vessels, mainly alternatives to both halon and HFCs are used. This includes
IG-541 in electrical compartments, and water sprinklers and water mist with and without AFFF
additives for machinery spaces and other similar compartments. FK-5-1-12 is also an option for
new vessels, SDMO (2018).
On existing naval vessels operated by some militaries, halon conversion programmes continue for
normally unoccupied spaces such as paint lockers and diesel or gas turbine modules. For these
applications, both CO2 and HFCs have been found to be acceptable. Australia and Germany have
also converted some machinery space halon systems to HFC-227ea and CO2, respectively. The
Italian Department of the Navy has qualified FK-5-1-12 (thus avoiding the use of high-GWP HFCs)
for local explosion suppression onboard its military ships, based on the results of live-fire tests
performed using a fuel-spray fire inside a trial room representing ships’ machinery spaces. In these
tests, a fuel explosion was considered successfully suppressed when the following criteria were met,
Bona and Pallant (2006); Grimaldi and Aceto (2009):
• Extinction time ≤ 300 ms;
• Temperature integral ≤ 1300°C-sec
• HF produced < 1000 ppm-min
In Sweden, the halon systems on most naval vessels have been retrofitted and the rest will be
retrofitted when the upcoming midlife modifications are due within a few years. They have mainly
been converted to FK-5-1-12 for occupied and normally unoccupied spaces. Also, some CO2
systems have been installed but only in normally unoccupied spaces. A small number of inert gas
systems have also been installed.
In Denmark, where HFCs are not acceptable because of national legislation, IGs have been installed
to protect the engine compartments of some surface ships. When considering IGs for naval vessels,
the weight and space occupied by the system is a significant factor. For example, IG systems
require over three times the cylinder weight and deck space compared to an equivalent HFC-227ea
system. Note that the safety of the inert gas systems also needs to be considered when protecting
occupied spaces, see NFPA 2001, NFPA 2001 (2022).
Page 68 of 241
5.2.5 Summary
Many commercially available extinguishing agents have been assessed against the range of unique
military fire protection requirements. In summary:
• Alternatives to halons have been adopted in military applications where they have been
found to be technically and economically feasible.
• For new designs, there are many instances where the original halon or high-GWP HFC is
the only solution that will meet stringent design requirements associated with military
applications and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
• The military sector does not represent a large enough market segment to influence chemical
manufacturers to continue production of required HFCs or investigate new alternatives that
do not have broader application.
• It is not believed that any new chemicals will be commercially available for the military to
evaluate as viable replacements in the foreseeable future.
5.2.6 References
EPA (2000): “Carbon Dioxide as a Fire Suppressant: Examining the Risks" EPA Report No.
EPA430-R-00-002, February 2000. www.epa.gov/ozone
EU (2017): Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/605 of 29 March 2017 amending Annex VI to
Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that
deplete the ozone layer, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32017R0605
Bona and Pallant (2006): Bona, P., Dunster, R. G., Pallant, R., “Italian Navy Alternate Halon 1301
Agents Experimental Testing on Automatic Fire Sensing and Suppression Systems,” Kidde
Research Test Report 4292_en, 2006.
Grimaldi and Aceto (2009): Grimaldi, A. and Aceto, G., Novec 1230 Protection Fluid as a Next
Generation Alternative to Halons on the Comandanti Class Ship, NAV 2009 International
Conference of Ship and Shipping Research, 2009
Hodges and Chapman (2018): "Evolution of Combustion Byproducts from Gaseous Fire
Suppression Agents," Proc. ARL Fire Protection Workshop, October 2018
NFPA 12 (2022): NFPA 12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems, 2022
NFPA 2001 (2022): NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2022
SDMO (2018): Correspondence between Swedish Defence Material Organization (FMV) and
Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA), Naval Engineering Section, 11 April 2018
Page 69 of 241
USAF (2022): Air Force News Article “KC-46A cleared for worldwide deployments following first
combat refuel” published Sept. 20, 2022. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-
Display/Article/3163982/kc-46a-cleared-for-worldwide-deployments-following-first-combat-refuel/
5.3 Pipelines / Oil and Gas
5.3.1 Introduction
Risk management and regulations applicable to the hydrocarbon production and transportation
industry focus on the potential for liquid hydrocarbon leaks which can lead to spray or pool fires
and natural gas leaks which can lead to explosive atmospheres near occupied areas.
The enduring use of halon 1301 and halon 2402 systems in this industry for explosion prevention
(inerting) and fire protection (suppression) has been mainly focused on inhospitable locations such
as the Alaskan North Slope in the US, the North Sea in Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Russian
Federation, where production and transportation facilities have had to be enclosed owing to the
harsh climatic conditions.
Halon 1301 was the agent of choice for mitigating this threat in the US and Europe. Because of the
effectiveness and availability of halon 1301 in the US at the time, it was also commonly used to
protect the enclosures housing various support infrastructure (communication/data rooms, facility
control rooms, primary/standby power generation, electrical equipment rooms).
Halon 2402 was the agent of choice for mitigating this threat in Eastern Europe, the Russian
Federation and Ukraine. After the break-up of the former Soviet Union, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the
Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan were the main users of halon 2402 for fire protection
in oil and gas sector. Except for Ukraine, these countries successfully replaced halon 2402 by in-
kind and not-in-kind alternatives.
The remaining applications of halon 2402 in the oil and gas sector are floating roof oil tank
protection in Japan, gas transportation fire protection in Ukraine, and the petroleum industry in
Vietnam.
Table 5.8 provides a summary of halon, HFC, and their alternatives’ uses in the oil and gas sector.
Page 70 of 241
Table 5.8: Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Industry Fire Protection,
Agents Use by Application
Application Agents in Use in Agents Considered for New
Existing Infrastructure Developments (Post 2021)
(Pre 2021)
Oil Halon 1301, Halon 2402, HFC-23, HFC-227ea, FK-5-1-12,
HFC-23, HFC-227ea, fluorinated foams, water mist
fluorinated foams, water
or foam deluge, water
mist
Gas Halon 1301, Halon 2402, HFC-23, HFC-227ea, FK-5-1-12,
HFC-23, HFC-227ea
Control / Electronics Halon 1301, HFC-23, HFC-227ea, FK-5-1-12, Water
Rooms, Server Rooms, HFC-227ea, Water Mist Mist
etc.
In the 1990s, new oil and gas developments with risk profiles or regulatory drivers for active fire
protection systems installed HFC-23 (but not widely owing to its high-GWP), HFC-227ea in
hydrocarbon risk areas, and FK-5-1-12 in electronic spaces (control rooms, server rooms, etc.)
rather than rely on halons.
When reviewing enduring uses of halons and HFCs, there are two distinct cases to consider: 1)
existing facilities and 2) new facilities. It should be noted that the original anticipated operational
lifetime of existing oil and gas facilities was in the 20 to 30-year timeframe. Owing to changing
technologies in oil and gas extraction, most facilities have already exceeded the original designed
lifetime and are anticipated to continue operating for up to another 40 to 50 years. Therefore,
existing facilities will likely remain protected by halons or HFCs, resulting in enduring uses of
halons, HFC-23, HFC-227ea, (and FK-5-1-12) throughout the facility lifetime. It is not technically
or economically feasible to replace existing systems with other common fire protection agents as
they are not well suited for use in this industry. These include:
• Dry chemical: time/cost prohibitive to clean up after deployment and byproducts may result
in corrosion of equipment risking critical energy infrastructure downtime.
• CO2: unsuitable for use in areas that may be occupied by personnel, generally limited to
power generation enclosures.
• IGs: unsuitable for areas that may be occupied by personnel at concentrations required for
hazards present.
• Water deluge: Difficult to clean up after deployment and may result in damage to control
equipment risking critical energy infrastructure downtime.
• Water mist: unsuitable for inerting / explosion prevention protection.
Page 71 of 241
New facilities will continue to adopt alternatives based on the specific risks, hazard management
and agent functionality in the given ambient environment and protected enclosure. However, it is
important to note that for low temperature applications there have been no new low-GWP agents
entering the commercial market that are both effective for hydrocarbon fires and safe at inerting
concentrations across the wide design temperature spectrum (-46oC to 32oC). Only where sufficient
protected enclosure heating can be provided for all emergency scenarios can agents other than halon
1301 and HFC-23 be employed for both hydrocarbon fire and explosion inerting protection.
Therefore, this industry will need to continue use of halon and HFCs in new oil and gas
developments in low temperature protected enclosures.
The oil and gas production and transportation industry as a whole is reducing reliance on halons and
HFCs as a percentage of protected facilities. However, enduring uses related to existing halon and
HFC systems will continue into the foreseeable future.
5.3.2 Existing Facilities
In most cases, existing facilities in cold climates were designed and constructed with halon fixed
systems as an integral part of the safety system as well as the physical layout of the facility. After
extensive research, it has been determined that in some cases, the replacement of such systems with
currently available alternatives is not technically or economically feasible, and that current research
is unlikely to lead to an economically viable solution. Thus, these facilities will likely rely on
existing halon supplies and HFC production and supplies for their operating lifetimes, potentially
the next 40 to 50 years. However, measures have been taken to reduce use and emissions through
the methodologies summarized as follows:
• Reassess the hazards and evaluate whether the potential for an explosion still exists. In some
hydrocarbon production and transportation facilities, process pressures have declined or
hazard assessments have been conducted to re-evaluate risk. As a result, fixed halon 1301
systems can be decommissioned, the halon recovered, and an alternative fire suppression
system installed if necessary to manage risk or comply with regulation.
• Remove and recover halon from non-hydrocarbon support infrastructure that can be
adequately protected by other means. Evaluation of the widespread installation of halon
during the original design and construction of many existing facilities has identified risks
which can be adequately protected by other means. This is particularly true for the non-
hydrocarbon containing areas supporting oil and gas facilities (control rooms, etc.).
• Avoid unwanted emissions. In looking at methods to avoid spurious emissions, focus has
been on upgrading the fire and the gas detection systems to utilize modern technologies and
on better maintenance practices. Newer systems are less prone to common false alarms such
as heat signatures, reflections from flare radiation, black body radiation, hot work such as
welding, and other problems that affect older technology detectors. Control system logic has
also been employed by end users to reduce single device failure which could result in
unwanted system discharge.
5.3.3 Offshore Facility Considerations
For offshore platforms and other space-constrained locations, the physical space and weight
constraints create a barrier to the replacement of legacy systems. Until an economically viable
Page 72 of 241
alternative, with similar weight and space requirements becomes available/accessible (refer to
Chapter 9 Alternatives to HFCs), halon and HFC systems that have not already been removed from
service or replaced with an acceptable alternative are likely to remain in service for the operating
lifetime of the facility.
5.3.4 Article 5 Party Considerations
Article 5 parties in the Asia Pacific region installed halon 1301 systems in refineries, gas pumping
stations and offshore oil platforms. Oil pumping stations are gradually switching over to dry
chemicals, HFC-227ea, or FK-5-1-12, where possible. IG systems are being installed in refineries
where it is technically feasible given space and weight concerns. Nevertheless, for many oil and gas
industry applications in this region, halon and high-GWP HFC requirements still exist.
Halon demand is typically met by local sources of recovered/recycled/reclaimed halon, which are
used to refill existing cylinders. However, there is no halon recycling/reclaiming, banking, or
quality testing facilities for halon in much of Asia and therefore the quality and effectiveness of the
halon supply in this region is a major concern. Newly produced and recycled/reclaimed high-GWP
HFCs are available. In land-based halon 1301 systems where an in-kind agent is required, some
companies are hesitant to switch over to HFCs owing to concerns over their high GWPs and the risk
they would be forced to transition away from the HFC in the near future. It is reported that HFC-23
has not typically been used in this region unlike in cold climates.
5.3.5 New Facilities
For new facilities, many oil and gas industry companies are adopting an inherently safer design
approach to mitigate risk within their facilities. The overall objective of the inherently safer design
process is to deliver:
• Fewer inherent hazards.
o Hazards will have been identified, assessed, understood, and documented.
o Opportunities to minimize risks at the source will have been identified, considered, and
implemented, if practical, including reduced inventory that reduces severity of the event.
o Probability and number of unwanted events will have been reduced by, among other
measures, increasing equipment integrity (e.g., explosion-proof equipment), equipment
reliability and longevity, and safety integrated systems (e.g., diluting hydrocarbon
vapour concentrations through interconnection of ventilation systems with the fire and
gas detection and control system).
• Optimal capital investment with view to minimizing risks for lifetime of facility.
• Practical risk management strategy to manage primary risk drivers.
When all such measures have been considered, and an unacceptable level of residual risk remains,
other risk reducing measures are considered such as fire suppression and explosion inerting
systems. In most cases, robust hydrocarbon gas detection systems are employed to shut-down,
isolate, depressurize process inventory, and/or turn on high-rate ventilation systems rather than
closing-up the space and trying to inert it with a total flooding agent.
Page 73 of 241
It is important to note that even if residual risk does not drive the implementation of fire
suppression and explosion inerting fire protection systems, local regulation may still require it.
An unintended consequence of high-rate ventilation in an Arctic climate (-46oC to 32oC) is that the
protected, enclosed process module may be at or near ambient outside wintertime temperatures
during hydrocarbon gas release and subsequent inerting system discharge events. The potential
extreme low temperature requires the use of an agent with very high volatility (e.g., an agent with a
low boiling point) such as HFC-23 or halon 1301. In some specific instances, total flooding
FK-5-1-12 systems have been employed for fire extinguishment and methane explosion inerting
protection in Arctic protected enclosures. However, these instances require the mitigation of cold
temperature impacts on agent effectiveness by installation of extensive, power intensive heating
protocols for all design/emergency scenarios. In other specific instances where only fire
extinguishment was required (i.e., no vapour cloud explosion hazard is present or anticipated), fine
water mist systems have replaced high GWP HFC systems in new facilities.
5.3.6 Emerging Regulatory Impacts
As indicated above, fluorinated foams have been identified as an effective agent for liquid
hydrocarbon fire response in the oil and gas industry. Additionally, the use of FK-5-1-12 has
increased in the oil and gas industry. Foams, in particular, have been used both in fixed system as
well as in emergency fire response activities. These foams contain PFAS, and as environmental
concerns related to the use of PFAS influence regulations, the maintenance, testing, and even for-
cause use of fluorinated foams during an emergency situation may be restricted.
The impact of emerging regulations is compounded by proposed regulatory definitions of PFAS
containing material which could restrict the use of fire suppression agents including the alternatives
to halons and HFCs.
5.4 Telecommunications and Computer Rooms (Electronics)
5.4.1 Introduction
In the early 1990s, the FSTOC estimated that telecommunications and computer rooms accounted
for about 65% of the annual use of halon 1301. In its 1993 Assessment, the FSTOC indicated that
by then a wide range of suitable non-ODS alternatives including both traditional and new
technologies existed for new applications. The FSTOC finds the same true today for alternatives in
this sector, consistent with the general finding on the fire protection sector. Only a portion of the
halon replacement went to high GWP HFCs.
The following alternatives are reported as used in the electronics sector for fixed systems (not
handheld), with non-HFCs (first seven in the list) also representing HCFC and HFC alternatives.
• Double interlock water spray systems (fine spray)
• Water mist systems
• Early warning detection systems with smoke evacuation
• Smoke evacuation systems
• FK-5-1-12
Page 74 of 241
• IG systems
• CO2 systems (very limited)
• HFC-227ea
• HFC-125
• HFC-236fa
5.4.2 Data by Region
On a regional basis, it is reported that in some European countries (in particular, Hungary, Bulgaria,
Turkey, and Greece) HFC-125 and HFC-227ea systems are used while in Italy, mainly inert gas
systems and a small percentage of FK-5-1-12 and HFC systems are used.
In Japan, it is reported that IG-100 and high-GWP HFCs have been used as the main alternatives to
halon 1301 in telecommunications and computer rooms when reclaimed halon is not used. It should
be noted that Japan has one of the world’s largest halon banks and through responsible management
is able to meet its own halon needs. The Japanese halon bank is, in essence, a closed loop system
and not part of the supply/demand of the rest of the world.
The installation rates of fire protection agents (halon 1301, HFC-23, HFC-227ea, IG-100, IG-541,
IG-55, FK-5-1-12, and CO2) in telecommunications and computer rooms as of March 2021 in Japan
are shown in Figure 5.7 (the rates in parenthesis are those in the 2018 Assessment report). All the
installation rates of alternative agents dropped by at most several percentage points such as HFC-23
and IG-100, 4.6 % and 4.5 %, respectively, even though IG-100 is still the most popular alternative
agent, while the rate of halon 1301 considerably increased by 12.5 % since the 2018 Assessment
report. This means that halon 1301 is more preferred than its alternatives because of its safety
(halon 1301 is the only gaseous agent which is allowed to be used in normally occupied areas in
Japan) and total cost effectiveness. Halon 1301 requires the smallest cylinder storage space and
there is no need to equip pressure release dampers and ducts in the facility compared to its
alternatives. This is especially clear in the case of custom-installation of fire extinguishing systems
in existing buildings. This trend in Japan is expected to continue in the future.
Page 75 of 241
Figure 5.7: Fire Protection Agents in Telecommunications and Computer Rooms in Japan
Data as of March 2021 (Rates in parentheses are data from the 2018 Assessment report)
In Australia, most new data centre fire protection systems use IGs, usually IG-541or IG-55. There
are other data centres that have recently either removed gaseous suppression systems completely or
have replaced them with pre-action water mist sprinkler systems. In summary, based on all data
centres around Australia, approximately 80% use IGs. The other 20% use water mist or pre-action
sprinkler systems.
The Egyptian market in 2020 is estimated at 95% vaporizing liquid agent systems (most notably
HFC-227ea and increasingly FK-5-1-12) versus 5% IGs systems on a system-by-system basis as
shown in Figure 5.8.
Principal Gaseous Fire
Extinguishing System Sales
15% 80% 5%
FK HFCs IG
Figure 5.8: Approximate Market Share in Egypt by System Cost in 2020
Page 76 of 241
There are three main sectors in the Egyptian market using vaporizing liquid agent for fire protection
as shown in Figure 5.9:
• IT and telecom rooms,
• energy buildings, libraries and archives, and
• oil and gas.
Note: The other sectors such as military, aviation, marine etc., have not been taken into
consideration in this report since the data were not available to the public.
HFC-227ea
Consumption by sector in 2020
60% 20% 20%
IT & Telecom. Energy Buildings Oil, Gas & Electrical
Rooms Libraries, Archives Room
Figure 5.9: Approximate HFC-227ea Market Share in Egypt by Sector in 2020
As stated earlier, HFCs have been the substance of choice historically for the Egyptian fire
protection industry, and HFC-227ea is used in the vast majority of HFC systems, so this HFC
consumption represents a large part of the total annual installations of substances employed in fire
protection. Approximately 300 tonnes of HFCs were imported into Egypt in 2020. Table 5.9
illustrates the consumption of different HFCs used for fire suppression from 2016 to 2020 in Egypt
which show the increase in consumption to have doubled during this four-year period.
Table 5.9: HFC Consumption by Tonnes in Egypt1.2
HFC Type 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
HFC-227ea 150 200 275 350 300
HFC-236fa 0.15 0 0 0 0
Total 150.15 200 275 350 300
1. This estimate of annual consumption has been derived from a comparison of several sets of
data from Egypt’s Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS),
suppliers, consultants, and others.
2. Year 2020 shows a decrease of consumption owing to the COVID-19 pandemic
Page 77 of 241
According to the consumption trend for the HFCs during the last five years, the expected
consumption through 2025 will be increased, as shown in Table 5.10. Also, the expected
consumption by different sectors during the period 2021 – 2025 are shown in Table 5.11.
Table 5.10: HFC expected consumption by Tonnes in Egypt
HFC Type 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
HFC-23 0 0 0 0 0
HFC-125 0 0 0 0 0
HFC-227ea 330 360 400 450 500
HFC-236fa 0 0 0 0 0
Total 330 360 400 450 500
Note: This expected estimate of annual consumption has been calculated based on the annual
growth of each sector.
Table 5.11: HFC Expected Market Volume by Sector in Tonnes1,2,3
Sector 2021 2025 Growth Rate
IT and Telecom. rooms 200 360 80%
Oil and Gas 65 40 -40%
Energy Buildings, Libraries, 65 100 60%
and Archives
Total 330 500 52%
1. This estimate of annual consumption has been calculated based on the annual growth of
each sector.
2. Oil and Gas sector does not specify HFCs anymore for fire suppression, leading to an
expected reduction of consumption during the next 5 years.
3. Due to lower initial cost of the HFCs compared to other agents, the rest of the sectors are
expected to increase consumption during the coming 5 years.
The Egyptian market has begun to accept the HFC alternatives which is shown clearly in Figure
5.10, reflecting a slight increase in the market share during the last 5 years. It is expected to
continue to grow at the expense of the HFC market share. On December 20, 2022, 3M Corporation
announced that it will cease manufacture of all PFAS by the end of 2025, 3M (2022). The FSTOC
has been informed that this will include the fire suppressant FK-5-1-12. The FSTOC understands
that there are other manufacturers of this agent. Clearly, this is an evolving situation, and the
FSTOC expects to understand more fully the potential impacts to HFCs and their alternatives in the
future.
Page 78 of 241
HFC-227ea FK-5-1-12 IG
100% 94%
90% 88% 90%
90%
80% 75% 75% 75%
70%
70% 65%
60%
60% 55%
50%
40%
40% 35%
30%
30% 25%
20% 20% 20%
20%
8% 10% 10%
10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
1% 2% 2%
0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Figure 5.10: Egyptian Market Share: HFCs vs. Alternatives1,2,3
1. Years 2016 - 2018: several projects related to Oil and Gas were specifying IG.
2. Year 2019 and 2020: several projects related to the new construction at the New
Administrative Capital were specifying FK-5-1-12.
3. The Oil and Gas sector is no longer specifying HFCs for fire suppression, which leads to an
expected increase in FK-5-1-12 consumption.
In India, the installed base for fire protection in telecommunication and computer rooms is
estimated as: FK-5-1-12 (~60%), HFC-227ea (~30%), and CO2 (~10%). CO2 is no longer used for
new installations. Cable trays in the subfloors of the computer and airtight server compartments are
protected by HFC-236fa, but its usage will be reduced slowly through 2030. Water mist systems are
also used for wet benches in clean rooms and for subfloors of computer rooms.
In Sweden, it is estimated that FK-5-1-12 makes up about 40% of the systems, IG systems 35%,
HFC systems 20%, and water mist systems about 5%. New systems are split between FK-5-1-12
and IG systems, Few, if any, new HFC systems or water mist systems are being installed. It is
therefore likely that the number of HFC systems will drop to 5% within the next five years.
In the Russian Federation, the information on installed capacity in telecom and power sectors is
unavailable, however, the FSTOC has been advised that there are no halon systems in these sectors.
5.4.3 Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear power plants (NPPs) are a subsector of the energy sector that typically employed halon
systems and extinguishers. It is a tightly regulated industry with high level safety protocols and
systems. The potential risk to life and economy from a poorly managed fire scenario is
Page 79 of 241
understandably extreme owing to the exceedingly long-term effects of radiation, the far-reaching
environmental impact, the cost of the facility, and loss of direct and indirect revenues.
The automatic fire systems may not be tied directly to the facility design and in which case, some
NPP owners have changed out their halon systems where feasible and practical. The industry has
expressed concern over future availability of suppression agent and UL™ listed maintenance
components. Risk management practices typically involve life cycle planning on all aspects of the
NPPs including maintenance of the fire systems. It should be noted that some NPPs are partially or
totally decommissioned. The decommissioned NPPs still require staffing, maintenance and fully
functional fire suppression systems for the foreseeable future.
Two organizations’ websites were utilized to gather data on the number and locations of NPPs
world-wide, the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). It is presumed, in general, that there are larger or more numerous gaseous
fire suppression systems in plants that have multiple reactors as opposed to a single reactor plant. In
reviewing the online data published by WANO and IAEA, there are approximately 203 NPPs,
consisting of 439 reactors, worldwide and 56 in construction, WANO (2019), IAEA (2022). It
should be noted, with climate change commitments and energy sourcing challenges, NPP
construction is growing rapidly with as many as 50% more reactors coming online in some
countries.
The FSTOC has contacted numerous organizations and associations in the nuclear industry
requesting additional information on the fire suppression systems utilized in NPPs. Some
information was collected for NPPs in India and in the US. This information is not to be considered
party data or information as it has not been provided by, or vetted by, the party. The following
analyses are provided based upon the information gathered in 2021-2022.
5.4.3.1 India
In India, halon 1211 and halon 1301 had been used in some occupied areas of the NPPs; however,
both agents were phased out in 2012. To manage fire risks, the following are employed in all NPPs
in India:
• control rooms and computer rooms: high pressure inert gaseous systems,
• unmanned/unoccupied areas: CO2 systems,
• occupied areas: HFC 227ea and FK-5-1-12 systems,
• machine rooms, pump rooms, etc.: high pressure water mist systems, and
• basic fire protection for buildings: sprinkler systems
As of November 2020, India has 22 nuclear reactors in operation in eight NPPs. Ten more reactors
are under construction.
5.4.3.2 US
Data have been provided by some members of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on fire
suppression in seven NPPs located in the US as shown in Table 5.12, NEI (2022).
Page 80 of 241
Table 5.12: Installed and Reserve Halon 1301 in Seven NPPs in the US.
Site # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average
No. of
2 2 1 2 2 2 2 N/A
Reactors
Installed (kg) 1,375 1,741 441 792 1,352 1,838 7,405 2,135
Stored (kg) 1,112 417 907 811 172 263 1,388 724
Total (kg) 2,487 2,158 1,348 1,603 1,524 2,101 8,793 2,859
Total per
1243.5 1079 1348 801.5 762 1050.5 4396.5 1,526
reactor (kg)
Emitted
0 0 0 0 <5 0 0 N/A
Annually (kg)
None of the seven NPPs reported using HCFCs or HFCs. The quantities of halon vary significantly
between the sites. The average installed and reserve halon per reactor is approximately ~1.53
tonnes. There are 100 reactors at 56 NPP sites in the US. Using the information provided by NEI
members for seven sites, the installed (and reserve) halon for all sites in the US could be projected
to be ~150 metric tonnes (FSTOC estimate and not a party estimate or position). The emission rate
provided is not typical for industry, rather it is far below average, and will be investigated further. It
is more in line with the low emission rate in Japan where all systems are set on manual.
5.4.3.3 Russia and Former Soviet Union States
Until information is obtained on NPPs in the former Soviet Union States and Russia, the FSTOC
presumes that the fire suppression systems utilized in the NPP reactors use halon 2402. Those states
include Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia,
and Ukraine. Combined, these states have 89 reactors at 24 sites, WANO (2019).
While the FSTOC continues to reach out to organizations in this sector to gather data on more
NPPs, the data from the US can be useful for projecting future suppression agent changes and
requirements albeit speculative at this time without input from NPPs in other countries.
5.4.3.4 Estimation of Worldwide Halon 1301 Installed Base in NPPs
To estimate the installed halon 1301 world-wide, the FSTOC used the only data provided to-date
(from the seven NEI members who provided information). Assuming, as of April 2022, there are
439 reactors world-wide, and of those there are 89 reactors where halon 2402 is installed and 22
reactors in India where no halon is installed, then the remaining number of reactors potentially
using halon 1301 would be 328 reactors.
Using 328 reactors at 1.53 tonnes per reactor as a basis, the installed/reserve halon 1301 could be
estimated to be ~500 tonnes. This represents a significant increase over the estimate for NPPs in the
2018 Assessment report of ~200 tonnes. The range of quantities of halon 1301 in the seven NPPs
(lowest = 762 kg per reactor, highest = ~4,400 kg per reactor) implies there could be significant
uncertainty in the extrapolated value of 500 tonnes. However, this is likely to be within the +/- 10%
variation used in the run-out modelling scenarios described in section 0.
Page 81 of 241
The replenishment rate for halon systems in this sector would normally be estimated to be 2-3%
from leakage and maintenance activities. Assuming a 2% emission rate, this sector would need a
replenishment rate of <10 tonnes per year for the 328 reactors assumed to be using halon 1301 fire
suppression systems. Based upon information available at the WANO and IAEA websites, most
nuclear reactors have a lifetime of 45-50 years. Bear in mind, the reactors continue minimal
operations beyond their energy production years. Therefore, the fire protection system would need
to be maintained until the reactor is completely decommissioned. There are no known NPPs that
have been completely decommissioned.
None of the seven NEI members reported using HCFCs or HFCs. While it is probable there are
NPPs utilizing other gaseous suppression agents, the FSTOC cannot at this time report any uses in
this energy subsector other than those reported by India.
5.4.4 Conclusions
The NPP industry utilizes halon 1301 for fire suppression. The NPPs typically operate for 45-50
years with continued halon use and are never decommissioned. The industry is moving to
alternative fire suppression methods and agents; however, it is unlikely dependence on halon 1301
will ever be eliminated. The replenishment requirements for halon 1301 are roughly estimated at 10
tonnes per year; this estimate will be revised if the FSTOC can obtain more specific data.
5.4.5 References
IAEA (2020): International Atomic Energy Agency, “PRIS - Power Reactor Information System”,
2020, www.iaea.org
NEI (2022): Nuclear Energy Institute, correspondence between NEI and HTOC, April 2022,
www.nei.org
WANO (2019): World Association of Nuclear Operators, “Global Membership Map 2020, October
2019, www.wano.info
5.5 Shipbreaking
5.5.1 Introduction
In the mid-1970s, passenger ships and tankers switched from CO2 to halon 1301 for fire suppression
in their main engine rooms as it was more cost effective. When the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) banned the use of halons in new constructions in 1992, IMO (1992), CO2 once
again became the agent of choice for these types of ships. However, from 1975 – 1993 (the last year
that halon was allowed to be used under IMO rules), a significant amount of halon 1301 was
installed in this sector. Decision XXVI/7 on the availability of recovered, recycled, or reclaimed
halons requested the FSTOC to try to estimate the amount of halon 1301 and 1211 that could come
onto the market from the breaking of ships. The FSTOC response to Decisions XXVI/7 was also
included in its 2018 Assessment report, where it was believed that shipbreaking could be a
significant source of halon 1301 to supply the enduring needs described in the previous sections.
However, at that time, the FSTOC had poor visibility as to the quantities of halon 1301 being
recovered from shipbreaking. To estimate the amount of halon 1301 that may still be installed in
merchant shipping, five questions need to be answered:
Page 82 of 241
1. What types of ships had halon 1301 installed?
2. Over what time period was the halon installed?
3. How much halon would be installed per ship?
4. How many ships were built during the time period?
5. What is the average lifetime of those ships?
For the 2018 Assessment report, the answers to questions 3 and 5 were estimated as follows. The
average charge size of halon 1301 systems on passenger ships and tankers was assumed to vary by
the ship’s deadweight tonnage (DWT). These charge sizes are listed in Table 5.13 for each size
range of passenger ships and tankers.
Table 5.13: Halon 1301 Charge Sizes for Passenger Ships and Tankers (ICF, 2015)
Deadweight Halon 1301
Ship Type
Tonnage (DWT) Charge Size (kg)
Passenger Ship < 1,000 100
Passenger Ship 1,000 – 10,000 750
Passenger Ship 10,001 – 20,000 1,500
Passenger Ship > 20,000 2,000
Tanker < 1,000 100
Tanker 1,000 – 50,000 2,000
Tanker 50,001 – 100,000 2,500
Tanker 100,001 – 200,000 3,000
Tanker 200,001 – 300,000 7,000
Tanker > 300,000 8,000
The lifetime of ships was estimated to be between 30 and 40 years. This datum, along with the
number of and type of ships thought to have halon 1301 fire protection systems fitted allowed
Figure 5.11: Total Residual Amount of Halon 1301 Remaining in Service, ICF (2015) to be
generated.
Page 83 of 241
Halon 1301 Remaining in Service on Ships (metric
4,000
3,500
3,000
tonnes)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035
Year
30-year lifetime 40-year lifetime
Figure 5.11: Total Residual Amount of Halon 1301 Remaining in Service, ICF (2015)
Estimates were made by ICF that approximately 200 to 300 tonnes of halon 1301 per year could be
available, until the supply was exhausted, ICF (2015).
5.5.2 Update from the 2018 report
Recently, the FSTOC recruited a member from the shipbreaking industry and is starting to get data
from Bangladesh on the types of ships fitted with halon 1301, the age of the ships being broken, and
the quantities of halon being recovered. This has allowed the estimates and assumptions in the 2018
Assessment report to be refined or validated. Data for 2021 are shown in Table 5.14.
Table 5.14: Halon 1301 Recovered from Shipbreaking in 2021 from Bangladesh
Vessel Type Vessel IMO DWT Mass Mass Percent Age at
Name No. 1301 Recovered Recovered Breaking
Installed (kg) (years)
(kg)1
Tanker Xin Da 8609151 2898 806 672 83% 37
Tanker Mt Medan 9002207 152680 11200 7420 66% 30
Bulk Shanghai 8915407 156750 5740 3920 68% 30
Carrier
Tanker Polaris 7922843 11428 1866 1866 100% 40
Tanker Zhong 8517114 16970 3007 573 19% 33
Page 84 of 241
Tanker Grand 8416140 4287 1481 1481 100% 37
Ocean
Bulk Mv 8915392 156183 8745 5546 63% 30
Carrier Harmony
Refrig. Celtic Ice 7727102 2668 1201 1201 100% 42
Cargo
Tanker Knight 8515738 19080 1377 1377 100% 34
Tanker Ji Tai 8606288 4875 1363 765 56% 35
Tanker Lucky 8706648 4999 1012 868 86% 35
Grow 899
Tanker Pandora 8106824 459 437 437 100% 39
Passenger Trin 8902357 5872 3492 3056 88% 31
Ferry
Tanker Belogorsk 8700101 3060 1427 1427 100% 33
Tanker Mt 8920115 6174 1204 1204 100% 31
Sunward
Tanker Ostrov 8421262 7199 689 620 90% 36
Russkiy
1
Mass of halon installed is obtained by multiplying the nominal charge per cylinder by the number
of cylinders recovered. There is no information on where the halon was used (main engine room,
auxiliary machinery spaces, etc.).
Although this is a relatively small sample size, several observations can be made:
1. The mean age of the ships broken is 34.6 years, which agrees well with the FSTOC estimate
of 30-40 years.
2. There is a considerable variation in the amount of halon recovered compared to the mass
halon 1301 installed (low end =19%, high end = 100%). The reason for this variation is not
known at this time.
3. Of the sixteen ships broken that contained halon 1301, twelve (75%) were tankers, three
(19%) were cargo vessels, and one (6%) was a passenger ferry.
4. When considering the amount of halon installed for various sizes of ships, it is possible to
compare the actual amounts with the estimates provided by the FSTOC in the 2018
Assessment report. This is shown in Figure 5.12 and Table 5.13. The FSTOC estimates for
halon installed is a reasonable fit to the amounts recovered from the 16 ships broken in
Bangladesh in 2021, with the exception of the three largest ships.
5. The total amount of halon 1301 recovered from shipyards in Bangladesh in 2021 was 32.4
tonnes, from a possible 45.0 tonnes, or 72.0%.
6. To put the data from Bangladesh into context, it is necessary to extrapolate to the global
shipbreaking industry. Data from the NGO offthebeach.org are given in Table 5.15, Figure
5.13, and Figure 5.14 below, Offthebeach (2022).
Page 85 of 241
Figure 5.12: Comparison of Amounts of Halon 1301 installed with FSTOC Estimates in 2018
Assessment Report
Table 5.15: Global Shipbreaking Statistics, 2021
Ships Broken Gross Tonnage
Average Ship
Country Number Percent Tonnage Percent
Size (Tonnes)
Bangladesh 254 33% 8,036,554 50% 31,640
India 210 28% 3,144,135 20% 14,972
Pakistan 119 16% 2,972,585 19% 24,980
Turkey 77 10% 1,368,929 9% 17,778
Rest of World 66 9% 387,278 2% 5,868
EU 37 5% 104,983 1% 2,837
Total 763 100% 16,014,464 100% 20,989
Page 86 of 241
Figure 5.13: Number of Ships Broken in 2021, by Country
Figure 5.14: Gross Tonnage of Ships Broken in 2021, by Country
Page 87 of 241
From these data, it can be seen that shipyards in Bangladesh specialize in larger ships and possibly
those with larger amounts of halon 1301 installed. Recalling that ICF, ICF (2015) estimated that
approximately 200 to 300 tonnes of halon 1301 could be available per year, the 45 tonnes from
Bangladesh seems low. It would be reasonable to assume that since the Bangladesh shipyards
account for 50% of the ships broken by tonnage and that they specialize in larger ships, that they
would account for at least half of the halon being recovered. One hypothesis is that halon is being
removed and entering the recycled agent supply chain prior to ships being broken. The FSTOC is
working to understand whether this is the case, or the amounts of halon being recovered are lower
for some other reason, for example the supplies of halon are becoming exhausted.
Following the good start made on obtaining data from Bangladesh, the FSTOC plans to try to obtain
data from previous years as well collect new data going forward. Additionally, data from other
shipbreaking countries will also be collected wherever possible.
5.5.3 References
IMO (1992): 1992 Amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention, Resolution MSC.27(61),
paragraph 16.
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MSCResolut
ions/MSC.27(61).pdf
ICF (2015): ICF International, Projections of Halon 1301 Supply and Demand for Aviation
Applications, May 2015
Offthebeach (2022): https://www.offthebeach.org/
Page 88 of 241
6 Global Estimates of Halons and HFC Fire Extinguishing Agent Quantities
6.1 Introduction
Beginning with the first FSTOC Assessment report in 1989, the FSTOC included estimated historic
and projected emissions and global banks of halons 1211 and 1301. This was initially based on the
work of former FSTOC co-chair, Mr. Gary Taylor, who developed a methodology and computer
program to perform the initial work. The basic methodology is still in use today and relies on a
simple mass balance approach. The total amount produced (from the European Chemical Industry
Council (CEFIC) data or Article 7 reporting) is summed year by year and the estimated annual
emissions are subtracted year by year. The result is a yearly estimate of the total amount of halons
available for existing and future uses. Since emission patterns can be quite different for different
parts of the world, the model was segmented into five regions: 1) North America, 2) Western
Europe and Australia, 3) Japan, 4) former Countries with Economies in Transition (CEIT - former
Soviet bloc countries), and 5) all Montreal Protocol “Article 5” parties, which are the remainder of
the countries. Different practices that led to emissions were separately identified for each region and
are periodically updated by the FSTOC based on current best practices. Initially, emissions were
based on training, discharge testing, fire and inadvertent discharges, and loss during servicing. As
practices changed, the percentage lost to each of these practices changed as well. For example,
beginning in the 1970s, as part of cost cutting measures, it became more common to try to recover
halon from partially filled systems instead of venting it. With the advent of the Montreal Protocol,
many emissive practices were changed, and emissions were greatly reduced. Beginning with the
2006 Assessment report, in addition to estimating emissions based on use and best practices, the
models also included direct data on destruction, import and export, and where available, known
quantities of inventories. In 2014, open literature information was found on production of halon
2402 in the former Soviet Union. Based on that information, and other estimates, the FSTOC
developed and reported on a model for halon 2402 similar to the halon 1211 and 1301 models.
For the 2022 Assessment, the FSTOC is again providing the most current estimates of the bank and
emissions for halon 1301, halon 1211, and halon 2402. These models reflect all quantities that have
been reported as destroyed and account for imports and exports between the five modelled regions
where data are available. A significant change was made to add emissions during manufacture
using emission factors developed by the Medical and Chemical Technical Options Committee
MCTOC (2022). To better compare the emissions estimated from the FSTOC model and mean
emissions derived from mixing ratios (atmospheric concentrations), the estimated emissions during
manufacture are added to the emissions estimated to come from fire protection uses, which are
referred to as Total Cumulative Emissions in Table 6.1, Table 6.3, and Table 6.5. No other new
information was found to warrant changing any of the emission pattern assumptions for this
assessment. In general, this assessment is similar, but not identical, to the 2018 Assessment for all
three halons.
The 2022 Assessment also includes quantitative information on estimates of the bank and annual
emissions of HFC-227ea used in the total flooding sector as the main initial alternative to halon
1301. In addition, qualitative information on the other high-GWP fire suppressants is provided.
Page 89 of 241
6.2 Emissions and Inventories of Halons
6.2.1 Halon 1301
Table 6.1 summarizes the FSTOC’s 2022 estimates of total production, annual emissions,
cumulative emissions, and resulting inventories (bank) for halon 1301 in five-year increments from
2017 – 2052. Future projected detailed yearly estimates for 2022 – 2051 are provided in Table 6.2.
Historic yearly detailed results from 1963 to 2021 are provided in Appendix C. Note that in some
instances the values do not add up exactly due to rounding errors. Negative production values in
the tables are the result of either destruction or export out of the model region. These negative
values from destruction result in reducing total cumulative production. Export is matched by an
import to a different region so there is no net change to total cumulative production. Positive values
in the production columns after 1993 for non-Article 5 and after 2009 for Article 5 parties are the
result of import of recycled/reclaimed halons and are not actual new production. The current
emissions and bank for Japan are consistent with those independently reported by the Japanese Fire
and Environment Protection Network (FEPN) through 2021, Yagi (2022).
Data on emission estimates for Northwest Europe (NWEU) have been updated for the period 1998
– 2020, BEIS (2022). The methodology now uses three additional observation stations in addition
to the original two at Mace Head, Ireland and Talconeston, UK: 1) Jungfraujoch, Switzerland, 2)
Monte Cimone, Italy and 3) Taunus, Germany. The inclusion of the three additional sites is
important as it is challenging to estimate NWEU emissions from measurements limited only to the
UK and Ireland. In addition, the Inversion Technique for Emissions Modelling (InTEM) has been
updated and improved Manning et al. (2021). Also, the NWEU region estimate has been reduced
to remove Denmark. Even so, there remains significant uncertainly in the results as the pollution
signals containing halon 1301 are small and intermittent. The latest estimates are all smaller than
the estimates obtained in 2018; however, the +/-1 sigma uncertainties have significant overlap. To
compare these new emission estimates with the FSTOC model, the FSTOC model emission
estimates were scaled for NWEU by using gross domestic product (GDP) as a proxy. This is done
by taking the Europe and Australia results and dividing by 1.1 to remove the Australia region and
then dividing that result by 1.62 to scale to the NWEU countries included: Belgium, France,
Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and the UK. The resultant annual FSTOC
NWEU emissions for 2018 – 2020 are 107 metric tonnes, 103 metric tonnes, and 99 metric tonnes,
respectively, as compared to the BEIS updated annual mean emission estimate of 51 (30 – 72)
metric tonnes, 42 (23 – 62) metric tonnes and 58 (42 – 74) metric tonnes, respectively. The new
estimates are all lower than the FSTOC model by 130 – 350% when considering the total range of
+/-1 sigma uncertainty. While they are lower, there are still significant emissions estimated, which
implies that a significant amount of halon 1301 is still contained within NWEU. This amount
includes halon 1301 in the EU critical uses including civil aviation fleets operating in Europe.
While the FSTOC model attempts to account for amounts of halon exported out of Europe (and
other regions as well), it is certainly possible that more was exported than accounted for by the
FSTOC. The FSTOC will continue to try to find additional information on export of halon 1301
from Europe. It is also possible that the emission rate estimated by FSTOC is too high for NWEU,
but no new information has been found by the FSTOC to amend these estimates.
Figure 6.1 graphically presents the projected regional distribution of the global bank of halon 1301.
The figure shows that at the end of 2022, the FSTOC projects 48% of the total bank of halon 1301
Page 90 of 241
will be in Japan and 30% in North America rising to 57% for Japan and lowering to 26% for North
America over the next 10 years. This is the result of very low emissions in Japan, less than 0.1% on
average, and a more typical total average emission rate in the US and is not the result of
import/export between the two regions.
As shown in Figure 6.2, the FSTOC model emissions compare well with the mean emissions
derived from mixing ratios (atmospheric concentrations) from the latest data using the methodology
of Vollmer et al., (2016) (hereafter referred to Vollmer) until about 1998 where the FSTOC model
emissions are consistently lower than the mean. Taking into account the uncertainties in the updated
Vollmer data, the FSTOC estimates generally fall within +/-1 sigma uncertainty of the mean except
for 2011 – 2012, where the FSTOC model estimates are slightly lower than the -1 sigma value.
However, differences are seen during the periods of increasing and decreasing emissions from
1999-2000, 2010-2016 and 2018-2021, instead of the decay pattern expected from emissions from a
finite global bank. The FSTOC is unaware of any singular fire protection use that could account for
these emissions. The emissions are at least an order of magnitude higher than the largest single fire
protection systems known to exist. While one could theorize that a potential source could have been
from fire protection systems from shipbreaking activities (see Section 5.5), that is not anticipated in
recent years as recovered halon 1301 has a significant market value and it is reported that halon is
currently handled carefully during shipbreaking. Another possible source for these emissions could
be from halon 1301 production and use as a feedstock for the pesticide Fipronil and several other
chemicals, whose emissions would not be accounted for in the FSTOC model but would be
included in the Vollmer estimates. This seems a more plausible explanation than these higher levels
of emissions coming from the fire protection bank. However, the amount of halon 1301 feedstock
production and use would need to be substantial at the higher end of the MCTOC-estimated
emissions of 7.5%. The FSTOC is seeking additional information on halon 1301 feedstock
production, use, and emissions to better understand if the higher levels of emissions can be
attributed primarily to feedstock use, vs. from the fire protection bank.
For previous assessments, the updated Vollmer data were provided over the entire period from 1963
to the present. For this assessment, these are now only available from 1978 – 2021 using direct
atmospheric measurements and no longer include earlier years that relied on the use of firn air (air
trapped in glaciers). Therefore, to compare emissions with the FSTOC model and the resulting
global bank of halon 1301, three different methods are employed:
1. Use the FSTOC emissions estimates from 1963 – 1977 and add that to the updated Vollmer
1978 – 2021 data,
2. use the FSTOC emissions from 1963 – 2009 and add that to the Vollmer 2010 – 2021 data, and
3. add the previous Vollmer data provided in 2018 for the period 1963 – 1977 to the updated 1978
– 2021 data.
All three of these estimating methods assume that the Vollmer emissions are only from the fire
protection bank and from pre-2010 losses from production for fire protection uses and not from
feedstock production and use. Each of these methods are discussed further below. It should be noted
that the mean values are based on the atmospheric concentration measurements, while the +/-1
sigma ranges are calculated by adding or subtracting the 1 sigma uncertainly. This can result in
negative emissions and/or a negative resulting bank. These negative values are then assigned to be
“zero” which affects the uncertainly range provided in the text.
Page 91 of 241
1. The Vollmer data from 1978 through 2021 provide cumulative emissions of 115,500
(88,000 - 143,000) metric tonnes. The FSTOC model provides emissions of 5,000 metric
tonnes from 1963 to 1977, yielding a total of 120,500 metric tonnes of emissions over the
whole period. Based on the global total cumulative fire protection production data of
148,000 metric tonnes from the FSTOC information, the mean values of the Vollmer data
through 2021 provide a remaining bank of 27,500 (0 – 55,500) metric tonnes versus the
FSTOC model estimate of approximately 113,000 metric tonnes of cumulative emissions
and a remaining bank of 35,000 metric tonnes.
2. The Vollmer mean data from 2010 through 2021 provide cumulative emissions of 18,000
(11,000 – 25,000) metric tonnes. The FSTOC model provides emissions of 104,500 metric
tonnes from 1963 to 2009, yielding a total of 122,500 metric tonnes over the whole period.
Based on the global total cumulative fire protection production data of 148,000 metric
tonnes from the FSTOC information, the Vollmer data through 2021 provide a remaining
bank of 25,500 (18,500 – 32,500) metric tonnes versus the FSTOC model estimate of
approximately 113,000 metric tonnes of cumulative emissions and a remaining bank of
35,000 metric tonnes.
3. The Vollmer mean data from 1978 through 2021 provide cumulative emissions of 115,500
(88,000 - 143,000) metric tonnes and Vollmer data reported in the 2018 FSTOC assessment
for 1963 – 1977 provided cumulative emissions of 6,500 metric tonnes, yielding a total of
122,000 metric tonnes of emissions over the whole period. Based on the global total
cumulative fire protection production data of 148,000 metric tonnes from the FSTOC
information, the mean values of the updated Vollmer data through 2021 provide a remaining
bank of 26,500 (0 – 60,500) metric tonnes versus the FSTOC model estimate of
approximately 130,000 metric tonnes of cumulative emissions and a remaining bank of
35,000 metric tonnes.
Using the mean values, the three methods provide a range of 26,250 – 27,500 metric tonnes as
the remaining global bank of halon 1301 as compared to 35,000 metric tonnes for the FSTOC
model. This difference is becoming significant as the amount of halon that is available to
support enduring fire protection uses becomes smaller over time. The Vollmer data also provide
a much higher mean annual emission rate for 2021 of nearly 5.5% of a 26,500 metric tonne
bank (average of the mean of three scenarios above). This is more than double the
approximately 2.25% composite rate from the FSTOC model and much higher than the 2%+/-
1% rate developed by Verdonik and Robin (2004). The combination of a potential higher
emission rate than generated by the FSTOC and a smaller bank of halon 1301 also implies that
there is going to be significantly less halon 1301 available to support ongoing needs in civil
aviation, oil and gas, militaries, etc., which could result in a much earlier “run-out date” as
discussed in Section 5.1 Civil Aviation. However, it is important to recall that this is predicated
on the assumption that the difference in the Vollmer emissions and the FSTOC model all come
from the fire protection bank and not from feedstock production and use, which is likely not a
good assumption and results in an overestimate of the emissions from the fire protection bank.
Page 92 of 241
Table 6.1: FSTOC Halon 1301 Model Summary (in metric tonnes)
2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,359 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246
CEIT 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355
Article 5 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643
TOTAL CUM ULATIVE PRODUCTION 148,356 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244
148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244
ANNUAL EMIS S IONS
North America 430 362 305 256 216 182 153 129
Western Europe and Australia 201 167 141 119 100 85 71 60
Japan 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 23
CEIT 61 49 39 32 25 20 16 13
Article 5 288 172 102 61 36 22 13 8
TOTAL ANNUAL EM ISSIONS 1,004 773 611 492 402 332 278 234
773 611 492 402 332 278 234
CUMULATIVE EMIS S IONS
North America 30,678 32,618 34,251 35,626 36,769 37,744 38,566 39,258
Western Europe and Australia 25,221 26,122 26,876 27,512 28,042 28,495 28,877 29,200
Japan 10,677 10,799 10,921 11,042 11,162 11,281 11,399 11,517
CEIT 6,803 7,069 7,283 7,455 7,591 7,703 7,793 7,865
Article 5 36,256 37,321 37,957 38,336 38,554 38,689 38,769 38,817
Fire Protection Cumulative Emissions 109,634 113,930 117,288 119,971 122,118 123,912 125,405 126,657
TOTAL CUM ULATIVE EM ISSIONS 112,910 117,206 120,563 123,247 125,427 127,221 128,714 129,966
INVENTORY (BANK)
North America 12,312 10,351 8,718 7,343 6,200 5,224 4,403 3,711
Western Europe and Australia 5,826 4,833 4,080 3,444 2,914 2,461 2,078 1,755
Japan 16,578 16,455 16,333 16,212 16,092 15,973 15,855 15,738
CEIT 1,365 1,096 882 710 574 462 372 300
Article 5 2,641 1,575 939 560 342 208 127 79
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 38,722 34,310 30,952 28,269 26,122 24,328 22,835 21,583
Page 93 of 241
40,000 Article 5
CEIT
35,000 Japan
Metric Tonnes of Halon 1301
Western Europe and Australia
30,000 North America
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052
Year
Figure 6.1: Forecast of Regional Distribution of Halon 1301 Bank from the FSTOC Model
Page 94 of 241
7 Halon 1301 Emissions
HTOC 2022 Model
6 Updated Vollmer et al., (2016) emissions
ktonnes (Gg) Halon 1301 Emissions
Updated Vollmer et al., (2016) +1 Sigma
5 'Updated Vollmer et al., (2016) -1 Sigma
4
3
2
1
0
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
Figure 6.2: Comparison of Global Halon 1301 Emissions from Updated Vollmer et al. (2016) and the FSTOC Model
Page 95 of 241
Table 6.2: Halon 1301 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Emissions
North America 362 349 338 326 315 305 294 284 275 265
Western Europe and Australia 167 161 156 151 146 141 136 131 127 123
Japan 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
CEIT 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 36 34 33
Article 5 172 155 139 126 113 102 92 83 75 68
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 773 736 702 670 639 611 584 559 535 513
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 773 736 702 670 639 611 584 559 535 513
Page 96 of 241
Table 6.2: Halon 1301 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2022 – 2031)
Cumulative Production 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246
CEIT 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355
Article 5 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643
Total Cumulative Production 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244
Cumulative Production Allocation
North America 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969
Western Europe and Australia 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955
Japan 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254
CEIT 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165
Article 5 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240
Cumulative Emissions
North America 32,618 32,968 33,305 33,631 33,946 34,251 34,545 34,829 35,104 35,369
Western Europe and Australia 26,122 26,283 26,439 26,589 26,735 26,876 27,012 27,143 27,270 27,393
Japan 10,799 10,824 10,848 10,873 10,897 10,921 10,945 10,970 10,994 11,018
CEIT 7,069 7,116 7,160 7,203 7,244 7,283 7,320 7,356 7,391 7,424
Article 5 37,321 37,476 37,616 37,741 37,855 37,957 38,049 38,133 38,208 38,275
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 113,930 114,666 115,368 116,037 116,677 117,288 117,872 118,431 118,966 119,479
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 117,206 117,942 118,644 119,313 119,953 120,563 121,148 121,707 122,242 122,755
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 10,351 10,001 9,664 9,337 9,022 8,718 8,424 8,139 7,865 7,599
Western Europe and Australia 4,833 4,672 4,517 4,366 4,220 4,080 3,944 3,812 3,685 3,562
Japan 16,455 16,430 16,406 16,382 16,357 16,333 16,309 16,285 16,260 16,236
CEIT 1,096 1,049 1,005 962 921 882 845 809 774 741
Article 5 1,575 1,420 1,281 1,155 1,042 939 847 764 689 621
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 34,310 33,574 32,872 32,202 31,563 30,952 30,368 29,809 29,274 28,761
Page 97 of 241
Table 6.2: Halon 1301 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2032 – 2041)
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CEIT - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Article 5 - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Annual Production - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Western Europe and Australia - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Japan - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CEIT - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Article 5 - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Annual Emissions
North America 256 248 239 224 216 216 209 202 195 188
Western Europe and Australia 119 115 111 104 100 100 97 94 91 88
Japan 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
CEIT 32 30 29 26 25 25 24 23 22 21
Article 5 61 55 50 40 36 36 33 30 27 24
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 492 472 453 418 402 402 387 372 358 345
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 492 472 453 435 418 402 387 372 358 345
Page 98 of 241
Table 6.2: Halon 1301 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2032 – 2041)
Cumulative Production 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246 135,246
CEIT 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355
Article 5(1) 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643
Total Cumulative Production 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244 148,244
Cumulative Production Allocation
North America 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969
Western Europe and Australia 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955
Japan 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254
CEIT 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165
Article 5 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240
Cumulative Emissions
North America 35,626 35,874 36,113 36,337 36,553 36,769 36,978 37,179 37,374 37,562
Western Europe and Australia 27,512 27,626 27,737 27,841 27,941 28,042 28,138 28,232 28,323 28,410
Japan 11,042 11,066 11,090 11,114 11,138 11,162 11,186 11,210 11,234 11,257
CEIT 7,455 7,485 7,514 7,541 7,566 7,591 7,616 7,639 7,661 7,682
Article 5 38,336 38,391 38,441 38,481 38,518 38,554 38,587 38,616 38,643 38,667
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 119,971 120,443 120,896 121,314 121,716 122,118 122,504 122,876 123,235 123,580
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 123,247 123,719 124,172 124,607 125,025 125,427 125,813 126,185 126,544 126,889
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 7,343 7,095 6,855 6,632 6,416 6,200 5,991 5,789 5,595 5,406
Western Europe and Australia 3,444 3,329 3,218 3,114 3,014 2,914 2,817 2,723 2,633 2,545
Japan 16,212 16,188 16,164 16,140 16,116 16,092 16,068 16,044 16,021 15,997
CEIT 710 680 651 624 599 574 549 526 504 483
Article 5 560 505 456 415 379 342 310 280 253 229
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 28,269 27,797 27,344 26,926 26,524 26,122 25,735 25,363 25,005 24,660
Page 99 of 241
Table 6.2: Halon 1301 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2042 – 2051)
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CEIT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Article 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Annual Production 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Annual Production Allocation
North America 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Western Europe and Australia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CEIT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Article 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Annual Production Allocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Annual Emissions
North America 182 176 170 164 159 153 148 143 138 134
Western Europe and Australia 85 82 79 76 74 71 69 67 65 62
Japan 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 23
CEIT 20 20 19 18 17 16 16 15 14 14
Article 5 22 20 18 16 14 13 12 11 9 9
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 332 320 309 298 288 278 268 259 250 242
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 332 320 309 298 288 278 268 259 250 242
Page 100 of 241
Table 6.2: Halon 1301 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2042 – 2051)
Cumulative Production Allocation 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051
North America 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969 42,969
Western Europe and Australia 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955 30,955
Japan 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254
CEIT 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165 8,165
Article 5 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896 38,896
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240 148,240
Cummulative Emissions
North America 37,744 37,920 38,090 38,254 38,413 38,566 38,714 38,857 38,995 39,129
Western Europe and Australia 28,495 28,577 28,656 28,732 28,806 28,877 28,946 29,013 29,078 29,140
Japan 11,281 11,305 11,329 11,352 11,376 11,399 11,423 11,446 11,470 11,493
CEIT 7,703 7,722 7,741 7,759 7,776 7,793 7,808 7,823 7,838 7,852
Article 5 38,689 38,708 38,726 38,742 38,756 38,769 38,781 38,791 38,801 38,810
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 123,912 124,232 124,541 124,839 125,127 125,405 125,673 125,932 126,182 126,423
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 127,221 127,541 127,850 128,148 128,436 128,714 128,982 129,241 129,491 129,732
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 5,224 5,049 4,879 4,715 4,556 4,403 4,255 4,112 3,973 3,840
Western Europe and Australia 2,461 2,379 2,300 2,223 2,149 2,078 2,009 1,942 1,878 1,815
Japan 15,973 15,949 15,926 15,902 15,878 15,855 15,831 15,808 15,784 15,761
CEIT 462 443 424 406 389 372 357 342 327 313
Article 5 208 188 170 155 140 127 116 105 96 87
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 24,328 24,007 23,698 23,400 23,113 22,835 22,567 22,308 22,058 21,816
Page 101 of 241
6.2.2 Halon 1211
During its 2014 Assessment, the FSTOC was concerned with the status of banking capabilities in
some regions of the world and the handling of halon 1211. As a result, the FSTOC changed its
assumptions on emissions as a percentage of the bank as it was believed that global emissions of
halon 1211 were higher than previously proposed. FSTOC expresses the same concerns in this
assessment but does not have the additional quantitative information needed to justify specific
changes in emission factors at this time. The FSTOC plans on taking up this issue over the next
few years as it is becoming more evident that halon 1211 emissions are likely higher than the
FSTOC model predicts. Additional information on the specific issues leading to this concern are
included in the discussion below.
Table 6.3 summarizes the FSTOC 2022 Assessment of estimates of total production, annual
emissions, cumulative emissions and resulting bank for halon 1211 in five-year increments from
2017 - 2052. Projected detailed yearly estimates for 2022 – 2051 are provided in Table 6.4.
Historic yearly detailed results from 1963 to 2021 are provided in Appendix D. Note that in some
instances the values do not add up exactly due to rounding errors. Negative production values in
the tables are the result of destruction, which results in a net loss of total cumulative production.
There are no known import / export data between regions for halon 1211.
Figure 6.3 illustrates the FSTOC future projected regional distribution of the global bank of halon
1211 and shows that at the end of 2022, the FSTOC projects almost 80% to be equally divided
between the North America region and the Western Europe and Australia region with about 20%
estimated to remain in Article 5 parties. No significant amounts are projected to be in the Japan or
CEIT regions. The current estimate for the amount of halon 1211 in Article 5 parties is
significantly lower than the more than 50% projected in the 2010 Assessment, which again is a
reflection of FSTOC concerns with halon 1211 bank management. This trend continues with
lower emission rates expected in the North America region and the Western Europe and Australia
region resulting in these regions containing over 90% of the global bank in the next 20 years.
As shown in Figure 6.4, there is significantly more uncertainty in the latest halon 1211 data using
the methodology of Vollmer et al. (2016) (hereafter referred to Vollmer) than there is for halon
1301. In part, this is due to the higher uncertainty in the halon 1211 lifetime but also its shorter
lifetime (15.9 years as opposed to 73.7 years for halon 1301). For example, Newland et al. (2013)
showed that changing the atmospheric lifetime of halon 1211 from 16 years to 14 years would
reduce their 2010 bank estimates from 37,000 metric tonnes to 10,000 metric tonnes. Conversely,
increasing the atmospheric lifetime would reduce the resulting emissions which would increase
the size of the bank. Nevertheless, the current FSTOC emissions are generally lower than the
Vollmer estimates (-1 sigma) beginning in 2004, which continues through the rest of the data set.
The FSTOC emission estimates for North America are consistent with the 600 metric tonnes
average from 2004 – 2006 estimated by Millet et al. (2009) using aircraft measurements. The
emissions and bank for Japan are consistent with those annually reported by the Japanese FEPN.
Data on emission estimates for NWEU have been updated for the period 1998 – 2020 BEIS
(2022). See Section 6.2.1 for further information and changes in this estimation of NWEU
emissions. The FSTOC model emission estimates scaled for NWEU are all now significantly
higher than the BEIS values, averaging almost twice as high as the mean values and 50% higher
than the +1 sigma uncertainty mean annual values. For example, the BEIS mean values for 2017 –
Page 102 of 241
2020 are 172 metric tonnes, 173 metric tonnes, 175 metric tonnes, and 177 metric tonnes
respectively, as compared to the FSTOC values of 460 metric tonnes, 440 metric tonnes, 420
metric tonnes, and 400 metric tonnes, respectively. There are three possible reasons for this
discrepancy: 1) less halon 1211 is in NWEU than estimated by the FSTOC, 2) the emission rate in
NWEU is lower than estimated by the FSTOC, and/or 3) the BEIS 2022 reported emissions are
too low due to uncertainties in measurements and modelling. From an FSTOC model perspective,
the FSTOC believes, based on the analysis of the Vollmer data below, that it is more likely that the
there is less halon 1211 in NWEU than the emission rate being too high. Nonetheless, this still
implies that a significant amount of halon 1211 remains in NWEU and likely Europe overall as
well. This amount includes halon 1211 in the EU critical uses including civil aviation fleets
operating in Europe.
As shown in Figure 6.4, the estimates of emissions from the Vollmer data and the FSTOC model
compare fairly well within uncertainty until about 2005 with the exception of 1988-90, where the
FSTOC emissions are above the 1 sigma uncertainty. From 2006 - 2012, FSTOC model emissions
are below the -1 sigma uncertainty. From 2013 -2021, FSTOC model emissions are very near to
the -1 sigma values. The FSTOC has been aware for some time that in some places in the world,
large amounts of halon 1211 were not allowed to be re-used so there was no longer any economic
reason to prevent emissions. As the FSTOC model is based on the best handling practices over
time, the lack of handling by professional servicers makes the estimation of emission factors for
that amount of halon difficult at best. FSTOC believes that it is certainly possible that the
emissions are higher than the FSTOC model predicts because of the inability to reliably estimate
emissions from “unwanted” halon 1211. In the 2018 Assessment, the FSTOC opined that as halon
1211 is still managed carefully in other parts of the world, the FSTOC model could come back
into closer agreement once the non-professionally managed halon 1211 is emitted and emission
rates are more predictable. This may already be happening, although at the lowest level of
Vollmer emissions, i.e., -1 sigma uncertainty. The Vollmer data suggest more emissions than the
FSTOC model and help to suggest, in part, why the FSTOC believes that the discrepancy in
NWEU emissions from BEIS versus FSTOC is more likely from less halon 1211 in Europe, and
hence more in regions with higher emission rates. As indicated above, FSTOC does not have any
quantitative basis to make specific changes to the current assumptions on emission factors or
import / export at this time.
As was the case for halon 1301, the current Vollmer data do not cover the entire FSTOC model
range which starts in 1963. For this assessment, these are now only available from 1974 – 2021.
Therefore, to compare emissions with the FSTOC model and the resulting global bank of halon
1211, two methods are employed:
1. Use the FSTOC emissions estimates from 1963 – 1973 and add that to the updated
Vollmer 1974 – 2021 data and
2. add the previous Vollmer data provided in 2018 for the period 1963 – 1973 to the current
1974 – 2021 data.
For both estimating methods, we assume that the Vollmer emissions are only from the fire
protection bank and from losses from production (1963 – 2010) for fire protection uses and not
from feedstock production and use, if any. It should be noted that the mean values are based on
the atmospheric concentration measurements, while the +/-1 sigma ranges are calculated by
adding or subtracting the 1 sigma uncertainly. This can result in negative emissions and/or a
Page 103 of 241
negative resulting bank. These negative values are then assigned to be “zero”. The results from
these two estimating methods for both the mean and the +1 sigma emissions estimates give
emissions that are more than the cumulative production (i.e., result in a negative global bank
which is then set to zero). For the -1 sigma cases, the two methods provide 70,500 and 75,500
metric tonnes in the fire protection bank compared with 20,500 metric tonnes estimated in the
FSTOC model. Obviously, the bank cannot be at zero as there are still emissions in NWEU being
measured and halon 1211 is still in wide use on civil aircraft. This suggests that either more halon
1211 has been produced than reported to FSTOC (and thus more emissions) and/or the emissions
are at the lower end of the Vollmer estimates.
Page 104 of 241
Table 6.3: FSTOC Halon 1211 Model Summary (in metric tonnes)
2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
TOTAL CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 406 333 274 224 184 151 124 102
Western Europe and Australia 460 373 309 252 227 173 131 100
Japan 11 9 7 6 4 4 3 2
CEIT 48 32 21 14 10 6 4 3
Article 5 730 415 236 134 76 44 24 14
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1,654 1,162 847 631 502 377 287 221
CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 49,043 50,849 52,331 53,548 54,546 55,366 56,038 56,590
Western Europe and Australia 74,907 76,936 78,621 80,013 81,202 82,168 82,903 83,461
Japan 1,734 1,782 1,820 1,850 1,874 1,894 1,909 1,922
CEIT 10,318 10,507 10,634 10,719 10,776 10,814 10,840 10,857
Article 5 149,116 151,750 153,249 154,102 154,587 154,863 155,011 155,100
TOTAL CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS 285,117 291,824 296,655 300,232 302,986 305,106 306,702 307,931
INVENTORY
North America 10,074 8,268 6,785 5,569 4,570 3,751 3,078 2,526
Western Europe and Australia 10,326 8,296 6,612 5,219 4,030 3,064 2,330 1,771
Japan 236 189 151 120 96 77 61 49
CEIT 574 386 259 174 117 78 53 35
Article 5 6,112 3,477 1,978 1,126 640 364 216 128
TOTAL INVENTORY 27,323 20,616 15,785 12,208 9,454 7,334 5,738 4,510
Page 105 of 241
30,000
Article 5
Former Countries with Economies in Transition
25,000
Japan
Western Europe and Australia
20,000
Metric Tonnes of halon 1211
North America
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2017 2022 2027 2032 2042 2047 2052
Year
Figure 6.3: Forecast of Regional Distribution of the Halon 1211 Bank from the FSTOC Model
Page 106 of 241
14
HTOC Model
ktonnes (Gg) Halon 1211 Emissions
Updated Vollmer et al. (2016) Emissions
12 Updated Vollmer et al. (2016) +1 Sigma
Updated Vollmer et al. (2016) -1 Sigma
10
8
6
4
2
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Figure 6.4: Comparison of Halon 1211 Emissions from 1Sigma of Updated Vollmer et al. (2016) and the FSTOC Model
Page 107 of 241
Table 6.4: Halon 1211 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes
Halon 1211 Summary in metric tonnes
YEAR 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - - - - -
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 333 320 308 296 285 274 263 253 243 234
Western Europe and Australia 373 357 358 338 323 309 308 291 277 264
Japan 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6
CEIT 32 30 27 25 23 21 20 18 17 16
Article 5 415 371 331 296 264 236 211 189 168 150
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 1,162 1,086 1,032 963 902 847 808 757 712 670
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 1,162 1,086 1,032 963 902 847 808 757 712 670
Page 108 of 241
Table 6.4: Halon 1211 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2022 – 2031)
Cumulative Production 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
North America, Western Europe and Japan 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
Total Cumulative Production 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Cumulative Production Allocation
North America 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117
Western Europe and Australia 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233
Japan 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971
CEIT 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893
Article 5 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Cumulative Emissions
North America 50,849 51,169 51,477 51,773 52,058 52,331 52,594 52,847 53,090 53,323
Western Europe and Australia 76,936 77,293 77,651 77,989 78,312 78,621 78,929 79,219 79,497 79,761
Japan 1,782 1,790 1,798 1,806 1,813 1,820 1,826 1,833 1,839 1,845
CEIT 10,507 10,537 10,564 10,589 10,612 10,634 10,654 10,672 10,689 10,705
Article 5 151,750 152,121 152,453 152,749 153,013 153,249 153,460 153,649 153,817 153,968
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 291,824 292,910 293,943 294,906 295,808 296,655 297,463 298,220 298,931 299,601
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 297,909 298,995 300,027 300,990 301,893 302,739 303,548 304,305 305,016 305,686
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 8,268 7,947 7,639 7,343 7,059 6,785 6,522 6,270 6,027 5,793
Western Europe and Australia 8,296 7,939 7,582 7,244 6,921 6,612 6,304 6,013 5,736 5,472
Japan 189 181 173 165 158 151 144 138 132 126
CEIT 386 356 329 304 280 259 239 221 204 188
Article 5 3,477 3,107 2,775 2,479 2,215 1,978 1,767 1,579 1,410 1,260
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 20,616 19,530 18,497 17,535 16,632 15,785 14,977 14,220 13,509 12,839
Page 109 of 241
Table 6.4: Halon 1211 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2032 – 2041)
YEAR 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - - - - -
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 224 216 207 199 192 184 177 170 164 157
Western Europe and Australia 252 241 250 233 239 227 215 203 193 182
Japan 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4
CEIT 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 8 8 7
Article 5 134 120 107 96 86 76 68 61 55 49
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 631 595 582 544 531 502 474 447 422 399
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 631 595 582 544 531 502 474 447 422 399
Page 110 of 241
Table 6.4: Halon 1211 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued, 2032 – 2041
Cumulative Production 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
North America, Western Europe and Japan 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
Total Cumulative Production 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Cumulative Production Allocation
North America 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117
Western Europe and Australia 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233
Japan 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971
CEIT 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893
Article 5 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Cumulative Emissions
North America 53,548 53,764 53,971 54,170 54,362 54,546 54,723 54,894 55,057 55,215
Western Europe and Australia 80,013 80,254 80,504 80,736 80,975 81,202 81,417 81,621 81,813 81,996
Japan 1,850 1,855 1,861 1,865 1,870 1,874 1,879 1,883 1,887 1,890
CEIT 10,719 10,732 10,745 10,756 10,766 10,776 10,785 10,793 10,801 10,808
Article 5 154,102 154,222 154,329 154,425 154,511 154,587 154,656 154,717 154,771 154,820
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 300,232 300,828 301,409 301,953 302,485 302,986 303,460 303,907 304,329 304,728
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 306,317 306,912 307,494 308,038 308,569 309,071 309,545 309,992 310,414 310,813
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 5,569 5,353 5,145 4,946 4,754 4,570 4,393 4,223 4,059 3,902
Western Europe and Australia 5,219 4,979 4,729 4,497 4,257 4,030 3,815 3,612 3,419 3,237
Japan 120 115 110 105 101 96 92 88 84 80
CEIT 174 160 148 137 126 117 108 99 92 85
Article 5 1,126 1,006 898 802 717 640 572 511 457 408
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 12,208 11,613 11,031 10,487 9,956 9,454 8,980 8,533 8,111 7,712
Page 111 of 241
Table 6.4: Halon 1211 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2042 – 2051)
YEAR 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - - - - -
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 151 145 140 134 129 124 119 115 110 106
Western Europe and Australia 173 163 155 146 139 131 124 118 111 105
Japan 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
CEIT 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3
Article 5(1) 44 34 33 30 27 24 22 19 18 16
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 377 353 336 319 302 287 272 258 245 233
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 377 353 336 319 302 287 272 258 245 233
Page 112 of 241
Table 6.4: Halon 1211 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2042 – 2051)
Cumulative Production 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051
North America, Western Europe and Japan 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
Total Cumulative Production 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Cumulative Production Allocation
North America 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117
Western Europe and Australia 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233
Japan 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971
CEIT 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893
Article 5 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Cumulative Emissions
North America 55,366 55,511 55,651 55,785 55,914 56,038 56,158 56,272 56,382 56,488
Western Europe and Australia 82,168 82,332 82,486 82,633 82,772 82,903 83,027 83,145 83,256 83,361
Japan 1,894 1,897 1,900 1,903 1,906 1,909 1,912 1,915 1,917 1,919
CEIT 10,814 10,820 10,826 10,831 10,836 10,840 10,844 10,848 10,851 10,855
Article 5 154,863 154,898 154,931 154,961 154,987 155,011 155,033 155,052 155,070 155,086
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 305,106 305,458 305,795 306,113 306,415 306,702 306,974 307,232 307,477 307,710
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 311,190 311,543 311,879 312,198 312,500 312,787 313,058 313,317 313,562 313,794
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 3,751 3,605 3,466 3,331 3,202 3,078 2,959 2,844 2,734 2,628
Western Europe and Australia 3,064 2,901 2,746 2,600 2,461 2,330 2,206 2,088 1,977 1,871
Japan 77 73 70 67 64 61 59 56 54 51
CEIT 78 72 67 62 57 53 49 45 41 38
Article 5 364 330 297 267 240 216 195 175 158 142
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 7,334 6,982 6,646 6,327 6,025 5,738 5,466 5,208 4,963 4,731
Page 113 of 241
6.2.3 Halon 2402
In 2014, the FSTOC estimated cumulative production of halon 2402 based on data from
Kopylov et al. (2003), (in Russian) and Belevtcev and Kunina (1998), and by making a series
of assumptions about halon 2402 production based on available data. Belevtcev and Kunina,
provided an estimate of 34,000 metric tonnes total production of halon 2402 from 1965 – 1994.
As the quantities of halon 2402 were not reported to the FSTOC as they were by CEFIC for
halons 1211 and 1301, there was no information on quantities of halon 2402 produced outside of
the former Soviet Union prior to the Montreal Protocol. To develop an estimate, it was assumed
that the difference between total Montreal Protocol Article 7 production data for all halons in
non-Article 5 parties and the halon 1211 and 1301 quantities used in the FSTOC models
represent additional halon 2402 production outside of the former Soviet Union (i.e., in North
America, Western Europe and Australia, and Japan) from the years 1986, 1989-1992. The result
is that there is 7% more total halon reported in Article 7 data than accounted for by halons 1301
and 1211 alone. The 7% additional halon is assumed to be production of halon 2402 outside of
the Soviet Union. To estimate the 1963 – 1985 production of 2402 outside of the Soviet Union,
the 7% factor was applied to the halon 1211 and 1301 production quantities per year from 1963 –
1985 and added to the estimate for the Soviet Union. No changes have been made in the
production estimates since 2014.
The assumptions for emission rates as a function of the size of the bank have been updated for
this assessment. The current model aligns the emission rates for 2402 with those currently used
for halon 1301, with the exception of Japan, which uses the same emission factors as for North
America. The rationale is that most of the systems left installed are in the total flooding sector,
which in most parts of the world was dominated by halon 1301 and the system owners would
have the same ability and incentive to minimize unwanted emissions. Halon 1301 is much more
volatile than halon 2402, so it is considered conservative to assume the emissions from servicing
would be the same.
Table 6.5 provides a summary of the FSTOC 2022 Assessment of estimates of cumulative
production, annual emissions, cumulative emissions, and resulting bank for halon 2402 in five-
year increments from 2017 – 2052. There is little information available on import / export of
halon 2402. Projected detailed yearly estimates for 2022 – 2051 are provided in Table 6.6.
Historic yearly detailed results from 1963 to 2021 are provided in Appendix E.
Figure 6.5 provides the regional distribution of the global bank of halon 2402 based on the
FSTOC model. The FSTOC estimates that the majority of halon 2402 remains in the former
CEIT countries, but also with significant quantities remaining in Europe.
As shown in Figure 6.6, the FSTOC estimate of emissions is generally higher than the mean
estimate of emissions from the updated Vollmer et al., (2016) data from about 1980 until 2020
and near or above the +1 sigma uncertainty until 2018. The Vollmer data show increasing
emissions from 2016 – 2021, with the FSTOC estimate going below the mean but staying within
+/-1 sigma uncertainty. This increase would not be expected from an average emission rate of the
bank; however, it has been reported to the FSTOC that there is a major decommissioning
programme underway in Vladivostok, Russia that could account for an increase in emissions. As
emissions would be expected to be kept to a minimum, but not totally avoidable, the level of
Page 114 of 241
increase in emissions suggests that this effort involves a sizeable amount of decommissioning. It
is presumed that this recovered halon 2402 will remain in the global bank to support enduring
uses of halon 2402.
As was the case for the other halons, the Vollmer data do not go back to 1963. In order to
compare the FSTOC model estimates with Vollmer, the 1963 – 1977 emissions are estimated in
two ways:
1. use the FSTOC emissions estimates from 1963 – 1977 and add that to the updated
Vollmer data for 1978 – 2021, and
2. add the previous Vollmer data provided in 2018 for the period 1963 – 1977 to the updated
1978 – 2021 data.
Both estimating methods include emissions from the fire protection bank and losses from
production (1963 – 2000). It should be noted that the mean values are based on the atmospheric
concentration measurements, while the +/-1 sigma ranges are calculated by adding or subtracting
the 1 sigma uncertainty. This can result in negative emissions and a negative resulting bank.
These negative values are then assigned to be “zero”.
Method 1 results in mean cumulative emissions through 2021 of 39,500 (29,500 – 49,500) metric
tonnes and a remaining mean bank of 19,500 (10,000 – 29,500) metric tonnes. Method 2 results
in mean cumulative emissions through 2021 of 43,500 (28,000 – 69,000) metric tonnes and a
remaining mean bank of 15,500 (0 – 41,500) metric tonnes. This is compared with the FSTOC
model estimate of 52,000 metric tonnes of cumulative emissions and a remaining bank of about
13,000 metric tonnes. It should be noted that the FSTOC model does not include emissions from
the reported use of halon 2402 as a process agent which would place the FSTOC model
emissions and bank estimate within the range of uncertainty of the estimates using the Vollmer
data.
Page 115 of 241
Table 6.5: FSTOC Halon 2402 Model Summary, in Metric Tonnes
2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 53 45 38 32 28 23 20 17
Western Europe and Australia 103 86 72 60 50 41 34 29
Japan 11 10 8 7 6 5 5 4
CEIT 313 265 225 191 162 137 116 99
Article 5 54 41 30 23 17 13 9 7
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 535 447 374 313 262 220 185 155
CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 4,246 4,488 4,693 4,866 5,014 5,138 5,244 5,334
Western Europe and Australia 7,735 8,198 8,583 8,904 9,172 9,394 9,579 9,733
Japan 787 839 883 922 955 984 1,008 1,030
CEIT 26,237 27,656 28,860 29,880 30,744 31,477 32,099 32,625
Article 5 4,926 5,155 5,326 5,454 5,550 5,621 5,675 5,715
Fire Protection Cumulative Emissions 43,930 46,335 48,344 50,026 51,434 52,614 53,605 54,437
TOTAL CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS 44,459 46,864
- 48,873
- 50,554
- 51,963
- 53,143
- 54,134
- 54,811
-
INVENTORY
North America 1,587 1,345 1,140 967 820 695 589 499
Western Europe and Australia 2,765 2,302 1,916 1,595 1,328 1,106 921 766
Japan 380 328 284 245 212 183 158 137
CEIT 9,321 7,902 6,698 5,678 4,814 4,081 3,459 2,933
Article 5 908 679 507 379 284 212 159 119
TOTAL INVENTORY 14,961 12,556 10,546 8,865 7,457 6,276 5,286 4,454
Page 116 of 241
16,000
14,000 Article 5
metric tonnes of halon 2402
CEIT
12,000 Japan
Western Europe and Australia
10,000 North America
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052
Year
Figure 6.5: Forecast of Regional Distribution of the Halon 2402 Bank from the FSTOC Model
Page 117 of 241
Halon 2402 Emissions
2.5
ktonnes (Gg) Halon 2402 Emissions
FSTOC Model
2 Updated Vollmer et al. (2016)
Updated Vollmer et al. (2016) +1 Sigma
Updated Vollmer et al. (2016) -1 Sigma
1.5
1
0.5
0
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
Year
Figure 6.6: Comparison of Halon 2402 Emissions from 1 Sigma of Updated Vollmer et al. (2016) and the FSTOC Model
Page 118 of 241
Table 6.6: Halon 2402 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes
Halon 2402 Summary
Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Emissions
North America 45 44 42 41 40 38 37 36 35 34
Western Europe and Australia 86 83 80 77 74 72 69 67 64 62
Japan 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7
CEIT 265 257 248 240 233 225 218 211 204 197
Article 5(1) 41 38 36 34 32 30 29 27 26 24
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 447 431 416 401 387 374 361 348 336 324
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss
447 431 416 401 387 374 361 348 336 324
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 119 of 241
Table 6.6: Halon 2402 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2022-2031)
Cumulative Production Allocation 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
North America 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Japan 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Emissions
North America 4,488 4,532 4,574 4,615 4,654 4,693 4,730 4,766 4,800 4,834
Western Europe and Australia 8,198 8,281 8,360 8,438 8,512 8,583 8,652 8,719 8,783 8,845
Japan 839 848 857 866 875 883 891 899 907 914
CEIT 27,656 27,913 28,162 28,402 28,635 28,860 29,077 29,288 29,492 29,689
Article 5 5,155 5,193 5,229 5,263 5,295 5,326 5,354 5,382 5,407 5,431
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 46,335 46,766 47,182 47,584 47,971 48,344 48,705 49,053 49,389 49,713
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 1,345 1,302 1,259 1,218 1,179 1,140 1,103 1,067 1,033 999
Western Europe and Australia 2,302 2,219 2,139 2,062 1,988 1,916 1,847 1,781 1,717 1,655
Japan 328 319 310 301 292 284 275 268 260 252
CEIT 7,902 7,645 7,396 7,156 6,923 6,698 6,481 6,270 6,066 5,869
Article 5 679 640 604 570 538 507 479 452 426 402
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 12,556 12,125 11,709 11,307 10,920 10,546 10,186 9,838 9,502 9,178
Page 120 of 241
Table 6.6: Halon 2402 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2022-2031)
Cumulative Production 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Production Allocation
North America 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Japan 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Emissions
North America 4,866 4,898 4,928 4,958 4,986 5,014 5,040 5,066 5,091 5,115
Western Europe and Australia 8,904 8,962 9,017 9,071 9,122 9,172 9,219 9,265 9,310 9,353
Japan 922 929 935 942 949 955 961 967 973 978
CEIT 29,880 30,064 30,243 30,415 30,583 30,744 30,901 31,052 31,198 31,340
Article 5 5,454 5,475 5,495 5,515 5,533 5,550 5,566 5,581 5,595 5,608
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 50,026 50,328 50,619 50,900 51,172 51,434 51,687 51,931 52,167 52,395
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 967 935 905 876 847 820 793 767 742 718
Western Europe and Australia 1,595 1,538 1,483 1,429 1,378 1,328 1,280 1,234 1,190 1,147
Japan 245 238 231 225 218 212 206 200 194 189
CEIT 5,678 5,494 5,315 5,143 4,975 4,814 4,657 4,506 4,360 4,218
Article 5 379 358 338 319 301 284 268 252 238 225
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 8,865 8,563 8,272 7,991 7,719 7,457 7,204 6,960 6,724 6,496
Page 121 of 241
Table 6.6: Halon 2402 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2032-2041)
Halon 2402 Summary
Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Emissions
North America 32 31 30 29 28 28 27 26 25 24
Western Europe and Australia 60 57 55 53 51 50 48 46 44 43
Japan 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6
CEIT 191 185 179 173 167 162 156 151 146 142
Article 5 23 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 313 302 291 281 272 262 253 244 236 228
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 313 302 291 281 272 262 253 244 236 228
Page 122 of 241
Table 6.6: Halon 2402 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2032-2041)
Cumulative Production 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Production Allocation
North America 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Japan 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Emissions
North America 4,866 4,898 4,928 4,958 4,986 5,014 5,040 5,066 5,091 5,115
Western Europe and Australia 8,904 8,962 9,017 9,071 9,122 9,172 9,219 9,265 9,310 9,353
Japan 922 929 935 942 949 955 961 967 973 978
CEIT 29,880 30,064 30,243 30,415 30,583 30,744 30,901 31,052 31,198 31,340
Article 5 5,454 5,475 5,495 5,515 5,533 5,550 5,566 5,581 5,595 5,608
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 50,026 50,328 50,619 50,900 51,172 51,434 51,687 51,931 52,167 52,395
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 50,554 50,856 51,148 51,429 51,700 51,963 52,216 52,460 52,696 52,923
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 967 935 905 876 847 820 793 767 742 718
Western Europe and Australia 1,595 1,538 1,483 1,429 1,378 1,328 1,280 1,234 1,190 1,147
Japan 245 238 231 225 218 212 206 200 194 189
CEIT 5,678 5,494 5,315 5,143 4,975 4,814 4,657 4,506 4,360 4,218
Article 5 379 358 338 319 301 284 268 252 238 225
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 8,865 8,563 8,272 7,991 7,719 7,457 7,204 6,960 6,724 6,496
Page 123 of 241
Table 6.6: Halon 2402 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2042-2051)
Halon 2402 Summary
Year 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Emissions
North America 23 23 22 21 20 20 19 19 18 17
Western Europe and Australia 41 40 38 37 36 34 33 32 31 30
Japan 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4
CEIT 137 133 128 124 120 116 112 109 105 102
Article 5 13 12 11 11 10 9 9 8 8 8
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 220 212 205 198 191 185 178 172 166 161
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss220 212 205 198 191 185 178 172 166 161
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 124 of 241
Table 6.6: Halon 2402 Year-By-Year Forecast, in Metric Tonnes, continued (2042-2051)
Cumulative Production Allocation 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051
North America 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Japan 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Emissions
North America 5,138 5,161 5,183 5,204 5,224 5,244 5,263 5,282 5,300 5,317
Western Europe and Australia 9,394 9,434 9,472 9,509 9,545 9,579 9,612 9,644 9,675 9,705
Japan 984 989 994 999 1,004 1,008 1,013 1,017 1,022 1,026
CEIT 31,477 31,610 31,738 31,862 31,982 32,099 32,211 32,320 32,425 32,527
Article 5 5,621 5,633 5,644 5,655 5,665 5,675 5,684 5,692 5,700 5,708
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 52,614 52,827 53,032 53,230 53,421 53,605 53,783 53,956 54,122 54,282
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 695 672 650 629 609 589 570 551 533 516
Western Europe and Australia 1,106 1,066 1,028 991 955 921 887 855 825 795
Japan 183 178 173 168 163 158 154 149 145 141
CEIT 4,081 3,948 3,820 3,696 3,576 3,459 3,347 3,238 3,133 3,031
Article 5 212 200 189 178 168 159 150 141 133 126
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 6,276 6,064 5,859 5,661 5,470 5,286 5,107 4,935 4,769 4,609
Page 125 of 241
6.3 HCFC Estimates
While HCFCs were used for fire suppression in several different blends, all of the HCFCs used
in fire suppression are used much more extensively as refrigerants. Therefore, it is not possible to
estimate either the global bank or emissions of HCFCs from fire protection uses.
6.4 HFC Estimates
6.4.1 HFC-227ea Estimates
Unlike halons, the majority of which were exclusively used for fire protection, HFC-227ea is
also used in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) and in foam blowing. Therefore, to estimate the global
emissions from fire protection, it was necessary to create a model that can separate the annual
emissions into those three categories of use. HFC-227ea is also used in some refrigerant blends,
but that use is considered small at this time. If information on annual refrigerant use and
emissions becomes available, it will be included in the future. Any use as a refrigerant would
both reduce the amount that went into fire protection applications and the amount emitted from
fire protection, resulting in a conservative estimate that overestimates the emissions from fire
protection. The model was developed in 2018 in coordination with an MCTOC co-chair and a
Rigid and Flexible Foams (F)TOC co-chair and has been updated in 2022. The model uses best
estimates of annual global production capacity of HFC-227ea from 1993 until 2021, Walter-
Terrinoni (2018, 2022) and apportions use to foams, MDIs, and fire protection based on expert
opinion. This is a more simplified model than the halon model and does not try to predict
regional variations or reasons for the emissions, i.e., does not try to predict service losses,
inadvertent discharges, fires, etc. The estimated annual use, and therefore emissions, from MDIs
is from the work of Noakes (2022). The amount used for production of foam was provided by
Walter-Terrinoni who also provided the estimated annual emissions from both the production and
use of foams. The amount that went into fire protection was taken to be the remainder of the
assumed full production capacity, which would also serve, as was the case for not including
HFC-227ea use as a refrigerant, to increase the amount that went into the fire protection sector.
The fire protection emission factors come from expert opinion based on the experience of the
FSTOC halons models. The annual emission rates used are as follows.
• MDIs – 100%
• Foams – Production – 25%
• Foams from installed base (bank) – 1%
• Fire protection – starting at 25% in 1993 (initially significant quantities were discharged
for development testing and certification), quickly dropping to 4% by 1998 (as much less
developmental testing was performed and as best practices for reducing emissions were
adopted from halon 1301 lessons learned), gradually reducing to 3% by 2011 and
remaining at 3% thereafter. While somewhat higher than for the 2018 Assessment, it is
based on an assessment of the difference in locations and practices for halon 1301
systems versus HFC-227ea systems. In terms of the global bank, it is estimated that the
proportion of HFC-227ea (by mass) is greater than the proportion of halon 1301 installed
in Article 5 parties. The estimate of 3% is consistent with estimates of average emissions
from total flooding systems of 2+/-1% developed by Verdonik and Robin (2004).
Page 126 of 241
• Production emissions from 0.1% to 1.25% ranging from low to the average of the most
likely emissions per MCTOC estimates, Tope (2021).
Updated data were obtained on the global emissions of HFC-227ea through 2020, SAP Ozone
Assessment report, (2022) and are in excellent agreement with the simplified FSTOC model, as
shown in Figure 6.7. The FSTOC simplified model is generally between the +/- 1 sigma
uncertainty except for a few short periods 1999, 2001, and 2008 – 2010. For 2008 – 2010, this is
the result of the decrease in estimated production of foam during the global financial crisis.
Page 127 of 241
HFC-227ea Emissions Estimates
2022 Updated FSTOC Model
Updated Ozone Assessment - Mean
6 Updated Ozone Assessment + 1 sigma
K tonnes (Gg) Emissions
Updated Ozone Assessment - 1 sigma
4
2
0
1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022
Year
Figure 6.7: Comparison of HFC-227ea Emissions from SAP Ozone Assessment Report (2022) and the FSTOC Model
Page 128 of 241
All of the input data to the model were based directly on the expert opinion of the FSTOC,
MCTOC, and FTOC co-chairs. Only small adjustments to the model assumptions for emissions
rates or use in the foam sector would be needed to get the FSTOC model and the SAP Ozone
Assessment report estimates to agree but doing so would eliminate the independence of the two
methods. The very good agreement from the two independent methods is felt as sufficient to use
the FSTOC simplified model to estimate the size of the fire protection bank of HFC-227ea and
the overall global emissions that comes from fire protection applications. The model provides
estimated fire protection emissions of 5,250 metric tonnes and a global HFC-227ea fire
protection bank of 168,000 metric tonnes for the end of 2022.
To put that amount into context, the largest that the global halon 1301 bank was projected to be
in the FSTOC model was 77,000 metric tonnes in 1991. An initial impression of the FSTOC was
that this estimate of the HFC-227ea bank seemed to be too high. However, if one considers that
while halon 1301 was commercialized and used as early as 1963, it was not until the mid-1970s
that halon 1301 began to see significant market penetration, with less than a 20-year run before
the Montreal Protocol began to decrease its production. HFC-227ea has about the same length of
time now in the marketplace. Using gross domestic product (GDP) growth as a proxy for how
much fire protection grew from 1991 – 2022, 4.25-times, IMF (2022), scaling up for the 70%
more HFC-227ea required over halon 1301 to protect against the same fire threat, and scaling
down for 25% replacement rate of HFC-227ea compared to halon, gives an estimate of 140,000
metric tonnes that would be in the HFC-227ea fire protection bank in 2022, which is in
reasonable agreement with the FSTOC model.
Regionally, US HFC-227ea emissions have been estimated from 2008 – 2014 by Hu et al.
(2017). In 2008, emissions were about 280+/-110 metric tonnes rising to 600+/-100 metric
tonnes in 2014, the last year of the data set. While no data have been found on US use and
emissions of HFC-227ea for foams and MDIs, some assumptions on percentages of use in the
US ranging from no use in foams and MDIs to their global average, provide an estimate that the
US emissions of HFC-227ea from the fire protection sector are on the order of 10-15% of the
global emissions from the fire protection sector. HFC-227ea emissions from NWEU are
available for the period 2006 – 2020, BEIS (2022). Scaling the NWEU emissions for all of
Europe (see Section 6.2.1) provides estimates of 12% of the global emissions in the early years,
dropping to 5% by 2020. All anecdotal information available to the FSTOC would indicate that
these ranges are reasonable, which provides further support to the HFC-227ea model estimates in
Figure 6.7.
6.4.2 HFC-125 Estimates
There are several known applications of HFC-125 in fire protection, including some military
uses, but these are estimated to be quite small. Since by far the largest use of HFC-125 is as a
component in several refrigerant blends, it is not possible to estimate the amount of HFC-125
used in, or emitted from, fire protection systems using atmospheric measurements alone. It
would be necessary to be able to separate out the amounts of agent sold into fire protection and
make assumptions similar to those for the HFC-227ea model. At this time, the FSTOC does not
have the necessary information to perform such modelling.
Page 129 of 241
6.4.3 HFC-23 Estimates
Unlike HFC-227ea, which is purposely produced, HFC-23 is a byproduct of HCFC-22
manufacturing. As a result, it is not possible to estimate the amount of HFC-23 used in fire
protection from atmospheric measurements. HFC-23 is typically limited to use in cold
temperature applications, as discussed in the sections 4.3.3 Agent Alternatives to Fixed Systems,
and 5.3 Pipelines / Oil and Gas. Only limited information on actual amounts of HFC-23 used in
fire protection is available and indicates that it is typically small compared to HFC-227ea. One
way to estimate HFC-23 would be to ratio its use against HFC-227ea where both are known. In
one case where both are available, its use is higher than expected at around 20% - 25% of
HFC-227ea, Yagi (2022). However, this is limited to a region where inert gases dominate this
sector and therefore is not illustrative of the global percentage. The HFC-227ea use in this case is
less than 0.5% of the global HFC-227ea fire protection use whereas this region’s need for fire
protection would be much higher at around 6% of the total demand in this sector. The 6%
estimate is based on GDP, IMF (2022), using the correlation shown in Verdonik (2004). If this
region were using HFC-227ea at 6% of the global total, its HFC-227ea bank would be
approximately 9,500 metric tonnes in 2020. Under the assumption that HFC-23 would not be
used in applications that would be suitable to inert gases, taking the actual HFC-23 used in this
region and dividing by the 9,500 metric tonnes of HFC-227ea estimated above provides an
estimate of the global amount of HFC-23 used as a percentage of HFC-227ea, which is about
1%. This is consistent with expert opinion that the global percentage of HFC-23 use in fire
protection is small.
6.4.4 HFC-236fa Estimates
As was the case for HFC-227ea, there are other non-fire protection uses of HFC-236fa. However,
unlike HFC-227ea, there is little information available on the relative take-up of HFC-236fa in the
fire protection market. There are portable extinguishers that have been commercialized to replace
halon 1211. HFC-236fa is also used in European military vehicle applications and there is also
one other known small use for fire protection in the US National Association for Stock Car Auto
Racing, also known as NASCAR. Additionally, some HFC-236fa is used for asset protection, e.g.,
computer rooms. At this time, there is not sufficient information to estimate HFC-236fa installed
quantities or emissions in the fire protection sector.
6.4.5 References:
BEIS (2022): Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, UK (BEIS), 2022.
Alistair Manning, Simon O’Doherty, Dickon Young, Alison Redington, Daniel Say, Joseph Pitt,
Tim Arnold, Chris Rennick, Matt Rigby, Adam Wisher, Angelina Wenger, and Peter Simmonds,
“Long-Term Atmospheric Measurement and Interpretation of Radiatively Active Trace Gases,
October 2020 – September 2021” Annual Report, February 17, 2002.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/research/ar18_report.pdf
Belevtcev and Kunina (1998): “The Problems of Phaseout and Regeneration of Halons in
Russia,” Proceedings of the Halon Options Technical Working Conference, May 12-14, 1998.
Page 130 of 241
Hu et al. (2017): Hu, L. et al., Considerable contribution of the Montreal Protocol to declining
greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
doi:10.1002/2017GL074388.
IMF (2022): International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October – 2022,
downloaded from https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/WEOWORLD
Kopylov et al. (2003): Kopylov N.P., Nikolayev V.M., Zhevlakov A.F., Pivovarov V.V., Tselikov
V.N., Russian National Strategy for Halon Management, Chimizdat, StPetersburg-Moscow,
2003.
Manning et al. (2021): Manning, Alistair J., et al. "Evidence of a recent decline in UK emissions
of hydrofluorocarbons determined by the InTEM inverse model and atmospheric measurements."
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 21.16 (2021): 12739-12755.
Millet et al. (2009) “Halocarbon Emissions from the United States and Mexico and Their Global
Warming Potential”, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4, 1055–1060
Newland et al. (2013): Newland, M. J., Reeves, C. E., Oram, D. E., Laube, J. C., Sturges, W. T.,
Hogan, C., Begley, P., and P. J. Fraser, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 5551–5565, 2013,
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5551-2013
Noakes (2022): Noakes, TJ, Mexichem Fluor, United Kingdom, personal communication with a
co-chair of the Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee, 2022.
Terrinoni (2018): Walter-Terrinoni, H., co-chair, Foams Technical Options Committee, personal
communication, 2018
Tope (2021): Tope, H., co-chair, Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee, personal
communication, 2021
Verdonik (2004): Verdonik, D.P., Modeling Emissions of HFCs and PFCs in the Fire Protection
Sector, Proceedings of the Earth Technology Forum, Washington, DC, 2004
Verdonik and Robin (2004): Verdonik, D.P. and M.L. Robin, 2004: Analysis of Emission Data,
Estimates, and Modeling of Fire Protection Agents. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Earth
Technologies Forum, April 13-15, 2004, Washington, DC, USA, 11 pp.
Walter-Terrinoni (2022): Walter-Terrinoni, H., co-chair, Foams Technical Options Committee,
personal communication, 2022
WMO Ozone Assessment Report (2022): https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap
Yagi (2022): Yagi, M, Japan Fire and Environment Protection Network, personal
communication, 2022
Page 131 of 241
6.5 Global Halon, HCFC, and HFC Banking (Agent Management)
6.5.1 Introduction
A bank is defined as all agent contained in fire extinguishing cylinders and storage cylinders
within any organization, country, or region. Likewise, the ‘global bank’ is all agent presently
contained in fire equipment plus all agent stored at recycling centres, at fire equipment
companies, at users’ premises, etc., i.e., it is all agent that has been produced but has yet to be
emitted or destroyed. The collection, reclamation, storage, and redistribution of fire
extinguishing agents is referred to as “banking.” These concepts and terminologies apply to all
fire suppression gases including halons, HCFCs, HFCs, and their alternatives.
Many parties have halon banking programmes that are fully operational (and some HFC/HCFC
banking programmes), but more parties have implemented only partial programmes and may not
be aware of the increasing need to establish a means of meeting the long-term needs for their
remaining users. Those parties who have established banking programmes have a distinct
advantage in that they have the experience to expand those programmes, practices, and processes
to include all halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents where necessary.
While there may not be any national banking in many countries, there may be several local or
commercial enterprises providing a form of banking operations/services. These smaller
operations may be addressing targeted users, but they are serving an important purpose in
preserving the global bank.
FSTOC continues to see issues regarding the loss of historical knowledge due to the length of
time over which the Montreal Protocol activities have been implemented. A significant number
of individuals are new to the Protocol, finding themselves now responsible for halon
management but not being familiar with the issues surrounding halons, HCFCs, HFCs, and their
alternatives use, recycling, and banking. Lack of understanding about long-term needs for halon
1301 has also resulted in halon destruction. FSTOC notes that this lack of experience and
historical knowledge is becoming more challenging as it works with various parties and
organizations on issues related to acquiring halons to meet their continuing needs. Parties may
wish to address awareness programmes to re-establish this loss in institutional memory.
6.5.2 Pathway to Halons, HCFC, and HFC Management and Banking
Management of halons, HCFCs, and HFCs comprises activities including receipt, testing,
recycling/reclamation and repackaging, warehousing, issuing the agents, and disposition.
The pathway to the management of halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents can be driven
by governments and private companies and can consist of some or all of the following
components:
• Initiate and carry out halon/HCFC/HFC surveys, the survey might also estimate future
demand for halons for enduring uses
• Awareness campaigns
• Information on alternatives to halons/HCFCs/HFCs
• Establishing phaseout strategies with supporting policies
Page 132 of 241
• Promote and support establishment of recycling programmes and facilities that could also
collect and sell halons such as:
o Government supported recycling facilities
o Fire equipment companies offering recycling and reclamation services
o Private companies offering recycling and reclamation services
• Planning for end-of-life, which may include destruction (i.e., where halons are too
contaminated)
• Identify equipment using halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents and determine
what replacements are available for selection at end of life and limiting use of halons,
HCFCs, and HFCs to enduring uses only
This approach can also be extended to all halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents.
Safety is critical to the management of these halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents.
These cylinders are often under high pressure; not maintaining system agent cylinders as per the
relevant safety standards, including having unsecured agent cylinders, can represent a significant
safety hazard. Furthermore, implementing good leak detection practices and physical security
will also ensure the protection of scarce, valuable fire extinguishing agents.
6.5.2.1 Banking Strategy
Halon, HCFC, and HFC banking comprises but a portion of an overall Montreal Protocol
implementation programme. Other features of a comprehensive programme should occur before
banking is established. Examples of these features include:
• Establish governmental policy and program
• Implement awareness campaigns
• Identify appropriate replacements or alternatives
• Develop or adopt standards for the design, installation, and maintenance of fire protection
systems (including halons, HCFCs, HFCs, and alternatives to all of the agents)
• Survey installed capacities and establish database of halon, HCFC, and HFC users
• Identify remaining enduring uses and quantity requirements
• Identify and involve stakeholders
• Open discussions with the military, civil aviation, and other remaining users
• Plan for decommissioning of halon, HCFC, and HFC systems
Examples of measures that have been shown to help ensure successful implementation of a
banking programme include:
• Emphasize to stakeholders that supplies are limited with reduced or no future production
• Prohibit new halon systems in facilities or new equipment designs
• Prohibit emissions in testing and drills – use only on real fires
Page 133 of 241
• Where possible, replace discharged halon/HCFC/HFC systems with other forms of fire
protection
• Require that all halons, HCFCs, and HFCs removed from retired systems be sent to
appropriate recycling/reclamation facilities.
• Require purchases of halons via banking operations through regulations or voluntary
agreements
• Exchange information and expertise regionally
• Develop import regulations for halons, HCFCs, and HFCs, e.g., a quota system
• Develop and approve codes of conduct/good practice for the management of these
halogenated gaseous agents
• Provide information in the form of brochures, newsletter, website, phone, etc.
While a free-market approach is an option, a more formalized strategy has been implemented by
many parties. Options for setting up a halogenated gaseous fire extinguishant banking operation
include contractor-operated, government-operated, or a combination of these.
A common concept of centralized banking operations is as follows:
• It acts as a centralized warehousing and repair facility
• It becomes a “one stop shop” for all fire extinguishing agent transactions, e.g., turn in,
reclamation, storage and reissue
• It receives all halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agent recovered or removed from
service
• It can provide or have access to quality control laboratories that are able to test recycled
and reclaimed agent to determine whether the required purity specifications have been
met. Halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents meeting purity requirements are
provided to users to meet fire protection requirements
• It provides simplified recordkeeping and programme management because multiple
dispersed physical storage locations and information systems are eliminated
Users of these types of facilities should be apprised of the benefits they derive from their
participation in a banking program, such as consistent quality and predictable supplies of halons,
HCFCs, and HFCs.
6.5.3 Agent Recycling Considerations
Safety assessments are critical prior to conducting any agent recovery, recycling, or reclamation.
Without considering safety, mishandling of the gas cylinders and agent could result in fatalities.
Personnel must be fully trained to know and avoid common safety problems when dealing with
compressed gas cylinders. Handheld leak detectors should be used at receiving facilities. Each
cylinder should be inspected for valve type and integrity to include all safety devices. Personnel
should always assume a cylinder is fully pressurized regardless of gauge reading.
Page 134 of 241
Cylinders should always be chained down when being evacuated, moved, or worked on in any
way. Personnel need to be trained to know the different types of valves and how they activate,
e.g., burst disk/initiator, mechanical/cutter valves, and Schrader valves.
In addition to safety training, personnel and companies undertaking recovery, recycling, and
reclamation activities need to be trained to carry out tasks to perform the routine functions, for
example:
• Leak test incoming cylinders
• Operate recovery, recycling, and reclamation equipment safely
• Remove/recover all agents to specified level of vacuum
• Repackage into suitable, in-test-date cylinders
• Recycle/reclaim the agent to its specification
• Repackage for storage and issue
• Use certified equipment
• Leak test recovery equipment during operation and gas cylinders after filling
• Test incoming agent to determine the type of product as cylinders may not contain what
the label states
• Test reclaimed agent to ensure that it meets purity specifications to avoid contamination
• Provide a certificate of analysis that certifies the agent meets required purity
specifications
• Send agent that is not reclaimable becasue it is too contaminated, to an approved facility
for destruction.
Reclamation and certification are reviewed in detail for all halons and other gaseous fire
extinguishing agents in the FSTOC’s Technical Note B, Emission Reduction and Recycling
Strategies for Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents, FSTOC
(2022).
6.5.3.1 Challenges
This section addresses the challenges faced in setting up halon banking and recycling facilities. If
lessons are not learned from these activities, the same problems may occur for HCFC and HFC
fire extinguishing agents.
Historically the implementation of some of the halon banking and recycling projects in Article 5
parties presented a number of challenges that limited and/or were the main reasons for the failure
of these projects. Below are some of these challenges:
• Competition within the fire protection industry in the country resulted in lack of general
support from the rest of the fire protection industry; the project was used as a platform for
promotion of the company and replacement of halon fire equipment.
Page 135 of 241
• Selection of a company with no prior experience within the fire protection industry
• Selection of a company which only needed the halon for its own use
• The regional centre concept is difficult to implement; the transportation of halon or
recycling equipment can be severely problematic
• Not enough business to sustain operation
• Slow or delayed programme implementation resulted in the bulk of halon being removed
from the country prior to banking operations coming online
• The bulk of the project funding was exhausted in the purchase of halon recovery and
recycling equipment
• The ability of some host countries to operate and maintain halon recovery and recycling
equipment centres has been problematic (sustainability of the banks)
• Finding excessive quantities of contaminated halons in some countries. As venting would
be unacceptable, shipping to and cleaning up at a reclamation facility would be needed;
however, it remains to be determined how to cover such costs
• Selection of inappropriate recycling and recovery equipment and inadequate operators’
training
• Data on the installed base and stored inventories of halons is poor or non-existent
• Coordination with military branches is not being done
• Exchange of data and information is not adequate
• National regulations that prevented the free flow of recycled halon (e.g., import / export)
• Lack of regulations or voluntary agreements in support of halon banking and phaseout
• Lack of enforcement of existing regulations
• No focal point for halon programme management including frequent turnover of National
Ozone Officers (NOO).
• Little or no awareness campaign
• Insufficient workshops and training and not including all stakeholders
• Lack of a business plan and/or lack of a halon bank management plan
• Where policies are implemented, it is essential they be practical, not prohibitive
• Unanticipated lag in the establishment of halon banking and management programmes
globally
Countries that have implemented a form of banking are able to utilize the same structure for the
management and phaseout of HCFCs and phasedown of HFCs. Most countries have now
implemented some form of legislation, but there might be a need to readdress the policies on
transboundary movement of recycled materials.
Page 136 of 241
6.5.3.2 Recycling and Bank Management Challenges
Previous FSTOC reports have identified key elements of successfully managing halon resources
and challenges that were encountered. The reader is referred to previous editions of the FSTOC
Assessment reports and their adjunct Supplemental reports. If lessons are not learned from the
past experiences in halon management, the same problems could occur for HCFC and HFC fire
extinguishing agents.
In reviewing the halon recycling component of a number of halon management programmes,
there was very often a conflict between the policies introduced and enforced and the objectives
the halon recycling activities envisaged. One example was the introduction of policies and
regulations banning, or significantly limiting, the use of halons (including recycled halons) while
simultaneously establishing a halon recycling programme with the expectation that it be
financially self-supporting. This had the added effect of eliminating the market for halon
servicing. Another counterproductive policy has been requiring all halon users to turn in
decommissioned halon to the bank while requiring them to pay for the testing, transportation,
storage, and/or cylinder disposal. In some countries, legislation was passed prohibiting the
importation of recycled halons (it appears they believed it was required by the Montreal
Protocol) – this will become a long-term problem for those whose supplies are inadequate to
service the remaining enduring uses, including civil aviation and military applications.
As the length of time that the fire protection industry has been relying on banked and recycled
halons increases, the chance of halons becoming contaminated increases each time the halon is
recycled, and as older systems that may not have been charged properly or maintained properly
are identified and decommissioned. Additionally, recyclers warn that as the price goes up due to
lack of availability, the chances of having this material intentionally adulterated with other
substances also increases, thus further limiting the amount of halon globally available and
increasing the amount of halon needing destruction.
Halon 1301 availability is diminishing. Large individual sources of halon 1301 are getting more
difficult to find. Major recyclers report that the price of halon 1301 has tripled since halon
production ceased in 2010.
Halon 2402 is reported to be available in at least one country, and major recyclers report that
there is still a demand for this material when it is located.
When local access to reclamation services is not available, the classification of halons as
hazardous waste by some parties results in applying the Basel Convention. Classifying halon as a
hazardous waste continues to obstruct the international movement of halons. In the future,
unwarranted classifications as has happened to halons could similarly affect other used gaseous
halocarbon fire extinguishing agents in need of reclamation.
6.5.4 Current Situation in Global Banking
The FSTOC continues to liaise with NOUs, standards-making bodies, and professional
associations to gather information regarding banking of fire suppression agents. While there are
knowledge gaps, there is still a lot known about the emerging and on-going efforts by many
parties, regions, and organizations as outlined in this section. The current situation in global
banking as described in the following sections.
Page 137 of 241
6.5.5 HCFC and HFC Banking
Little is known about banking and management surrounding HCFCs and HFCs. This is still an
emerging area despite over two decades of production and use in the fire protection sector.
HFCs and some HCFC are still being manufactured. As a result of the ongoing HCFC phaseout
and the newly implemented HFC phasedown, supplies of these agents will diminish. This will
drive the need for increased use of recycled materials and therefore banking operations. The
FSTOC knows of no centralized or governmental HFC/HCFC banking/management operations.
6.5.5.1 Australia
There is no centralized HCFC or HFC banking (from the fire suppression sector applications) in
Australia. Replenishment capabilities exist by way of accessing service providers that can offer
recycling/reclamation services or moving to alternative agents.
Since 1 January 2018, Australia has seen the gradual reduction in the amount of bulk HFCs
permitted to be imported into Australia under the Montreal Protocol HFC phasedown. HFC
227ea is used in Australia as a halon 1301 replacement. Since the introduction of the HFC
phasedown there has been an accelerated shift away from HFC-227ea in the Australian gaseous
fire protection market.
The decline in demand for HFC-227ea can be attributable to a number of factors. These include
the mandated phasedown, import quota restrictions, the price of the product being comparable to
environmentally friendly alternatives such as inert gases (IG-55, IG-541, IG-01, IG-100, and
FK-5-1-12), and suppliers promoting alternatives to their customers. As 2036 nears, the
importation of HFC-227ea is expected to cease, with legacy systems that cannot be transitioned
to alternatives being maintained using reclaimed agent.
6.5.5.2 Brazil
In Brazil, there is no HFC or HCFC banking; the country has begun the process of ratifying the
Kigali Amendment (submitted to Senate in 2022 for analysis and voting). However, there is an
engagement to meet established goals by freezing HFC consumption by 2024, thereafter
reducing consumption by 10% by 2029 and 85% by 2045. Effective measures are detailed in the
Brazilian Programme for HCFCs Elimination, Programa Brasileiro de Eliminação dos HCFCs,
which was established in 2011, PBH (2011), (2016).
ODS consumption has decreased over the years, from 11,376 tonnes in 2000, to 1,207 tonnes in
2010 and 453 tonnes in 2020, GOV.BR (2022), with a slight increase in 2021 of 491 tonnes.
The baseline of HCFC consumption was frozen in 2013 with an average consumption of 1,327
tonnes between 2009 and 2010. Based on the scheduled reduction, maximum consumption by
2021 should have been 51.6%, PBH (2022) of the baseline, which represents 643 tonnes. Indeed,
the reported HCFC consumption in 2021 was 491 tonnes GOV.BR (2022), mainly accounted for
by HCFC-22 (459 tonnes) and HCFC-141b (31 tonnes).
6.5.5.3 Canada
Canada has no national and no known provincial HFC or HCFC banking. The FSTOC has
queried various organizations/companies to ascertain the quantities of installed HFCs and HCFC.
The responses are that the information is proprietary.
Page 138 of 241
6.5.5.4 Egypt
HFC banking has not yet begun because the authorities allow full importation of HFCs and there
is no incentive to start an HFC bank. Additional disincentives to banking are the low prices of
imported, newly produced HFCs compared with recycled HFCs. Starting in 2024, in accordance
with the Kigali Amendment, consumption will freeze and start to reduce according to the
implementation schedule. So, it is unlikely there will be any HFC banking until after 2024. The
authorities are starting to push other sectors such as refrigeration manufacturing to shift away
from producing HFC equipment. However, there are no manufacturing facilities for the fire
protection sector, so they depend upon 100% importation. Accordingly, there is no incentive for
the government to push the manufacturing of alternatives in the fire protection sector. The
government convinced consultants to start specifying alternatives such as FK and IGs.
6.5.5.5 India
In India, a regulation was passed in 2014 banning the import of HCFCs and limiting their use in
many applications. The 2017 Gazette Notification for the Regulation and Control of ODS
requires a 50% reduction of HCFCs and its blends from all applications including firefighting by
2020. Importation of newly produced HCFCs and its blends were no longer permitted.
Currently, there is no known recycling of HCFCs, HFCs, or FK in India. India is still in a
transition state and is installing the recommended HFCs and FKs as required. They are in a
discovery/planning phase for banking of HFCs and will follow with other fire extinguishing
alternatives at a later date.
The use of HCFCs in the civil and government sector has been completely replaced with HFCs,
FK-5-1-12, and CO2 where applicable.
6.5.5.6 Italy
There is no HCFC/HFC banking from fire sector applications; replenishment capabilities exist by
way of directly accessing service provider companies who can offer recycling/reclamation
services or swapping to alternative agents.
6.5.5.7 Japan
Japan does not use HCFCs in fire protection. In Japan, HFCs and IGs were officially allowed to
replace halons beginning in 2006, see
Page 139 of 241
Table 6.7 for installed quantities of halon alternatives and emission rates by Japan fiscal year
(FY), which begins April 1st and ends on March 31st.
As these systems have been installed for at most 16 years, most of the systems are still in their
useful lifetimes. So, the HFC banking programme in Japan has not yet been established, but if
needed, they will do it within a short period of time.
Page 140 of 241
Table 6.7: Amount of Halon Alternatives in Installed Systems (Measured by the Fire and
Environment Protection Network)
Halon Alternatives (Unit) FY 2006 … FY 2012 … FY 2020 FY 2021
HFC-227ea 29 … 206 … 470 481
(tonnes)
Halogenated
HFC-23 (tonnes) 10 … 50 … 98 93
Agents
FK-5-1-12 0 … 23 … 82 84
(tonnes)
IG-541 (㎥) 11,200 … 118.000 … 278,500 301,800
IG-55 (㎥) 3,600 … 41,400 … 43,800 43,700
Inert Gases
IG-100 (㎥) 139,500 … 1,280,200 … 3,016,300 3,079,800
CO2 (tonnes) 409 … 3,208 … 5,464 5,860
The figures in
Page 141 of 241
Table 6.7 are the data registered after starting the registration system in April 2006. As the
register of halon alternatives to FEPN is on a voluntary basis, the figures which were not
reported to the FEPN after starting the system and the figures installed before April 2000 are not
included.
6.5.5.8 Russia
The total installed base of HFCs (HFC-23, HFC-125, and HFC-227ea) in fire protection systems
in Russia is estimated to be 4,286 metric tonnes as of 2020. This is more than 2.8 times the size
of the FK 5-1-12 installed base (1,498 metric tonnes). Four sectors are the main users of HFCs
for fire protection: 1) the military sector, 2) museums and libraries, 3) banking facilities, and 4)
the telecommunication sector including data centres. Figure 6.8 reflects the current situation in
gaseous fire suppression in Russia.
Figure 6.8:Distribution of Installed Fire Suppression Systems in Russia
On average about 30 tonnes of HFCs are recycled per year. Due to economic reasons, Russia
stopped the production of HFCs for fire extinguishing at least 5 years ago. The needs are fully
met through imports and recycling. In terms of price, the market for fluorinated gaseous fire
extinguishing agents, like the market for fire extinguishing substances in general, is growing by
an average of 5% per year, with a share of 16% of the market as a whole. Currently, this 16% is
allocated as 9% FK 5-1-12 and 7% HFCs (almost 100% HFC-227ea), which means
approximately 160 metric tonnes of FK 5-1-12 and 265 metric tonnes of HFC-227ea in physical
volumes. In 2014, this ratio was about 110 metric tonnes of FK 5-1-12 against 221 metric tonnes
of HFCs. Therefore, the market share of HFCs is slowly decreasing.
6.5.5.9 Southeast Asia and China
Page 142 of 241
It is reported that the main focus in this region is their preparation for ratification and
implementation of the Kigali Amendment and the identification of alternatives to HFCs. The
National Ozone Units (NOUs) are looking at the overall ceiling/limits in of their respective
countries. They then identify which sector/agent has the highest CO2 equivalents and focus on
reductions in that sector to allow for more use in other sectors. The refrigeration sector is rapidly
growing and thus the HFC demand is growing in refrigeration and servicing. To provide more
use for refrigeration, the NOUs are looking to reduce HFCs in other sectors such as fire
protection. The NOUs rely on their fire equipment companies to advise them rather than utilizing
the information directly from the FSTOC reports. The militaries are not reporting on their
uses/needs. The NOUs are concerned about the 2024 HFC freeze and how to tailor an import
system to allow for imports in some sectors and not others.
For HCFCs, parties in this region generally require import licenses. No import licenses have
been issued for HCFC-123 for the production of HCFC-based fire extinguishers in 2022 in
Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Additionally, the ozone regulations in the Philippines and
Indonesia include provisions for banning manufacturing and sales of HCFC-based fire
extinguishers. The import of HCFC-123 in HCFC Blend B fire extinguishers would be
considered importation of an HCFC-containing product and as such is not covered by the ozone
regulations in some southeast Asian countries.
China's National Halon Management and Recycling System (NHRMC) was set up by the China
Certification Center for Fire Products within the Ministry of Public Security, now known as the
Ministry of Emergency Management (MEM), in 2016. Halon recycling activities continue with
the guidance and monitoring provided jointly by the MEM and the Ministry of Ecology and
Environment (MEE).
The Malaysia Fire Brigade was operating the national halon bank, but it is not anymore. The
NOU is looking for alternatives to HFC-227ea.
Indonesia still has a pseudo-national halon recycling center in the Garuda Maintenance Facility
Aero Asia (GMF). However, the FSTOC has not received any information as to whether the
facility handles HFCs or HCFCs.
6.5.5.10 US
HFC recycling is common and is performed by the primary halons recycling companies. In
addition, recovery and reuse of HFCs occurs at the distributor level. The Halon Alternatives
Research Corporation (HARC) has developed a recycling code of practice for halogenated clean
agents, which is referenced in the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 2001 standard, NFPA
2001 (2022). Data from HARC’s HFC Emission Estimating Program (HEEP) show that in recent
years about 75% of the HFCs used to service existing fire protection equipment in the US comes
from recycling as opposed to new production. Recovery of HCFCs from fire extinguishers is
occurring, however, reclamation is complicated by proprietary agent composition restrictions.
The US Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) manages recycling of HFCs for military uses. Up until
now, a dedicated supply of HFCs has not been established due to the general availability of these
chemicals. With HFC phasedown regulations taking effect in 2022, HFC availability will be
monitored to determine if a dedicated supply is required for military uses.
6.5.6 Halon 1301 and 1211 Banking
Page 143 of 241
Those countries that established banking and/or clearinghouse activities have, in general,
continued to manage halons and provide servicing. The FSTOC endeavors to provide a review of
all parties, however, many parties have little or no known halon uses and thus are not reported
on. There are also a number of parties for which the political environment and/or lack of
infrastructure make it impossible for the FSTOC to gather information. This section includes
updates to activities previously reported in FSTOC Assessment reports and Technical Notes.
Additionally, three countries have provided the following comments:
• The halon bank in South Africa continues to look for economically available halon 1301
• In 2022, a Kuwait oil company notified the FSTOC that they have 700 kg of halon 1301
available for sale (there are no known clearinghouse or recycling facilities in Kuwait)
• The FSTOC was notified that Saudi Arabia no longer conducts any halon recycling
6.5.6.1 Australia
The National Halon Bank, established in 1993, is administered by the Department of Climate
Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. The day-to-day management of the Australian
National Bank is contracted to a gas management specialist company. The National Halon Bank
is a dedicated facility that continues to accept halon 1211 and halon 1301 surrendered for
disposition by business and the community. The bank is certified to ISO 14001 Environmental
Management Systems ISO 14001 (2015), has recovery and reclamation equipment on hand, and
has access to its contractor’s ISO 17025 accredited laboratory for testing and certification of
halons to recognized international standards.
Recycled or reclaimed halon is stored in bulk pressure vessels and subject to continuous
environmental monitoring for the detection of leaks. Contaminated, non-reclaimable halon is
destroyed using Montreal Protocol approved destruction technology through a third-party
provider.
The bank is the primary supplier of halons to those uses considered “essential” in accordance
with the criteria established by the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management
Act of 1989 and associated policies, namely civil aviation and the Australian Defence Force, that
continue to rely on halon. Requests for supply are administered by the specialist gas management
company and final approval for supply given by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the
Environment, and Water.
The Australian Halon Management Strategy, Australia (2019) sets out how Australia will treat
the management of Australia’s halon stocks in the lead up to their ultimate phaseout. In 2019, the
Department reviewed and updated the Australian Halon Management Strategy and policy on the
import and export of used ozone depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases (e.g., high-
GWP HFCs). To further responsibly manage the halon stocks held at the National Halon Bank,
the Department commissioned a report in 2020 to better understand Australia’s enduring needs
and forecast future demand for halons. The 2020 report was titled ‘Review of Australia’s Non-
Defence Requirements,’ Australia (2020). This report complements the original study performed
in 2012 by the same authors. Both reports address civilian halon demand but not Australian
Defence requirements.
To better understand what the demand could be for civil aviation in Australia, the 2020 report
Page 144 of 241
scrutinized several worst-case scenarios based on various assumptions and impacts. The report
provided information regarding the prospects and possible timeframes for transition of remaining
civilian halon uses, how long a strategic stockpile of halon would be required, and the quantity of
halon likely to be required for the remaining non-defence uses.
The Department continues to take a precautionary view on the disposal of halons. Only halon
that is in excess of Australia’s needs is available for export. Only recovered halon that is
considered too contaminated to be brought back to specification is destroyed. Australia has
facilitated the movement of halons between countries.
Currently the National Halon Bank has a central stockpile of 92 metric tonnes of halon 1211 and
164 metric tonnes of halon 1301. It is difficult to accurately substantiate what remains as
installed quantities in Australia.
There is a continuing need for halon banking in Australia, with a centralized facility seen by
many industry participants as the most efficient way of managing supply and purity. The
Department performs periodic reviews of how halon banking is managed in Australia.
6.5.6.2 Brazil
Brazil has engaged in halon banking and recycling by accredited companies selected by the
Brazilian Government. Recycling equipment was obtained with resources from the Multilateral
Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (MLF) in collaboration with the Canadian
government. Reclaimed halons are mainly supplied to those uses considered “essential”, such as
civil aviation.
6.5.6.3 Canada
Canada has no national halon banking and information on provincial banking is not known. Each
province in Canada functions independently of the federal government.
6.5.6.4 China
China’s NHRMC was set up in 2016; halon recycling activities are ongoing. The halon 1211
stockpile at one former halon producer still exists and is managed by the company. As per the
progress reports submitted to the MLF, UNEP (2019), the remaining stock left at the producer’s
facility is approximately 2,000 metric tonnes of halon 1211. The halon 1301 recycling center
continues to operate, and one halon recycling station has been certified.
Three TA (Technical Assistance) activities (surveys) were carried out by China as part of their
Montreal Protocol program. The three surveys included the following:
• Civil aviation: A survey were carried out to determine the amount of halons currently
used in the civil aviation sector. Annual service demands and expected future demands
for halons were estimated.
• Commercial ships: A survey was carried out to find out if halons installed on existing
commercial ships could be a possible future source for halon recycling. It was found that
halons are not any longer used on commercial ships still in service. Some halons had in
the past been recovered from retired ships.
• Provincial halon survey: Surveys were carried out in some key provinces along the east
coast to find out how much halons might still be installed in existing halon fire
Page 145 of 241
extinguishing systems and portable fire extinguishers. Only some halon 1211 and 1301
fire extinguishing systems are still installed and might be a source of halons for future
recycling.
All three surveys of halons in selected provinces have all been completed.
6.5.6.5 Egypt
Egypt established one halon bank approximately 15 years ago. It operated for about 3 years, then
shut down due to lack of halon availability in the market. There is currently no national halon
bank.
6.5.6.6 India
In India, several activities related to the implementation of ODS (Regulation and Control) Rules
2000, India (2000) and its amendments were carried out inter alia including registration,
regulation of export/import, issuance of production quotas, monitoring, and reporting. The
statutory reporting for the Montreal Protocol under Article 7 and the Country Programme
Progress Report (CPPR) have been prepared and submitted to the Ozone Secretariat and the
Secretariat of the MLF. The compiled data submitted under Article 7 and the CPPR for the year
2019 with regards to fire-fighting application are provided in Table 6.8.
Table 6.8: Cumulative Production of Halons in India
ODS Total Export (tonnes) Import Production for
production (tonnes) feedstock uses
for all uses (tonnes)
(tonnes)
Halon 1211 0.000 0.000 5.000 0.000
Halon 1301 129.045 134.628 2.004 129.045
(120.000 tonnes feedstock and
14.628 tonnes recycled and
recovered)
As far as the fire suppression applications in India are concerned, a majority of newer
applications have shifted to not-in-kind alternatives such as foam, water mist, aerosols, etc., that
require cleanup and also CO2. There has been significantly increased focus on water mist. For in-
kind alternatives that do not require cleanup, the use of HFC-227ea and FK 5-1-12 is preferred in
India. For systems already installed with halons, the requirement is met with internal and
imported sources.
The activities of halons 1301 and 1211banking in India have not changed over the years. The
equipment for halon recovery, recycling, and reclamation is maintained with funds from the
government with no or little use by private industry. The use of the banking facility has been
reported for public sector organizations with no impact on the civil sector transactions of
reclaimed halon. Some public sector agencies of oil and gas, and ship repair and maintenance are
also dependent on small traders to fulfil the requirements. As halon activities in the civil sector
are not organized, it has an impact on the availability and quality of these two halons.
Page 146 of 241
Owing to the COVID 19 pandemic, the activities related to halon reclamation and recycling in the
halon banking facility have slowed down and are operating in a very limited manner.
Recently, FSTOC was notified that during shipbreaking at the Alang Shipbreaking Yard, the
Indian Ministry of Environment does not allow the scrapping of halon filled cylinders in India.
Hence, it is expected that these cylinders are sold through the grey market. At present, the
activities related to shipbreaking at Alang are limited due to COVID or cost-effectiveness (i.e.,
labour costs, etc., are higher than prior to COVID).
6.5.6.7 Italy
In 2021, the Italian Ministry of Environment updated the list of authorized collection centers for
ozone depleting substances. As per the specific law no. 549/1993 and subsequent amendments,
the collection centers are authorized to collect ODS and arrange for their recycling / reclaiming /
destruction at proper sites. Table 6.9 provides quantitative data on halons by sector in Italy and
Table 6.10 provides total quantities of halons in fixed systems and portable extinguishers in Italy.
There are no halon approved destruction facilities in Italy; when needed, contaminated halon is
shipped to a neighboring country for that disposition.
Table 6.9: Quantities of Halon by Sector in Italy in 2020
CRITICAL USES OF HALONS
Application Quantity (kg)
Category of Equipment or
Facility Halon Type Installed Used Emitted Stored
1 On military 1301 23,852 56 0 4,377
ground vehicles
1211 3,304 149 0 1,953
2 On military 1301 73,302 0 60 0
surface ships
3 On aircraft 1301 12,853 6 4 768
1211 3,936 37 0 717
Table 6.10: Total quantities of halons in fixed systems and portable extinguishers in Italy
Halon 1301 Halon 1211
Installed Used Emitted Stored Installed Used Emitted Stored
Fixed
Total systems 107,970 5,810
quantities
Portable
(kgs) for 2,037 1,430
extinguisher
each type of
halon Total, kg 110,007 62 64 5145 7,240 186 0 0
6.5.6.8 Japan
Page 147 of 241
Japan has a well-established country management system for halons which has been in operation
for decades. They also have formal fire service organizations that monitor and manage all aspects
of fire protection in the country. Japan retains all halons within the country for their new and
remaining internal uses. They do not import halons. The quantities of halons installed in
extinguishing systems and emission rates by fiscal year (ending in March) are provided in Table
6.11.
Page 148 of 241
Table 6.11: Amount of Halons in Installed Systems in Japan in Metric Tonnes1,2,3,4
Fiscal Year 1994 … 2007 2008 … 2018 2019 2020 2021
Halon 1301 16,637 … 16,876 16,203 … 16,424 16,500 16,547 16,576
Halon 2402 395 … 246 196 … 149 148 146 139
Halon 1211 80 … 48 42 … 38 35 32 31
Total 17,112 … 17,170 16,441 … 16,611 16,683 16,725 16,806
Emission Rate -- … 0.09% 0.08% … 0.11% 0.07% 0.04% 0.04%
1. The dates are the Japanese fiscal year, which begins April 1st and ends on March 31st.
2. This table excludes merchant shipping, civil aviation, and military applications. The
Japanese government reported halon use in these sectors was 470-560 tonnes of halon
1301, 4 tonnes halon 2402, and 4 tonnes of halon 1211, as of April 2008.
3. The reduction (approximately 730 tonnes) between the amounts of halons in 2007 and
2008 is the result of the second nationwide re-investigation for halons conducted in FY
2007. This decrease was not caused by discharges or emissions.
4. The emission rate is calculated as the amount of halon 1301 refilled to existing systems
divided by the total, then multiplied by 100.
6.5.6.9 Malaysia
Management of the centralized Malaysian Halon Bank was previously with the Malaysia Fire
Brigade; however, it is now with the Government. The halon recycling equipment at the
centralized bank is out of service and in need of repair. The bank does not have a laboratory on
site to determine the quality of its halon stockpile. Current regulatory mandates prevent the
export of halon for sale or to access offshore reclamation facilities.
6.5.6.10 Sweden
Sweden has two halon banking operations in the country. The military continues to manage a
halon bank that primarily supports the ground vehicle fleet. However, since nearly all halon in
the fleet has been replaced, the military halon banking operations are expected to be
discontinued. Saab does halon banking and recycling to support maintenance servicing of both
aircraft manufactured by Saab and the civil aviation market as well as performing all of the
servicing and maintenance of the Swedish military fleet. It was reported in the HTOC 2018
Supplemental report #2 that there had been destruction of reusable halons in Sweden. All
indications are that the destruction of non-contaminated halons has been discontinued.
6.5.6.11 Thailand
Thailand is not conducting any halon activities through the NOU. There may be some
independent fire companies providing servicing and recycling. Thailand’s halon clearinghouse
was not established for several reasons, firstly being a lack of interest from the fire equipment
companies. At least one of the fire equipment companies is known to have established its own
recycling facility to serves its own customers. The military, assumed to be one of the main
critical halon users, organized its own programme to ensure halons for its own use. Likewise, the
Page 149 of 241
Thai civil aviation companies organized their own halon management programmes.
6.5.6.12 US
In 1993, the Halon Recycling Corporation (HRC) was formed by concerned halon users and the
fire protection industry to support the goals of the Montreal Protocol and help manage the
phaseout of halons. HRC is a voluntary, non-profit trade association that acts as a facilitating
organization for the recycling of halons and is the main liaison for the fire protection industry
with the US government on halon-related issues. HRC has been involved in the management of
existing halon resources for almost 30 years through its work with the US EPA, UNEP, FSTOC,
FAA, ICAO, and others.
HRC developed and recently updated a Code of Practice for Halon Recycling Companies, HRC
(2021), that is referenced in the NFPA 12A Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems,
NFPA 12A (2018). HRC has initiated an outreach programme to promote the continued careful
management of existing halons that was presented at meetings of NOUs in 2018 and 2019 and at
a Montreal Protocol Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) meeting side event in July 2021.
HRC published guidance material for airlines and their service providers that is focused on
reducing halon losses during the servicing of aircraft fire protection systems.
The recycling of halons for non-military uses in the US is carried out by a small number of halon
recyclers that also supply a significant percentage of the world’s halon needs, particularly for
aviation. These recyclers search the global community to identify “used” halon, and their halon
is acquired from both domestic and international sources. Halon sourced from outside of the US
must first be granted import approval, which is obtained by providing the US EPA with
documentation that will allow the Agency to independently verify that the halon is truly
recovered from an existing fire suppression system. Halon sourced within the US generally
comes from local fire equipment distributors that install and service fire suppression systems and
extinguishers. When a halon system or extinguisher is ready for decommissioning, these fire
equipment distributors normally perform the task. The halon removed is usually sold to one of
the domestic halon recyclers.
Halon recyclers are responsible for transporting the decommissioned halon systems to their
facilities; sampling and testing the halon for any impurities; consolidating the halon into larger
storage cylinders; recycling the halon through equipment designed to remove impurities and
return the halon to commercial standards; re-sampling the finished product to determine if it
meets the above specifications; and, finally, shipping the recycled halon to the commercial
customer. The most important continued uses for halons in the US are in fire extinguishing
systems protecting civil aviation, oil and gas production on the North Slope of Alaska, nuclear
power plants (NPP), and military ground and air weapon systems. There is an international
misconception that most of the recycled halon imported into the US is sold to the US military. In
fact, the US military relies on its own reserve, and has not purchased any additional supplies of
recycled halon in more than 20 years.
6.5.6.13 Vietnam
Vietnam has no halon bank. There have been no concerns expressed regarding halons. Vietnam
airlines have halon cylinders on-board their aircraft, but it is not known who provides the
servicing.
Page 150 of 241
6.5.7 Halon 2402 Banking
6.5.7.1 Introduction
Halon 2402 had been produced nearly exclusively in the former Soviet Union, and production
was continued by the Russian Federation until the end of 2000. The bank of halon 2402 was very
small at the time of production phaseout and therefore, through Decision VIII/9, from 1996
through 2000 production was continued under the essential use exemption procedure approved
by the parties to the Montreal Protocol, with the objective being to build a bank of halon 2402
that existing applications could rely on for the remaining useful life of their equipment.
However, as reported in the 2006 HTOC Assessment report, HTOC (2006), the inventory of this
bank was significantly reduced owing to the use of halon 2402 as a process agent in the chemical
industry during the period 2002-2003, when the average price of halon 2402 was low. Over the
past four years the number of applications involving halon 2402 has been drastically shrunk
globally owing to decommissioning of old fire extinguishing equipment in civil aviation,
merchant shipping, and the oil and gas industry. Currently, global demand for halon 2402 to
support remaining critical needs is mainly concentrated in the military sector and can be
estimated as just several tons per year.
In some Central Asian and Caucasus region countries many of the fire protection systems
utilizing halon 2402 have been decommissioned. The FSTOC does not have any information
regarding the disposition of those halons (estimated as tens of tonnes). Absence of coordinated
information increases the prospects for unintentional and undocumented halon emissions. The
lack of coordinated tracking also increases the errors in the FSTOC model.
Equipment associated with halon 2402 systems was almost exclusively manufactured in the
former Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991, and in the Russian Federation and the Ukraine
since. In other parties, use of halon 2402 was associated with the use of Russian military
equipment and civilian aircraft. However, much of this equipment is no longer used.
The needs of some parties for halon 2402 cannot be estimated due to the unavailability of market
information, but it should be assumed that there is a demand for halon 2402 for the servicing of
remaining equipment and that halon from outside sources will be required, as banking and
recycling facilities do not exist. Currently, there is no apparent shortage of halon 2402 on a
global basis, but regional shortages may arise as has been the case in the past.
According to their historical use of halon 2402, parties that used or still use halon 2402 as a fire
protection agent can be grouped as follows:
• Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Belarus;
• Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, and Syria;
• Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia;
• Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan;
• Non-EU states of Southeast Europe (i.e., non-EU Balkan States): Serbia, Montenegro,
and Republic of North Macedonia;
Page 151 of 241
• EU member states: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, and Slovakia; and
• South-East and East Asia: China, Mongolia, India, Vietnam, and Japan.
Parties that have initiated operational halon 2402 management programmes are described below:
6.5.7.2 Russian Federation
The Russian Federation remains the largest user of halon 2402. The total amount of halon 2402
installed was estimated at metric 915.5 tonnes in 2021. Like most of the countries that still use
halon 2402, decommissioning of old passenger aircraft and changes in fire protection in the oil
and gas industry concentrated remaining applications of the halon mainly in the military sector.
The market can be estimated as currently well balanced with no surplus available for outside
markets. An average of 30 metric tonnes/year of halon 2402 were available for purchase in the
period from 2013 to 2021. The pandemic did not affect the halon 2402 market.
6.5.7.3 Ukraine
Ukraine remains the second largest consumer of halon 2402 after the Russian Federation. Over
the past decade, it was not economically viable to reduce the use of halon 2402. In particular,
there are no signs of transition to alternatives in industrial applications as well as in military and
telecommunication sectors. Also, there is no available information on recycling after 2014, and it
is reasonable to assume that recycling of the halon was completely stopped because the only
facility for halon 2402 collection, recycling, and reclamation established at the Spetsavtomatika
Institute at Lugansk is not accessible due to its location on the territory not controlled by the
Ukrainian government after 2014. Considering that for the period 2005 to 2014 the total quantity
of recovered, reclaimed, and reused halon was close to just 3 metric tonnes of halon 2402,
Ukraine may be faced with a lack of recycled halon to support existing critical needs.
Ukrainian national regulations require a 100% reserve of halon to support existing fire
suppression units. In 2018, the Ukrainian bank of halon 2402 was estimated to be 300-340 metric
tonnes, with approximately 100 metric tonnes contained in fire suppression equipment. Based on
this, the total bank of halon 2402 in the Ukraine was sufficient to meet the remaining critical
needs with some potential to satisfy the demand of the other countries. However, the recent
military action in the Ukraine means that there is no up-to-date information on halon banking.
6.5.7.1 Belarus
Total installed base for halon 2402 is less than 1 metric tonne. The halon is still used in civil
aviation. The demand from this sector is covered by reclaimed halon from decommissioned
extinguishing systems, but the source is very limited: it was less than 100 kg as of 2017.
6.5.7.2 Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Mongolia, and Syria
Information on the installed capacity and demand for halon 2402 in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt,
China, Cuba, Mongolia, Libya, and Syria is not currently available. Most of the equipment
protected by halon 2402 and delivered to these countries has already reached its end-of-life and
has been dismantled. However, it is reasonable to assume that in these countries a demand for
halon 2402 for the servicing of operating equipment exists in some applications and that halon
Page 152 of 241
from outside sources is required, in particular from Russia and Ukraine. Typically, a contract is
held between the buyer and seller that ensures spare parts, servicing, and sales. So, halon 2402
needs are likely being met through a contract with the manufacturer or seller.
6.5.7.3 Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
Armenia: After decommissioning of old passenger aircraft produced in the former Soviet Union,
the military sector remains the only user possessing significant amounts of halon 2402. The bulk
of installed halon has not been identified to provide a clear picture of the installed capacity and
demand for halon 2402.
Azerbaijan: Estimates made in 2009 indicated that there were 53 tonnes of halon 2402 in
Azerbaijan. After decommissioning of halon fire suppression systems in the oil and gas industry,
merchant shipping, and civil aviation sectors and substantial changes in the military sector, there
remain only a few military applications which are still using halon 2402. Exact estimations of
possible needs for halon are unavailable but it is assumed that the demand is negligible.
There is concern about what is happening to the halon (estimated as tens of tonnes) coming from
decommissioned fire protection systems. Absence of coordinated information increases the
prospects for unintentional halon emissions.
Georgia: Based on other parties’ experiences, it should be assumed that a demand for halon
2402 for the servicing of operating equipment exists mainly in some applications in the military
sector and that halon from outside sources will be required.
6.5.7.4 Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
Generally, these parties have substantial halon 2402 stocks but there is concern about what is
happening to the halon (estimated as tens of metric tonnes) coming from decommissioned fire
protection systems. Absence of coordinated information increases the prospects for unintentional
halon emissions.
Kazakhstan: Halon consumption has been reported as zero from January 2003. Successful
replacement of halon 2402 by in-kind and not-in-kind alternatives in the oil and gas industry and
decommissioning of old passenger aircraft led to that. Halon 2402 continues to be used in a few
military applications.
Kyrgyzstan: As in the case of Kazakhstan, due to successful decommissioning of fire
extinguishing systems using halon 2402 in oil and gas industry, mining, hydropower facilities,
and the civil aviation sectors, the installed base has shrunk from 80.7 metric tonnes in 2006 to
just a few applications in the military sector in 2021.
Uzbekistan: Similar to other parties in the region, halon 2402 is still in use in some military
applications, having been replaced by alternatives in all other major applications (civil aviation,
gas transport systems, etc.).
6.5.7.5 India
Historically, halon 2402 was typically used in the Indian Navy, Airforce, and military fire and
explosion suppression systems including portable and mobile fire extinguishers manufactured
Page 153 of 241
and supplied by the former Soviet Union. These systems and extinguishers were the part of the
equipment of armoured fighting vehicles, ships, submarines, fighter and transport aircraft, etc.
Halon 2402 was never manufactured in India. Servicing and refilling activities had always been
supported by former Soviet Union suppliers. Recently, the supply for servicing and refilling from
the former Soviet Union has been quickly diminishing, therefore users such as the Air Force have
completely switched over to halon 1211 and FK-5-1-12 for engine and portable extinguishers
where applicable. In the Navy, halon 2402 based systems and extinguishers have mostly been
replaced with HFC-227ea and water mist systems depending upon the suitability. The Army
halon 2402 systems were replaced with halons 1301 or 1211. Due to non-availability of halon
2402 in India, there is a drive to find a solution for the replacement of these systems in defence
applications. There is no record for the import of halon 2402 in the recent past in India.
There was limited use of halon 2402 in the civil sector, primarily by oil companies for fire and
explosion suppression in floating roof tanks. Supplies of halon 2402 came from Europe as well
as servicing of equipment. However, the oil companies have replaced these systems with foam
flooding systems or other gaseous systems (primarily CF3I). Based upon a recent survey, it
appears that halon 2402 is no longer used in any civil fire protection system.
6.5.7.6 Japan
Total installed halon 2402 has been estimated to be 146 tonnes in Japan as of March 2021. The
amount of halon 2402 in ships, aircraft, and the military was estimated to be four metric tonnes
as of April 2008. See Table 6.11 for additional information on quantities installed in Japan. Halon
2402 remains a vital material for the fire safety of oil tanks in Japan in floating roof oil tank fire
protection in the petrochemical industry. It was also used for explosion suppression, but these
systems may have already been replaced. When replaced, some of the halon was collected and
some was destroyed. Japan does not currently have any surplus halon 2402 to support other
parties’ needs. As the timing of decommissioning of halon 2402 fire protection systems is not
clear, there are no plans to export halon 2402.
6.5.7.7 Vietnam
Vietnam has not established banking operations for halon 2402. In the past, Vietnam had
difficulties sourcing halon 2402 for their petroleum industry and military sector, but there are no
signs indicating that the troubles in sourcing are still occurring. The total installed base of halon
2402 is about 3.6 metric tonnes. Remaining applications are concentrated in the military sector
and petroleum industry.
6.5.7.8 Countries that have eliminated halon 2402
The following parties have eliminated all uses of halon 2402:
• European Union: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia
• Non-EU states of Southeast Europe: Serbia, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia
• US
Page 154 of 241
6.5.8 Conclusions
Some countries have classified halons as hazardous wastes, which is hampering transboundary
movement. The FSTOC continues to see problems with the transboundary movement of halons
(which would facilitate movement of halons to where they are needed). In some parties, this is
still not possible owing to legislation.
The FSTOC has similar concerns for halon 1211 and halon 1301, as previously cited for halon
2402, that geographical dispersion of smaller quantities of installed halons and lack of
awareness, or challenges to recycling, may result in venting. Regardless of the quantities or
locations of halons, the FSTOC believes that it is essential that a readily viable path for transfer
or destruction of all decommissioned or contaminated halons is made available. The committee
further believes that during decommissioning and transfer, it is imperative that the collected
halons be recycled/reclaimed (and certified to international standards) using industry recognized
Codes of Practice in the handling, storage, and transport. Refer to Chapter 7 of this report and
FSTOC Technical Note B, FSTOC (2022b).
As is true for halons, HCFCs and HFCs should be recycled and banking operations are needed.
The FSTOC is not aware that HCFC and HFC banking activities have started in new locations.
Parties may wish to consider strategies to facilitate this.
The FSTOC continues to see evidence of the loss of institutional knowledge and subsequent
consequences such as the inappropriate destruction of halons. Misinformation continues to
circulate as individuals new to ODS and HFC fire suppressants bank management come into the
field and inadvertently make decisions hampering banking operations., e.g., prohibiting import
and export of used fire suppressants, advocating destruction over recycling/reclamation and
reuse, etc.
6.5.9 References
Australia (2019): Australian Halon Management Strategy 2019,
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/ozone/national-halon-bank/155ustralian-
halon-management-strategy-
ahms#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20AHMS%3F,halon%20is%20no%20longer%20required.
Australia (2020): Review of Australia’s Non – Defence Halon Requirements April 2020,
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/review-australias-non-defence-halon-
requirements-2020.pdf
FSTOC (2022b): UNEP Report of the Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee,
Technical Note B, Emission Reduction and Recycling Strategies for Halons and Other
Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents, December 2022.
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
GOV.BR (2022): Histórico Consumo de SDOs no Brasil. https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-
br/assuntos/climaozoniodesertificacao/camada-de-ozonio/historico-consumo-de-sdos-no-brasil_-
site.pdf/view
HRC (2021): Code of Practice for Halon Recycling Companies, Halon Recycling Corporation,
June 2021. www.halon.org/_files/ugd/4e7dd1_1385c061aa9f4d4dae694a8036be92df.pdf
NFPA 2001 (2022): NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2022.
Page 155 of 241
PBH (2011): Programa Brasileiro de Eliminação dos HCFCs (PBH) - Etapa 1.
https://www.protocolodemontreal.org.br/site/images/publicacoes/programa_brasileiro_eliminaca
o_hcfcs/programa-bras-hcfc_ed_2.pdf
PBH (2016): Programa Brasileiro de Eliminação dos HCFCs (PBH) - Etapa 2.
https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/climaozoniodesertificacao/programa-brasileiro-de-
eliminao-dos-hcfcs-pbh-etapa-2.pdf
PBH (2022): Programa Brasileiro de Eliminação dos HCFCs - PBH.
https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/climaozoniodesertificacao/camada-de-ozonio/acoes-
brasileiras-para-protecao-da-camada-de-ozonio"
UNEP (2019): China Halon Sector Plan Progress Report, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/84/22/Add.1
submitted to the 84th meeting of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, November
2019, http://www.multilateralfund.org/84/pages/English.aspx
Page 156 of 241
7 Emission Reduction and Recycling Strategies for Halons and Other
Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents
7.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes FSTOC Technical Note B, FSTOC (2022b). The reader is encouraged
to refer to Technical Note B where additional details are available.
Discharging gaseous fire extinguishing agents into the protected area is fundamental to the
process of flame extinguishment and enclosed space inerting. Historically, significantly less than
5% of all halon emissions were a result of using halons to extinguish fires. These necessary
discharges for extinguishing fire represent only a small proportion of the total emissions in the
past. Since all users have discontinued system discharge testing and discharge of extinguishers
for training purposes, further reductions of emissions can be realized by maintaining or
improving maintenance procedures, detection and control devices, and recovery operations.
Users are encouraged to minimize discharges and emissions from fire extinguishing systems for
reasons of economics, safety, personnel exposure, and environmental impacts, whether replacing
an existing halon, HCFC, or HFC system or contemplating a new installation. Implementing
recovery, recycling, and reclamation programmes for fire extinguishing agents extends agent
availability for enduring uses not currently able to transition to alternatives. It should be noted
that actions geared to recycling and reclamation are contingent on access to appropriate recovery,
recycling, and reclamation equipment and trained personnel.
In addition to the direct actions discussed above, indirect actions can be taken to promote and
enhance emission reductions, including but not limited to implementing awareness campaigns,
workshops, training, policies, and codes of practice.
7.2 Alternative Fire Protection Strategies
Fire Protection should be based upon three Es:
Engineering: Identify the hazards, potential severity, and probability, then apply good
engineering principles in a system or facility design to minimize the residual risk to
occupants, the facility, the surrounding community, and the environment.
Education: Educate all organizations involved with the hazard being protected on the
function, operation, and maintenance of the fire protection system. Interconnection to other
building or safety systems should also be identified and understood.
Enforcement: Ensure all applicable standards, codes, and national regulations are applied to
the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the fire protection systems and
methods selected for the facility or hazard being protected.
Good engineering practice dictates that, where possible, hazards are designed out of facilities
rather than simply providing protection against them. Active fire protection systems for fire
suppression or explosion prevention using gaseous agents should not be considered as the only
solution. Based on a risk assessment, a combination of prevention, inherently safe design,
minimization of personnel exposure, passive protection, equipment duplication, detection, and
manual intervention should be considered.
Page 157 of 241
Halons and HCFCs should not be used in new fire protection applications or new designs of
equipment where technologically and economically feasible alternatives exist. For HFCs,
consideration should be given to minimizing their use consistent with the HFC phasedown.
Halon alternatives are available for most applications with very few exceptions, e.g., some civil
aviation and military applications. Alternatives for many HCFC and high-GWP HFC uses also
exist; however, there are applications where only the original halon, HCFC, or HFC will work,
e.g., explosion suppression in cold climates and in crew compartments of armoured vehicles, see
Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. In addition, the proposed per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl
substances (PFAS) regulation may impact availability of some in-kind alternatives in the future,
see Chapters 3 and 9.
7.3 Halogenated Fire Extinguishant Use Minimization
When protection against fire or explosion hazards with halon or other halogenated gaseous fire
extinguishant is used, the following methods and/or practices should be considered:
1) Local Application Systems. Local application systems are intended to discharge the
extinguishing agent directly on the specific hazard or piece of equipment. This approach is
intended to surround the fire location or burning object with a high concentration of agent to
extinguish the fire. This approach can often reduce the amount of agent required.
2) Multiple Protection Zones (i.e., Zoned Systems). When a large space or volume can be sub-
divided into smaller protected areas, the amount of agent required can be reduced. Where
technically feasible, protection of several separate zones by a single bank of agent using total or
partial discharge should be considered. This could be considered a bigger version of the local
application system where protection of several pieces of equipment or hazards is desired. This
approach is also common in water-based fire protection systems (e.g., zoned deluge systems,
water mist systems, etc.) where the water supply is limited.
3) Integration of Enclosure Integrity. All possible means to maintain extinguishing
concentration of halons, HCFCs, and HFCs from an initial discharge, such as stopping air
movement, closing openings, installing system-actuated dampers or shutters, etc., should be
explored prior to considering additional agent to overcome leakage out of the protected space.
4) Verification and Evaluation of Original Design Criteria. In addition to regular review of the
hazards being protected or changes to the protected space, the original design criteria of the
halon, HCFC, and HFC based fire protection systems should be reviewed and verified. For
example, for the installation of a halon 1301 system, the design temperature, design
concentration, and enclosure integrity have a profound effect on the amount of agent required to
protect the space. For example, using the same protected volume, same design concentration,
and same integrity but changing the design temperature from 20°C to 4°C increases the required
amount of agent by 6%.
7.4 Maintenance Programmes
Inspection, testing, and maintenance of installed fire protection systems are typically required by
the applicable standards, codes, and national regulations. End-user sectors (i.e., civil aviation,
telecommunications, military, oil and gas, etc.) may have specific requirements in addition to the
minimum requirements in the standards. Best practices for inspection, testing, and maintenance
Page 158 of 241
programmes include the development and continued validation and update of procedures that
outline the steps necessary to complete the work and the responsibilities of the person or group
performing the work.
Development and adherence to inspection and maintenance programmes will reduce the
likelihood of emissions from leakage and/or inadvertent discharges. This represents money saved
in two ways. Firstly, it minimizes the need to purchase new or recycled agent, and secondly it
prolongs the useful life of the existing fire protection system.
Maintenance programmes typically require technician qualification and training, complete
system documentation, scheduled equipment replacement (i.e., defined operational lifetime for
equipment), as well as regular system checks and maintenance.
7.4.1 Personnel Training
Inspection and maintenance programmes need to be carried out in accordance with recognized
standards utilizing trained technicians who understand how to perform the maintenance activity
safely and without inadvertently discharging the system. Qualifications for technicians
performing inspection, testing, and maintenance can be found at different locations such as
international, national, state, and local community levels. In addition, end-user sectors may have
additional training and qualification programmes for technicians. Training records should be kept
ready for demonstrating training and competence to the appropriate level to perform the
maintenance and service activity.
It is equally important that the system user be competent in the proper operation of the system
and aware of activities that could result in an unwanted discharge. Any individual who could
potentially cause a discharge should be educated not only on the operational, safety aspects of
the system, and expense of an inadvertent discharge, but also on ozone depletion and climate
change issues and policies, and the impact of halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agent
releases, as well as the restrictions on future supplies.
As an example of good practices, in Japan, educational materials and caution labels that request
proper recovery of halons and other halogenated fire extinguishing agents are distributed to
inspectors and related organizations. The labels are also applied to every agent cylinder.
In Australia, for example, portable fire extinguisher and fixed system maintenance for
halogenated agents must be carried out by appropriately licensed personnel who not only have
been trained in the maintenance activity but must also be aware of the environmental effects of
the emission of these substances into the atmosphere. This is mandated by the Australian Ozone
Protection and Synthetic Greenhous Gas Management Regulations 1995. This is similar to the
European Union Regulation No. 517/2014, Australia (1995), which requires companies and
technicians be registered when inspecting, testing, or performing maintenance on halon, HCFC,
and HFC fire protection systems.
In the US, qualification of technicians is typically required on the state and local community
level. Technicians are typically required to take a written test, show work history, and perform
continuing education to qualify for, and maintain, licensure.
Page 159 of 241
7.4.2 Risk Management and Best Practices
Risk management and best practices for comprehensive inspection, testing, and maintenance
programmes include establishing good system documentation and maintenance procedures and
practices. System documentation should include, but not be limited to, original system design
criteria, construction/installation drawings, operations and maintenance manuals, and records of
maintenance and any system modifications. System documentation should also include the
quantities of agent provided and their locations. This information will be used to continually
track quantities of fire extinguishing agents, in service, storage, and emitted, to determine areas
where emissions can be reduced, as well as to identify future recharge needs. Where large
quantities of agent(s) are in service, a computer database to track quantities used and component
failures is often found to be helpful.
7.4.3 Hazard and Enclosure Review
Regular review of the hazard and the integrity of the enclosure are key to maintaining the fire
protection system performance. At the time the system is put into service, the enclosure should
be verified for tightness/leakage. During the inspection, testing, and maintenance of the system, a
visual check for enclosure modifications or changes to the configuration of the protected space
should be performed as well as ensure that the enclosure integrity is intact and that any operable
openings such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) dampers or mechanisms to
hold doors open are integrated into the fire protection system and fully close before system
discharge. This will allow the amount of agent required to provide fire suppression or explosion
prevention to be kept to a minimum.
7.5 Detection and Releasing Systems
Automatic fire extinguishant systems go hand in hand with sensitive detection systems. Poor
design and improper maintenance of detection systems will almost always result in unwanted fire
extinguishant releases. It is therefore essential that:
• System components should not be mixed.
• Where possible, the fire extinguishant is released only after positive confirmation of the
fire.
• Equipment conforms to internationally or nationally accepted specifications.
• Older detection systems are upgraded to take advantage of the latest technology.
• Required maintenance is performed by trained and qualified service personnel.
• System designs consider detection device voting to minimize false discharges due to
single device failure/errors.
7.6 Agent Transfer and Storage
Emissions related to agent transfers can be substantially reduced by the use of equipment
approved for the handling of that specific agent. Recovery / transfer equipment, vacuum pumps,
pressure vessels, storage tanks, pipework, etc., need to be regularly maintained and checked for
fitness of purpose and be leakage free. Procedures should be in place to prevent overfilling and
Page 160 of 241
over pressurization. Calibrated scales should be used, and agent weights documented during the
transfer process to determine recovery efficiencies.
Any operation relating to a high-pressure gas must conform to the appropriate safety standards in
line with all relevant local, national, or international regulations. Where available, the equipment
used must be certified and regularly calibrated by a recognized standards organization for the
agent(s) used. Environmental and operational safety dictate that all filling procedures should be
conducted by trained personnel.
Most safety standards require that portable extinguishers be emptied and refilled at regular
intervals or disposed of at the end of a specified period/shelf-life. This permits the operation of
the appliance to be checked and the cylinder and other components to be inspected for
signs/appearance of corrosion and to be subjected to pressure testing. Users are encouraged to
follow national standards and manufacturers’ specifications for maintenance, inspection, and
refilling of portable and system cylinders. Where multiple agents can be recovered, recovery
equipment should be operated in a manner that prevents mixing of agents. A Voluntary Code of
Practice (VCOP) and more recently a guidance document specific to civil aviation have been
written by the Halon Recycling Corporation (HRC) addressing this issue, HRC (2021, 2022).
The proliferation of relatively inexpensive, high efficiency recovery systems makes it easier to
increase the longevity of agent banks. Good practice dictates that fire extinguishing agents
should never be placed or stored in cylinders not intended for the agent’s use. For example, the
manager of a national halon bank reported finding halon stored in improper cylinders resulting in
avoidable leakage. All on-site agent storage tanks should be monitored for leaks.
The following practices for fire extinguishing hardware and agents should be observed:
• Only trained, or where relevant, licensed, personnel should be permitted to handle and
store agents.
• Safety Data Sheets should be current, available, and accessible.
• Handle agents with care to prevent accidental discharges.
• Agent cylinders not in service should be made safe to avoid accidental discharge.
• Store agent reserves in suitable storage containers; different types of recovered fire
extinguishing agents should be stored in separate containers and not be mixed together.
• Implement a leak detection regime for agent in service and storage.
• Recover surplus agents from systems.
• Transfer and store agents in system cylinders, extinguishers, and storage cylinders
designed for the specific agent.
• Appropriately label all agent and recovery cylinders.
• Inspect and test (where appropriate) all cylinders prior to filling with agent.
• Provide good storage conditions (e.g., out of direct sunlight and rain) for both in-service
systems/cylinders and backup systems or bulk agent.
Page 161 of 241
• Ensure temperature and pressure limits of storage cylinders and tanks are not exceeded so
as not to activate pressure relief devices.
7.7 Minimizing Discharge of Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Agents
Discharging halon and other halogenated gaseous agent systems and portable fire extinguishers
for testing, training, and other non-fire related procedures is a cause of unnecessary emissions
that can easily be avoided. For example, in fixed systems, door-fan testing, NFPA 2001 (2022),
has replaced the need for discharge testing. In addition, portable extinguisher training can be
accomplished using simulants. Where portable extinguishers are required to be discharged (for
example, to accomplish periodic extinguisher performance verification), the agent should be
discharged into a recovery tank.
7.8 Recommended Practices for Recycling Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire
Extinguishing Agents
Prior to the halt in production of halons, replenishment agent to recharge extinguishers and
extinguishing systems had a simple supply chain from manufacturer to servicing company to the
end user. With such a short supply chain, the quality assurance needs of all organizations were
readily achieved; or, in the rare case of out of specification agent, problems were easily traced
back to the source and corrective action taken.
Today, we no longer have newly manufactured halons, and the fire protection industry must rely
on recycled or reclaimed halons for the recharge of extinguishers and extinguishing systems. In
the case of other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents, while they are still being
manufactured, some of the replenishment agent used for the recharge of extinguishers and
extinguishing systems is from systems or extinguishers removed from service. The source of
replenishment agent has thus shifted from a handful of agent manufacturers around the world to
thousands of end users who own extinguishers or extinguishing systems and who may at some
point offer the agent for recycling / reclamation. Furthermore, the condition of the agent at its
entry (or re-entry) point into the market has shifted from newly manufactured agents with an
extremely high level of purity to “used” agent that can have any of several types of impurities.
That being the case, the fire protection industry faces the same challenges in ensuring the quality,
especially purity, for other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents used for replenishment.
7.8.1 Standard Methods for Treatment of Halons and Other Gaseous Halogenated Fire
Extinguishing Agents
In the fire protection industry, there are several terms used to describe the treatment of halons
and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents to prepare them for possible
redeployment:
• Reuse: To remove an agent cylinder or extinguisher from one application and re-install in
another application.
• Recover: To remove agent in any condition from an extinguisher or extinguishing system
cylinder and store it in an external container without necessarily testing or processing it in
any way. This activity can happen using suitable recovery equipment operated by trained
personnel, either directly from fire protection equipment on-site, or off site where the
Page 162 of 241
decommissioned fire protection equipment is transported to an appropriate off-site
facility where the agent is removed.
• Recycle: To clean recovered agent for reuse without meeting all the requirements for
reclamation. In general, recycled agent has its pressurizing nitrogen removed and
moisture, particulate matter, and non-volatile residue content reduced as required to
conform to the relevant standard specifications.
• Reclaim: To reprocess agent to a purity specified in applicable standards. Reclamation is
the preferred method to achieve the highest level of purity. Reclamation requires
specialized separation/distillation type of equipment to remove other halocarbon
impurities. This type of equipment may not be available at servicing companies.
Reputable reclamation companies can offer these services (including certified laboratory
results for the reclaimed gas) for halons and other halogenated extinguishing agents.
It is common for the expression “recycle” to include both the “reclaim” and “recycle” treatments
described above. However, it is essential for everyone in the supply chain to understand the
difference and to employ the correct method.
In order to have a credible agent resupply industry, the “used” agents must be properly processed
in order to remove impurities and return the agent to a purity level consistent with newly
manufactured agent or another appropriate standard. Furthermore, the participants in the agent
resupply industry must have the technical ability to test and certify that the agents being offered
for replenishment are indeed free of impurities. Without that ability rigorously applied, there can
be no credible fire extinguishing agent resupply industry.
7.8.2 Specifications for Agent Treatment, Testing and Certification
Personnel responsible for reclaiming, refilling, and resupplying halons and other halogenated
gaseous fire extinguishing agents back into the supply chain should use a laboratory, whether in-
house or external, with the technical competence to certify the purity to industry standards that
include, but are not limited to, standards from ASTM, ISO, militaries, etc.
The technical competence of the laboratory depends on factors such as having suitable testing
facilities, qualified /experienced personnel, the latest specifications/standards, access to the
appropriate calibrated and maintained equipment, quality assurance processes/systems that
ensure appropriate sampling and testing procedures/methods are used, the traceability of
measurements to national standards, and accurate record keeping and reporting processes.
Before and after processing/treatment of the agents, batches should be subjected to the
verification of their purity and other quality parameters using the analytical methods prescribed
in the relevant and latest standard to determine the condition of the agent prior to treatment as
well as the effectiveness of the treatment process in returning the agent back to specification.
7.8.3 Agent Contamination
To ensure the safety of people and to prevent adverse physiological impacts during a fire
extinguishing agent exposure event, the toxicity of the agents in normally occupied areas is a
critical consideration. Agent contamination can be a significant contributor to toxicity, hence the
need for the agents to meet stringent industry specifications.
Page 163 of 241
7.8.4 Firefighting Efficiency
The presence of agents of questionable purity is an insidious problem that does not become
apparent until an end user discharges an extinguisher or extinguishing system, often in a serious
life safety or potential property loss setting. With an impure agent, the performance can range
from poor or no fire extinguishing effectiveness to one where the impure agent may actually
intensify the fire in the case where the impurity is a flammable material.
End users do not typically have the means to confirm the purity of replenishment agents they
have employed in fire extinguishers or in extinguishing systems. Instead, they must rely on the
aftermarket supply chain to collect, process, test, and certify that the agent is of acceptable
purity. From the end user’s perspective, it is that last step – the certification – that has been the
ultimate basis for acceptance of the agent. Given that there has been at least one instance where
certification documents were falsified by the agent supplier, relying on a supplier’s certification
alone can introduce risk with respect to agent purity. It is strongly recommended the end user
require a copy of the signed certification of the results for the agent used to fill the fire protection
system or extinguishers, and where available, require that the results are certified by a
national/international accredited laboratory.
To understand how and/or why agents with impurities can be supplied to end users, one has to
look at the circumstances under which the impurities can be introduced. For all practical
purposes, the impurities are introduced into the agent in five different manners:
1. The impurities could already be present in the agent when the recycler or servicing
company received the agent or the extinguisher containing the agent.
2. The agent could become contaminated during processing by the recycler or servicing
company when “good agent” is accidentally batched together with contaminated agent,
thus causing the entire batch to become contaminated. This is referred to as ‘cross
contamination with other halogenated chemicals.’
3. Failure to adequately evacuate the equipment when processing a different agent or
refrigerant will introduce impurities by cross contamination with other halogenated
chemicals or other contaminants including oil, moisture, particulates, or acids.
4. Agent that has been reclaimed to a standard can be contaminated if it is put into cylinders
or long-term storage tanks that have not been properly cleaned, and which contain
residual quantities of other agents or contaminants such as water, oil, or particulates.
5. Given the diminishing supply of halons, and the consequent increase in value, one should
not discount the possibility of deliberate adulteration to increase profits.
7.8.5 Agent Contamination Mitigation Strategies
In reviewing the supply chain for recycled fire extinguishing agents, the minimum mitigation
strategies that can be employed to ensure that the agent meets an industry accepted quality
standard include:
• By the Equipment Manufacturer: If the manufacturer supplies more than one fire
extinguishing agent, then it should ensure that there are systems and procedures in place
to prevent agent contamination in the filling process.
Page 164 of 241
• By the Recycler: Employing robust quality assurance procedures that provide: (1) testing
of incoming agent to ensure that it is properly identified and not contaminated before it is
combined with other batched agents during the recycling process; (2) processing the
batched agent in a manner to remove all contaminants to the specified levels, and (3)
ensuring that no new contaminants are introduced into the processed agent up through
and including its final storage condition (cylinders, long-term storage tanks, drums, etc.).
• By the Accredited Testing Laboratory: In accordance with good laboratory practice,
perform an analysis on samples of the agent and provide written certification that the
agent meets the required specification(s). Accredited laboratories are typically
independently audited by a recognized third-party certification body.
• By the Servicing Company: Preparing and following good practices when recovering
agent or recharging extinguishers and extinguishing systems to ensure that no
contaminants are introduced by the agent transfer equipment or by improper cleaning and
drying of the extinguisher cylinders or systems.
7.9 Policies, Awareness Campaigns, and Codes of Practice
Non-technical steps can also be taken to reduce halon or other halogenated gaseous fire
extinguishant emissions. These steps have been shown to be as important as the technical steps.
The FSTOC, various governments, and the fire protection community provide guidance
documents on all aspects of halon phaseout that will also be applicable in the HCFC phaseout
and the HFC phasedown. The value of these documents should not be underestimated.
7.9.1 Policies, Regulations, and Enforcement
Policies should be in place to meet the party obligations under the Montreal Protocol. Each
National Ozone Unit (NOU) has been tasked with implementing policies, programmes, and
regulations in support of those obligations under the Montreal Protocol specific to their country.
Some parties have elected to utilize a steering group to formulate plans for ODS phaseout, to
draft policies and regulations, and to provide periodic oversight. This is especially effective
where resources are limited, and actions might otherwise be delayed. It also serves to involve
those entities directly affected by the phaseout. It is advisable that a steering group be made up of
stakeholders from the following sectors, UNEP (1999):
• public fire services,
• fire equipment trade associations,
• insurance companies,
• halon (and potentially other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents) users,
• environmental advocacy groups, e.g., non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
• environment ministries,
• customs officials, and
• defence ministries.
The steering group can be tasked to put forward a plan for halon or other halogenated gaseous
fire extinguishant management by the NOU or other responsible government agency. The NOU
Page 165 of 241
can initiate the revision of regulations to eliminate requirements for discharge testing and provide
needed assistance to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), especially in those cases where
such testing is mandated by local regulations that are outdated or otherwise unnecessary. The
NOU can also introduce regulations requiring the recovery, recycling, and reclamation of halons
or other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents.
Many halon bank managers have cited lack of enforcement of halon control regulations as
limiting the success of their operations. This will likely also be the case for HCFC and HFC fire
extinguishant banking in the future. Without enforcement and possibly incentives, national halon
or other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishant banking functions, especially those operated by
industry or commercial entities, are unlikely to be financially viable. Several national halon bank
managers have reported to FSTOC members little or no activity in halon recycling, which they
attributed directly to lack of policies, regulations, enforcement, and available serviceable
recovery and recycling equipment. For more information on banking of halogenated gaseous fire
extinguishing agents, refer to the HTOC 2018 Assessment report, Volume 3, Global Halon,
HCFC, and HFC Banking, HTOC (2018).
One very successful example of a regulation is the European F-gas Regulation (EU) No
517/2014. The F-gas Regulation is being updated, but the updated Regulation has not been
published at the time of writing this report. This multi-tiered regulation contains several aspects:
• Limiting the total amount of the most important F-gases that can be sold in the EU from
2015 onwards and phasing them down in steps to one-fifth of 2014 sales in 2030.
• Banning the use of F-gases in many new types of equipment where less harmful
alternatives are widely available, such as refrigerators in homes or supermarkets, air
conditioning, and foams and aerosols.
• Preventing emissions of F-gases from existing equipment by requiring checks, proper
servicing, and recovery of the gases at the end of the equipment's life.
Although the regulation applies to fluorinated gases, the principles apply equally to all
halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents, and all three aspects will lead to reduced
emissions.
Other examples of regulations include the Australian Ozone Protection and Synthetic
Greenhouse Gas Management Act of 1989, Australia (1989), and the Ozone Protection and
Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Regulations of 1995, issued by the Australian government,
Since 1 January 2018, it has been illegal to import bulk HFCs into Australia without a controlled
substances license and quota under the HFC import quota system. Australia’s HFC import quota
system was developed with industry to contribute to the phasedown of high-GWP HFCs by
gradually reducing the amount of bulk HFC permitted into Australia. Maintaining the integrity of
the import quota system helps Australia to reduce its emissions of HFCs.
In 2020, an Australian-based fire protection company was fined a record $500,000 for importing
bulk HFC for use in fire protection equipment without a license or quota and required to pay for
disposal of the remaining gas at a cost of around $100,000. Five metric tonnes of HFC-227ea
were imported by the company despite the company being aware that a license and quota were
required.
Page 166 of 241
Reducing HFC emissions is an important part of Australia’s emissions reduction commitment
under the Paris Agreement and is now part of a global commitment under the Montreal Protocol.
7.9.2 Carbon Markets
Carbon markets are becoming an important instrument in addressing climate change. There is
increased focus by policy makers and government officials around the world creating carbon
pricing instruments such as carbon taxes and emission trading schemes. These instruments can
mandate a compliance-based system for companies that are obligated to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions. Equally important, is the scaling of the voluntary carbon market to meet the
climate change challenge by providing a means for companies to voluntarily respond by
purchasing high integrity, high quality, carbon offsets as part of reducing their carbon footprint.
In the US for example, and in relation to fire protection extinguishing agents such as HFC-227ea,
the American Carbon Registry (ACR - a private voluntary greenhouse gas registry), amended
one of its methodologies in April 2022 to produce the ‘Methodology for the Quantification,
Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals
from Certified Reclaimed HFC Refrigerants, Propellants, and Fire Suppressants, Version 2.0’,
ACR (2022). This methodology previously did not include HFC-227ea.
The methodology is underpinned by the premise that recovery and reuse of certified HFC-227ea
for replenishing fire protection systems when they leak or have been discharged in a fire negates
the need to manufacture additional HFCs and thereby reduces emissions. Now that HFC-227ea is
accepted as an eligible gas under the methodology, companies in the US may be financially
incentivized and rewarded to recover HFC-227ea, develop a reclaim project, and if the project
after independent validation and verification is deemed to meet the criteria of the methodology,
will generate voluntary offset credits that can be traded in the market.
7.9.3 Awareness Campaigns
Emission reductions can be achieved by implementing a comprehensive awareness campaign.
This can include any, or all, of the following: workshops, training, brochures, television or radio
commercials, websites, newsletters directly or through fire protection equipment/service
providers, fire protection and trade publications, etc.
Involvement of the stakeholders, including government, fire protection system and extinguisher
users, code enforcing authorities, military branches, maritime and airline industries, research and
testing laboratories, and the fire protection community has been shown to be important.
In parties where there is no comprehensive halon management programme, no national halon
bank, or no clearinghouse, it is likely that there are halon installations that are inappropriate for
the application and should be replaced with an alternative, UNEP (1999). This may be similarly
true for HCFCs and HFCs. Workshops and training are excellent ways to implement an
awareness campaign while engaging with the fire protection community.
Page 167 of 241
7.9.4 Standards and Codes of Practice
The fire protection community can:
• Adopt or develop technical standards on the design, installation, testing, and maintenance
of extinguishers and fire suppression systems both for halons and other halogenated
gaseous fire extinguishing agents.
• Ensure users provide training for the occupants and site manager of spaces that are
protected by halon or other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents.
• Develop or adopt a Code of Practice (COP), such as EPA (2001a), HARC (2002),
HARC (2015), HRC (2021), UNEP (1999) and UNEP (2001):
The following are typical strategies outlined in a Voluntary Code of Practice (VCOP):
1. Regulations and Standards: Follow applicable technical standards for the agent.
2. Emissions: Minimize emissions during storage, handling, and transfer.
3. Equipment: Utilize equipment appropriate for the agent and maintain it regularly according
to step 1 and manufacturers’ recommendations.
4. Discharge Testing: Eliminate discharge testing of halons and minimize discharge testing for
HCFC and high-GWP HFC agents to “essential” tests only.
5. Decommissioning, Servicing, and Disposal: Prohibit venting or release of agent to the
atmosphere during decommissioning, servicing, and disposal. Always recover, recycle, reclaim,
or destroy the agent using manufacturer instructions for the operation and maintenance of
recovery, recycling, and reclamation equipment.
6. Technician Training: Require that technicians who test, maintain, service, repair or dispose of
halons and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishant systems are trained regarding
responsible use and handling to minimize unnecessary emissions, see EPA (2001a), HARC
(2022). Training can include:
• Explanation of why training is required (trained technicians prevent emissions).
• Overview of environmental concerns with halons, HCFCs, and HFCs (ozone depletion,
long atmospheric lifetimes, high GWP, etc.).
• Review of relevant regulations or standards concerning halons, HCFCs, and HFCs.
• Specific technical instructions relevant to individual facilities (manufacturers’ manuals,
training materials, references, and resources available to technicians).
7. Communications and Outreach: Ensure dissemination of information designed to minimize
emissions and enable phaseout of halons and HCFCs, and phasedown of HFCs.
8. Record Keeping and Reporting: Develop a verifiable data tracking system on stockpiles,
installed base, transfers, and emissions. Record keeping should be an integral part of managing
halons and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents from the system user to fire
extinguishant banks.
A VCOP/COP is very important where international transfers are concerned to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the Basel Convention, EPA (2001a).
Page 168 of 241
There are COPs available in many countries. It may be that another country’s COP is applicable
and can be translated and adopted. Several parties have successfully used this method to
implement their own COP.
7.10 Decommissioning, Transportation, and Destruction
Decommissioning is the process of removing a fire protection system from service. The cylinders
containing halons and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents are under pressure and
must be handled with great care. If the pressure is released in an uncontrolled way, not only will
it result in unwanted emissions, but more importantly, the cylinder or valve could become a
projectile that could cause serious injury or death.
Decommissioning guidelines are available from numerous sources and are applicable to all users,
EPA (2001b). Only trained personnel should carry out decommissioning activities. In Australia,
for example, decommissioning of fixed gas fire suppression systems that contain halon or other
halogenated gases must only be carried out by technicians who specifically hold a
decommissioning license.
Transportation of halon and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents occurs during
decommissioning, servicing, and transfers to other users, vendors, banking facilities, or
destruction facilities. Halons and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents are
“dangerous goods” as they are pressurized gases and should be transported per national and
international guidelines. It is important to develop procedures and ensure that they are properly
followed so that the agent is handled and transported safely.
Depending on how the exporting/importing country legally classifies the extinguishing agents
destined for reclamation or destruction, (that is, whether they are defined as ‘hazardous waste’ or
not), the Basel Convention could apply, thereby adding layers of complexity when the
reclamation or destruction facility is in a country that is not a party to the Basel Convention.
Some of the complexities relate to:
• inconsistencies /differences with classification of the material by domestic legislation of
the party of export, import or transit
• increased administrative efforts
• increased shipping costs
• increased time to process Basel paperwork by each port adding time to the journey
• difficulties locating a carrier that is prepared to carry the ‘hazardous waste’.
Without a consistent global approach on the definition/classification of ODS, HCFCs and HFCs,
access to reclamation and destruction facilities is unnecessarily obstructed and could give rise to
emissions as a result.
Destruction of halon and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents is a final
disposition option that should be considered only if the agents are contaminated and cannot be
reclaimed to an acceptable purity. There are several processes that have been identified as
suitable for halon, HCFC, and HFC destruction and are discussed in FSTOC Technical Note C,
FSTOC (2022c), EPA (2001) and in chapter 8 of this report.
Page 169 of 241
7.11 Conclusions
Discharges of halon and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents in the case of fire-
events account for a very small fraction of total discharges. Inadvertent discharges or false
alarms account for the majority of discharges and the steps outlined above can minimize such
avoidable discharges. In reviewing emission reduction strategies, the FSTOC recommends the
following:
• Halons should not be used in new fire protection applications or new designs of
equipment where alternatives exist.
• HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs should not be used unless a full risk analysis has been
performed by a fire professional with expertise in their use and specifications, and the
agent was deemed the only viable option taking into consideration safety, efficacy,
economics, and environmental effects.
• Verify system design and requirements when changes in hazard have occurred.
• Take advantage of opportunities to reevaluate the need for existing halon systems or
extinguishers and replace with suitable alternatives where it is technically and
economically feasible to do so.
• Encourage the application of risk management strategies and good engineering design to
take advantage of alternative fire protection schemes.
• Implement a regular maintenance programme with improved system documentation.
• Educate and train personnel on system characteristics.
• Encourage end-users of automatic detection/release equipment to take advantage of the
latest technology that is designed, listed, and proven in the intended application. Newer
systems have been shown to reduce false alarms that trigger system activation.
• Upon decommissioning, recover all fire extinguishing agents.
• Manage storage of halon and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishant reserves and
perform routine leak detection.
• Discontinue fire protection system discharge testing using a test gas and consider
amending any existing regulations that mandate such testing. If system discharge must be
performed, consider using a simulant.
• Discontinue the discharging to the atmosphere of portable halon, HCFC, and HFC
extinguishers and system cylinders during equipment servicing.
• Discontinue the discharge of portable halon, HCFC, and HFC fire extinguishers for
training purposes. Live fire training is important but can be adequately done using
simulants.
• Implement national awareness campaigns on all environmental concerns (e.g., ozone
depletion, climate change).
• Develop or adopt technical standards and codes of conduct.
Page 170 of 241
• Develop databases and implement record keeping on halon, HCFC, and HFC installed
base quantities, transfers, and emissions.
• Develop halon, HCFC, and HFC fire extinguishing agent management plans including
end of useful life considerations.
• Ensure “Responsible Use” of halons and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing
agents using the tools from FSTOC Technical Note B, FSTOC (2022b).
7.12 References
ACR (2022) Methodology for The Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals From Certified Reclaimed HFC
Refrigerants, Propellants, and Fire Suppressants, Version 2.0, April 2022.
https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/certified-
reclaimed-hfc-refrigerants/acr-certified-reclaimed-hfc_v2-0-final.pdf
Australia (1989): Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989,
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A03755
Australia (1995): Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Regulations
1995, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/F1996B02085
EPA (2001a): EPA430-B-01-001, Guidance for the EPA Halon Emissions Reduction Rule (40
CFR Part 82, Subpart H), United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 2001.
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-
07/documents/guidance_for_halon_emissions_reduction_rule_40_cfr_part_82_subpart_h.pdf
EPA (2001b): 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/safe-decommissioning-of-halons
GIZ (2017): Guideline for the transboundary movement of ODS waste, Deutsche Gesselschaft
fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, 2017. www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2017-en-
no4-guideline-transboundary-movement.pdf
HARC (2002): Voluntary Code of Practice for the Reduction of Emissions of HFC & PFC Fire
Protection Agents, Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, March 2002.
www.harc.org/_files/ugd/4e7dd1_46de828a6955497f8ed980456a7edf17.pdf
HARC (2015): Code of Practice for Use of Recycled Halogenated Clean Agents, Halon
Alternatives Research Corporation, April 2015.
www.harc.org/_files/ugd/4e7dd1_4ab7295ac47e4bdea67020750f544f1b.pdf
HRC (2021): Code of Practice for Halon Recycling Companies, Halon Recycling Corporation,
June 2021. www.halon.org/_files/ugd/4e7dd1_1385c061aa9f4d4dae694a8036be92df.pdf
HRC (2022): Halon 1301 Use in Civil Aviation: Guidance for Reducing Emissions and
Contamination During Servicing and Maintenance, Halon Recycling Corporation, March 2022.
www.halon.org/hrc-av-outreach
Page 171 of 241
HTOC (2018): UNEP Report of the Halons Technical Options Committee, Volume 1, 2018
Assessment Report, December 2018.
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/
HTOC/HTOC_assessment_2018.pdf
FSTOC (2022a): UNEP Report of the Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee, Technical
Note B, Emission Reduction and Recycling Strategies for Halons and Other Halogenated
Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents, December 2022,
https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
FSTOC (2022b): UNEP Report of the Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee,
Technical Note C, Destruction Technologies for Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire
Extinguishing Agents, December 2022. https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap
UNEP (1999): UNEP DTIE, Eliminating Dependency on Halons: Self-Help Guide for Low
Consuming Countries, 1999, United Nations Publication ISBN: 92-807-1783-9.
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/777850?ln=en
UNEP (2001): Standards and Codes of Practice to Eliminate Dependency on Halons: Handbook
of Good Practices in the Halon Sector, 2001, United Nations Publication ISBN: 92-807-1988-1.
www.unep.org/resources/report/standards-and-codes-practice-eliminate-dependency-halons-
handbook-good-practices
Page 172 of 241
8 Destruction
8.1 Introduction
With the worldwide end of halon production for fire protection uses at the end of 2009, the
phaseout of HCFCs, and the current state of the phasedown of HFCs, global inventory
management and responsible disposal practices have become important considerations in the
prevention of emissions during a critical period of global environmental protection.
Halons, HCFCs, and HFCs continue to be of high value due to the ongoing reliance of these
extinguishing agents in fire protection systems in certain industries in lieu of the transition to
alternatives.
One of the options for avoiding emissions and managing banks of surplus extinguishants is
destruction, which involves the permanent transformation or decomposition of all, or a
significant portion of the substances being destroyed.
The FSTOC has recommended that destruction should only be the final disposition option when
halons are too contaminated and cannot be reclaimed to an acceptable purity. The FSTOC
strongly continues to maintain this position and recommends extending it to HCFCs and HFCs as
well. Destruction should only be a final resort when the agent cannot be successfully reclaimed
to acceptable industry specifications or when the agent is no longer required globally.
8.2 Recent Developments
The FSTOC understands that there has not been any significant halon, HCFC, or HFC fire
extinguishing agent destruction projects globally in recent years. Instead, during servicing
activities or at end-of-life, the agents are recovered and reclaimed for re-supply into the market
for enduring uses.
The world’s first pilot halon destruction and carbon offset project occurred in February 2021 in
the US using US sourced predominantly halon 1301 (2,687 pounds or 1.219 metric tonnes). The
project was performed under the American Carbon Registry (ACR, a private voluntary US
greenhouse gas registry), Methodology, ACR (2017). This methodology allows for the
destruction of halons 1211 and 1301 from fire equipment or systems and excludes the destruction
of halon 1301 originating in stockpiles. The halon for the pilot project was recovered from
decommissioned or retired equipment and destroyed using Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP) approved destruction technology (rotary kiln incineration), resulting
in the creation of 3,384 tCO2e offset credits from the project. The credits were then sold to a
large reputable US IT company.
What was not apparent to the FSTOC related to whether the halon 1301 used in the pilot
destruction project was not reclaimable (due to contamination), and therefore destruction was the
best option, or whether regardless of the halon quality, the project proceeded purely based on
wanting to dispose the halon to meet sustainability commitments of the various stakeholders
involved and creating carbon offset credits for economic purposes.
A concern of the FSTOC is the unintended consequences of destroying in-specification and out
of specification but reclaimable halon to generate offset credits when there continues to be a
global need specifically in aviation and other sectors. Even though well-intended, an increase in
the number of halon 1301 destruction offset projects (potentially leading to large volumes of
Page 173 of 241
halon being destroyed), is likely to put pressure on the global halon 1301 supply chain. In time,
this could drive the application of an essential use nomination to recommence manufacture of
halon 1301. In the coming years, and as more companies are making their public sustainability
and net zero pledges, the FSTOC and the global fire protection industry will need to pay close
attention to see how this situation unfolds and the effects it will have on global availability of
halon 1301.
8.3 Approved Destruction Technologies
As instructed in Decision XXIX/4 at their 29th Meeting, the parties requested the TEAP to report
on, and if needed in a supplementary report to the 40th Open-ended Working Group (OEWG),
produce an assessment of the applicability of approved destruction technologies to HFCs and
conduct a review of any other technology for possible inclusion in the list of approved
destruction technologies for all controlled substances.
The TEAP Task Force on Destruction Technologies (TFDT) published its initial report in early
April 2018. Additional information then became available, and a Supplemental report was
prepared and submitted to the 40th OEWG. The 40th OEWG formed a contact group, and
following those discussions, the TEAP was requested to provide additional information
(Addendum to the Supplemental report) for the 30th Meeting of the Parties (MOP), including
information on CO2 emissions associated with energy consumption for a chosen destruction
technology (owing to its higher energy intensiveness compared to other destruction
technologies). The three TEAP reports arising from Decision XXIX/4 are available on the UNEP
Ozone website and provide a comprehensive overview of each of the destruction technologies
and their approval status, TEAP (2018a, 2018b, 2018c).
Given the chemical similarity of HFCs, HCFCs, CFCs, and halons, several technologies screened
satisfied the criteria for destruction. The technologies approved by the parties for the destruction
of halons, HCFC, and HFC fire extinguishing agents are presented in Table 8.1.
Destruction of halons continues to present some unique considerations because of its brominated
chemical makeup. Some of the technologies screened by the TFDT satisfied the criteria for the
destruction of CFCs and HCFCs, however they had not been tested for halons and were not
recommended. The bromine in halons tends to form molecular bromine (Br2) which is very
difficult to remove from the exhaust gases.
As there is nothing particularly different with the HFC fire extinguishants as compared to CFCs,
much less concern with their destruction is anticipated. The one exception to this general
principle is HFC-23, which was considered by the TFDT to be in a separate category from the
other HFCs, as it is more thermally stable. However, there are destruction technologies available
to destroy HFC-23 as indicated in Table 8.1.
Decision XXX/6 on destruction technologies for controlled substances requests TEAP to assess
destruction technologies for their destruction and removal efficiency, make recommendations to
parties for potential approval for inclusion on the list of approved technologies, and to report to
the OEWG prior to the 33rd MOP. The TEAP May 2022 Progress report, submitted prior to the
33rd MOP, indicates that the TEAP is not aware of any new information, such as test data,
relating to already approved destruction technologies, or new technologies that would allow an
assessment.
Page 174 of 241
Technologies for the destruction of controlled substances (ODS and HFCs) are approved by the
parties for the purposes of accounting for Article 7 annual production reporting and for the
destruction of HFC-23 under Article 2J. The Protocol’s definition of ‘production’ subtracts the
amounts destroyed using destruction technologies approved by parties, from the amounts
manufactured.
From time to time, factors arise where there might be the use a destruction technology that is not
included on the list of approved technologies, or not approved for a particular controlled
substance. These factors could include:
• Parties not being interested in reporting destroyed amounts of controlled substances
under Article 7,
• need for destruction of controlled substances,
• requirements of national regulations and related standards,
• local and national air quality /emission guidelines,
• capacity and operating conditions,
• capability of the technology to destroy a variety of wastes,
• availability of the technology,
• cost of available technology, and
• viability of the market for destruction.
A destruction technology that is not approved under the Montreal Protocol may still be an
acceptable and feasible option for destruction if it meets minimum local regulatory standards and
provides ODS/HFC destruction efficiencies acceptable in that jurisdiction.
The subject of halon destruction has been addressed at length in earlier editions of the FSTOC
Assessment reports. Following a re-organization of the FSTOC Technical Notes (Technical
Note #5), the current version is now Technical Note C, FSTOC (2022c).
Over time, the list of destruction technologies approved by parties has been updated and is
reproduced as Table 8.1 below.
Page 175 of 241
Table 8.1: List of Technologies Approved and Subject to Review that are Either Not Approved, Not Determined,
Based on Annex II, MOP-30
(Reproduced from Annex II to the 30th MOP under decision XXX/6)
Page 176 of 241
Page 177 of 241
8.4 Transport of ODS, HCFCs, and HFCs for Destruction
TEAP approved ODS, HCFC, and HFC destruction technologies can be found in many facilities
around the world. A significant challenge in relation to accessing these facilities from an
international movement perspective especially for countries without destruction facilities relates
to the Basel Convention. Depending on how the exporting country classifies the extinguishing
agents destined for destruction, (whether they are defined as ‘hazardous waste’ or not), the Basel
Convention can apply, thereby adding another layer of complexity when the destruction facility
is in a country that is not a party to the Basel Convention, for example the US.
The complexities relate to:
• inconsistencies with classification of the material,
• increased administrative efforts,
• increased shipping costs,
• increased time to process Basel paperwork by each port adding time to the journey, and
• difficulties locating a carrier that is prepared to carry the ‘hazardous waste.’
These are some of the challenges being faced by companies trying to be compliant with both
their national legislation and the Basel Convention.
8.5 References
ACR (2017): Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals from the Destruction of Ozone Depleting
Substances and High-GWP Foam, Version 1.1, September 2017,
https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/destruction-of-
ozone-depleting-substances-and-high-gwp-foam/acr-destruction-of-ods-and-high-gwp-foam-
september-2017-v1-1.pdf
TEAP (2018a): 2018 TEAP Report, Volume 2: Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force Report on
Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances,
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/TEAP-DecXXIX4-TF-Report-April2018.pdf
TEAP (2018b): 2018 TEAP Report, Supplement to the April 2018 Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task
Force Report on Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/TEAP-DecXXIX4-TF-Supplemental-Report-
May2018.pdf
TEAP (2018c): September 2018 TEAP Report: Volume 1 Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force
Report on Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances (Addendum to the May 2018
Supplemental Report – Revision), https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/TEAP-
DecXXIX4-TF-Addendum-to-May2018-Report_September2018.docx
TEAP (2022): Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
May 2022, https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-Progress-report-may2022.pdf
Page 178 of 241
9 Alternatives to HFCs
9.1 Introduction
Much of the information requested by Decision XXVIII/2 is contained within other sections of
this report and Technical Note A, FSTOC (2022a). However, as is explained below, owing to the
evolution of fire protection agents, the information is not easy to extract, and the FSTOC is
responding to this decision by providing the information below and updating its technical note.
This confers several advantages: the information will be presented in a clear and systematic
manner; it should be easy for the parties to find; and it should be easy for the FSTOC to update
in five years’ time, as required by the decision.
9.1.1 Evolution of Fire Protection Approaches
The fire protection industry was an early and strong supporter of the Montreal Protocol.
Extensive research was conducted to identify alternatives, while simultaneously implementing
improvements to maintenance, servicing, and storage of halons, user awareness and training,
replacement of halon systems where practical, as well as improved risk management. These
actions have reduced dependence upon halons. The evolution of halon alternatives has proceeded
along the path of selection of chemicals with the most similar characteristics, followed by
research and development including testing, certification, toxicity and safety analyses, standards
development, and commercialization. During this period, several HCFCs were developed for fire
suppression applications.
As many of the early candidates were eliminated due to failure in one or more of the
aforementioned steps, more challenging chemicals, many with less favorable characteristics,
were added to the research and development process, leading to commercialization of several
HFCs (note: both the agent and hardware must successfully pass all testing and certifications).
Following the commercialization of HFCs, other chemicals were developed including
FK-5-1-12, 3,3,3-trifluoro, 2-bromo-prop(-1)ene (2-BTP), CF3I, and some combinations with
inert gases, water mist, or solid particulates (also referred to as aerosols). This evolution has been
continuous, as makes sense, in that the most likely candidates would be the most commercially
viable due to the extensive cost of research and development. The fire protection industry has
worked on developing alternatives to halons, HCFCs and now HFCs for over three decades as
environmental concerns have evolved. Figure 9.1 illustrates how the fire protection market has
changed over the lifetime of the Montreal Protocol. Note that the height of the bars in the
histogram are normalized. It should not be interpreted that the total market size is the same for
each of the years included.
Page 179 of 241
Trends away from use of halons
100
Systems Installed (%)
HFC-Alternatives
50
HFCs
HCFCs
Halons
0
1987 1997 2005 2022 2030
Year
Figure 9.1: Estimated Trend in Fire Protection Systems Installed
9.1.2 FSTOC Interpretation of Criteria Listed in Decision XXVI/9 Paragraph 1(a)
The criteria outlined in decision XXVI/9 paragraph 1(a) can be subject to interpretation
depending on the context of their use. From a fire protection perspective, the FSTOC interprets
the criteria as:
i. “Commercially available”
The fire suppression agent for use in portable or mobile fire extinguishers and fixed fire
protection systems which are offered for commercial sale is available on the open market
and there is future certainty in the supply, i.e., the agent is not included in any future
production phasedown legislation. Commercial availability may also be influenced by
national or local governmental requirements affecting the import of one agent over
another into the region or country. This does not necessarily mean that the extinguishers,
systems, or extinguishing agents are accessible in all parties (for example Article 5 versus
non-Article 5). In this context “accessible” follows the concept explained in section 6.1.2
of the TEAP report on alternatives to HFCs, (TEAP 2018), but in the context of fire
extinguishing agents/systems, as detailed in Appendix B: Definitions.
ii. “Technically proven”
The fire protection system design for the fire suppression agent is accepted by regulators
and industry because the fire extinguishers and fire protection systems have passed all
necessary performance tests for the intended application. The tests, which may include
extreme ambient temperatures, full-scale, small-scale, test vessel or test enclosure
performance, demonstrate that the alternative agent provides acceptable fire
extinguishment/suppression effectiveness and safety. The system design does not require
further development and has acceptable space and weight characteristics. The agent is
appropriately rated by a notified body or a body accredited by the American National
Page 180 of 241
Standards Institute (ANSI) to assess conformity to recognized standards, for example,
UL, or all reviews under the US EPA Toxic Substances Control Act and the Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program are completed. Other technical considerations
for HFC replacements include that the agent has long-term stability in storage, is non-
corrosive to metals, and is chemically compatible with materials it will contact. In some
cases, the agent must also be “clean,” that is, it leaves no residues during use, and/or be
electrically non-conductive.
iii. “Environmentally sound”
The alternative fire suppression agent has minimal environmental impact (e.g., short
atmospheric lifetime) compared to ODS or HFC extinguishing agents. They have zero or
very low ozone depleting potential (which could be subject to individual party
determination), have very low global warming potential, and are not foreseen to be
subject to future production phasedowns. Note that there is potentially another
environmental factor to consider; whether or not the candidate agents are included in the
definition of PFAS (refer to section 3.2).
iv. “Economically viable and cost effective”
The cost to manufacture the alternative fire suppression agent is reasonable and therefore
the cost of obtaining the alternative is not prohibitive, the alternative is competitively
priced and available on the market, and there is little or no reluctance by owners to adopt
the new agent. In the context of fire protection, cost-effectiveness can be a subjective
issue and needs to be viewed in the context of the value of the asset being protected, and
the cost-effectiveness to replace or modify existing fire suppression systems and
components with an alternative agent. For example, in the case of system fire protection,
where the asset may be a multi-million dollar building or military platform, cost-
effectiveness would be viewed differently compared to a portable fire extinguisher in a
domestic situation.
v. “Safe to use in areas with high urban densities considering flammability and toxicity
issues, including, where possible, risk characterization”
For fire extinguishing agents, the flammability criterion is not relevant in the case of high
urban density. In terms of toxicity, fire extinguishing agents are used in two different
ways: 1) total flooding and 2) local application (also referred to as streaming). For total
flooding agents, especially when used in “normally occupied areas,” the toxicology
considerations are more stringent than for local applications. For normally occupied
areas, the agent must have no observable adverse effects on biological tissue when used
at the design concentration. Although for portable extinguishers in enclosed spaces,
consideration must also be given to minimum room volume to ensure that the
concentration of the agent does not present a hazard to occupants. In addition to intrinsic
agent toxicity, the toxicity of any combustion-related by-products (CO2, acid gases such
as HF, COF2, etc.) must be considered.
vi. “Easy to service and maintain”
Recognized and approved standards exist for the servicing and maintenance of portable
and mobile fire extinguishers and fixed fire protection systems. Training on service and
Page 181 of 241
maintenance of the system is available and accessible. In the US and Canada, for
example, portable fire extinguishers are intended to be selected, installed, inspected,
maintained, and tested in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, NFPA (2022). In general, servicing of fire
extinguishing systems and portable extinguishers is a highly technical task. However, the
differences between servicing an HFC system and its alternative are relatively small, as is
the amount of additional training that would be required.
In carrying out the assessment below, the FSTOC considers that a single “No” for any criterion
means that the alternative is not currently acceptable for the application being considered.
However, as the alternative agent undergoes further development, it could meet all six criteria in
the future.
9.2 Sectors and Applications Where HFCs are Used
Table 9.1 provides a summary of which fire protection sub-sectors do or do not use HFCs that
originally used halons.
Page 182 of 241
Table 9.1: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Fire Protection
Sector Application HFCs being
used?
Civil Aviation Normally unoccupied cargo
No
compartments
Aircraft cabins, cockpits and crew rest
Yes (1)
compartments
Engine nacelles and auxiliary power
Yes (1)
units
Lavatory waste receptacles Yes
Fuel tank inerting No
Crash rescue vehicles No
Military Ground Vehicles Crew compartment Yes
Non-occupied compartments Yes(1)
Military Naval Normally occupied spaces Yes
Normally unoccupied spaces (engine,
Yes
machinery, electrical etc.)
Military Aviation Engine and APU Yes
Occupied spaces Yes (1)
Dry bays Yes
Fuel tank inerting No
Cargos compartments No
Oil & Gas Computer and control rooms Yes (1)
Hydrocarbon production (liquids) Yes
General Industrial Fire Normally occupied spaces including
Protection data centres and telecommunications Yes
facilities
Non-occupied spaces Yes
Merchant shipping Main engine rooms No
Other normally occupied spaces Yes
Other normally unoccupied spaces Yes
Notes:
1. In some specific instances only.
9.3 Where Can Alternatives to HFCs be Used?
9.3.1 Civil Aviation
9.3.1.1 Cargo Compartments
Halon 1301 continues to be used in cargo compartment applications. HFCs have never been used
for the protection of cargo compartments in civil aircraft and are unlikely to be so in the future.
Page 183 of 241
HFC-125 (amongst other agents) failed a key element of the US Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Cargo Compartment Minimum Performance Standard (MPS), FAA (2004). This
effectively ruled out HFCs for this application.
9.3.1.2 Aircraft Cabins, Cockpits, and Crew Rest Compartments
These areas on aircraft are protected using portable (handheld) fire extinguishers. Although
portable fire extinguishers have been developed using HFCs (e.g., HFC-236fa and HFC-227ea)
and some were approved for civil aviation use, it is the FSTOC’s understanding that they were
only sold commercially for some business jets and in general aviation. HFCs were never adopted
in main fleet passenger aircraft. One alternative is available, 2-BTP that is being installed on
most newly produced aircraft. It has a “negligible” GWP, WMO (2018) and can therefore be
considered to be commercially available, technically proven, environmentally-sound,
economically viable, safe to use, and easy to service and maintain for this application. It is worth
noting, however that 2-BTP does have a larger minimum room volume requirement than the
HFC agents for an equivalent fire rating which can restrict its use in smaller aircraft cabins and
cockpits.
9.3.1.3 Engine Nacelles and Auxiliary Power Units
Of the agents evaluated for the protection of engine nacelles, only one (HFC-125) has been
approved and is in use for some military applications. Potential alternatives to HFC-125 include
(a) CF3I, (b) a finely-ground sodium bicarbonate-based dry chemical (referred to as Powdered
Aerosol F in the US EPA SNAP Regulations, EPA (2022), (c) the fluoroketone FK-5-1-12, and
(d) possibly CO2. Table 9.2 shows FSTOC’s assessment of these four agents against the six
Decision XXVI/9 criteria.
Table 9.2: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Engine Nacelle and APU
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion Alternatives
CF3I(1) Powdered FK-5-1-12 CO2
Aerosol F (1)
I Commercially available Yes No Yes Yes
II Technically proven No No No (2) No (3)
III Environmentally sound Yes (4) Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable
IV and cost effective Yes Yes Yes No
V Safe to use Yes (5) Yes Yes No (5)
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
1. Both CF3I and Powdered Aerosol F are currently being tested against the FAA Minimum
Performance Standard (MPS) for aircraft engine nacelles. This will define the certification
criteria for these agents and once a certification programme has been completed the agent
could be considered to be technically proven.
2. FK-5-1-12 failed a low temperature fire test and is effectively excluded from this
application.
3. Although CO2 has not passed the FAA MPS test, its certification concentration (34%) is
Page 184 of 241
included in FAA Advisory Circular AC20-100, FAA (1977). However, its weight and volume
characteristics make it very unattractive in this application and is unlikely to be considered.
4. CF3I has a “negligible” GWP, WMO (2018).
5. Concern has been expressed by some stakeholders regarding the toxicity of CF3I. Although
engine nacelles are unoccupied, an agent of higher toxicity may present issues during
installation, service, and maintenance operations. The same is true of CO2.
9.3.1.4 Lavatory waste receptacles
Two HFCs, HFC-227ea and HFC-236fa, are used in this application. No alternatives have been
evaluated to date. The civil aviation industry is focusing on halon replacement in engine nacelle
and cargo compartment applications. Table 9.3 lists some possible alternatives and their
assessment against the six Decision XXVI/9 criteria. The alternatives have been divided into two
categories: “in-kind” (vaporizing liquids that would operate in a similar fashion to the current
HFC agents) and “not-in-kind” (agents with different physical characteristics, Table 9.4).
Table 9.3: Summary of “In-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Lavatory Waste Receptacles
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion “In-kind” Alternatives
2-BTP CF3I FK-5-1-12
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven No No No
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable and
IV cost effective Yes Yes Yes
V Safe to use Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes
Notes
1. Calculations suggest that the quantity of agent required may be close to, or exceed, the
allowed concentration in small lavatory areas.
Table 9.4: Summary of “Not-in-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Lavatory Waste
Receptables
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion “Not-in-kind” Alternatives (1)
CO2 Inert Gas Water Mist
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven No No No
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable
IV and cost effective NK NK NK
V Safe to use Yes Yes Yes
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes
Page 185 of 241
Notes:
1. These agents are no more than concepts at this stage. Moving to a “not-in-kind” solution
would require more research and development and may also give rise to additional
technical challenges.
2. NK not known to FSTOC at this time.
9.3.1.5 Fuel Tank Inerting
Flammable hydrocarbon vapour can accumulate in the headspace or ullage of fuel tanks on
commercial aircraft. If an ignition source is present, a fuel-air explosion could occur, which can
destroy the aircraft. To prevent this from occurring, fuel tank atmospheres are inerted using on-
board inert gas generating systems (OBIGGS). These systems are based on an air separation
technology, which generates a flow of oxygen-depleted air that inerts the fuel tanks. These are
commercially available and have passed all the Decision XXVI/9 criteria. HFCs have never been
used in this application and are unlikely to be used in the future.
9.3.1.6 Crash Rescue Vehicles
Historically, this application used halon 1211. Halon alternatives employed include HCFC Blend
B, potassium bicarbonate dry chemical and more recently FK-5-1-12. HFCs were not used in this
application, so although halon alternatives are available, they are not HFC alternatives in the
strictest sense.
9.3.2 Military Ground Vehicles
9.3.2.1 Crew Compartments
Many parties have replaced halon 1301 with HFC227-BC (a blend of HFC-227ea and dry
chemical) or HFC-236fa for ground vehicle fire protection in occupied compartments. For these
specialized military applications, only these high-GWP HFCs have been technically proven to
meet the stringent performance and safety criteria. Research is ongoing to evaluate alternatives,
however, no low-GWP alternative has been identified to meet stringent design requirements.
Therefore, these high-GWP HFCs will be required for the foreseeable future in occupied
compartments. Table 9.5 lists the FSTOC assessment of the in-kind alternatives and Table 9.6
shows not-in-kind alternatives to HFCs in crew compartments of ground vehicles against the
Decision XXVI/9 criteria.
Table 9.5: Summary of “In-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Crew Compartments
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion “In-kind” Alternatives
2-BTP CF3I FK-5-1-12
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven No No No
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable and
IV cost effective No (1) No (1) No (1)
V Safe to use No No No
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes
Page 186 of 241
Notes:
1. System cost and integration impacts are unknown.
Table 9.6: Summary of “Not-in-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Crew Compartments
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion “Not-in-kind” Alternatives
CO2 Inert Gas Water Mist
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven No No No
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable and
IV cost effective No (1) No (1) No (1)
V Safe to use No No No
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
1. System cost and integration impacts are unknown.
9.3.2.2 Non-occupied Compartments
In non-occupied compartments of military ground vehicles such as engine compartments, most
halon applications have been replaced with HFCs or other chemicals. The HFC alternatives in
Table 9.7 and Table 9.8 have been/are being considered for implementation where feasible.
However technical challenges in comparison to gaseous HFC agents need to be considered (e.g.,
additional distribution, nozzles, maintenance including access and cleanup, etc.).
Table 9.7: Summary of “In-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Non-occupied Compartments
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion “In-kind” Alternatives
2-BTP CF3I FK-5-1-12
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven No No No
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable and
IV cost effective NK NK NK
V Safe to use No No Yes
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes
Page 187 of 241
Table 9.8: Summary of “Not-in-kind” Alternatives for HFCs in Non-occupied
Compartments
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion “Not-in-kind” Alternatives
CO2 Inert Gas Dry Chemical
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven Yes (1) Yes Yes
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable
IV and cost effective Yes No (2) Yes
V Safe to use Yes Yes Yes
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes (3)
Notes:
1. More research and development would be required and may also give rise to additional
technical challenges.
2. Weight and volume characteristics make this a very unattractive option for this
application
3. The requirements for post-discharge clean-up may make dry chemical systems
unattractive, e.g., if removal of the vehicle powerpack is a time-consuming and costly
process.
9.3.3 Military Naval Applications
9.3.3.1 Occupied Spaces
Some parties use alternatives to HFCs, including FK-5-1-12, in some applications on-board
naval vessels. However, due to technical and economic challenges associated with retrofits,
halons continue to be used in many critical legacy applications. For example, if the enclosure
must stay occupied during a fire, then a limited number of agents are available for consideration
due to toxicity concerns. It should be noted that agent selection and approval criteria can vary
from one party to another. For example, one party might consider gaseous agents to be the only
alternative for a specific application, but another would accept other agents such as dry
chemicals. Issues such as post-discharge clean-up may affect how cost-effectiveness is viewed.
9.3.3.2 Machinery and Other Unoccupied Spaces
A wide range of agents that include both high-GWP and low/zero-GWP fire suppressants is used
for the main machinery and other spaces of new vessels. These include HFC-227ea, fine water
spray, hybrid HFC-227ea/water spray, FK-5-1-12, foam, and CO2 systems. However, CO2
systems are prohibited in all spaces on new US naval vessels due to crew safety considerations.
In some applications, such as electrical compartments or where HFCs are not acceptable because
of national legislation, inert gas systems such as IG-541 are used.
Page 188 of 241
Table 9.9 provides the list of alternatives to HFCs in machinery and unoccupied spaces against
the Decision XXVI/9 criteria.
Page 189 of 241
Table 9.9: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Machinery and Other Unoccupied Spaces
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion Alternatives
Water FK-5-1-12 AFFF CO2 Inert
Spray Gas
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes (1) Yes Yes
Economically viable
IV and cost effective Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
V Safe to use Yes Yes Yes No (2) Yes
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes Yes(3) Yes
Notes:
1. PFAS-containing foams are being eliminated, however PFAS-free foams are
commercially available.
2. There are concerns regarding entry to the space after the fire has been extinguished. A
toxic concentration may still be present, Wickham (2003).
3. An agent of higher toxicity may present issues during installation, service, and
maintenance operations.
9.3.4 Military Aviation Applications
9.3.4.1 Engine and APU Spaces
Some parties have successfully implemented HFC-125 as an alternative to halons for engine and
APU fire protection. It is unlikely that any HFC alternative will be implemented in the
foreseeable future.
9.3.4.2 Occupied Spaces
Military aviation applications are similar to civilian aviation, where these spaces are mainly
protected by portable extinguishers. Military portables include halons, HFCs, and CO2.
9.3.4.3 Dry Bays
Dry bays are the compartments in military aircraft immediately adjacent to fuel tanks or other
flammable fluids. They frequently contain fluid lines, control lines, electrical equipment, etc.
Ballistic damage to these bays may allow fuel to enter the bay causing fire after contact with
electrical components or other ignition sources which could result in loss of the aircraft.
Accordingly, key dry bays are protected with fast response fire detection and suppression
systems. Some of these systems use HFCs, notably HFC-236fa. Other systems use dry chemical
fire extinguishant, which can be considered to be commercially available, technically proven,
environmentally-sound, economically viable, safe to use, and easy to service and maintain.
However, the impacts of replacing HFCs with dry chemical would have to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis, including the effects of post-discharge clean-up.
Page 190 of 241
9.3.4.4 Fuel Tank Inerting
Halon 1301 and OBIGGS have been used for fuel tank inerting. HFCs have never been used to
inert fuel tanks in military aircraft and are unlikely to be so in the future.
9.3.4.5 Cargo Spaces
HFCs have never been used for cargo spaces in military aircraft and are unlikely to be so in the
future.
9.3.5 Oil and Gas
9.3.5.1 Computer and Control Rooms
Halons were the agents of choice for mitigating the threat of fires and explosions in enclosed oil
and gas production and transportation facilities due to the harsh climatic conditions. Because of
the effectiveness and availability of halons 1301 and 2402 at the time of initial development of
the facilities, it was also commonly provided in the enclosures housing various support
infrastructure (communication/data rooms, facility control rooms, primary/standby power
generation, and electrical equipment rooms). HFCs have been used for the protection of support
areas such as battery or electrical rooms, or pipeline maintenance buildings. Table 9.10 lists the
alternatives to HFCs in computer and control rooms in oil and gas facilities against the Decision
XXVI/9 criteria.
Table 9.10: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Computer and Control Rooms
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion Alternatives
Inert Gas Water Mist FK-5-1-12 CO2
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven Yes Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable
IV No Yes (2) Yes No
and cost effective
V Safe to use Yes (3) Yes (2) Yes (3) No (4)
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
1. In cold climates, water mist and FK-5-1-12 may require additional infrastructure (i.e.,
additional heat loads) to work in conjunction with the facility safety systems to provide
adequate protection. Alternatively, water mist systems can employ freeze-protection
additives. Also refer to note (2).
2. Electrical safety measures need to be evaluated. Some freeze-protection additives are
flammable or introduce safety concerns, e.g., glycol-based additives.
3. Specific to computer rooms co-located in low temperature hydrocarbon production
facilities, concern has been expressed by some stakeholders regarding the possibility that
protection for some of these hazards may necessitate a design concentration near or
above the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for some alternatives. As these
Page 191 of 241
types of rooms may or may not be normally occupied, this may present issues during
installation, service, and maintenance operations which need to be carefully evaluated.
4. Many authorities will not allow CO2 in normally occupied areas. When allowable, CO2
systems need to be set to a manual mode when people are present in the space being
protected.
9.3.5.2 Hydrocarbon Production
Oil and gas production and transportation facilities face many different hazards, with the most
significant being fires and explosions involving flammable liquids or gases. Halons were the
agent of choice to mitigate the threat of both fires and explosions in facilities that are enclosed
due to harsh climatic conditions. Because of the effectiveness of halon for both inerting the
enclosure (i.e., creating a non-explosive environment) and flame extinguishment, and availability
of halons at the time of development of the facilities, it was also commonly provided in the
enclosures housing oil and gas production areas. In enclosed areas with gas production, the
vapour cloud explosion potential eliminates a number of fire suppression mediums from
consideration as they are generally effective at either flame extinguishment or inerting the
atmosphere, but not both. The decision to use halons as the primary fire protection tool was
arrived at after carefully evaluating the agents available at the time. Originally, only halons and
CO2 were assessed to have the ability to both inert hydrocarbon atmospheres and extinguish fires
in very low temperature applications. With the introduction of HFCs, HFC-23 was added to this
list (under those climatic conditions). However, CO2 was rejected because it is too slow acting to
accomplish inerting or extinguishment in the desired time periods and because it presents a
hazard to life at extinguishing concentrations, thus leaving halons and HFC-23. Depending upon
the ability to handle the vapour cloud through other means such as high-rate ventilation, some
HFC alternatives exist. Table 9.11 lists the alternatives to HFCs for hydrocarbon production
against the Decision XXVI/9 criteria.
Table 9.11: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Hydrocarbon Production
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion Alternatives
Dry Powder Water Mist FK-5-1-12
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes
II Technically proven No (1) Yes (1,2) Yes (1,2)
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable
IV No No Yes
and cost effective
V Safe to use Yes Yes Yes (3)
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
1. Depending upon the ability to handle the vapour cloud through other means such as high-
rate ventilation, this alternative is technically proven.
2. In cold climates, water mist and FK-5-1-12 may require additional infrastructure (i.e.,
additional heat loads) or modifications away from accepted industry practice to work in
Page 192 of 241
conjunction with the facility safety systems. However, the fire protection scheme may not
allow additional heat load systems to operate during specific events or the cost to provide
explosion proof heating affects economic viability.
3. Concern has been expressed by some stakeholders regarding the possibility that
protection for some of these hazards may necessitate a design concentration near or
above the NOAEL for some halocarbon agents. As these types of rooms may or may not
be normally occupied this may present issues during installation, service, and
maintenance operations which need to be carefully evaluated.
9.3.6 General Industrial Fire Protection
9.3.6.1 Normally Occupied Spaces including Data Centres and Telecommunications Facilities
A number of alternatives to HFCs for the protection of normally occupied spaces are available
for the protection of these hazards. Table 9.12 shows the FSTOC assessment against the Decision
XXVI/9 criteria.
Table 9.12: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Normally Occupied Spaces
Decision XXVI/9 Alternatives
Criterion Inert Water FK-5-1-12 Halocarbon CO2
Gas Mist Blend 55
Commercially
I Yes Yes Yes No (1) Yes
available
II Technically proven Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Environmentally
III Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
sound
Economically
IV viable and cost Yes Yes Yes NK No
effective
V Safe to use Yes Yes(2) Yes NK No (3)
VI Easy to service Yes (4) Yes Yes NK Yes
Notes:
1. The blend is not commercially available but the two separate components (FK-5-1-12 and
HCFO-1233zd(E)) are available commercially.
2. In cases where there are extremes of temperature water mist systems can employ freeze-
protection additives, some of which are flammable or introduce safety concerns, e.g.,
glycol-based additives.
3. CO2 systems need to be set to manual mode when people are present in the space being
protected.
4. While in some areas these systems can be easy to service, in remote locations with
limited transportation, alternative fire protection systems can be very expensive to
recharge. Factors such as air transport and ice roads need to be considered. This is
especially true in the case of inert gas systems because of the larger amount of
extinguishing agent / number of cylinders required.
Page 193 of 241
9.3.6.2 Non-occupied Spaces
A number of alternatives to HFCs for the protection of non-occupied spaces have been available
for some time. Table 9.13 shows the FSTOC assessment against the Decision XXVI/9 criteria.
Table 9.13: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Non-occupied Spaces
Decision XXVI/9 Criterion Alternatives
Inert Water FK-5-1-12 Halocarbon CO2
Gas Mist Blend 55
I Commercially available Yes Yes Yes No (1) Yes
II Technically proven Yes Yes Yes No Yes
III Environmentally sound Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Economically viable
IV and cost effective Yes Yes Yes NK Yes
V Safe to use Yes Yes (2) Yes NK Yes (3)
VI Easy to service Yes Yes Yes NK Yes
Notes:
1. The blend is not commercially available but the two separate components (FK-5-1-12 and
HCFO-1233zdE)) are both available commercially
2. In cases where there are extremes of temperature water mist systems can employ freeze-
protection additives, some of which are flammable or introduce safety concerns, e.g.,
glycol-based additives.
3. In the event of a discharge of a CO2 system, a means to prevent people from entering the
space is required until it is safe to do so.
9.3.7 Merchant Shipping
9.3.7.1 Main Engine Rooms and Machinery Spaces
Historically these applications were protected with CO2. In the mid-1970s passenger ships and
tankers switched from CO2 to halon 1301 for fire suppression in the main engine rooms as it was
more cost effective. When the International Maritime Organization (IMO) banned the use of
halons in new construction in 1992, IMO (1992), CO2 once again became the agent-of-choice for
these types of ships. It is the FSTOC’s understanding that HFCs have been used in this
application. Thus, CO2 is a halon alternative, and could be viewed as an HFC alternative.
Additionally, in some smaller vessels FK-5-1-12 has been used.
9.3.7.2 Normally Occupied Spaces
The alternatives to HFCs for the protection of normally occupied spaces in the merchant
shipping sector are considered to be comparable to those available for the general industrial fire
protection sector. Refer to section 9.3.6.1 above.
9.3.7.3 Non-occupied spaces
The alternatives to HFCs for the protection of non-occupied spaces in the merchant shipping
sector are considered to be comparable to those available for the general industrial fire protection
sector. Refer to section 9.3.6.2 above.
Page 194 of 241
9.4 Effect of Proposed PFAS Regulations on Alternatives to HFCs in Fire Protection
9.4.1 Background
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) refers to a class of chemicals that contain
fluorine atoms bonded to carbon atoms. Historically, PFAS was used to describe longer chain
compounds that were used in products such as paper, textiles, leather, carpets, and firefighting
foam. The regulation of PFAS initially focused on the eight-carbon chemicals perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). More recent PFAS definitions have
broadened to include over 4,000 different fluorinated compounds ranging from gases to liquids
to solids and include carbon chain lengths as short as a single carbon. As a result, some of these
PFAS definitions now encompass HFCs and HFC alternatives such as hydrochlorofluoro-olefins
(HCFOs) and fluoroketones (FKs).
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines PFAS as
follows: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated
methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few
noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (–CF3) or a
perfluorinated methylene group (–CF2–) is a PFAS.” The OECD definition of PFAS would
encompass the following fire suppression chemicals: FK-5-1-12, HFC-227ea, HFC-125, HFC-
236fa, 3,3,3-trifluoro-2-bromo-propene (2-BTP), hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) Blend B,
HCFC-123 and Halocarbon Blend 55 (50/50 weight% FK-5-1-12 and hydrochlorofluoro-olefin
(HCFO)- 1233zd(E)).
Regarding the PFAS definition, OECD states “The term “PFASs” is a broad, general, non-
specific term, which does not inform whether a compound is harmful or not, but only
communicates that the compounds under this term share the same trait for having a fully
fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon moiety.” In addition, OECD notes “It also does not
conclude that all PFASs have the same properties, uses, exposure and risks.”
It should be noted that other countries or organizations may have different definitions of PFAS
that may not encompass all of the same fire suppression agents as the OECD definition. It should
also be noted that some in the atmospheric science community have reasoned that the definitions
for PFAS need to be revised so that they no longer include substances such as HFCs and HFC
alternatives that environmentally degrade to produce trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) as the longest
perfluorinated carboxylic acid.” Wallington (2021).
9.4.2 Implications for Alternatives to HFCs in Fire Protection
A restriction on PFAS that incorporates HFCs and HFC alternatives could have a substantial
impact on future availability and use of these alternatives in the EU unless specific exemptions
for fire protection uses were included. Restricting or prohibiting the sale or use of HFCs and
HFC alternatives could affect the ability of some users in the EU to effectively protect a range of
special hazards from fire and explosion.
For example, if 2-BTP were to be included in PFAS restrictions, it would be devastating to the
aviation industry’s efforts to replace halons. 2-BTP is the result of a 20-year search for an
alternative to halon 1211 in aviation hand-held fire extinguishers. It is currently replacing halon
1211 as a drop-in (same size extinguisher, slight increase in weight) on most new production
aircraft, and all existing aircraft in the EU are expected to be retrofitted to 2-BTP by 2026. It
Page 195 of 241
took 15 years to develop and gain approval and there are no other in-kind (vaporizing liquids that
do not require clean-up) candidate agents for this use that would not be considered PFAS by this
definition. Not-in-kind alternatives (i.e., those that would require clean-up) have been tested for
this use and failed to pass the minimum performance standards. In addition, vaporizing liquid
agents are the current candidates to replace halons in engine and cargo uses. Having them
included in a REACH restriction would also derail the aviation industry’s efforts to replace
halons.
On December 20, 2022, 3M announced that it will cease manufacture of all PFAS by the end of
2025, 3M (2022), including the fire suppressant FK-5-1-12. The FSTOC understands that there
are other manufacturers of this agent. Clearly, this is an evolving situation, and the FSTOC
expects to understand more fully in the future how these proposed regulations will affect both
HFCs and their alternatives.
9.5 Summary
Table 9.14 summarizes where alternatives to HFCs are available on a sector-by-sector basis. For
an alternative to be available, it must have passed all six Decision XXVI/9 criteria, i.e., it is
commercially available, technically proven, environmentally sound, economically viable and
cost effective, safe to use, and easy to service, according to FSTOC’s interpretation of these
criteria.
Note: some alternatives listed here are actually halon alternatives rather than HFC alternatives.
See footnote. Furthermore, wherein some sectors or applications HFCs were not used and there
are no alternatives e.g., in aircraft cargo compartments. In these cases, it seems appropriate to
state that alternatives to HFCs are not applicable (N/A).
Page 196 of 241
Table 9.14: Summary of Alternatives for HFCs in Fire Protection
Sector Application HFCs being Alternatives
used? Available?
Civil Aviation Normally unoccupied cargo compartments No N/A
Aircraft cabins, cockpits and crew rest
Yes (1) Yes
compartments
Engine nacelles and auxiliary power units Yes (1) No
Lavatory waste receptacles Yes No
Fuel tank inerting No Yes (2)
Crash rescue vehicles No Yes (2)
Military Ground Crew compartments Yes No
Vehicles
Non-occupied compartments Yes Yes (3)
Military Naval Normally occupied spaces Yes Yes
Normally unoccupied spaces (engine,
Yes Yes
machinery, electrical etc.)
Military Aviation Engine and APU Yes No
Occupied Spaces No Yes (2)
Protection of dry bays Yes Yes
Fuel Tank Inerting No N/A
Cargo compartments No N/A
Oil & Gas Computer and control rooms Yes (1) Yes (3)
Hydrocarbon production (liquids) Yes Yes (3)
General Industrial Fire Normally occupied spaces including data centres
Yes Yes (3)
Protection and telecommunications facilities
Non-occupied spaces Yes Yes
Merchant Shipping Main engine rooms No Yes (2)
Protection of other normally occupied spaces Yes Yes
Protection of other normally unoccupied spaces Yes Yes
Notes:
1. In some specific instances only.
2. Alternatives to halons are available, but as HFCs were not used in this application, the
alternatives are not HFC alternatives in the strictest sense.
3. May not be useable in all circumstances, or some additional caveats exist.
Page 197 of 241
9.6 References
3M (2022): 3M Press Release, December 20, 2022. https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-
Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing-by-the-End-of-2025
EPA (2022): Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP), Substitutes in Total Flooding Agents;
https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-total-flooding-agents
FAA (1977): AC20-100 – “General Guidelines for Measuring Fire-Extinguishing Agent
Concentrations in Powerplant Compartments”,
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-100.pdf
FAA (2004): John W. Reinhardt, “Behavior of Bromotrifluoropropene and Pentafluoroethane
When Subjected to a Simulated Aerosol Can Explosion” FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-
TN04/4
OECD (2021): Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance, OECD Series on Risk Management, No.
61, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/portal-perfluorinated-
chemicals/terminology-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.pdf
IMO (1992): “1992 Amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention”. IMO Resolution
MSC.27(61), Page 6 Para 16.
https ://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MSCRes
olutions/MSC.27(61).pdf
NFPA (2022) : NFPA 10 “Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers”,
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-
standards/detail?code=10
TEAP (2022): “TEAP September 2022: Decision XXVIII/2 TEAP Working Group Report -
Information on Alternatives to HFCs (Volume 5)”,
https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-Decision-XXVIII-2-HFC-
%20Alternatives-report-sept2022.pdf
Wallington (2021): Wallington et al. The case for a more precise definition of PFAS, Environ.
Sci. Processes Impacts 2021 (23) 1834-1838.
Wickham (2003): R.T. Wickham, “Review of the Use of Carbon Dioxide Total Flooding Fire
Extinguishing Systems”, 2003, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
10/documents/review-of-the-use-of-carbon-dioxide-total-flooding-fire-extinguishing-systems.pdf
WMO (2018): World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project-Report No. 58: “Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2018, Appendix A, Table A-1.
Page 198 of 241
Appendix A: List of Acronyms
This is a consolidated list of all acronyms used in this Assessment report and Technotes A - D
2-BTP 3,3,3-2-bromo-trifluoro-prop(-1)-ene (CF3C(Br)=CH2)
A5 Article 5 Party
ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
AFES Automatic Fire Extinguishing System
AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foam
AHJ Authority Having Jurisdiction
AHRI Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute
AIM American Innovation and Manufacturing Act
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BSI British Standards Institute
CAPA CAPA Centre For Aviation
CCHRWG Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Working Group
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CEIT Countries with Economies in Transition
CF3I Trifluoro(iodo)methane
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COF2 Carbonyl fluoride
COP Code of Practice
DE Destruction Efficiency
DLA US Defense Logistics Agency
DOD US Department of Defense
DOT Department Of Transportation
DRE Destruction Removal Efficiency
DTIE Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, part of UN Environment
DWT Deadweight Tonnage
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
Page 199 of 241
EC European Commission
EEAP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EU European Union
EUN Essential Use Nomination
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FIC Fluoroiodocarbon
FK Fluoroketone
FK-5-1-12 Dodecafluro-2-methyl-pentane-3-one (CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2)
FSTOC Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHG Green House Gas
GOST Gosudarstvennye Standarty State Standard
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAAPS Halon Alternatives for Aircraft Propulsion Systems
HARC Halon Alternatives Research Corporation
NFPA 2001 Code for a blend of 50% HCFO-1233zd, 50% FK-5-1-12. Also
HB-55
known as Halocarbon Blend 55 in ISO 14520, part 17.
HBFC Hydrobromofluorocarbon
HBFO Hydrobromofluoro-olefin (for example 2-BTP)
HBMP Halon Bank Management Plan
HBr Hydrogen bromide
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HCFC-123 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (CF3CHCl2)
HCFO Hydrochlorofluoro-olefin
HCFO-
Trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (CF3CH=CHCl)
1233zdE
HCl Hydrogen chloride
HF Hydrogen fluoride
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
A blend of 86% HFC-134a (tetrafluoroethane, CF3CH2F) 9% HFC-125
HFC Blend B
(pentafluoroethane, CF3CHF2) and 5% carbon dioxide CO2
HFC-125 Pentafluoroethane (CF3CHF2)
Page 200 of 241
HFC-134a Tetrafluoroethane (CF3CH2F)
HFC-227ea 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane (CF3CHFCF3)
HFC-23 Trifluoromethane (CHF3)
HFC-236fa 1,1,1,3,3,3-Hexafluoropropane (CF3CH2CF3)
HTOC Halons Technical Options Committee, renamed FSTOC in 2022
HVAC Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning
IATA International Air Transport Association
IC (Engine/APU Halon Alternatives) Industry Consortium
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ICCAIA International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industry Associations
ICRFP Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency Plasma
IG Inert Gas
IG01 ISO 14520 Code for the inert gas argon
IG100 ISO 15420 Code for the inert gas nitrogen
IG541 ISO 14520 Code for a blend of 50% nitrogen, 42% argon and 8% CO2
IG55 ISO 14520 Code for a blend of 50% nitrogen, 50% argon
IGG Inert Gas Generator
IMO International Maritime Organization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ITC International Toxic Equivalency
kg kilogram
Lethal Concentration 50 (a calculated or interpolated concentration that is
LC-50
expected to kill 50% of the test animals)
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MLF Multilateral Fund
MPS Minimum Performance Standard
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
NATA National Association of Testing Authorities (Australia)
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
Page 201 of 241
NHRMC China's National Halon Management and Recycling System
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NOO National Ozone Officer
NOU National Ozone Unit
NPA Notice of Proposed Amendment
OBIGGS On-Board Inert Gas Generating System
ODP Ozone Depletion Potential
ODP tonnes Weight of the ODS in metric tonnes multiplied by its ODP
ODS Ozone Depleting Substance
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OOS Out of Specification
PCDD Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxin
PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran
PFC Perfluorocarbon
PGA Pyrotechnically Generated Aerosol
PIC Pacific Island Countries
PMMA Poly(methyl methacrylate)
PMN Pre-manufacturing Notice
PNG Papua New Guinea
PP Polypropylene
SAP Science Assessment Panel
SDS Safety Data Sheet
SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy
SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea
tCO2e Metric Tonnes CO2 Equivalent
TEAP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
TFDT Task Force on Destruction Technologies
tonne Metric Tonne
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
Page 202 of 241
TSP Total Suspended Particles
UK United Kingdom
UL™ UL Solutions (formerly known as Underwriters Laboratories Inc.)
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
US United States of America
USSR Soviet Union
VCOP Voluntary Code of Practice
VSD Video Smoke Detection
Page 203 of 241
Appendix B: Definitions
Accessibility vs Availability:
This topic has been discussed extensively within the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel (TEAP) in the context of technologies related to the HFC phasedown and its
interrelationship with energy efficiency in the refrigeration and air conditioning sectors.
“Availability” is the ability of the industry to manufacture products with new technologies. It is
controlled by the manufacturers and is related to technology. The factors affecting availability of
products that are manufactured locally can be summarized as:
• The ability of the industry in a country to absorb new technologies;
• Technical capabilities needed to implement the technology;
• Scalability of operations; and
• Technology barriers such as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and patents.
“Accessibility” on the other hand is focused on the consumer and varies with location within a
region, country, or even with district within a country. Some of the factors which affect
accessibility include:
• Supply chain; Importers/Suppliers for complete systems or parts, including the fire
suppression agent;
• Presence of local manufacturing and/or assembly;
• Service sector capacity and quality;
• Affordability;
• Acceptability and preferences; and
• Presence or absence of laboratories and certification/verification bodies.
Article 5 (A5) Parties: Parties to the Montreal Protocol whose annual calculated level of
consumption is less than 0.3 kg per capita of the controlled substances in Annex A, and less than
0.2 kg per capita of the controlled substances in Annex B, on the date of the entry into force of
the Montreal Protocol, or any time thereafter. These countries were permitted a ten year "grace
period" compared to the phaseout schedule in the Montreal Protocol for developed countries. The
parties in this category are known as "countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol”.
Atmospheric Lifetime: The total atmospheric lifetime or turnover time of a trace gas is the time
required to remove or chemically transform approximately 63% (i.e., 1−(1/e)) of its global
atmospheric burden as a result of either being converted to another chemical compound or being
taken out of the atmosphere by a sink.
Bank: A bank is all the fire extinguishing agent contained in fire extinguishing cylinders/systems
and storage cylinders within any organization, country, or region.
Clean Agent: An agent that is a gas or vaporizing liquid that leaves no residue after discharge.
Clearinghouse: A virtual banking method whereby agent transfer is facilitated between users,
e.g., an office that facilitates contact between owners and buyers.
Page 204 of 241
Commission Regulation: European Commission (EC) is an institution of the European Union,
responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties. A
Commission regulation becomes law to all member states simultaneously
Consumption: Production plus imports minus exports minus destruction of controlled
substances.
Controlled Substance: Any substance that is subject to control measures under the Montreal
Protocol. Specifically, it refers to the ozone depleting substances listed in Annexes A, B, C or E
or the global warming substances (HFCs) listed in Annex F of the Protocol, whether alone or in a
mixture. It includes the isomers of any such substance, except as specified in the relevant Annex,
but excludes any controlled substance or mixture which is in a manufactured product other than a
container used for the transportation or storage of that substance.
Countries with Economies in Transition (CEITs): States of the former Soviet Union, and
Central and Eastern Europe that have been undergoing a process of major structural, economic
and social change, which has resulted in severe financial and administrative difficulties for both
government and industry. These changes have affected most areas of community life, as well as
implementation of international agreements such as the phase out of ODS in accordance with the
Montreal Protocol. CEITs include both A5 and non-A5 countries.
Country Programme (CP): A national strategy prepared by an A5 party to implement the
Montreal Protocol and phase out ODS. The Country Programme establishes a baseline survey on
the use of the controlled substances in the country and draws up policy, strategies and a phase out
plan for their replacement and control. It also identifies investment and non-investment projects
for funding under the Multilateral Fund.
Decision: A documented decision or action taken by the parties to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Decisions are numbered as follows: XXX/7, where the
Roman numerals indicate the meeting number and the Arabic numerals indicate the sequential
decision of that meeting
Decommissioning: Decommissioning is the physical process of removing a fire extinguishing
system containing a substance regulated under the Montreal Protocol from service. This must be
done to recover the substance so that it can be made available for other uses. Effective
decommissioning requires knowledge of good practices related to technical procedures and
safety measures.
Essential Use: In Decision IV/25, the parties to the Montreal Protocol define an ODS use as
“essential” only if: “(i) It is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of
society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects) and (ii) There are no available
technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the
standpoint of environment and health”. Production and consumption of an ODS for essential uses
is permitted only if: “(i) All economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the
essential use and any associated emission of the controlled substance; and (ii) The controlled
substance is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or
Page 205 of 241
recycled controlled substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for
controlled substances”.
Essential Use Nomination (EUN): A party’s request to obtain an Essential Use. Decision IV/25
of the 4th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol set the criteria and process for
assessment of essential use nominations.
Feedstock: A controlled substance that undergoes transformation in a process in which it is
converted from its original composition except for insignificant trace emissions as allowed by
Decision IV/12.
Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee (FSTOC): An international body of experts
established by the parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer
under the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to regularly examine and report
to the parties on the technical options and progress in phasing out halon and other halocarbon fire
extinguishants (see TEAP). In November 2022 Decision XXXIV/11 renamed the Halons
Technical Options Committee as the Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee (FSTOC).
General Assembly: The Assembly is a United Nations Organization's sovereign body.
Global Warming Potential (GWP): Global warming potential is defined as a cumulative
radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a
unit mass of gas relative to CO2. The TEAP has proposed the following classification: High
>1000, Moderate 300 – 1000, and Low < 300, which have been used in this Assessment report.
Halocarbons: Halocarbons are compounds derived from hydrocarbons, where one or several of
the hydrogen atoms are substituted with chlorine (Cl), fluorine (F), bromine (Br), and/or iodine
(I). The ability of halocarbons to deplete ozone in the stratosphere is due to their content of
chlorine, bromine, and/or iodine and their chemical stability. CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs are
examples of halocarbons.
Halocarbon Fire Extinguishing Agents: Halogenated hydrocarbon chemicals, including
HCFCs, HFCs, PFCs, and FICs, that are used for firefighting applications. Each of these
chemicals is stored as a liquefied compressed gas at room temperature, is electrically non-
conductive, and leaves no residue upon vaporization.
Halon: The halon terminology system provides a convenient means to reference halogenated
hydrocarbon fire extinguishants. Halogenated hydrocarbons are acyclic saturated hydrocarbons
in which one or more of the hydrogen atoms have been replaced by atoms from the halogen
series (that is, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine). By definition, the first digit of the halon
numbering system represents the number of carbon atoms in the molecule; the second digit, the
number of fluorine atoms; the third digit, the number of chlorine atoms; the fourth digit, the
number of bromine atoms; and the fifth digit, the number of iodine atoms. Trailing zeros are not
expressed. Unaccounted for valence requirements are assumed to be hydrogen atoms. For
example, bromochlorodifluoromethane – CF2BrCl - halon 1211. Halons exhibit exceptional
firefighting effectiveness. They are used as fire extinguishing agents and as explosion
suppressants.
Page 206 of 241
Halon 1211: A halogenated hydrocarbon, bromochlorodifluoromethane (CF2BrCl). It is also
known as "BCF". Halon 1211 is a fire extinguishing agent that can be discharged in a liquid
stream. It is primarily used in portable fire extinguishers. Halon1211 is an ozone depleting
substance with an ODP of 3.0.
Halon 1301: A halogenated hydrocarbon, bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br). It is also known as
"BTM". Halon 1301 is a fire extinguishing agent that can be discharged rapidly, mixing with air
to create an extinguishing application. It is primarily used in total flooding fire protection
systems. Halon 1301 is an ozone depleting substance with an ODP of 10.
Halon 2402: A halogenated hydrocarbon, dibromotetrafluoroethane (C2F4Br2). Halon 2402 is a
fire extinguishing agent that can be discharged in a liquid stream. It is primarily used in portable
fire extinguishers or hand hose line equipment, and fire protection for specialized applications.
Halon 2402 is an ozone depleting substance with an ODP of 6.0.
Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC): An international body of experts established
under the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to regularly examine and report
to the parties on the technical options and progress in phasing out halon and other halocarbon fire
extinguishants (see TEAP). In November 2022 Decision XXXIV/11 renamed the Halons
Technical Options Committee as the Fire Suppression Technical Options Committee (FSTOC).
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs): A family of chemicals related to CFCs that contains
hydrogen, chlorine, fluorine, and carbon atoms. HCFCs are partly halogenated and have much
lower ODP than the CFCs.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs): A family of chemicals related to CFCs that contains one or more
carbon atoms surrounded by fluorine and hydrogen atoms. Since no chlorine or bromine is
present, HFCs do not deplete the ozone layer.
Inert Gases: Fire extinguishing agents containing one or more of the following gases: argon,
carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Inert gases have zero ODP and extinguish fires by reducing oxygen
concentrations in the confined space thereby "starving" the fire.
Inert Gas Generator: A firefighting technology that uses a solid material that oxidises rapidly,
producing large quantities of carbon dioxide and/or nitrogen. The use of this technology to date
has been limited to specialized applications such as engine nacelles and dry bays on military
aircraft.
Member States: Is a state that is a member of an international organization or of a federation or
confederation.
Montreal Protocol (MP): An international agreement limiting the production and consumption
of chemicals that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, including CFCs, halons, HCFCs, HBFCs,
methyl bromide and others. Signed in 1987, the Protocol commits parties to take measures to
protect the ozone layer by freezing, reducing or ending production and consumption of
controlled substances. This agreement is the protocol to the Vienna convention.
Page 207 of 241
Multilateral Fund (MLF): Part of the financial mechanism under the Montreal Protocol. The
Multilateral Fund for Implementation of the Montreal Protocol has been established by the
parties to provide financial and technical assistance to A5 parties.
National Ozone Officer (NOO): NOOs lead the A5-party’s NOU. Typically they have a
dedicated team that includes an Assistant Ozone Officer and other staff. The NOO is the focal
points for implementation issues related to the Montreal Protocol.
National Ozone Unit (NOU): The government unit in an A5 Party that is responsible for
managing the national ODS phaseout strategy as specified in the Country Programme. NOUs are
responsible for, inter alia, fulfilling data reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol.
Non-Article 5 Parties: Parties to the Montreal Protocol that do not operate under Article 5 of the
MP.
Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS): Any substance with an ODP greater than 0 that can deplete
the stratospheric ozone layer. Most ODS are controlled under the Montreal Protocol and its
amendments, and they include CFCs, HCFCs, halons and methyl bromide.
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP): A relative index indicating the extent to which a chemical
product destroys the stratospheric ozone layer. The reference level of 1 is the potential of CFC-11
to cause ozone depletion. If a product has an ozone depletion potential of 0.5, a given mass of
emissions would, in time, deplete half the ozone that the same mass of emissions of CFC-11
would deplete. The ozone depletion potentials are calculated from mathematical models that take
into account factors such as the stability of the product, the rate of diffusion, the quantity of
depleting atoms per molecule, and the effect of ultraviolet light and other radiation on the
molecules. The substances implicated generally contain chlorine, bromine and/or iodine.
Ozone Layer: An area of the stratosphere, approximately 15 to 60 kilometres (9 to 38 miles)
above the earth, where ozone is found as a trace gas at higher concentrations than other parts of
the atmosphere. This relatively high concentration of ozone filters most ultraviolet radiation,
preventing it from reaching the earth.
Ozone Secretariat: The Secretariat to the Montreal Protocol and Vienna Convention, provided
by UNEP and based in Nairobi, Kenya.
Party: A country that has ratified an international legal instrument (e.g., a protocol or an
amendment to a protocol), indicating that it agrees to be bound by the rules set out therein.
Parties to the Montreal Protocol are countries that have ratified the Protocol.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs): A group of synthetically produced compounds in which the
hydrogen atoms of a hydrocarbon are replaced with fluorine atoms. The compounds are
characterized by extreme stability, non-flammability, low toxicity, zero ozone depleting potential,
and high global warming potential.
Phasedown: The reduction of production and consumption of HFCs following the Kigali
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
Page 208 of 241
Phaseout: The ending of all production and consumption of a chemical controlled under the
Montreal Protocol.
Pre-Action Sprinkler: A sprinkler system whose pipes are normally dry and are charged with
the extinguishing agent (e.g., water) only when the fire detection system actuates.
Production: The amount of controlled substances produced, minus the amount destroyed by
technologies to be approved by the parties and minus the amount entirely used as feedstock in
the manufacture of other chemicals. The amount recycled and reused is not to be considered as
“production”.
Reclamation: To reprocess a fire extinguishing agent to a purity specified in applicable
standards and to use a certified laboratory to verify this purity using the analytical methodology
as prescribed in those standards. Reclamation is the preferred method to achieve the highest level
of purity. Reclamation requires specialized equipment usually not available at a servicing
company.
Recovery: To remove the fire extinguishing agent in any condition from an extinguisher or
extinguishing system cylinder and store it in an external container without necessarily testing or
processing it in any way.
Recycling: To clean the agent for reuse without necessarily meeting all of the requirements for
reclamation. In general, recycled agent has its super-pressurising nitrogen removed in addition to
being processed to reduce moisture and particulate matter.
Reuse: To remove an agent cylinder or extinguisher from one application and re-install in
another application.
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel: In 1990, the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP) was established as the technology and economics advisory body to
the Montreal Protocol parties. The TEAP provides, at the request of Parties, technical
information related to the alternative technologies that have been investigated and employed to
make it possible to virtually eliminate use of Ozone Depleting Substances (such as CFCs and
halons), that harm the ozone layer.
Total Flooding System: A fire extinguishing system that protects a space by developing the
required concentration of extinguishing agent throughout the protected volume.
Type Certificate: A type certificate is issued to signify the airworthiness of an aircraft
manufacturing design or "type". The certificate reflects a determination made by the regulating
body that the aircraft is manufactured according to an approved design and that the design
ensures compliance with airworthiness requirements.
Vienna Convention for Protection of the Ozone Layer: A framework convention that lays out
principles agreed upon by many parties. The Vienna Convention took effect in 1988 and was the
first convention to reach universal ratification (signed by all UN countries) in 2009. The parties
to the Vienna Convention meet once every three years (at a time adjacent to the Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol) to make decisions on important issues including on Research
Page 209 of 241
and Systematic observations as well as financial and administrative matters. The Vienna
Convention does not, however, require countries to take control actions to protect the ozone
layer. This is achieved through the Montreal Protocol.
Voluntary Code of Practice: A VCOP outlines the responsible handling procedures for
companies/organizations that recover/recycle/reclaim/store used halocarbon fire suppression
agents. VCOPs can be developed “in house” or adopted from reputable sources. VCOPs provide
assurance that persons engaged in the business of halocarbon agent recovery, recycling,
reclamation and storage operate in a manner that promotes safe and environmentally responsible
practices.
Water Mist: A firefighting agent that uses relatively small water droplets to extinguish fires.
These systems generate much smaller droplets than are produced by traditional water-spray
systems or conventional sprinklers.
Page 210 of 241
Appendix C: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2021 for Halon 1301
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 10 20 30 40 50 60 100 200 550 839 1,292 1,461
CEIT - - - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production 10 20 30 40 50 60 100 200 550 839 1,292 1,461
Annual Production Allocation
North America 3 6 9 12 15 18 30 60 165 252 388 438
Western Europe and Australia 3 5 8 10 13 15 25 50 138 210 323 365
Japan 2 4 6 8 10 12 20 40 110 168 258 292
CEIT 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 10 28 42 65 73
Article 5(1) 2 4 6 8 10 12 20 40 110 168 258 292
Total Annual Production Allocation 10 20 30 40 50 60 100 200 550 839 1,292 1,461
Annual Emissions
North America 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 19 47 77 123 156
Western Europe and Australia 1 2 3 4 5 7 11 20 48 79 127 164
Japan 0 1 1 2 3 3 5 9 21 36 59 78
CEIT 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 16 25 32
Article 5(1) 1 2 2 3 4 6 9 16 38 63 102 131
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 4 7 9 14 19 24 37 67 165 272 436 561
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 4 7 10 15 20 26 40 72 178 293 469 597
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 10 30 60
100 150 210 310 510 1,060 1,899 3,191 4,652
CEIT - - - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 10 30 60 100 150 210 310 510 1,060 1,899 3,191 4,652
Page 211 of 241
Cummulative Production Allocation 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
North America 3 9 18 30 45 63 93 153 318 570 957 1,396
Western Europe and Australia 3 8 15 25 38 53 78 128 265 475 798 1,163
Japan 2 6 12 20 30 42 62 102 212 380 638 930
CEIT 1 2 3 5 8 11 16 26 53 95 160 233
Article 5(1) 2 6 12 20 30 42 62 102 212 380 638 930
Total Cummulative Production Allocation 10 30 60 100 150 210 310 510 1,060 1,899 3,191 4,652
Cummulative Emissions
North America 1 3 6 10 15 22 32 51 98 176 299 454
Western Europe and Australia 1 3 6 10 15 22 33 53 100 180 307 471
Japan 0 1 2 4 7 10 15 24 46 82 141 219
CEIT 0 1 1 2 3 4 7 10 20 36 61 93
Article 5(1) 1 3 5 8 12 18 26 42 80 144 246 377
Total Cummulative Emissions - Global Bank 4 11 20 33 52 76 113 180 345 617 1,054 1,614
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 4 11 21 36 56 81 121 193 372 664 1,133 1,730
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 2 6 12 20 30 41 61 102 220 394 658 941
Western Europe and Australia 1 4 9 15 22 30 45 75 165 295 491 692
Japan 2 5 10 16 23 32 47 78 166 298 497 712
CEIT 0 1 2 3 4 6 9 15 33 59 99 139
Article 5(1) 1 3 7 12 18 24 36 60 132 236 392 554
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 6 19 40 67 98 134 197 330 715 1,282 2,137 3,038
Page 212 of 241
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 2,019 3,172 3,550 4,015 4,718 4,877 5,694 7,565 7,386 8,692
CEIT - - - - - - - - - 30
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - 70
Total Annual Production 2,019 3,172 3,550 4,015 4,718 4,877 5,694 7,565 7,386 8,792
Annual Production Allocation
North America 606 952 1,065 1,205 1,415 1,463 1,708 2,270 2,216 2,608
Western Europe and Australia 505 793 888 1,004 1,180 1,219 1,424 1,891 1,847 2,173
Japan 404 634 710 803 944 975 1,139 1,513 1,477 1,738
CEIT 101 159 178 201 236 244 285 378 369 465
Article 5(1) 404 634 710 803 944 975 1,139 1,513 1,477 1,808
Total Annual Production Allocation 2,019 3,172 3,550 4,015 4,718 4,877 5,694 7,565 7,386 8,792
Annual Emissions
North America 217 330 378 443 520 493 512 649 736 869
Western Europe and Australia 228 312 372 429 495 567 672 848 926 1,083
Japan 109 148 179 209 260 280 335 420 469 550
CEIT 45 68 76 88 102 109 121 156 171 207
Article 5(1) 182 275 285 357 437 495 584 733 801 951
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 782 1,133 1,289 1,527 1,814 1,944 2,223 2,807 3,102 3,661
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 833 1,212 1,378 1,627 1,932 2,066 2,366 2,996 3,287 3,880
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 6,671 9,843 13,393 17,408 22,126 27,003 32,697 40,262 47,648 56,340
CEIT - - - - - - - - - 30
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - 70
Total Cumulative Production 6,671 9,843 13,393 17,408 22,126 27,003 32,697 40,262 47,648 56,440
Page 213 of 241
Cummulative Production Allocation 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
North America 2,001 2,953 4,018 5,222 6,638 8,101 9,809 12,079 14,294 16,902
Western Europe and Australia 1,668 2,461 3,348 4,352 5,532 6,751 8,174 10,066 11,912 14,085
Japan 1,334 1,969 2,679 3,482 4,425 5,401 6,539 8,052 9,530 11,268
CEIT 334 492 670 870 1,106 1,350 1,635 2,013 2,382 2,847
Article 5(1) 1,334 1,969 2,679 3,482 4,425 5,401 6,539 8,052 9,530 11,338
Total Cummulative Production Allocation 6,671 9,843 13,393 17,408 22,126 27,003 32,697 40,262 47,648 56,440
Cummulative Emissions
North America 672 1,002 1,380 1,823 2,343 2,836 3,347 3,996 4,732 5,600
Western Europe and Australia 699 1,011 1,382 1,811 2,306 2,874 3,546 4,394 5,320 6,404
Japan 328 476 655 865 1,124 1,404 1,739 2,159 2,628 3,178
CEIT 139 207 283 371 474 583 704 860 1,031 1,238
Article 5(1) 559 834 1,119 1,476 1,913 2,408 2,991 3,724 4,525 5,476
Total Cummulative Emissions - Global Bank 2,396 3,530 4,819 6,346 8,160 10,103 12,327 15,133 18,236 21,896
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 2,563 3,776 5,154 6,781 8,713 10,779 13,144 16,140 19,427 23,307
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 1,329 1,951 2,638 3,400 4,295 5,265 6,462 8,082 9,563 11,302
Western Europe and Australia 969 1,450 1,966 2,541 3,225 3,877 4,628 5,671 6,592 7,681
Japan 1,006 1,492 2,023 2,617 3,301 3,997 4,801 5,894 6,902 8,090
CEIT 195 285 387 499 633 767 931 1,153 1,352 1,609
Article 5(1) 775 1,135 1,560 2,005 2,512 2,993 3,548 4,328 5,005 5,862
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 4,275 6,313 8,574 11,062 13,966 16,900 20,370 25,129 29,412 34,544
Page 214 of 241
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 9,781 11,076 11,604 12,551 11,152 9,115 7,326 4,884 2,442 -
CEIT 30 30 35 30 30 1,100 50 50 - -
Article 5(1) 94 127 193 214 227 360 572 511 738 700
Total Annual Production 9,905 11,233 11,832 12,795 11,409 10,575 7,948 5,445 3,180 700
Annual Production Allocation
North America 2,934 3,323 3,481 3,765 3,346 2,735 2,198 1,465 733 -
Western Europe and Australia 2,445 2,769 2,901 3,138 2,788 2,279 1,832 1,221 611 -
Japan 1,956 2,215 2,321 2,510 2,230 1,823 1,465 977 488 -
CEIT 519 584 615 658 588 1,556 416 294 122 -
Article 5(1) 2,051 2,343 2,514 2,724 2,457 2,183 2,037 1,488 1,227 700
Total Annual Production Allocation 9,905 11,233 11,832 12,795 11,409 10,575 7,948 5,445 3,180 700
Annual Emissions
North America 890 1,037 1,090 1,133 1,234 1,295 1,327 1,319 1,005 842
Western Europe and Australia 1,089 1,118 987 1,141 1,248 1,309 1,336 1,316 875 564
Japan 589 684 771 867 922 946 954 739 289 108
CEIT 239 274 305 337 329 570 379 309 254 189
Article 5(1) 1,001 1,055 1,091 1,255 1,369 1,445 1,501 1,456 1,421 1,352
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 3,807 4,168 4,244 4,734 5,101 5,564 5,497 5,140 3,844 3,056
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 4,055 4,449 4,539 5,054 5,386 5,696 5,596 5,208 3,884 3,065
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 66,121 77,197 88,801 101,352 112,504 121,619 128,945 133,829 136,271 136,271
CEIT 60 90 125 155 185 1,285 1,335 1,385 1,385 1,385
Article 5(1) 164 292 485 699 926 1,286 1,857 2,368 3,107 3,807
Total Cumulative Production 66,345 77,579 89,411 102,206 113,615 124,190 132,137 137,582 140,763 141,463
Page 215 of 241
Cummulative Production Allocation 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
North America 19,836 23,159 26,640 30,406 33,751 36,486 38,684 40,149 40,881 40,881
Western Europe and Australia 16,530 19,299 22,200 25,338 28,126 30,405 32,236 33,457 34,068 34,068
Japan 13,224 15,439 17,760 20,270 22,501 24,324 25,789 26,766 27,254 27,254
CEIT 3,366 3,950 4,565 5,223 5,810 7,366 7,782 8,076 8,199 8,199
Article 5(1) 13,389 15,731 18,245 20,969 23,427 25,609 27,646 29,134 30,361 31,061
Total Cummulative Production Allocation 66,345 77,579 89,411 102,206 113,615 124,190 132,137 137,582 140,763 141,463
Cummulative Emissions
North America 6,490 7,527 8,617 9,750 10,985 12,279 13,607 14,926 15,931 16,773
Western Europe and Australia 7,492 8,610 9,597 10,739 11,986 13,295 14,631 15,947 16,821 17,386
Japan 3,767 4,451 5,222 6,090 7,011 7,958 8,912 9,651 9,941 10,049
CEIT 1,477 1,751 2,056 2,393 2,722 3,291 3,670 3,979 4,234 4,423
Article 5(1) 6,477 7,532 8,623 9,878 11,246 12,691 14,192 15,648 17,068 18,420
Total Cummulative Emissions - Global Bank 25,704 29,872 34,115 38,849 43,950 49,514 55,011 60,151 63,995 67,051
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 27,362 31,811 36,351 41,404 46,790 52,486 58,083 63,291 67,174 70,239
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 13,346 15,632 18,023 20,655 22,767 24,207 25,077 25,223 24,951 24,109
Western Europe and Australia 9,038 10,689 12,603 14,599 16,140 17,110 17,606 17,511 17,246 16,682
Japan 9,457 10,988 12,538 14,181 15,490 16,366 16,877 17,114 17,313 17,205
CEIT 1,889 2,199 2,509 2,829 3,089 4,075 4,112 4,097 3,965 3,776
Article 5(1) 6,911 8,199 9,622 11,091 12,180 12,918 13,455 13,487 13,293 12,641
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 40,642 47,707 55,295 63,356 69,665 74,676 77,127 77,432 76,768 74,412
Page 216 of 241
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - 0 - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) 750 800 750 535 475 475 590 650 650 711
Total Annual Production 750 800 746 531 446 425 568 632 408 415
Annual Production Allocation
North America 52 26 84 66 140 241 178 82 84 104
Western Europe and Australia (52) (26) (89) (71) (169) (291) (200) (100) (326) (400)
Japan - - 0 - - - - - - -
CEIT - - 0 - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) 750 800 750 535 475 475 590 650 650 711
Total Annual Production Allocation 750 800 746 531 446 425 568 632 408 415
Annual Emissions
North America 814 788 763 740 718 699 683 665 646 627
Western Europe and Australia 542 523 504 485 466 444 421 462 551 356
Japan 51 51 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
CEIT 179 153 146 140 134 128 123 118 113 108
Article 5(1) 1,291 1,242 1,195 1,137 1,074 1,015 970 936 908 887
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 2,878 2,757 2,634 2,527 2,417 2,312 2,222 2,207 2,243 2,003
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 2,887 2,767 2,643 2,534 2,423 2,318 2,229 2,215 2,248 2,008
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 136,271 136,271 136,266 136,262 136,233 136,183 136,161 136,142 135,900 135,604
CEIT 1,385 1,385 1,385 1,385 1,385 1,385 1,385 1,385 1,385 1,385
Article 5(1) 4,557 5,357 6,107 6,642 7,117 7,592 8,182 8,832 9,482 10,193
Total Cumulative Production 142,213 143,013 143,758 144,289 144,735 145,160 145,728 146,359 146,767 147,182
Page 217 of 241
Cummulative Production Allocation 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
North America 40,933 40,959 41,044 41,110 41,250 41,491 41,670 41,752 41,835 41,939
Western Europe and Australia 34,016 33,990 33,901 33,830 33,661 33,370 33,169 33,069 32,743 32,343
Japan 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254
CEIT 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199
Article 5(1) 31,811 32,611 33,361 33,896 34,371 34,846 35,436 36,086 36,736 37,447
Total Cummulative Production Allocation 142,213 143,013 143,758 144,289 144,735 145,160 145,728 146,359 146,767 147,182
Cummulative Emissions
North America 17,587 18,375 19,138 19,878 20,596 21,296 21,979 22,644 23,290 23,917
Western Europe and Australia 17,927 18,450 18,954 19,439 19,905 20,349 20,771 21,233 21,784 22,140
Japan 10,100 10,151 10,177 10,202 10,227 10,252 10,278 10,303 10,328 10,353
CEIT 4,602 4,755 4,902 5,042 5,176 5,305 5,428 5,545 5,658 5,766
Article 5(1) 19,712 20,953 22,148 23,285 24,359 25,373 26,343 27,279 28,187 29,074
Total Cummulative Emissions - Global Bank 69,928 72,685 75,319 77,846 80,263 82,575 84,798 87,005 89,248 91,251
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 73,126 75,893 78,536 81,070 83,493 85,810 88,040 90,254 92,502 94,511
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 23,346 22,584 21,905 21,232 20,654 20,196 19,691 19,107 18,545 18,022
Western Europe and Australia 16,088 15,540 14,947 14,391 13,755 13,020 12,399 11,836 10,959 10,203
Japan 17,154 17,103 17,078 17,052 17,027 17,002 16,976 16,951 16,926 16,901
CEIT 3,596 3,443 3,297 3,157 3,022 2,894 2,771 2,653 2,541 2,433
Article 5(1) 12,099 11,658 11,213 10,611 10,012 9,473 9,093 8,807 8,549 8,373
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 72,284 70,328 68,439 66,443 64,472 62,584 60,930 59,355 57,519 55,931
Page 218 of 241
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) 650 200 200 200 200 - - - - -
Total Annual Production 620 167 183 152 164 (12) (11) (8) (3) (12)
Annual Production Allocation
North America 187 76 308 96 80 105 23 44 39 15
Western Europe and Australia (187) (109) (325) (144) (116) (118) (35) (53) (42) (28)
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT (30) - - - - - - - (0) -
Article 5(1) 650 200 200 200 200 - - (0) (0) (0)
Total Annual Production Allocation 620 167 183 152 164 (12) (11) (8) (3) (12)
Annual Emissions
North America 610 595 580 568 552 536 521 505 489 473
Western Europe and Australia 284 271 259 244 234 224 215 256 237 228
Japan 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
CEIT 103 98 94 90 86 82 79 75 72 69
Article 5(1) 866 814 754 700 651 593 535 482 435 392
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 1,887 1,803 1,711 1,627 1,547 1,460 1,374 1,343 1,258 1,187
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 1,895 1,805 1,713 1,628 1,549 1,460 1,374 1,343 1,258 1,187
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,604 135,571 135,555 135,507 135,470 135,458 135,447 135,439 135,436 135,424
CEIT 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355
Article 5(1) 10,843 11,043 11,243 11,443 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643
Total Cumulative Production 147,802 147,969 148,152 148,305 148,468 148,456 148,445 148,436 148,434 148,422
Page 219 of 241
Cummulative Production Allocation 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
North America 42,126 42,202 42,510 42,606 42,686 42,791 42,815 42,859 42,898 42,913
Western Europe and Australia 32,156 32,047 31,722 31,579 31,463 31,345 31,311 31,258 31,216 31,189
Japan 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254
CEIT 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,168 8,168
Article 5(1) 38,097 38,297 38,497 38,697 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897
Total Cummulative Production Allocation 147,802 147,969 148,152 148,305 148,468 148,456 148,445 148,436 148,433 148,421
Cummulative Emissions
North America 24,527 25,122 25,701 26,270 26,822 27,358 27,879 28,384 28,873 29,346
Western Europe and Australia 22,424 22,695 22,954 23,198 23,431 23,655 23,870 24,126 24,363 24,591
Japan 10,378 10,403 10,428 10,453 10,478 10,503 10,528 10,553 10,578 10,603
CEIT 5,869 5,967 6,060 6,150 6,236 6,318 6,396 6,472 6,544 6,613
Article 5(1) 29,940 30,754 31,508 32,208 32,858 33,451 33,986 34,468 34,903 35,295
Total Cummulative Emissions - Global Bank 93,138 94,941 96,652 98,279 99,826 101,286 102,660 104,003 105,261 106,448
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 96,406 98,211 99,924 101,553 103,102 104,562 105,936 107,279 108,537 109,724
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 17,599 17,080 16,809 16,336 15,864 15,433 14,935 14,475 14,025 13,567
Western Europe and Australia 9,732 9,352 8,769 8,381 8,031 7,690 7,441 7,132 6,853 6,597
Japan 16,876 16,851 16,826 16,801 16,776 16,751 16,726 16,701 16,676 16,652
CEIT 2,300 2,202 2,108 2,019 1,933 1,851 1,772 1,697 1,624 1,555
Article 5(1) 8,157 7,543 6,989 6,489 6,038 5,446 4,911 4,428 3,994 3,601
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 54,664 53,028 51,500 50,026 48,643 47,170 45,785 44,433 43,172 41,973
Page 220 of 241
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - -
Article 5(1) - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production (28) (30) (7) (2) (27) (65) (22)
Annual Production Allocation
North America 35 35 8 (1) (16) (5) -
Western Europe and Australia (63) (65) (14) (1) (11) (57) (22)
Japan - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - (0) - (2) (0)
Article 5(1) - - (0) - - (0) -
Total Annual Production Allocation (28) (30) (7) (2) (27) (65) (22)
Annual Emissions
North America 458 444 430 416 401 387 374
Western Europe and Australia 219 209 201 194 188 180 173
Japan 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
CEIT 66 63 61 58 56 53 51
Article 5(1) 354 319 288 259 234 211 190
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 1,122 1,060 1,004 952 903 856 812
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 1,122 1,060 1,004 952 903 856 812
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,396 135,365 135,359 135,357 135,330 135,268 135,246
CEIT 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355
Article 5(1) 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643
Total Cumulative Production 148,393 148,363 148,356 148,355 148,328 148,266 148,244
Page 221 of 241
Cummulative Production Allocation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
North America 42,948 42,982 42,990 42,990 42,973 42,969 42,969
Western Europe and Australia 31,126 31,061 31,047 31,046 31,035 30,977 30,955
Japan 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254
CEIT 8,168 8,168 8,168 8,168 8,168 8,165 8,165
Article 5(1) 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,896 38,896
Total Cummulative Production Allocation 148,393 148,362 148,356 148,354 148,327 148,262 148,240
Cummulative Emissions
North America 29,805 30,248 30,678 31,094 31,495 31,882 32,257
Western Europe and Australia 24,810 25,020 25,221 25,415 25,602 25,782 25,955
Japan 10,627 10,652 10,677 10,701 10,726 10,750 10,775
CEIT 6,679 6,742 6,803 6,861 6,916 6,970 7,020
Article 5(1) 35,649 35,968 36,256 36,515 36,749 36,960 37,150
Total Cummulative Emissions - Global Bank 107,570 108,630 109,634 110,586 111,489 112,345 113,157
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 110,846 111,906 112,910 113,862 114,764 115,621 116,433
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 13,143 12,734 12,312 11,896 11,478 11,086 10,712
Western Europe and Australia 6,316 6,041 5,826 5,631 5,433 5,195 5,000
Japan 16,627 16,602 16,578 16,553 16,528 16,504 16,479
CEIT 1,489 1,426 1,365 1,307 1,251 1,196 1,145
Article 5(1) 3,248 2,929 2,641 2,382 2,148 1,937 1,747
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 40,823 39,732 38,722 37,768 36,838 35,918 35,083
Page 222 of 241
Appendix D: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2021 for Halon 1211
Halon 1211 Summary in metric tonnes
YEAR 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan Production 50 100 200 300 500 700 900 1,260 1,700 2,200 2,750 3,300
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Production 50 100 200 300 500 700 900 1,260 1,700 2,200 2,750 3,300
Annual Production Allocation
North America 15 30 60 90 150 210 270 378 510 660 825 990
Western Europe and Australia 22 44 88 132 220 308 396 554 748 968 1,210 1,452
Japan 1 1 2 3 5 7 9 13 17 22 28 33
CEIT 3 5 10 15 25 35 45 63 85 110 138 165
Article 5 10 20 40 60 100 140 180 252 340 440 550 660
Total Annual Production Allocation 50 100 200 300 500 700 900 1,260 1,700 2,200 2,750 3,300
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 3 8 17 30 52 80 114 162 224 302 395 500
Western Europe and Australia 6 15 32 55 94 143 200 282 389 520 676 849
Japan 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 6 9 12 15 19
CEIT 0 1 2 4 7 11 16 23 32 43 57 73
Article 5 2 6 13 22 38 58 81 115 158 213 277 350
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 11 30 66 113 193 295 416 587 812 1,090 1,420 1,791
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 13 32 71 121 206 313 438 619 854 1,145 1,489 1,874
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 50 150 350 650 1,150 1,850 2,750 4,010 5,710 7,910 10,660 13,960
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Cumulative Production 50 150 350 650 1,150 1,850 2,750 4,010 5,710 7,910 10,660 13,960
Page 223 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
North America 15 45 105 195 345 555 825 1,203 1,713 2,373 3,198 4,188
Western Europe and Australia 22 66 154 286 506 814 1,210 1,764 2,512 3,480 4,690 6,142
Japan 1 2 4 7 12 19 28 40 57 79 107 140
CEIT 3 8 18 33 58 93 138 201 286 396 533 698
Article 5 10 30 70 130 230 370 550 802 1,142 1,582 2,132 2,792
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 50 150 350 650 1,150 1,850 2,750 4,010 5,710 7,910 10,660 13,960
Cumulative Emissions
North America 3 11 28 58 110 191 305 466 690 992 1,387 1,888
Western Europe and Australia 6 21 53 109 203 346 546 828 1,217 1,738 2,414 3,263
Japan 0 0 1 2 4 8 12 18 27 38 53 72
CEIT 0 1 4 8 15 26 42 65 97 141 197 270
Article 5 2 8 21 43 80 138 219 333 492 704 982 1,332
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 11 41 107 220 413 709 1,124 1,712 2,523 3,613 5,033 6,825
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 13 45 115 236 442 755 1,193 1,812 2,666 3,811 5,300 7,174
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 12 34 77 137 235 364 520 737 1,023 1,381 1,811 2,300
Western Europe and Australia 16 45 101 177 303 468 664 936 1,295 1,743 2,277 2,880
Japan 0 1 2 4 7 11 16 22 30 41 53 67
CEIT 2 6 14 25 42 66 95 135 188 255 336 428
Article 5 8 22 49 87 150 232 331 469 650 878 1,150 1,460
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 39 109 243 430 737 1,141 1,626 2,298 3,187 4,297 5,627 7,135
Page 224 of 241
Halon 1211 Summary in metric tonnes
YEAR 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan Production 2,750 3,300 3,800 4,356 5,000 5,650 6,280 6,910 6,689 7,485
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 0 0 0 0 0 210 266 336 425 538
Total Annual Production 2,750 3,300 3,800 4,356 5,000 5,860 6,546 7,246 7,114 8,023
Annual Production Allocation
North America 825 990 1,140 1,307 1,500 1,695 1,884 2,073 2,007 2,246
Western Europe and Australia 1,210 1,452 1,672 1,917 2,200 2,486 2,763 3,040 2,943 3,293
Japan 28 33 38 44 50 57 63 69 67 75
CEIT 138 165 190 218 250 283 314 346 334 374
Article 5 550 660 760 871 1,000 1,340 1,522 1,718 1,763 2,035
Total Annual Production Allocation 2,750 3,300 3,800 4,356 5,000 5,860 6,546 7,246 7,114 8,023
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 395 500 613 736 871 1,017 1,170 1,139 959 1,119
Western Europe and Australia 676 849 1,031 1,227 1,443 1,673 1,913 1,939 1,608 1,899
Japan 15 19 23 27 32 37 43 36 41 46
CEIT 57 73 90 108 129 151 175 199 219 242
Article 5 277 350 428 511 604 749 895 1,050 1,179 1,343
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 1,420 1,791 2,184 2,609 3,079 3,628 4,195 4,363 4,005 4,648
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 1,489 1,874 2,279 2,718 3,204 3,774 4,358 4,544 4,183 4,849
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 10,660 13,960 17,760 22,116 27,116 32,766 39,046 45,956 52,645 60,130
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 210 476 812 1,237 1,775
Total Cumulative Production 10,660 13,960 17,760 22,116 27,116 32,976 39,522 46,768 53,882 61,905
Page 225 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
North America 3,198 4,188 5,328 6,635 8,135 9,830 11,714 13,787 15,794 18,039
Western Europe and Australia 4,690 6,142 7,814 9,731 11,931 14,417 17,180 20,221 23,164 26,457
Japan 107 140 178 221 271 328 390 460 526 601
CEIT 533 698 888 1,106 1,356 1,638 1,952 2,298 2,632 3,007
Article 5 2,132 2,792 3,552 4,423 5,423 6,763 8,285 10,003 11,766 13,801
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 10,660 13,960 17,760 22,116 27,116 32,976 39,522 46,768 53,882 61,905
Cumulative Emissions
North America 1,387 1,888 2,501 3,237 4,108 5,125 6,294 7,433 8,392 9,511
Western Europe and Australia 2,414 3,263 4,293 5,520 6,962 8,636 10,548 12,488 14,095 15,994
Japan 53 72 95 123 155 192 235 271 312 359
CEIT 197 270 360 468 597 748 922 1,122 1,341 1,582
Article 5 982 1,332 1,760 2,271 2,875 3,624 4,519 5,568 6,747 8,090
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 5,033 6,825 9,009 11,618 14,697 18,325 22,519 26,882 30,888 35,536
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 5,300 7,174 9,453 12,171 15,375 19,149 23,507 28,052 32,235 37,083
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 1,811 2,300 2,827 3,398 4,027 4,705 5,419 6,353 7,401 8,528
Western Europe and Australia 2,277 2,880 3,521 4,211 4,969 5,781 6,632 7,733 9,068 10,463
Japan 53 67 82 98 116 135 155 188 214 243
CEIT 336 428 528 638 759 891 1,030 1,176 1,291 1,424
Article 5 1,150 1,460 1,792 2,152 2,548 3,139 3,766 4,435 5,019 5,711
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 5,627 7,135 8,751 10,498 12,419 14,651 17,003 19,886 22,994 26,369
Page 226 of 241
Halon 1211 Summary in metric tonnes
YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan Production 8,259 10,408 12,491 13,731 17,058 20,181 16,182 14,852 11,882 7,921
CEIT Production 0 30 30 30 35 35 80 700 50 50
Article 5 Production 680 1,061 1,342 1,658 2,049 2,545 3,074 3,717 4,646 7,002
Total Annual Production 8,939 11,499 13,863 15,419 19,142 22,761 19,336 19,269 16,578 14,973
Annual Production Allocation
North America 2,478 3,122 3,747 4,119 5,117 6,054 4,855 4,456 3,565 2,376
Western Europe and Australia 3,634 4,580 5,496 6,042 7,506 8,880 7,120 6,535 5,228 3,485
Japan 83 104 125 137 171 202 162 149 119 79
CEIT 413 550 655 717 888 1,044 889 1,443 644 446
Article 5 2,332 3,142 3,840 4,405 5,461 6,581 6,310 6,687 7,022 8,586
Total Annual Production Allocation 8,939 11,499 13,863 15,419 19,142 22,761 19,336 19,269 16,578 14,973
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 1,272 1,498 1,764 2,028 2,401 2,829 2,976 3,109 1,792 1,766
Western Europe and Australia 2,154 2,554 3,018 3,459 4,115 4,857 4,988 4,464 4,290 2,155
Japan 52 61 71 82 96 113 111 114 67 66
CEIT 266 308 352 404 472 554 624 731 710 668
Article 5 1,532 1,853 2,236 2,646 3,192 3,843 4,272 4,718 5,143 5,822
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 5,276 6,273 7,441 8,618 10,277 12,196 12,972 13,137 12,004 10,477
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 5,499 6,560 7,787 9,004 10,756 12,765 13,455 13,378 12,211 10,664
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 68,389 78,797 91,288 105,019 122,077 142,258 158,440 173,292 185,174 193,095
CEIT 0 30 60 90 125 160 240 940 990 1,040
Article 5 2,456 3,516 4,858 6,516 8,566 11,111 14,185 17,901 22,547 29,549
Total Cumulative Production 70,845 82,343 96,206 111,625 130,768 153,529 172,865 192,133 208,711 223,684
Page 227 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
North America 20,517 23,639 27,386 31,506 36,623 42,677 47,532 51,988 55,552 57,929
Western Europe and Australia 30,091 34,671 40,167 46,208 53,714 62,594 69,714 76,248 81,477 84,962
Japan 684 788 913 1,050 1,221 1,423 1,584 1,733 1,852 1,931
CEIT 3,419 3,970 4,624 5,341 6,229 7,273 8,162 9,605 10,249 10,695
Article 5 16,133 19,276 23,116 27,520 32,981 39,562 45,873 52,560 59,582 68,168
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 70,845 82,343 96,206 111,625 130,768 153,529 172,865 192,133 208,711 223,684
Cumulative Emissions
North America 10,783 12,281 14,045 16,072 18,473 21,302 24,278 27,387 29,180 30,945
Western Europe and Australia 18,148 20,702 23,720 27,179 31,294 36,151 41,139 45,603 49,893 52,048
Japan 411 471 543 624 721 834 945 1,060 1,127 1,193
CEIT 1,849 2,156 2,508 2,912 3,384 3,938 4,562 5,293 6,003 6,671
Article 5 9,621 11,474 13,710 16,356 19,549 23,392 27,664 32,382 37,526 43,348
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 40,812 47,084 54,525 63,143 73,421 85,617 98,588 111,725 123,729 134,206
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 42,583 49,143 56,930 65,934 76,690 89,455 102,910 116,288 128,499 139,162
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 9,734 11,358 13,342 15,433 18,150 21,375 23,254 24,600 26,373 26,983
Western Europe and Australia 11,943 13,969 16,447 19,030 22,420 26,443 28,575 30,645 31,583 32,913
Japan 273 317 370 426 500 589 639 673 725 738
CEIT 1,571 1,814 2,117 2,429 2,845 3,335 3,600 4,312 4,245 4,024
Article 5 6,512 7,802 9,406 11,164 13,432 16,170 18,209 20,177 22,056 24,820
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 30,033 35,259 41,681 48,482 57,347 67,912 74,276 80,408 84,982 89,479
Page 228 of 241
Halon 1211 Summary in metric tonnes
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan Production 3,960 0 0 (1) 0 (7) 0 (4) (1) (14)
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 8,713 10,448 11,250 14,180 12,124 8,175 6,265 4,278 3,599 2,954
Total Annual Production 12,673 10,448 11,250 14,179 12,124 8,169 6,265 4,274 3,598 2,940
Annual Production Allocation
North America 1,188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Europe and Australia 1,742 0 0 (1) 0 (7) 0 (4) (1) (14)
Japan 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 9,505 10,448 11,250 14,180 12,124 8,175 6,265 4,278 3,599 2,954
Total Annual Production Allocation 12,673 10,448 11,250 14,179 12,124 8,169 6,265 4,274 3,598 2,940
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 1,463 1,369 1,299 940 895 860 827 795 764 735
Western Europe and Australia 1,978 1,906 1,545 1,461 1,388 1,319 1,253 1,190 1,130 1,073
Japan 51 47 44 28 27 26 24 23 22 21
CEIT 330 298 275 254 235 217 200 185 171 158
Article 5 6,517 7,258 8,003 8,555 9,186 9,007 8,181 7,581 6,912 6,247
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 10,339 10,877 11,166 11,239 11,731 11,429 10,486 9,774 9,000 8,233
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 10,497 11,008 11,306 11,416 11,882 11,531 10,564 9,828 9,045 8,270
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 197,055 197,055 197,055 197,054 197,054 197,048 197,048 197,044 197,043 197,028
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5 38,262 48,710 59,960 74,140 86,264 94,439 100,704 104,982 108,581 111,535
Total Cumulative Production 236,357 246,805 258,055 272,234 284,358 292,526 298,791 303,065 306,663 309,603
Page 229 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
North America 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117
Western Europe and Australia 86,704 86,704 86,704 86,703 86,703 86,697 86,697 86,693 86,692 86,678
Japan 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971
CEIT 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893
Article 5 77,673 88,121 99,371 113,551 125,675 133,850 140,115 144,393 147,992 150,946
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 236,357 246,805 258,055 272,234 284,358 292,526 298,791 303,065 306,663 309,603
Cumulative Emissions
North America 32,408 33,777 35,075 36,015 36,910 37,771 38,598 39,393 40,157 40,892
Western Europe and Australia 54,026 55,933 57,478 58,939 60,327 61,646 62,899 64,088 65,219 66,292
Japan 1,244 1,290 1,334 1,362 1,389 1,415 1,439 1,462 1,485 1,506
CEIT 7,000 7,299 7,574 7,828 8,063 8,280 8,480 8,665 8,836 8,993
Article 5 49,865 57,123 65,126 73,681 82,866 91,874 100,055 107,636 114,548 120,794
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 144,544 155,421 166,587 177,826 189,556 200,985 211,470 221,244 230,244 238,478
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 149,659 160,667 171,974 183,390 195,272 206,802 217,366 227,194 236,239 244,509
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 26,709 25,340 24,041 23,101 22,206 21,346 20,519 19,723 18,959 18,225
Western Europe and Australia 32,678 30,772 29,226 27,764 26,376 25,051 23,798 22,604 21,473 20,386
Japan 727 680 637 608 582 556 531 508 486 464
CEIT 3,892 3,594 3,319 3,064 2,830 2,613 2,413 2,228 2,057 1,899
Article 5 27,808 30,998 34,245 39,870 42,808 41,976 40,060 36,757 33,444 30,151
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 91,813 91,383 91,468 94,408 94,801 91,541 87,321 81,821 76,419 71,125
Page 230 of 241
Halon 1211 Summary in metric tonnes
YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan Production (265) (184) (84) (332) (307) (112) (14) (12) (49) (51)
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 2,384 1,568 165 165 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Production 2,119 1,384 81 (167) (307) (112) (14) (12) (49) (51)
Annual Production Allocation
North America 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Europe and Australia (265) (184) (84) (332) (307) (112) (14) (12) (49) (51)
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 2,384 1,568 165 165 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Production Allocation 2,119 1,384 81 (167) (307) (112) (14) (12) (49) (51)
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 706 679 653 627 603 580 557 536 515 495
Western Europe and Australia 1,098 883 658 628 513 501 482 466 450 434
Japan 20 20 19 18 17 16 16 15 14 14
CEIT 146 134 124 115 106 98 90 83 77 71
Article 5 5,594 4,924 4,149 1,658 1,509 1,383 1,268 1,162 1,065 977
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 7,564 6,639 5,602 3,046 2,748 2,578 2,413 2,262 2,121 1,990
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 7,594 6,659 5,604 3,048 2,748 2,578 2,413 2,262 2,121 1,990
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 196,763 196,579 196,495 196,163 195,856 195,745 195,731 195,719 195,670 195,618
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5 113,919 115,487 115,652 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
Total Cumulative Production 311,722 313,106 313,187 313,020 312,713 312,601 312,588 312,576 312,526 312,475
Page 231 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
North America 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117
Western Europe and Australia 86,412 86,228 86,144 85,812 85,505 85,394 85,380 85,368 85,319 85,268
Japan 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971
CEIT 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893
Article 5 153,330 154,898 155,063 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 311,722 313,106 313,187 313,020 312,713 312,601 312,588 312,576 312,526 312,475
Cumulative Emissions
North America 41,598 42,277 42,930 43,557 44,160 44,739 45,296 45,832 46,347 46,842
Western Europe and Australia 67,389 68,272 68,930 69,558 70,071 70,572 71,054 71,519 71,969 72,403
Japan 1,527 1,546 1,565 1,583 1,600 1,616 1,632 1,647 1,661 1,674
CEIT 9,139 9,273 9,397 9,512 9,618 9,715 9,806 9,889 9,966 10,037
Article 5 126,389 131,313 135,462 137,120 138,629 140,012 141,280 142,443 143,508 144,485
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 246,042 252,681 258,283 261,330 264,077 266,655 269,068 271,329 273,451 275,441
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 252,103 258,762 264,366 267,414 270,162 272,740 275,153 277,414 279,535 281,525
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 17,518 16,839 16,187 15,560 14,957 14,377 13,820 13,285 12,770 12,275
Western Europe and Australia 19,023 17,956 17,214 16,254 15,434 14,822 14,326 13,849 13,350 12,865
Japan 444 424 406 388 371 355 339 324 310 296
CEIT 1,754 1,619 1,495 1,381 1,275 1,177 1,087 1,004 927 856
Article 5 26,941 23,585 19,601 18,108 16,599 15,215 13,947 12,785 11,720 10,743
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 65,680 60,425 54,903 51,690 48,635 45,946 43,520 41,246 39,076 37,035
Page 232 of 241
Halon 1211 Summary in metric tonnes
YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production (11) (11) (10) (3) 0 0 0
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Production (11) (11) (10) (3) 0 0 0
Annual Production Allocation
North America 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Europe and Australia (11) (11) (10) (3) 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Production Allocation (11) (11) (10) (3) 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 476 457 440 422 406 390 375
Western Europe and Australia 544 521 498 481 460 440 421
Japan 13 12 12 11 11 10 10
CEIT 66 61 56 52 48 44 41
Article 5 1,146 1,024 915 817 730 652 582
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 2,244 2,074 1,920 1,784 1,654 1,537 1,430
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 2,244 2,074 1,920 1,784 1,654 1,537 1,430
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 195,607 195,596 195,586 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
Total Cumulative Production 312,464 312,453 312,443 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Page 233 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
North America 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117
Western Europe and Australia 85,256 85,246 85,235 85,233 85,233 85,233 85,233
Japan 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971
CEIT 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893
Article 5 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 312,464 312,453 312,443 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Cumulative Emissions
North America 47,317 47,774 48,214 48,636 49,043 49,433 49,808
Western Europe and Australia 72,947 73,468 73,966 74,447 74,907 75,347 75,768
Japan 1,687 1,700 1,712 1,723 1,734 1,745 1,754
CEIT 10,102 10,163 10,219 10,271 10,318 10,362 10,403
Article 5 145,631 146,654 147,569 148,386 149,116 149,768 150,350
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 277,685 279,759 281,679 283,463 285,117 286,654 288,084
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 283,769 285,844 287,764 289,548 291,202 292,739 294,168
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 11,799 11,342 10,903 10,480 10,074 9,684 9,308
Western Europe and Australia 12,309 11,778 11,270 10,786 10,326 9,886 9,464
Japan 283 271 259 247 236 226 216
CEIT 790 730 674 622 574 530 490
Article 5 9,597 8,573 7,659 6,842 6,112 5,460 4,878
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 34,779 32,694 30,764 28,977 27,323 25,786 24,357
Page 234 of 241
Appendix E: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2021 for Halon 2402
Halon 2402 Summary in metric tonnes
Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 4 8 16 24 39 53 70 102 158 213 283 333
CEIT - - 30 30 50 50 100 275 275 275 275 550
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production 4 8 46 54 89 103 170 377 433 488 558 883
Annual Production Allocation
North America 1 2 4 6 10 13 18 26 39 53 71 83
Western Europe and Australia 2 4 7 11 17 24 32 46 71 96 127 150
Japan 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 11 14 17
CEIT - - 30 30 50 50 100 275 275 275 275 550
Article 5 1 2 4 6 10 13 18 26 39 53 71 83
Total Annual Production Allocation 4 8 46 54 89 103 170 377 433 488 558 883
Annual Emissions
North America 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 6 9 12 17 22
Western Europe and Australia 0 1 1 2 3 5 7 11 16 22 31 40
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 4
CEIT - - 4 5 9 12 20 46 60 73 85 130
Article 5 - 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 5 7 10 14
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 0 1 6 9 16 22 34 67 91 117 146 210
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 0 1 6 10 17 23 36 70 95 122 153 218
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 4 13 29 53 91 144 214 316 474 687 970 1,303
CEIT - - 30 60 110 160 260 535 810 1,085 1,360 1,910
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 4 13 59 113 201 304 474 851 1,284 1,772 2,330 3,213
Page 235 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
North America 1 3 7 13 23 36 54 79 118 172 242 326
Western Europe and Australia 2 6 13 24 41 65 96 142 213 309 436 586
Japan 0 1 1 3 5 7 11 16 24 34 48 65
CEIT - - 30 60 110 160 260 535 810 1,085 1,360 1,910
Article 5 1 3 7 13 23 36 54 79 118 172 242 326
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 4 13 59 113 201 304 474 851 1,284 1,772 2,330 3,213
Cumulative Emissions
North America 0 0 1 2 4 7 11 17 26 38 55 77
Western Europe and Australia 0 1 2 4 7 12 20 30 46 68 99 139
Japan 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 7 9 13
CEIT - - 4 9 18 30 50 96 156 228 313 443
Article 5 - 0 0 1 2 3 6 9 14 21 31 45
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 0 1 7 16 32 54 88 155 246 363 509 718
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 0 2 8 18 34 57 93 163 258 380 533 751
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 1 3 6 11 19 29 43 62 93 134 187 248
Western Europe and Australia 2 5 11 20 34 52 77 112 167 241 337 447
Japan 0 1 1 2 4 6 9 13 19 28 39 52
CEIT - - 26 51 92 130 210 439 654 857 1,047 1,467
Article 5 1 3 7 12 21 33 48 70 105 150 211 280
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 4 11 51 96 169 251 386 697 1,038 1,409 1,821 2,495
Page 236 of 241
Halon 2402 Summary in metric tonnes
Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 283 333 407 527 599 677 770 825 867 1,054
CEIT 275 550 550 550 550 550 1,100 2,200 2,200 2,200
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production 558 883 957 1,077 1,149 1,227 1,870 3,025 3,067 3,254
Annual Production Allocation
North America 71 83 102 132 150 169 192 206 217 263
Western Europe and Australia 127 150 183 237 269 304 346 371 390 474
Japan 14 17 20 26 30 34 38 41 43 53
CEIT 275 550 550 550 550 550 1,100 2,200 2,200 2,200
Article 5 71 83 102 132 150 169 192 206 217 263
Total Annual Production Allocation 558 883 957 1,077 1,149 1,227 1,870 3,025 3,067 3,254
Annual Emissions
North America 17 22 28 37 45 54 64 74 79 93
Western Europe and Australia 31 40 51 66 81 97 116 134 142 167
Japan 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 13 14 16
CEIT 85 130 155 178 200 221 308 490 592 687
Article 5 10 14 18 24 30 38 46 54 63 73
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 146 210 257 311 364 419 545 765 889 1,036
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 153 218 267 324 379 436 564 785 910 1,062
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 970 1,303 1,710 2,237 2,836 3,512 4,282 5,107 5,974 7,027
CEIT 1,360 1,910 2,460 3,010 3,560 4,110 5,210 7,410 9,610 11,810
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 2,330 3,213 4,170 5,247 6,396 7,622 9,492 12,517 15,584 18,837
Page 237 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
North America 242 326 428 559 709 878 1,071 1,277 1,493 1,757
Western Europe and Australia 436 586 770 1,007 1,276 1,580 1,927 2,298 2,688 3,162
Japan 48 65 86 112 142 176 214 255 299 351
CEIT 1,360 1,910 2,460 3,010 3,560 4,110 5,210 7,410 9,610 11,810
Article 5 242 326 428 559 709 878 1,071 1,277 1,493 1,757
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 2,330 3,213 4,170 5,247 6,396 7,622 9,492 12,517 15,584 18,837
Cumulative Emissions
North America 55 77 106 143 188 242 306 380 459 551
Western Europe and Australia 99 139 190 257 338 435 551 684 826 993
Japan 9 13 18 24 32 41 52 65 78 95
CEIT 313 443 597 776 976 1,197 1,505 1,995 2,587 3,274
Article 5 31 45 64 88 118 156 201 256 319 392
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 509 718 976 1,287 1,651 2,070 2,615 3,380 4,268 5,304
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 533 751 1,018 1,343 1,722 2,158 2,722 3,507 4,418 5,480
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 187 248 322 417 521 636 765 897 1,035 1,205
Western Europe and Australia 337 447 579 750 938 1,146 1,376 1,614 1,862 2,170
Japan 39 52 67 87 110 134 162 191 220 257
CEIT 1,047 1,467 1,863 2,234 2,584 2,913 3,705 5,415 7,023 8,536
Article 5 211 280 364 472 591 722 869 1,021 1,175 1,365
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 1,821 2,495 3,195 3,960 4,745 5,552 6,877 9,137 11,315 13,533
Page 238 of 241
Halon 2402 Summary in metric tonnes
Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 1,095 1,337 1,559 1,736 2,006 2,291 1,913 1,678 1,345 896
CEIT 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,300 2,200 2,450 2,450 1,800 1,391
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production 3,295 3,537 3,759 3,936 4,306 4,491 4,363 4,128 3,145 2,287
Annual Production Allocation
North America 274 334 390 434 502 573 478 419 336 224
Western Europe and Australia 493 602 702 781 903 1,031 861 755 605 403
Japan 55 67 78 87 100 115 96 84 67 45
CEIT 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,300 2,200 2,450 2,450 1,800 1,391
Article 5 274 334 390 434 502 573 478 419 336 224
Total Annual Production Allocation 3,295 3,537 3,759 3,936 4,306 4,491 4,363 4,128 3,145 2,287
Annual Emissions
North America 104 121 133 153 176 202 212 186 158 159
Western Europe and Australia 187 218 240 275 317 364 381 275 287 288
Japan 18 21 23 26 30 35 36 28 29 30
CEIT 777 862 942 1,017 1,099 1,158 1,163 1,050 1,076 1,085
Article 5 84 96 111 128 147 169 189 204 214 218
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 1,171 1,319 1,449 1,598 1,769 1,929 1,981 1,742 1,764 1,779
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 1,198 1,352 1,488 1,642 1,820 1,986 2,029 1,763 1,781 1,790
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 8,123 9,460 11,019 12,755 14,761 17,053 18,966 20,644 21,988 22,885
CEIT 14,010 16,210 18,410 20,610 22,910 25,110 27,560 30,010 31,810 33,201
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 22,133 25,670 29,429 33,365 37,671 42,163 46,526 50,654 53,798 56,086
Page 239 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
North America 2,031 2,365 2,755 3,189 3,690 4,263 4,742 5,161 5,497 5,721
Western Europe and Australia 3,655 4,257 4,958 5,740 6,643 7,674 8,535 9,290 9,895 10,298
Japan 406 473 551 638 738 853 948 1,032 1,099 1,144
CEIT 14,010 16,210 18,410 20,610 22,910 25,110 27,560 30,010 31,810 33,201
Article 5 2,031 2,365 2,755 3,189 3,690 4,263 4,742 5,161 5,497 5,721
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 22,133 25,670 29,429 33,365 37,671 42,163 46,526 50,654 53,798 56,086
Cumulative Emissions
North America 655 777 910 1,063 1,239 1,441 1,653 1,839 1,997 2,155
Western Europe and Australia 1,180 1,398 1,638 1,913 2,230 2,594 2,975 3,250 3,537 3,824
Japan 113 134 157 183 213 248 284 312 342 371
CEIT 4,051 4,914 5,855 6,872 7,971 9,129 10,292 11,342 12,418 13,503
Article 5 476 572 683 811 958 1,126 1,316 1,520 1,734 1,952
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 6,475 7,794 9,243 10,841 12,611 14,539 16,520 18,263 20,027 21,806
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 6,678 8,031 9,518 11,160 12,980 14,966 16,994 18,758 20,539 22,329
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 1,375 1,588 1,845 2,126 2,452 2,822 3,089 3,322 3,500 3,566
Western Europe and Australia 2,475 2,859 3,320 3,827 4,413 5,079 5,559 6,040 6,358 6,474
Japan 293 339 394 455 525 605 664 720 758 773
CEIT 9,959 11,296 12,555 13,738 14,939 15,981 17,268 18,668 19,392 19,698
Article 5 1,555 1,793 2,072 2,378 2,733 3,137 3,426 3,641 3,763 3,769
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 15,657 17,876 20,186 22,524 25,061 27,623 30,006 32,391 33,771 34,280
Page 240 of 241
Halon 2402 Summary in metric tonnes
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 448 - - - - - - - - -
CEIT 400 400 400 352 300 255 160 90 - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production 848 400 400 352 300 255 160 90 - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America 112 - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia 202 - - - - - - - - -
Japan 22 - - - - - - - - -
CEIT 400 400 400 352 300 255 160 90 - -
Article 5 112 - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation 848 400 400 352 300 255 160 90 - -
Annual Emissions
North America 155 130 110 107 103 100 97 93 90 88
Western Europe and Australia 281 237 200 194 187 181 175 170 164 159
Japan 29 24 21 21 20 20 19 18 18 17
CEIT 944 918 800 782 586 572 561 547 531 514
Article 5 216 207 195 184 174 164 155 146 138 130
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 1,623 1,516 1,327 1,287 1,070 1,037 1,007 975 942 908
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 1,629 1,516 1,327 1,287 1,070 1,037 1,007 975 942 908
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 33,601 34,001 34,401 34,753 35,053 35,308 35,468 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 56,934 57,334 57,734 58,086 58,386 58,641 58,801 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 241 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
North America 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Japan 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
CEIT 33,601 34,001 34,401 34,753 35,053 35,308 35,468 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 56,934 57,334 57,734 58,086 58,386 58,641 58,801 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Emissions
North America 2,310 2,440 2,551 2,657 2,760 2,860 2,957 3,050 3,141 3,228
Western Europe and Australia 4,105 4,342 4,542 4,735 4,923 5,104 5,279 5,449 5,613 5,772
Japan 400 424 445 466 486 506 525 543 561 579
CEIT 14,447 15,365 16,165 16,947 17,533 18,105 18,665 19,212 19,744 20,258
Article 5 2,168 2,375 2,570 2,755 2,929 3,093 3,248 3,394 3,531 3,661
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 23,430 24,946 26,273 27,560 28,631 29,668 30,674 31,649 32,590 33,498
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 23,958 25,474 26,802 28,089 29,160 30,196 31,203 32,177 33,119 34,027
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 3,523 3,393 3,283 3,176 3,073 2,973 2,876 2,783 2,692 2,605
Western Europe and Australia 6,395 6,158 5,958 5,764 5,577 5,396 5,220 5,051 4,887 4,728
Japan 766 743 721 701 680 661 642 623 605 588
CEIT 19,154 18,636 18,236 17,806 17,520 17,203 16,803 16,346 15,814 15,300
Article 5 3,665 3,458 3,263 3,079 2,905 2,741 2,586 2,440 2,302 2,172
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 33,504 32,388 31,461 30,525 29,755 28,973 28,127 27,242 26,301 25,393
Page 242 of 241
Halon 2402 Summary in metric tonnes
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - - - - -
Annual Emissions
North America 85 82 79 77 74 72 69 67 65 63
Western Europe and Australia 154 149 124 163 149 144 138 133 129 124
Japan 17 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 13 13
CEIT 497 481 465 450 436 422 408 395 382 369
Article 5 123 116 109 103 97 92 87 82 77 73
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 875 844 794 808 771 743 716 691 666 642
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 875 844 794 808 771 743 716 691 666 642
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5(1) - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 243 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
North America 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Japan 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Emissions
North America 3,313 3,395 3,474 3,551 3,625 3,697 3,766 3,833 3,898 3,961
Western Europe and Australia 5,926 6,074 6,198 6,361 6,510 6,654 6,792 6,925 7,054 7,178
Japan 595 612 628 643 658 673 687 701 714 727
CEIT 20,755 21,236 21,701 22,152 22,587 23,009 23,417 23,811 24,193 24,563
Article 5 3,784 3,900 4,009 4,112 4,209 4,301 4,388 4,469 4,546 4,619
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 34,373 35,217 36,011 36,819 37,590 38,334 39,050 39,741 40,407 41,049
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 34,902 35,746 36,540 37,348 38,119 38,862 39,579 40,269 40,935 41,577
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 2,520 2,438 2,359 2,282 2,208 2,136 2,067 2,000 1,935 1,872
Western Europe and Australia 4,574 4,425 4,302 4,139 3,990 3,846 3,708 3,574 3,446 3,322
Japan 571 555 539 523 508 494 479 466 452 439
CEIT 14,803 14,322 13,857 13,406 12,971 12,549 12,141 11,747 11,365 10,995
Article 5 2,049 1,933 1,824 1,721 1,624 1,532 1,445 1,364 1,287 1,214
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 24,518 23,674 22,880 22,072 21,301 20,557 19,841 19,150 18,484 17,842
Page 244 of 241
Halon 2402 Summary in metric tonnes
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Annual Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production - - - - - - -
Annual Production Allocation
North America - - - - - - -
Western Europe and Australia - - - - - - -
Japan - - - - - - -
CEIT - - - - - - -
Article 5 - - - - - - -
Total Annual Production Allocation - - - - - - -
Annual Emissions
North America 61 59 57 55 53 52 50
Western Europe and Australia 120 115 111 107 103 100 96
Japan 13 12 12 12 11 11 11
CEIT 357 346 335 324 313 303 293
Article 5 69 65 61 58 54 51 48
Total Annual Emissions - Global Bank 619 597 576 555 535 516 498
Total Annual Emissions with Production Loss 619 597 576 555 535 516 498
Cumulative Production
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5(1) - - - - - - -
Total Cumulative Production 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 245 of 241
Cumulative Production Allocation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
North America 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Japan 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Total Cumulative Production Allocation 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Cumulative Emissions
North America 4,022 4,081 4,138 4,193 4,246 4,298 4,348
Western Europe and Australia 7,298 7,413 7,524 7,631 7,735 7,834 7,930
Japan 740 752 764 776 787 798 809
CEIT 24,920 25,266 25,600 25,924 26,237 26,540 26,833
Article 5 4,688 4,753 4,814 4,871 4,926 4,977 5,025
Total Cumulative Emissions - Global Bank 41,668 42,264 42,840 43,395 43,930 44,447 44,944
Total Cum. Emissions w/ Production Loss 42,196 42,793 43,369 43,924 44,459 44,975 45,473
Global Inventory - Bank
North America 1,811 1,752 1,695 1,640 1,587 1,535 1,485
Western Europe and Australia 3,202 3,087 2,976 2,868 2,765 2,666 2,570
Japan 427 414 402 391 380 369 358
CEIT 10,638 10,292 9,958 9,634 9,321 9,018 8,725
Article 5 1,145 1,081 1,020 962 908 856 808
Annual Global Inventory - Bank 17,223 16,626 16,051 15,496 14,961 14,444 13,946
Page 246 of 241
Page 247 of 241