UPDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
HALON ALTERNATIVES
FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS1
(INFORMATION RELATED TO A39-WP/36)
1
This material is available in English only.
UPDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF HALON ALTERNATIVES
FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
1. Lavatory Systems
1.1 Halon replacement agents for aircraft lavatory fire protection systems that meet the
criteria for space and weight are now available and cost the same or less than the halon extinguishers
being replaced. Aircraft manufacturers have begun installing halon replacement agents in aircraft
lavatories; these installations are considered to be a “drop in” replacement. The International
Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA) reported that the 2011 halon
replacement timeframe called for in Assembly Resolution A37-9 have been met in new type design. For
additional information on halon alternatives for use in lavatory extinguishing systems, please refer to
Table 1 below.
1.2 Handheld fire extinguishers
1.2.1 Three halon alternatives (HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, and HCFC Blend B) are currently
available for use in aviation. However, they have weight and volume penalties that present installation
and operation challenges. Two of the alternatives are hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-236fa and HFC-227ea)
and have global warming potential (GWP) greater than Halon 1211 and are designated greenhouse gases
under the Kyoto Protocol. The third alternative agent for handhelds, HCFC Blend B-123, has a lower
ozone depleting potential (ODP) than Halon 1211, but national regulations may limit its use. Based on
these issues, airframe manufacturers may choose not to pursue further testing and certification for
installation of these alternatives. A fourth promising halon replacement agent known as
2-bromotrifluoropropene (2BTP) is awaiting final approval for manufacture in the United States. ICCAIA
reported that there is likely to be a 2-year slippage in meeting the 2016 halon replacement timeframe
called for in Assembly Resolution A37-9. For additional information on halon alternatives for use in
handheld fire extinguishing systems, please refer to Table 2 below.
1.3 Engine nacelle/auxiliary power unit (APU) extinguishers
1.3.1 Four potential halon alternatives, HFC-125, Novec 1230 (FK-5-1-12), FIC-13I1 and Powder
Aerosol F have been tested to the draft version of the Minimum Performance Standards (MPS) for
Aircraft Engine and APU Compartment Fire Extinguishing Agents/Systems (MPSe)5 and Halon 1301
equivalent minimum extinguishing concentrations were determined. However, further research and
development is needed with Novec 1230 and FIC-13I1. An engine nacelle/APU system using FK-5-1-12
was developed but it failed an FAA required live fire test using a cold soaked fire protection agent to
simulate low temperature use. Also, an engine nacelle/APU system based on the use of Powdered
Aerosol F failed an Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-required full-scale engine fire test that was a
supplemental requirement to the MPSe. Further work continues on both of these systems. Despite the fact
that HFC-125 has a relatively high global warming potential (GWP) and has increased space and weight
requirements that present installation and operational considerations, it is still successfully used by the
United State military and there is currently no prohibition on its use in aviation.
1.3.2 Concerns have been expressed as to the ability of industry to meet the requirements of
Annex 8 — Airworthiness of Aircraft for halon replacements in new aircraft design by 31 December 2014
due to setbacks in the development of Novec 1230 and Powdered Aerosol F systems.
-2-
1.3.3 To address these concerns and challenges based on the delays experienced with Novec 1230
and Powdered Aerosol F systems which have been under research and development for several years, an
Engine Nacelle/APU Halon Alternatives for Aircraft Propulsion Systems (HAAPS) Consortium is in the
process of finalizing a collaboration agreement to coordinate the efforts of industry in developing a
suitable replacement agent or agents. The consortium is expected to complete its work in 2018. The only
alternative agent available today which have passed the MPS1 testing and the SNAP3 assessment is
HFC-125. For additional information on halon alternatives for use in engine nacelle/APU extinguishing
systems, please refer to Table 3 below.
1.4 Cargo compartment
1.4.1 Research and development for halon replacement in cargo compartment fire suppression
systems is on-going. To date, there are no agents identified that could be used in cargo compartment fire
suppression systems. Two promising concepts using the mixture of CO2/nitrogen and water mist/nitrogen
that are able to meet the updated MPS1 requirements are being developed. However, the concepts require
significant development and acceptance due to their weight and volume penalties. In conclusion, more
research is needed in the development of halon alternatives for cargo compartments. For additional
information on halon alternatives for use in cargo compartment fire suppression systems, please refer to
Table 4 below.
1.4.2 The establishment of a timeframe for the replacement of halon in cargo compartment fire
suppression systems has been achieved. During the last ICAO International Halon Replacement
Coordinating Meeting (IHRCM/3), an approach was agreed upon to establish the Cargo Compartment
Halon Replacement Working Group (CCHRWG) under the umbrella of ICCAIA involving the major
aircraft OEMs. ICCAIA accepted the CCHRWGs terms of reference and work commenced on the
implementation of the mandate. CCHRWG coordinated a collaborative approach involving all
stakeholders and developed an industry recommendation for a halon replacement timeframe for cargo
compartment fire suppression systems.
1.4.3 The CCHRWG started looking at technology-readiness timeline and following definite steps,
ICCAIA proposed in its working paper a timeframe for “the replacement of halon in cargo compartment
fire suppression systems”. ICCAIA reported that the recommendation to ICAO was based on industry
expectations that a non-halon cargo compartment fire suppression system will be available for new
aircraft designs in approximately nine years. Therefore, a deadline for new Type Certification application
submittal on or after 31 December 2024 was recommended by the CCHRWG with no retrofit of existing
halon systems.
-3-
TABLE 1 – EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL HALON ALTERNATIVES
FOR USE IN LAVATORY EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS APPLICATION
Lavatory (Halon 1301)
Industry
Annex Date requirements
Acceptance
Currently produced aircraft after 31 December 2011
EU ECHA/ US EPA
Chemicals MPS1 REACH SNAP/TSCA Concern / comments
registered2 approved3
Halon 1301 N/A N/A N/A - According to the estimation of UNEP, halon 1301 will run out between 2034-2045. [d)]
- This application has the smallest use of halon estimated to be less than 0.5% of its total installed base
on aircraft. [d)]
(HFC-227ea) - Cost the same or less than the halon extinguisher being replaced. [e)]
- New production aircraft (Boeing) are installed with non-halon lavatory systems that contain
HFC-227ea. [e)]
- Bombardier and Embraer are replacing halon from the lavatory fire extinguishers on newly produced
aircraft, as of January 2013. [b)]
- Some airlines (Lufthansa) are replacing existing Halon 1301 lavatory systems with these alternative
systems during scheduled maintenance operations after ensuring that installation certification has
been approved. [e)]
- ICAO Resolution A37-9 and amendments to Annexes 6 and 8 of the Chicago Convention requiring
the use of halon replacements in lavatories for new production aircraft by December 31, 2011 and for
new designs by December 31, 2014 have largely been met. [e)]
(HFC-236fa) - Cost the same or less than the halon extinguisher being replaced. [e)]
- New production aircraft / in service (Airbus) are installed with non-halon lavatory systems that
contain HFC-236fa. [e)]
- Bombardier and Embraer are replacing halon from the lavatory fire extinguishers on newly produced
aircraft, as of January 2013. [b)]
- Some airlines are replacing existing Halon 1301 lavatory systems with these alternative systems
during scheduled maintenance operations after ensuring that installation certification has been
approved. [e)]
-4-
TABLE 2 – EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL HALON ALTERNATIVES
FOR USE IN HANDHELD EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS APPLICATION
Handheld (Halon 1211)
Industry
Annex Date requirements
Acceptance
New aircraft type designs after 31 December 2016
EU ECHA/ US EPA
Chemicals MPS1 REACH SNAP/TSCA Concern / comments
registered2 approved3
Halon 1211 N/A N/A N/A - According to United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP), no shortage of Halon 1211 has
been reported and thus, shortage will not be an issue for a short term.
Halotron 1 - Meet the MPS for UL 5BC rating4. [f)]
(HCFC Blend B) - Already available on the market, there are already larger fire extinguishers for ratings higher than
5BC. [f)]
- Subject to future Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) restrictions. [b)] [e)]
- Has increased space and weight characteristics that present installation and operational
considerations. [e)]
- Has environmental and toxicity concerns. [e)]
(HFC-236fa) - Meet the MPS for UL 5BC rating. [f)]
- Already available on the market, there are already larger fire extinguishers for ratings higher than
5BC. [f)]
- One aircraft manufacturer having applied for approval of a HCF-236fa (= DuPont FE-36) fire
extinguisher. [f)]
- Considerable GWP. [f)]
- Subject to future production phase-down of HFCs. [b)] [e)]
- Has increased space and weight characteristics that present installation and operational
considerations. [e)]
- Has environmental and toxicity concerns. [e)]
(HFC-227ea) - Meet the MPS for UL 5BC rating
- Already available on the market, there are already larger fire extinguishers for ratings higher than
5BC. [f)]
- Considerable GWP. [f)]
- Subject to a production phase-down of HFCs. [b)] [e)]
- Has increased space and weight characteristics that present installation and operational
considerations. [e)]
- Has environmental and toxicity concerns. [e)]
-5-
2-BTP - Not currently listed as a greenhouse gas or an ozone depleting substance. [e)]
- Potential to be a near “drop-in” replacement with minimal space and weight impact for some
aircraft. [e)]
- Limited supply chain (Status 2014). [b)]
- Uncertainties in agent and equipment availability. [f)]
- It is European Union (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
(REACH) registered and proving to be a promising agent without GWP impact and minor weight
and volume penalty. [f)]
- U.S EPA review of the applications under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)is not yet completed. [e)]
- The industry is already working on supply chain coordination and aircraft manufacturer
implementation. [e)]
TABLE 3 – EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL HALON ALTERNATIVES
FOR USE IN ENGINE NACELLE /APU EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS APPLICATION
Engine nacelle /APU (Halon 1301)
Annex date requirements Industry Acceptance
New type designs submitted after 31 December 2014
EU ECHA/ US EPA
Chemicals MPSe5 REACH SNAP/TSCA Concern / comments
registered2 approved3
Halon 1301 N/A N/A N/A - According to the estimation of UNEP, halon 1301 will run out between 2034-2045.
- Rise in price due to decreasing supply. [e)]
HFC-125 - Already used by military. [c)] [e)]
- Significant weight and volume penalty. [c)]
- Considerable GWP. [b)]
- Subject to a production phase-down of HFCs. [d)]
- Currently being developed for use on a military derivative of a large commercial aircraft (Boeing 767;
military derivative KC-46). [e)]
Novec 1230 (FK-5- - Failed an FAA required live fire test using a cold soaked agent and distribution system. [c)] [e)]
1-12) - The system needs further development. [e)]
FIC-13I1(CF3I) - Toxicity concerns. [c)]
Powdered Aerosol In progress - Failed an FAA required full-scale engine fire test that was a supplemental requirement to the MPSe. [e)]
F - The system needs further development. [e)]
-6-
TABLE 4 – EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL HALON ALTERNATIVES
FOR USE IN CARGO COMPARTMENT FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS APPLICATION
Cargo (Halon 1301)
Industry
Annex date requirements
Acceptance
No standard developed for the replacement of halon in cargo compartment fire suppression systems
EU ECHA/ US EPA
Chemicals MPS1 REACH SNAP/TSCA Concern / comments
registered2 approved3
Halon 1301 - According to the estimation of UNEP, halon 1301 will run out between 2034-2045. [d)]
- Rise in price due to decreasing supply. [e)]
CO2/nitrogen - Requires significant development and acceptance. Still a concept. [c)]
Water - This hybrid system represents significant installation and operational challenges. [e)]
Mist/Nitrogen gas - Design changes within the cargo compartment may be necessary to prevent water damage to
hybrid System aircraft systems and structures. [e)]
concept - Certification of non- gaseous systems is still an open issue
Water Mist - Cannot prevent an aerosol can explosion
Notes
1
Minimum performance standards (MPS) define full-scale fire tests to demonstrate that a replacement agent is equivalent to halon in terms of fire extinguishment/suppression
effectiveness. Moreover, the full-scale fire tests can be used to derive certification criteria to allow for the approval of new agents/extinguishers/systems by the regulatory
authorities. MPS are developed by the International Aircraft System Fire Protection Working Group (IASFPWG) formerly known as the International Halon Replacement Working
Group (IHRWG), along with certification requirements from airworthiness authorities. The working group is tasked to develop MPS for fire-extinguishing applications regarding
non-halon aircraft fire suppression agents/systems in cargo compartments, engine nacelles, handheld (portable) extinguishers, and lavatory waste receptacles. The IASFPWG is
international in scope, with active participation by the aviation industry, agent suppliers, extinguishing system companies, the international regulatory authorities and other
interested parties.
2
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) is a European Union regulation adopted to improve the protection of human health and the
environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals, while enhancing the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry. It also promotes alternative methods for the hazard
assessment of substances in order to reduce the number of tests on animals.
3
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) programme is established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and evaluate substitutes in
end-uses that have historically used ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
-7-
4
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) All Fire Extinguishers are tested by the Underwriters Laboratory for safety and performance and rated. The rating itself have a reference to the
type of fire in which they can be used and a numerical evaluation on the effectiveness against that type of fire. The combination of the letters and numbers associated with those
letters are the indicator of the size/intensity of the fire it can be effective against.
5
Minimum Performance Standards for Aircraft Engine and APU Compartment Fire Extinguishing Agents/Systems (MPSe) describes the conditions an aviation entity must
satisfy to acceptably use an alternate material to replace Halon 1301. MPS are developed by the International Aircraft System Fire Protection Working Group (IASFPWG)
formerly known as the International Halon Replacement Working Group (IHRWG) along with certification requirements from airworthiness authorities. The working group is
tasked to develop MPS for fire-extinguishing applications regarding non-halon aircraft fire suppression agents/systems in cargo compartments, engine nacelles, handheld (portable)
extinguishers, and lavatory waste receptacles. The IASFPWG is international in scope, with active participation by the aviation industry, agent suppliers, extinguishing system
companies, the international regulatory authorities and other interested parties.
References
[a)] BOEING, 2010, HALON REPLACEMENT FOR AIRPLANE PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS - PROGRESS REPORT 2014
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjljfPGgf3KAhWHMBoKHTqOB1kQFgg5MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fire.tc.faa.gov%2Fpdf%2Fsystems%2FOct14Meet
ing%2FMadden-1014-BTPupdate.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF1Hb_p-gjRJE7JUriD8t-Z5ydx0A&sig2=eRMEXjCudSfh7H1DgMSKKw
[b)] EASA, 2014, NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2014-26
https://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/NPA%202014-26.pdf
[c)] ICAO, OCTOBER 2015, REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL HALON REPLACEMENT COORDINATION MEETING THIRD MEETING (IHRCM/5)
[d)] UNEP, 2014, REPORT OF THE HALONS TECHINICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE VOLUME 1
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwj68bb_3PrKAhUBFT4KHbZOC1YQFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fozone.unep.org%2FAssessment_Panels%2FTEAP%2FR
eports%2FHTOC%2FHTOC%25202014%2520Assessment%2520Report.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG40m3e3XjzHOK9hbJ_C5RS6aCcTA&sig2=V32cNg4rbMng3jVI0LR1jg
[e)] FAA HALON ARC FINAL REPORT FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS DECEMBER 2014.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/document/information/documentID/1323
[f)] STATUS OF RESEARCH & TESTING TO REPLACE HALON EXTINGUISHING AGENTS IN CIVIL AVIATION.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjLpcCGpv3KAhUCdz4KHQzhC28QFggsMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nfpa.org%2F~%2Fmedia%2Ffiles%2Fresearch%2F
research-foundation%2Ffoundation-proceedings%2Fingerson.pdf%3Fla%3Den&usg=AFQjCNFbAIQ8Aj2xYCIF1MW0eZK1iEYV9g&sig2=d4m6zA7BT8-zgZqQbzCjXw
[g)] EU REACH REGISTERED
http://apps.echa.europa.eu/registered/data/dossiers/DISS-fb17a354-2b1c-55c5-e043-1cdf090acd41/DISS-fb17a354-2b1c-55c5-e043-1cdf090acd41_DISS-fb17a354-2b1c-55c5-e043-1cdf090acd41.html
— END —
Saatja: Moonika Käst <
[email protected]>
Saadetud: 29.04.2020 16:01
Adressaat: 'Compliance Monitoring Department' <
[email protected]>
Koopia: Maris Tasmans / SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>; Ruta Bogdane
/ SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>
Teema: RE: Õhusõidukite haloonikasutuste andmed/ Halons in/for Estonian ACFTs
Manused: image001.jpg; image002.png;
UPDATE_ON_THE_DEVELOPMENT_OF_HALON_ALTERNAT....pdf;
HTOC_assessment_2018.pdf
Hello!
Thank you for halon information.
A little reminder about critical halons used for the protection of lavatory waste receptacles:
According to COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 744/2010, one cannot use halons 1301, 1211, 2402
after the date 31 DEC 2020.
The information about alternatives can be found from attached PDF-s.
WBRGDS
Moonika Käst
Senior Inspector
Air Traffic Services and Aerodrome Department
Tel +372 610 3564
www.ecaa.ee | Lõõtsa 5, Tallinn 11415
Estonian Civil Aviation Administration
From: Compliance Monitoring Department [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 1:23 PM
To: Ruta Bogdane / SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>; Moonika Käst
<
[email protected]>
Cc: Maris Tasmans / SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Õhusõidukite haloonikasutuste andmed/ Halons in/for Estonian ACFTs
Dear Monika,
Please find attached requested information.
Please let me know if anything else is necessary.
Stay safe!
Best Regards,
Ruta
From: Ruta Bogdane / SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 8:43 AM
To: Moonika Käst <
[email protected]>
Cc: Maris Tasmans / SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>; Normunds Krontals /
SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Õhusõidukite haloonikasutuste andmed/ Halons in/for Estonian ACFTs
Dear Moonika,
Many thanks for Your email.
We will provide necessary information until mentioned deadline.
Wish to You a very good day ahead 😊
With very best regards,
Ruta
Ruta Bogdane
Compliance Monitoring Director
SmartLynx Airlines Ltd.
Phone: +37167869803
Mobile: +37128377793
www.smartlynx.aero
Leading ACMI and charter provider on Airbus A320 in the EU. IOSA certified.
This e-mail and any attachment(s) transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email.
Information, opinions or conclusions contained in this email that do not relate to the official business of SmartLynx Airlines will be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by SmartLynx Airlines. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail and attachments is strictly prohibited. SmartLynx Airlines does not accept
liability for damages caused by malware and/or defects transmitted by this e-mail.
From: Moonika Käst <
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:17 PM
To: Ruta Bogdane / SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>; Office Administrator
<
[email protected]>
Cc: Maris Tasmans / SmartLynx Airlines <
[email protected]>
Subject: Õhusõidukite haloonikasutuste andmed/ Halons in/for Estonian ACFTs
Hello again!
Previously I have sent a questionnaire what is in Estonian, but since I am not 100% sure, are you able to
read/understand the Estonian language, I`ll make a brief translation for you.
The questions are about halons, what are used in the Estonian aircrafts/for the Estonian ACFTs. The AO
answers are going to be used in the annual report to European Commission, according to (EU) IR nr
1005/2009.
The answers are expected to be by Purpose of use, Halon type (for example 1301, 1211, 2402), Quantity
in kilograms (kg).
For the protection of normally unoccupied cargo compartments/ Fixed system…
For the protection of cabins and crew compartments/ Portable extinguisher…
For the protection of engine nacelles and auxiliary power units/ Fixed system…
For the inerting of fuel tanks/ Fixed system…
For the protection of lavatory waste receptacles/ Fixed system…
For the protection of dry bays/ Fixed system…
The statistical reading must start from 01 FEB 2018 – 31 JAN 2019 (all together, not separately month by
months).
Would be very nice, if you could send back the numbers for date 17 May 2020.
WBRGDS
Moonika Käst
Senior Inspector
Air Traffic Services and Aerodrome Department
Tel +372 610 3564
www.ecaa.ee | Lõõtsa 5, Tallinn 11415
Estonian Civil Aviation Administration
From: Moonika Käst
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:38 PM
Subject: Õhusõidukite haloonikasutuste andmed
Tere!
Pöördun teie poole Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskuse palvega koondada andmed Eesti õhusõidukitel
paiknevate haloonide kohta,
all toodud kasutusalade kaupa:
Tavaliselt mehitamata lastiruumide kaitseks - paiksed süsteemid
Kabiinide ja meeskonnaruumide kaitseks – käsitulekustutid
Mootorigondlite ja abijõuallikate kaitseks - paiksed süsteemid
Kütusepaakide tuleohutuks muutmiseks - paiksed süsteemid
Tualettruumide jäätmemahutite kaitseks - paiksed süsteemid
Kuivruumide kaitseks - paiksed süsteemid
Haloonide laoseis (kui on)
Andmeid on vaja haloonitüübiti (näiteks haloon 1301, haloon 1211 ja 2402) ja 31. jaanuari 2019.a seisuga
(St 01.veebruar 2018 - 31.jaanuar 2019).
Andmed on vajalikud Euroopa Komisjonile igal aastal esitatava kriitiliste haloonikasutuste aruande jaoks
vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1005/2009 osoonikihti kahandavate ainete
kohta artiklile 26.
Andmeid ootan tagasi hiljemalt kuupäevaks 17.mai.2020.
Lugupidamisega
Moonika Käst
Vaneminspektor
Lennuliiklusteeninduse ja lennuväljade osakond
Tel +372 610 3564
www.ecaa.ee | Lõõtsa 5, Tallinn 11415
Lennuamet
Halons
Technical Options
Committee
2018
Assessment Report
Volume 1
Montreal Protocol
on Substances
that Deplete the
Ozone Layer Ozone Secretariat
MONTREAL PROTOCOL
ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE
THE OZONE LAYER
REPORT OF THE
HALONS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 2018
VOLUME 1
2018 ASSESSMENT REPORT
i
Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
Report of the
Halons Technical Options Committee
December 2018
Volume 1
2018 ASSESSMENT REPORT
The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman
Co-ordination: Halons Technical Options Committee
Composition of the report: Halons Technical Options Committee
Reproduction: Ozone Secretariat
Date: December 2018
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 Ozone Secretariat's
website:
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/R
eports/HTOC/HTOC_assessment_2018.pdf
No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with
acknowledgement of the source of the material.
ISBN: 978-9966-076-48-9
iii
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 organisations 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 organisations that employ them.
iv
Dedication
Since the last Assessment Report, a former member of the Halons Technical Options Committee has
passed away. This report is dedicated to the memory of:
Thomas A. Bush
Acknowledgements
The UNEP Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) 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:
Committee Co-chairs
Adam Chattaway
Collins Aerospace
United Kingdom
Dr. Sergey Kopylov
All Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection
Russian Federation
Dr. Daniel Verdonik
Jensen Hughes, Inc.
USA
Members
Jamal Alfuzaie
Consultant - retired
Kuwait
Johan Åqvist
FMV (Swedish Defence Materiel Administration)
Sweden
Youri Auroque
European Aviation Safety Agency
France
v
Seunghwan (Charles) Choi
Hanchang Corporation
South Korea
Dr. Michelle M. Collins
Consultant- EECO International
United States
Khaled Effat
Modern Systems Engineering - MSE
Egypt
Carlos Grandi
Embraer
Brazil
Laura Green
Hilcorp
USA
Elvira Nigido
A-Gas Australia
Australia
Emma Palumbo
Safety Hi-tech srl
Italy
Erik Pedersen
Consultant – World Bank
Denmark
Dr. R.P. Singh
Centre for Fire, Explosives & Environment Safety, Defence Research & Development Organisation
India
Donald Thomson
MOPIA
Canada
Mitsuru Yagi
Nohmi Bosai Ltd & Fire and Environment Prot. Network
Japan
vi
Consulting Experts
Pat Burns
Retired
USA
Thomas Cortina
Halon Alternatives Research Corporation
USA
Matsuo Ishiyama
Nohmi Bosai Ltd & Fire and Environment Prot. Network
Japan
Nikolai Kopylov
All Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection
Russian Federation
Steve McCormick
United States Army
USA
John G. Owens
3M Company
USA
John J. O’Sullivan
Bureau Veritas
UK
Mark L. Robin
Chemours
USA
Dr. Joseph A. Senecal
FireMetrics LLC
USA
Dr. Ronald S. Sheinson
Consultant – Retired
USA
Robert T. Wickham
Consultant-Wickham Associates
USA
vii
Peer Reviewers
The Halons 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 Halons 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.
Robin Bennett
Boeing (on behalf of CCHRAG)
USA
Jeff Gibson
American Pacific
USA
Dr. Steve Hodges
TARDEC Fire Protection Team
Alion Science & Technology
USA
Brendan Karchere
Conoco Phillips
USA
Dr. Alistair Manning
Met Office
United Kingdom
Pete Mullenhard
BMT Designers & Planners Inc.
USA
Yoshio Ogawa
National Research Institute of Fire and Disaster
Japan
Juan Carlos Pinzón
Avianca
Columbia
viii
Bill Pollits
H3R
USA
Dr. Terry Simpson
Collins Aerospace
USA
ix
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Structure of this Report ................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Background ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Impact of the Montreal Protocol on the Fire Protection Sector .....................................9
2.3 References ....................................................................................................................11
3 Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs, and HFCs ...................................................... 13
3.1 Halons ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 The Success of Halons in Fixed Systems .....................................................................13
3.2 Impacts of the Kigali Amendment on the fire protection sector ................................. 13
3.3 Lack of New Alternatives ........................................................................................... 15
3.4 Initial Substitutes in the Former Halon Sector............................................................ 16
3.4.1 General .........................................................................................................................16
3.4.2 Alternatives in General Use .........................................................................................16
3.4.3 CF3I ..............................................................................................................................17
3.4.4 Agent Alternatives for Fixed Systems ..........................................................................17
3.4.5 Agent Alternatives in Portable Extinguishers ..............................................................21
3.4.6 Paths Forward ...............................................................................................................22
3.4.7 New and emerging technologies entering commercial use ..........................................23
3.5 References ................................................................................................................... 24
4 Long Term Halon, HCFC, and HFC Uses ................................................................................. 25
4.1 Civil Aviation .............................................................................................................. 25
4.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................25
4.1.2 Estimated Halon Installed Base and Emissions ...........................................................25
4.1.3 Estimates of When Halon 1301 Might Run Out ..........................................................26
4.1.4 Status of Halon Replacement Options..........................................................................31
4.1.5 New Generation Aircraft ..............................................................................................34
4.1.6 Crash Rescue Vehicles ..................................................................................................34
4.2 Military Applications .................................................................................................. 35
4.2.1 Military Ground Vehicle Applications..........................................................................38
4.2.2 Military Aviation Applications .....................................................................................41
xi
4.2.3 Military Naval Applications .........................................................................................42
4.2.4 Military Applications Summary ...................................................................................43
4.3 Pipelines / Oil and Gas................................................................................................ 43
4.3.1 Existing Facilities .........................................................................................................44
4.3.2 New Facilities ...............................................................................................................45
4.4 Telecommunications and Computer Rooms (Electronics) ......................................... 45
4.5 Merchant Ships ........................................................................................................... 47
4.5.1 Background ..................................................................................................................47
4.5.2 Estimated Halon 1301 Installed on Merchant Ships ....................................................47
4.5.3 References ....................................................................................................................50
5 Global Estimates of Halons and HFC Fire Extinguishing Agent Quantities ............................ 53
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53
5.2 Emissions and Inventories of Halons.......................................................................... 54
5.2.1 Halon 1301 ...................................................................................................................54
5.2.2 Halon 1211 ...................................................................................................................65
5.2.3 Halon 2402 ...................................................................................................................76
5.3 HFC Estimates ............................................................................................................ 86
5.3.1 HFC-227ea Estimates ...................................................................................................86
5.3.2 HFC-125 Estimates ......................................................................................................88
5.3.3 HFC-23 Estimates ........................................................................................................89
5.3.4 HFC-236fa Estimates ...................................................................................................89
5.4 Global Halon, HCFC, and HFC Banking ................................................................... 89
5.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................89
5.4.2 HCFC and HFC Banking .............................................................................................90
5.4.3 Halon 1211 and 1301 Banking .....................................................................................91
5.4.4 Halon 2402 Banking .....................................................................................................92
5.4.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................93
5.5 References ................................................................................................................... 94
6 Recommended Practices for Recycling Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire
Extinguishing Agents. .............................................................................................................. 97
7 Emission Reduction Strategies .................................................................................................. 99
8 Destruction Technologies ........................................................................................................ 103
8.1 References ................................................................................................................. 104
xii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................... 105
Appendix B: Definitions ................................................................................................................. 107
Appendix C: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2018
for Halon 1301 .......................................................................................................113
Appendix D: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2018
for Halon 1211 ...................................................................................................... 124
Appendix E: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2018
for Halon 2402 ...................................................................................................... 136
xiii
1 Executive Summary
Impact of the Kigali Amendment
1. Following the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the role of the Halons Technical
Options Committee (HTOC) has broadened in that it now has to cover alternatives to high-
Global Warming Potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as well as halons and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and their alternatives. This has a number of consequences
for the HTOC:
a) Each of the chapters in this report has been revised to cover this expanded scope
b) All Supplementary Reports and Technical Notes have been revised to cover this expanded
scope
2. The initial Kigali production phase down of 10% in non-Article 5 parties is unlikely to have a
significant impact on the availability of HFCs for fire protection.
Alternatives to Halons, HFCs and HCFCs
1. Halons are remarkably good fire extinguishants. Following their production phase-out, only
25% of system applications were replaced with “in-kind” solutions (vaporizing liquids that left
no residue and acceptable toxicity), the other 75% being various other “not-in-kind” solutions
(e.g., sprinklers, water mist, foam, dry chemical, CO2). For portable extinguishers, the split is
approximately 20% “in-kind” and 80% “not-in-kind”.
2. Since the 2014 Assessment Report, no substantial progress on potential alternatives has been
reported. A hydrochlorofluoro-olefin, HCFO-1233zd(E) (HClC=CHCF3), was proposed but has
subsequently been withdrawn. More recently, the manufacturer has proposed a blend of this
agent with the fluoroketone FK-5-1-12 (CF3CF2COCF(CF3)2). A recent interest has been
growing for trifluoroiodomethane (CF3I) as a total flooding agent in aviation-related normally
unoccupied spaces such as Engine/ auxiliary power units (APU) applications.
3. Nevertheless, the HTOC is of the opinion that although research to identify potential new fire
protection agents continues, it could be several years before a viable agent could possibly have
significant impact on the fire protection sector. This could be as little as five years if the agent
has undergone some development (e.g. CF3I) or as much as ten years if the agent is only in the
research and development phase.
Civil Aviation
1. The fire extinguishant 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, CH2=CBrCF3, (2-BTP) is now
commercialized and qualified for civil aviation use to replace halon 1211. Although it does
contain a bromine atom, it degrades in the troposphere, meaning that it has a short atmospheric
lifetime and thus a low GWP and Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP). It is the closest to a “drop-
in” replacement for halon 1211 in portable extinguisher applications. Two companies now offer
portable extinguishers containing 2-BTP and have started supplying major aircraft
Page 1 of 147
manufacturers on a platform-by-platform basis. The transition to 2-BTP for newly produced
aircraft is ongoing.
2. Despite over 20 years of research, the civil aviation industry has failed to find any replacements
for halon 1301 that they deem to be acceptable from an efficiency perspective (i.e., space and
weight), a toxicity perspective or both. Given the anticipated 25–40-year lifespan or more of a
newly produced civil aircraft, halon 1301 dependency is likely to continue beyond the time
when recycled halon is readily available.
3. Although the HTOC has previously reported that this situation might result in civil aviation
submitting an Essential Use Nomination (EUN), the impact could be broader. Since most other
enduring users of halon 1301 do not have long-term, dedicated stockpiles, they are also vying
for the same halon supplies that civil aviation is reliant on. 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).
4. To determine the potential availability of halon 1301 to support civil aviation and other
enduring users, a model using various scenarios was developed 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. Based on the results of this
analysis, the estimated available halon 1301 supplies for replacing halon emitted from most
existing active fire protection systems in aviation and non-aviation applications (e.g., oil and gas
facilities, nuclear facilities, and military installed/reserves) as well as new aviation demand are
projected to run out by years 2032 to 2054, depending on estimates of the initial total worldwide
supply in 2018 and annual emission rates used in the model. It should be noted that
organizations that have long term, dedicated stockpiles such as certain militaries may be capable
of providing support for their specific applications well beyond this timeframe.
Work is ongoing in the Halon Alternatives for Aircraft Propulsion Systems (HAAPS) Industry
Consortium, whose aim is to define common non-halon fire extinguishing solution(s) for use in
engine nacelles and APUs. The industry Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Advisory
Group is conducting a technical assessment on alternatives and will report to ICAO next year.
5. A recent Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Working Group Report
concluded that there was some likelihood that there might be Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting
(ARFF) applications that would continue to need clean agents (i.e., those that vaporize and
leave no residue) in the 2020 - 2030 timeframe that currently can only be met through the
supply of halon 1211 or HCFC Blend B (mostly HCFC-123, with PFC-14 1 and argon). The
most recent estimate is that between 120 and 450 tonnes of HCFC Blend B will be required per
year. FK-5-1-12 has recently been evaluated in ARFF vehicle applications but the results have
not been published at the time of writing this report.
6. In November 2018, the parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to adjust the Protocol and
adopted a corresponding Decision XXX/2 to allow the use of newly produced HCFCs for the
1
PFC-14 is an extremely stable compound with an estimated atmospheric life time of 50,000 years and a GWP of
7,390(AR4) / 6,630 (AR5)
Page 2 of 147
servicing of niche applications such as fire suppression and fire protection equipment existing
on 1 January 2020 for the period 2020-2029 for non-A5 parties and also on existing equipment
in 1 January 2030 for the period 2030-2039 for A5 parties.
Military Applications
1. Military fire protection systems are unique in that besides protecting against ‘peacetime’ fires
from routine use, they must protect personnel and platforms from the consequences of combat
damage. These fires are generally very fast-growing and relatively large and military fire
protection systems must counter these threats and, in many cases, while allowing occupants to
remain in the affected spaces.
2. Alternatives have been adopted where they have been found to be technically and economically
feasible. For new designs, there are virtually no applications where a halon must be used
although there are many applications where the only alternative is a high GWP HFC, i.e., there
are no low-GWP alternatives for those applications. In legacy (existing) designs, there are
several applications where neither suitable halon nor HFC alternatives exist. Therefore, in these
applications halons and high-GWP HFCs are the only viable fire and explosion protection
solutions that maintain parties’ levels of national security and safety of their military personnel
and equipment. This will, in all likelihood, continue to be the case for both new designs and
legacy systems for the foreseeable future.
Oil & Gas Operations
1. Generally speaking, halon 1301 is only required to support enduring legacy facilities for the
foreseeable future and all new facilities are halon-free but depending upon the climate (i.e., low
temperature), might require HFC-23 which is a very high GWP (12,400 in Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 5).
2. Legacy facilities in certain geographic locations will continue to require the use of halons in
occupied spaces owing to severe ambient (very low temperature) conditions.
Telecommunications and Computer Rooms
1. In the early 1990s, the HTOC estimated that telecommunications and computer rooms
accounted for about 65% of the annual use of halon 1301. Since then a wide range of “in-kind”
and “not-in-kind” alternatives have been adopted for new applications. Only a portion of the
halon replacement went to high GWP HFCs, mainly HFC-227ea and lesser amounts of HFC-
125.
2. There is significant geographical variation in the type of alternatives being employed; in some
regions the HFCs are the market leader, whereas in others inert gas systems predominate. The
fluoroketone FK-5-1-12 is also a significant alternative.
Merchant Shipping
1. Under International Maritime Organization (IMO) resolution MSC.27(61), halon 1301 ceased
being installed in merchant shipping at the end of 1993. It has been estimated that the total
Page 3 of 147
halon 1301 installed at that time was 3,775 metric tonnes. As the ships with halon 1301 installed
come to the end of their lives, they are decommissioned and some fraction of that halon 1301
becomes available for other applications, but this fraction is not known. Depending on the
assumed lives of the ships containing halon 1301, this limited supply is estimated to continue to
be available through 2023 (assuming 30-year lives) to 2033 (assuming 40-year lives).
Global Estimates of Halons and HFC Fire Extinguishing Agent Quantities
1. The estimated size of the global halon banks at the end of 2018 are: halon 1301 - 37,750 metric
tonnes; halon 1211 - 24,000 metric tonnes; and halon 2402 - 6,750 metric tonnes. Although
regional disparities in the distribution of a halon itself does not necessarily constitute a regional
imbalance, it is anticipated that imbalances may result in shortages in one country or region
with excesses in other countries or regions.
2. The rates of halon 1301 emissions based on atmospheric measurements of halon 1301
concentrations are generally similar to the emission rates based on the HTOC model. However,
emissions based on atmospheric measurements appear to have been higher for short periods of
time. This suggests additional emissions but HTOC is unaware of any singular current fire
protection use that could account for the higher levels of emissions as they are at least an order
of magnitude higher than the largest single fire protection systems known to exist. One
potential source of emissions is from shipbreaking activities. Additionally, halon 1301
continues to be produced as a feedstock for the pesticide Fipronil, whose emissions are not be
accounted for in the HTOC model but are included in the emission estimates based on
atmospheric measurements.
3. A possible consequence of this discrepancy is that the overall size of the halon 1301 bank might
be up to ~25% smaller and the global emissions higher than estimated through the HTOC
model. As halon 1301 stocks continue to be depleted this difference becomes even more
significant. The combination of a potential higher emission rate than assumed by the HTOC and
a smaller bank of halon 1301 could also imply that there is going to be significantly less halon
1301 available to support on-going needs in civil aviation, oil and gas, militaries, etc., which
could result in a much sooner “run-out date” of 2032 to 2054 as discussed in the Civil Aviation
section.
4. The rates of halon 1211 emissions based on atmospheric measurements of halon 1211
concentrations were generally similar to the rates of emissions based on the HTOC model up to
approximately 2002. Thereafter the emissions estimated by the two techniques diverge, with
emissions based on atmospheric measurements being higher.
5. HTOC is aware that in some places in the world, large amounts of halon 1211 were not allowed
to be re-used so there was no economic reason to prevent emissions. As the HTOC model is
based on the best handling practices over time, the lack of handling by professional servicers
makes the estimation of emission factors difficult at best. Therefore, HTOC believes that it is
certainly possible that the emissions are higher than the HTOC model predicts. The HTOC
model might come back into closer agreement with emissions estimated from atmospheric
Page 4 of 147
measurements once the non-professionally managed halon 1211 is emitted and emission rates
are more predictable.
6. The HTOC estimates that the majority of halon 2402 remains in the former Countries with
Economies in Transition. The HTOC model’s emissions estimates are generally higher than
those based on atmospheric measurements but are within the range of uncertainty of the
atmospheric data.
7. A model was developed to estimate HFC-227ea (the main HFC used to replace halon 1301)
emissions from fire protection and the size of the bank. As of the end of 2018, the total
estimated emissions from fire protection applications is about 3,400 metric tonnes. Assuming a
global average annual emission rate of 2.5%, the global HFC-227ea fire protection bank at the
end of 2018 is estimated to be about 130,000 metric tonnes. While there is insufficient
information available to estimate the emissions and banks of the other HFCs used in fire
protection, the HTOC believes that they are much smaller than the HFC-227ea emissions and
bank.
8. Many parties have halon banking programs that are fully operational, but more parties have
implemented only partial programs, or none at all, 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 it is a
straightforward step to expand those programs, practices, and processes to include HCFCs and
HFCs. Use of HCFCs in fire protection is much smaller than the use of HFCs and as of now
recovery of HCFCs is somewhat limited. The banking of HCFCs is in its infancy. Recovery of
HFCs in fire protection is meeting as much as 75% of servicing requirements for existing fire
protection equipment. Some banking of HFCs is occurring, primarily in parties who have well-
established halon banking programs such as Australia, Japan, and the U.S.
9. The HTOC has a continuing concern regarding the historical knowledge that has been lost 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 fire extinguishing agent management but not being familiar with the issues surrounding
halocarbon use, recycling, and banking. The HTOC notes that this is becoming more and 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 consider addressing awareness
programmes to re-establish this apparent loss in institutional memory.
Recycling, Emission Reduction Strategies and Destruction
1. Many, if not all, of the recommended practices for recycling or reclaiming halons will also
apply to other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents. Quality testing of blended agents
is needed to determine whether recycling or reclamation processes will need to be applied to
return them back to their original quality specifications. Where agents are made up of
halogenated blends, recycling will reduce physical contaminants like acidity, water content,
particulate matter and nitrogen (if the agents have been pressurized). On the other hand,
reclamation procedures involving a form of distillation may be required to separate the blended
components and rectify their respective purities before they are re-blended in order to meet the
Page 5 of 147
overall purity requirements of the agent. From time to time, depending on the agent's overall
quality, it may need to be subjected to both recycling and distillation. Virtually all of the
recommended halon emission reduction strategies will also apply to other halogenated gaseous
fire extinguishing agents.
2. Owing to the continued global demand in applications such as civil aviation, oil and gas, and
militaries, the HTOC continues to recommend that destruction as a final disposition option
should be considered only if the halons are contaminated and cannot be reclaimed to an
acceptable purity. The HTOC recommends extending this same practice to all halogenated fire
extinguishants.
3. Destruction of halons presents some unique considerations. Therefore, technologies that are
recommended for CFC and HCFC destruction, but have not been tested for halon destruction,
are described as only being potential technologies for halon destruction. As there is nothing
particularly different with the HFC fire extinguishants, much less concern with their destruction
is anticipated. The one exception to this general principle is HFC-23, which was considered by
the Task Force on Destruction Technologies to be in a separate category from the other HFCs, as
it is more thermally stable.
Page 6 of 147
2 Introduction
2.1 Structure of this Report
The 2010 Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Assessment report was a long and
somewhat unwieldy document, with a high proportion of static or unchanged data. The HTOC felt
that placing these data in two Supplementary Reports and five Technical Notes would improve the
readability of the 2014 Assessment Report. As a result, the 2014 Assessment report was
substantially shorter than the 2010 report. However, subsequent feedback indicated the 2014
Assessment report was too brief and did not contain enough information. Therefore, the HTOC
2018 Assessment Report contains more detail (key background information and any significant
updates), with additional reference material remaining in the revised (2018) Technical Notes and
Supplementary Reports, produced by the Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC), as follows
Supplementary Report #1, Volume 2 - Civil Aviation
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/HTOC_supplement_report1_2018.pdf
Supplementary Report #2, Volume 3 - Global Halon, HCFC, and HFC Banking
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/HTOC_supplement_report2_2018.pdf
Technical Note #1, Revision 5 - Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs and HFCs
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/technical_note1_2018.pdf
Technical Note #2, Revision 3 - Emission Reduction Strategies for Halons and Other Halogenated
Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/technical_note2_2018.pdf
Technical Note #3, Revision 3 - Explosion Protection: Halon Use and Alternatives
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/technical_note3_2018.pdf
Technical Note #4, Revision 2 - Recommended Practices for Recycling Halons and Other
Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/technical_note4_2018.pdf
Technical Note #5, Revision 2 – Destruction Technologies for Halons and Other Halogenated
Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/technical_note5_2018.pdf
Additionally, to improve readability and improve the logical flow, some of the 2014 Assessment
Report Chapters have been merged together in this Assessment report.
Page 7 of 147
2.2 Background
Halons are compounds consisting of carbon, bromine and other halogens, such as fluorine and
chlorine used almost exclusively as fire extinguishants. Halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane) was
developed in 1954 in a joint venture between the United Sates (U.S.) Army and the DuPont
company for use in portable fire extinguishers in ground combat vehicles and was later expanded
for use in fixed gaseous-agent fire suppression systems. Halon 1301 has a normal boiling point of -
57.7 °C. Halon 1301, when dispersed into and throughout a protected enclosure (a method called
“total flooding”) at a concentration of 5 vol. % in air, rapidly extinguishes flames of ordinary
combustibles. Further, halon 1301 at 5 vol. % in air is safe to breathe in the event that it is
discharged accidentally and without warning into an occupied space. In many applications, halon
1301 was a substitute for carbon dioxide, which is lethal at fire extinguishing concentrations.
Additionally, the quantities of toxic decomposition products produced from halon 1301 in the
course of extinguishing a fire are low enough to protect occupied spaces in military vehicles, where
prompt egress under combat conditions may not be feasible, i.e., require longer exposure times than
in other occupied uses. Further, the economics of using halon 1301 were frequently favorable with
the result that it was widely adopted in many land-based, marine, and aerospace applications.
Halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane) was introduced as an effective fire suppression agent in
the mid-1960s. It has a boiling point of -3.7 °C making it volatile enough for use as a total-flooding
agent, but it is not safe to breathe at effective total-flooding use concentrations. However, halon
1211 was found to be extremely effective as a “streaming” agent where it was applied directly on or
about burning materials. The toxicity of halon 1211 is low enough that, under normal use by trained
personnel, inhalation of diluted vapors in air is safe. Nearly all commercial aircraft carry halon 1211
handheld fire extinguishers. Only in 2017 did the first in-kind, non-halon 1211 handheld
extinguisher units begin to be installed in commercial aircraft.
Other compounds designated as halons, in particular halon 2402 (1,2-dibromotetrafluoroethane),
have been used as fire extinguishants but are too toxic for use in occupied enclosed spaces. On
November 8, 2008, a fire extinguishing system on a submarine charged with halon 2402 was
accidentally released, resulting in the deaths of 20 people. 2
The effectiveness of halons as fire extinguishants derives from the ease with which the bromine
atom (Br) is released from the molecule upon exposure to flames. Bromine atoms act to suppress
heat release from flames through a complex series of elementary chemical reactions that lead to the
reduction in the concentration of free radicals, which, in turn, are responsible for the stepwise
conversion of fuel species (e.g., hydrocarbons, cellulosic materials and plastics, to name only a few)
to carbon dioxide and water. The concentration of free radicals in a flame is temperature dependent
and is relatively high at temperatures above about 1600 K (1323 oC). Any inert gas added to air can
act as a fire suppression agent as it causes a reduction of a flame’s temperature and lowering of the
free radical concentration. Consider dilution of 100 L of air by addition of 47.5 L of nitrogen. The
mixture, consisting of 32.2 vol % added nitrogen, will extinguish heptane flames in the cup-burner
test. 3 Halon 1301 achieves the same result at a concentration in air of only 3.3 vol %, Ford (1975).
The mechanism by which nitrogen extinguishes flames is its absorption of heat (thermal effect)
2
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russian_submarine_K-152_Nerpa_accident
3
The cup-burnet test procedure is described in ISO 14520-1, Annex B.
Page 8 of 147
thereby lowering the flame temperature and, thereby, the concentration of free radicals. Nitrogen,
argon, carbon dioxide, and mixtures of these gases extinguish flames at concentrations that are
inversely proportional to their heat capacity, Senecal (2005). Displacement or depletion of oxygen
also plays a role in the extinguishing mechanism of inert gases.
The mechanism by which halons extinguish flames also involves a thermal effect, however, the
dominant extinguishing mechanism is the action of bromine atoms that efficiently convert highly
reactive free radicals to chemical species that are much less chemically reactive (chemical-kinetic
effect), which, in turn, leads to prompt flame extinguishment. The relative importance of chemical-
kinetic vs. thermal effects in halons is about 80/20, Sheinson (1989).
Compounds of volatile substances containing bromine, chlorine, and iodine deplete stratospheric
ozone. The potency of an ozone-depleting substance (ODS) is characterized by its ozone depletion
potential (ODP). In 1974, it was suggested that atmospheric chlorine was responsible for
destruction of atmospheric ozone, Rowland and Molina (1974). This discovery led eventually to
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, promulgated in 1987 and the
banning of the production of potent ODSs, including halons, over a period of several years through
stepwise production reductions.
2.2.1 Impact of the Montreal Protocol on the Fire Protection Sector
Since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol and the halt or reduction in the production of
ODSs, the reduction in the use of halons in new fire extinguishing applications has been
remarkable. Even though halons used in fixed systems (primarily halon 1301) and halons used in
portable extinguishers (primarily halon 1211) have similar adverse effects on the environment, their
employment as fire extinguishing agents is very different. Although halon 1301 has been used in a
few portable extinguisher applications, its primary use is in total flooding systems. Halon 1211 is
used primarily in portable extinguishers for local application. So, it is necessary to treat the two
quite separately in this report.
2.2.1.1 Fixed Extinguishing Systems
Halon 1301 used in fixed fire extinguishing systems is no longer necessary in most (>95%) new
installations that would have used halons in pre-Montreal Protocol times. The remaining new
installations still using halon1301 are principally in commercial aircraft for which an effective
alternative for certain applications has yet to be found.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/Technology and
Economic Panel (TEAP) (2005), seventy five percent of original halon used in fixed systems has
been shifted to agents with no climate impact as shown in Figure 2.1. Less than four percent of the
original halon applications continue to employ halons. The remaining twenty-one percent plus has
been shifted to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which have climate impacts, inert gases (IGs) and one
fluoroketone (FK).
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are no longer needed for new
fixed systems.
Page 9 of 147
Former
Halon
Applications
~75% <4% ~21%
Not-in-kind Halon In Kind
Pre-Action Sprinkler Civil Aviation Use in Systems
Water Mist HFC
Dry Chemical Inert Gas
Foam, CO2 FK
Figure 2.1: Migration of Former Halon 1301 System Applications to Other Types
2.2.1.2 Portable Extinguishing Systems
At least one portable system uses a PFC as a propellant, referred to as HCFC Blend B on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) List. This
blend mainly comprises HCFC-123 (>95%).
Even so, according to the IPCC (2005), most (approximately 80%) portable extinguisher
applications have gone to not-in-kind alternatives such as water, foam, carbon dioxide and dry
powder. Only a very small portion of applications originally using halon 1211 has transitioned to
HCFCs, HFCs or FK as shown in Figure 2.2. Recently, a low-Global Warming Potential (GWP),
low ODP hydrobromofluoro-olefin (HBFO), specifically 2-bromotrifluoropropene or 2-BTP, has
been commercialized for aviation (see section 4.1.4.3 on handheld extinguishers for civil aviation)
that will replace halon 1211 and bypass the need for HCFCs and HFCs in this application.
Page 10 of 147
Former
Halon
Portable
Applications
~80% ~20%
Not-in-kind In Kind
Water HCFC
Foam HFC
Carbon Dioxide FK
Dry Powder HBFO
Figure 2.2: Migration of Former Halon 1211 Portable Extinguishers to Other Types
2.3 References
Ford (1975): Ford, Charles, “An Overview of Halon 1301 Systems,” Halogenated Fire
Suppressants, Richard G. Gann, ed., American Chemical Society, 1975.
HTOC (2018): Report of the Halons Technical Options Committee December 2018, Volume 2
Supplementary Report #1: Civil Aviation.
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/HTOC_supplement_report1_2018.pdf
IPCC/TEAP (2005): “Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues
Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”. Bert Metz, Lambert Kuijpers, Susan
Solomon, Stephen O. Andersen, Ogunlade Davidson, José Pons, David de Jager, Tahl Kestin,
Martin Manning, and Leo Meyer (Eds) Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 478.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf
Rowland and Molina (1974): F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario J. Molina, Nature, 1974.
Senecal (2005): Senecal, Joseph A., “Flame extinguishing in the cup-burner by inert gases,” Fire
Safety Journal, 40, 579–591. (2005).
Sheinson (1989): Sheinson, R.S., Penner-Hahn, J.E., and Indritz, I., Fire Safety Journal 15, 437
(1989).
Page 11 of 147
3 Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons, HCFCs, and HFCs
3.1 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.
3.1.1 The Success of Halons in Fixed Systems
The success 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 U.S. Department of Defense at its Pentagon Headquarters.
2. The second driver was system cost where to the surprise of many it became obvious that
halon systems cost less than carbon dioxide 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, equal safety 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
carbon dioxide. With the halt of production of the halons, the use of carbon dioxide systems
increased significantly, especially in the protection of machinery spaces on merchant ships.
The movement of 75 % of those who had chosen halons for their applications in the past to not-in-
kind systems 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.
3.2 Impacts of the Kigali Amendment on the fire protection sector
In October 2016, at the 28th Meeting of the parties in Kigali, Rwanda, Decision XXVIII/1 contained
an amendment to add HFCs to the Montreal Protocol and slowly phase down their production and
consumption. Unlike the controls on ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) that require a complete
phase-out of production and consumption of controlled uses, the controls on HFCs are intended to
only significantly reduce production (on a carbon dioxide equivalent basis), but not eliminate it.
Under the Kigali Amendment, the production phase down would begin in most non-Article 5 (non-
A5) parties with a 10% reduction in 2019 and end with an 85% reduction in 2036. Some non-A5
parties have already begun their HFC phase-down according to National or regional regulations.
For most A5 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 phase down schedules for
a group of parties in Eastern Europe and a group of parties with high ambient temperatures.
Page 13 of 147
Figure 3.1: Graphical Representation of the HFC Phasedown following the Kigali amendment to
the Montreal Protocol – (a) A5 parties and (b) non-A5 parties 4
4
Taken from http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1365924O/unep-fact-sheet-kigali-amendment-to-mp.pdf
Page 14 of 147
Based on the factors outlined below, the initial Kigali phase down step of a 10% reduction in non-
A5 parties is unlikely to have a significant impact on the availability of HFCs for fire protection.
• The use of HFCs for fire protection is extremely small in comparison to all uses of HFCs,
with emissions of HFCs from fire protection being estimated at less than 1% of total HFC
emissions from all sources.
• Sales of HFCs are flat in North America and declining in Europe.
• The HFCs used for fire protection are manufactured by multiple companies worldwide.
As in any situation where supply is artificially restricted, there is the potential for increases in the
cost of HFCs, especially if demand remains high. The HFCs used for fire protection have high
GWPs as compared to most HFCs used in refrigeration and other sectors, so this could also have an
impact on price, especially where HFCs are regulated through an allowance allocation system based
on GWP.
Many parties including those of the European Union (EU), Canada, and Japan have implemented
regulations to phase down the production of HFCs that follow or are being adjusted to the Kigali
amendment schedule. Parties such as the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and Australia have
implemented through legislation a quota system for imports of HFCs as bulk gas ahead of the first
Kigali phasedown date of 1 January 2019. In the EU, a quota has been required since 1 January
2015 for those producers and importers that place at least 100 tonnes of CO2 equivalent of HFCs in
bulk on the market in a calendar year. Since 2017, HFC pre-charged in equipment must be covered
under the quota system as well. Different regulations include controls on specific HFCs in specific
sectors in addition to the production phasedown. For example, the EU regulations include a ban on
the use of HFC-23 in fire protection applications as of 2016. Regulations in Australia, Canada and
Japan do not currently include any controls on HFCs used in fire protection.
It is impossible at this time to predict the potential impact of the more significant 45% reduction
that will take place in 2024 in non-A5 parties or the freeze that will occur in 2024 in most A5
parties. The impact is likely to depend on a number of factors including the market penetration of
current low/zero-GWP HFC alternatives and the development of new low/zero-GWP HFC
alternatives in all sectors. The HTOC will continue to evaluate the impact of the 2019 reductions
and provide future assessments on the impacts of the 2024 reductions in future assessment reports.
3.3 Lack of New Alternatives
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 hydrochlorofluoro-olefin (HCFO) -1233zd(E) for consideration as a total flooding
alternative fire protection agent for halon 1301, HFC-227ea, HFC-125 or HFC-23 in the major
standards bodies in the U.S. and in ISO in 2017, no substantial progress on potential alternatives has
been reported. More recently, the manufacturer has proposed a blend of this agent with the
fluoroketone FK-5-1-12. The HTOC is of the opinion that although research to identify potential
new fire protection agents continues, it could be five to ten years before a viable agent could
possibly have significant impact on the fire protection sector. This timescale is consistent with the
2005 assessment in the Fire Protection Chapter (Chapter 9) of the IPCC / TEAP Special Report,
IPCC/TEAP (2005), that due to the lengthy process of testing, approval / certification and market
Page 15 of 147
acceptance of new fire protection equipment types and agents, no additional agents were likely to
be available in time to have appreciable impact by 2015 (i.e., ten years in the future at the time of
writing). 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 in the future from when the
recommendation was made). However, there is also no assurance that any additional viable agents
will be introduced 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 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.
3.4 Initial Substitutes in the Former Halon Sector
3.4.1 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 performance criteria, namely, they would have to have ODP values
of zero, 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 U.S., the EPA, under its SNAP Program assumed responsibility for the assessment of certain
performance 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 (referred to as
“SNAP” lists) of substitutes that are deemed acceptable, acceptable with use restrictions, or
unacceptable for use in total flooding and streaming applications. The SNAP lists are shown in
Annex A (total flooding agents) and Annex B (streaming agents) of Technical Note #1. For any
agent to be recognized by NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, NFPA
(2018), 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
U.S. 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 applications of interest. Note, however, that
inclusion of an agent on the SNAP list does not necessarily mean it is an appropriate choice and
additional listings or inclusions in the aforementioned internationally recognized fire standards are
typically also required.
3.4.2 Alternatives in General Use
In-kind agents that satisfy the zero-ODP, toxicity, and cleanliness 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
Page 16 of 147
SNAP-approved for use in occupied spaces, and that are included in ISO 14520 and NFPA 2001, as
follows:
Inert gas agents: IG-01, IG-100, IG-55, IG-541
Chemical agents: FK-5-1-12, HFC-23, HFC-125, HFC-227ea
Fewer in-kind agent options have been identified as substitutes for halon 1211, as discussed in
section 3.4.5.
3.4.3 CF3I
CF3I was evaluated in the late 1990’s, but following some adverse toxicity testing, attention was
focused elsewhere. Specifically, its cardiotoxic No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) and
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) are 0.5 volume% and 1.0 volume% respectively.
This precludes this agent’s use in normally occupied space, 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. This is because iodine can undergo the same catalytic radical recombination reactions
as bromine, which makes it is a very efficient fire extinguishing agent. The HTOC is aware that the
Civil Aviation industry is refocusing on CF3I as an engine nacelle / APU fire extinguishing agent.
For more information on CF3I and possible aviation applications refer to section 4.1.4.4 and to
Volume 2 of this report, HTOC (2018). It is possible that this agent may be used in other
applications which are not normally-occupied.
3.4.4 Agent Alternatives for Fixed Systems
There are several in-kind alternatives to halons. These started with HCFCs and PFCs, followed
closely by HFCs and inert gases, and more recently by a 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 inert gases also represent low-GWP and no-GWP alternatives 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 nearly insignificant quantities. HFC-125 does have a very
significant application as the extinguishing agent in some military 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.
For inert gases, there are four different agents used in fire extinguishing systems. Listed in
descending order of effectiveness (according to heptane cup burner testing results reported in the
ISO 14520 series of standards) these agents are:
• IG-100 (100 % nitrogen)
• IG-541 (52 % nitrogen +40 % argon + 8 % carbon dioxide)
Page 17 of 147
• 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 inert gas 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 chemical agents, without taking into consideration the
relatively small quantities of HFC-125 and HFC-23, anecdotal information has suggested the split
in market share is 55 % HFC-227ea and 45 % FK-5-1-12 when measured in terms of agent weight
sold in systems.
There are regional differences in the use of chemical agent in-kind gaseous extinguishing systems
versus those using inert gases. Generally speaking, the Americas more often use chemical agents
(most notably HFC-227ea) whereas Europe, the Middle East, and Asia show a preference for inert
gas systems including all four types. In the Americas, the split is estimated at 80 % chemical agent
systems versus 20 % inert gas systems on a system-by-system basis. In Europe, the Middle East
and Asia, the reverse is the case with an estimated 80 % of new systems based on inert gases and
20 % containing halogenated agents. On a worldwide basis, the market share in terms of cost of the
systems sold appears to be evenly split between the chemical agent systems and inert gas systems as
shown in Figure 3.2.
Principal Gaseous
Fire Extinguishing
System Sales
25% 25% 50%
HFCs FK Inert Gases
Figure 3.2: Approximate Market Share by System Cost
3.4.4.1 Chemical versus Inert Gas Agents
The chemical agent alternatives (e.g., HFCs and FK), like halon 1301, are stored in nitrogen-
pressurized system cylinders either as a liquefied compressed gas (HFCs) or as a liquid below its
boiling point (FK-5-1-12). These facts result in high agent in-cylinder storage density, up to about
1200 kg/m3. Inert gas agents are stored in high-pressure cylinders, typically at 200 or 300 bar
pressure, which results in cylinder agent storage densities of about 220 to 400 kg/m3. Thus, inert
gas systems require more cylinder volume per kilogram of agent than for the chemical agents. The
early inert gas systems were limited to a maximum cylinder size of 83 litres pressurized to 200 bar.
More recent versions are pressurized to 300 bar, representing a 38 % increase in stored agent mass
Page 18 of 147
per cylinder. 5 High-pressure cylinders of 166 litres capacity are now available. The increased
storage pressure (200 to 300 bar) and the increased cylinder capacity (83 to 166 litres) has brought
the inert gas systems to a cost level that is more competitive with the chemical agent systems.
It is a common practice, when discussing agent requirements, to invoke the required agent
concentration in terms of volume percent. This approach can be misleading when considering agent
quantity, cylinder count, and the floor space required. Table 3.1 illustrates how differences in agent
properties relate to minimum mass quantities required to protect a typical ordinary Class A fire
hazard. Understanding the quantities required of the several available agents, and the storage
capacities of the available steel cylinders, is central to assessing the direct economic and facility
floor space requirements on decision making.
Table 3.1: Minimum agent design concentration and agent quantity for ordinary combustible
applications (at 20 °C)
Minimum
Minimum agent
Reference ISO design
Agent quantity,
14520 Subpart concentration,
kg/m3(6)
vol. %
2 CF3I 4.6 0.390(7)
5 FK-5-1-12 5.3 0.779
8 HFC-125 11.2 0.642
9 HFC-227ea 7.9 0.623
12 IG-01 41.9 0.901
13 IG-100 40.3 0.598
14 IG-55 40.3 0.726
15 IG-541 39.9 0.720
Decomposition of any of the chemical agents in the fire extinguishing process produces by-products
(mostly HF and COF2) that are both toxic and corrosive. The amount of these decomposition
products formed is directly related to the size of the fire and the time needed to establish the
extinguishing concentration in the protected space. 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 purged with air. There is the additional
risk of corrosive effects of acid-gas deposition on sensitive contents (e.g., electronics).
Both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy have developed mitigation techniques to limit HF and COF2
generation in some of their systems that use HFC-227ea. The 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 in their armoured combat vehicles. The powder
exits the extinguisher before the HFC-227ea, thus knocking down flaming before the HFC-227ea
5 An increase in storage pressure from 200 to 300 bar results in an increase of stored inert gas density of only about 38 %, not 50 %
as a simple pressure ratio would suggest. This is due to an increase in the gas compressibility factor at the higher pressure.
6 Agent quantities were calculated in accordance with ISO 14520-1, sections 1.6.2 for halocarbon agents, and 1.6.3 inert gas agents.
7
CF3I is approved for non-occupied spaces only
Page 19 of 147
arrives to complete the extinguishment. The U.S. Navy has a somewhat similar technique that
simultaneously discharges water mist and HFC-227ea systems. The water mist cools the very hot
combustion gases in the protected space thereby reducing chemical agent hydrolysis, the process
that forms acid gases. FK-5-1-12 has not been demonstrated to be able to mitigate the HF and COF2
generation in similar manners. However, this type of system is not widely used. Typical Navy
shipboard systems are HFC-227 only and rely on design concentrations that are much 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 before the system
discharges. The delay is mainly to allow ventilation shutdown, but it also allows any remaining
personnel to exit the space before the discharge. In addition, HFC-236fa has been widely used as a
halon replacement.
3.4.4.2 Comparison of HFC, FK and Inert Gas Systems
When considering employing a system with HFC-227ea, or its potential in-kind alternatives –
FK-5-1-12, or one of the inert gases - end users must consider several factors including system cost,
environmental impact, performance at low application temperatures, and impact of agent
decomposition products (mainly HF and COF2). Often, users with numerous systems throughout
their operation facilities will standardize on a particular system type in order to simplify
maintenance complexities. Table 3.2 indicates some of the reasons why HFC-227ea continues to
appeal to some end users.
Page 20 of 147
Table 3.2: The Positives and Negatives of Alternative Agents for Systems
System Type Positive Negative
HFC-227ea • Smallest agent quantity • High GWP (3350)
• Least expensive • Decomposition in flames
• HF and COF2 mitigation produces HF and COF2
techniques developed • Potentially impacted by the HFC
• Acceptable volatility at low phase-down under Kigali
application temperatures Amendment to the Protocol
FK-5-1-12 • Negligible GWP (<1) • ~24 % more agent by weight
• Not affected by HFC phase- required than HFC-227ea
down • Higher cost than HFC-227ea
• Decomposition in flames
produces HF and COF2
• Relatively low vapor pressure
imposes design limitations with
respect to low-temperature
applications
HFC-125 • High volatility at low application • High GWP (3170)
temperatures (e.g. aircraft engine • Decomposition produces HF and
nacelles) COF2
• Potentially impacted by the HFC
phase-down under Kigali
Amendment to the Protocol
HFC-23 • Very high volatility makes this • Very high GWP (12400)
the only practical choice in some • Decomposition in flames
low-temperature applications. produces HF and COF2
• Potentially impacted by the HFC
phase-down under Kigali
Amendment to the Protocol
Inert Gas • Cost ~ FK-5-1-12 • Cost greater than for HFC-227ea
• No decomposition products • High cylinder storage space and
• No environmental impact weight
3.4.5 Agent Alternatives in Portable Extinguishers
There have been several in-kind alternatives to halon 1211 for use as streaming agents starting with
HCFC blends and PFCs, followed closely by HFCs and more recently by FK-5-1-12. For HFCs,
the most notable alternative is HFC-236fa. According to IPCC (2005), only a very limited amount
of the original halon market had gone to in-kind alternatives and this is based mainly on cost. In
Page 21 of 147
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 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. In a very specialized portable system application,
the U.S. 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 carbon dioxide.
Prior to the phase-out 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 to halon (HCFC Blend B, HFC-236fa and FK-5-1-12)
that cost multiple is in the range of 13 to 16 and it is obvious in the market place that most users are
just not willing to pay that premium. 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 the unit demand is being filled primarily by (1) dry chemical extinguishers where a clean
agent is not required, or (2) by carbon dioxide 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 certainly more attractive than its non-ODS alternative
HFC-236fa from an environmental standpoint due to HFC-236fa’s very high GWP. Indeed, 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 carbon dioxide are also HFC-236fa alternatives.
In addition, a new agent has been approved for use in portable extinguishers on civil aircraft, 2-
bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprope-1-ene (2-BTP), whose effectiveness is similar to halon 1211 and it
appears to be a promising alternative to halon 1211 in that aircraft application. However, in the
U.S., it is currently restricted to only that application and aircraft propulsion fire extinguishing
under the U.S. SNAP program and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Therefore, it is unclear what
further impact this agent could have as a wider halon, HCFC and HFC alternative.
3.4.6 Paths Forward
3.4.6.1 Fixed Systems
For fixed systems, in the absence of a new clean agent with greater appeal and fewer negatives than
those shown in Table 3.2 for the existing agents, it is likely that HFC-227ea and FK-5-1-12 have
reached equilibrium. However, the recent development of fixed systems employing higher pressure
and bulk storage can significantly reduce hardware and installation cost for systems designed with
FK-5-1-12.
Page 22 of 147
Also, for fixed systems, as the inert gas systems’ agent storage hardware becomes more efficient
and thus less expensive, their total market share will likely continue to trend upwards at the expense
of the share now held by both HFC-227ea and FK-5-1-12.
Post Kigali, it is likely that the market share of both inert gas and FK systems will grow at the
expense of HFC systems. The balance will be determined according to the users’ perceived
importance of the positives and negatives described in Table 3.2 and any further cost reductions in
the inert gas systems due to further improvements in storage efficiency.
3.4.6.2 Portable Extinguishers
For portable extinguishers, prospects for new agents with improved fire performance are low and it
appears the market place will have to settle for the HCFC Blend B, HFC-236 fa and FK-5-1-12
agent extinguisher offerings as far as can be seen into the future, unless 2-BTP receives additional
approvals. Testing of FK-5-1-12 in additional applications is ongoing with the possibility of
expanding its role as both an HCFC and HFC replacement. For example, the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is testing FK-5-1-12 in civil aviation rescue and firefighting 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).
3.4.7 New and emerging technologies entering commercial use
1. 2-BTP, CAS 1514-82-5, is SNAP-approved for use only in handheld extinguishers in aircraft
and aircraft propulsion fire extinguishing. While 2-BTP does contain bromine, this chemical has
a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 7 days), an ODP of 0.0028 and a 100-year GWP of
0.23-0.26. In 2017, the aerospace industry began installation of handheld units on commercial
aircraft using this agent.
2. 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. One water mist-nitrogen system recently passed (2017)
all the criteria of the International Aircraft Systems Fire Protection Working Group Minimum
Performance Standard (MPS) for cargo bays.
3. HFC-227ea and FK-5-1-12 have also achieved Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) listings,
UL-2129 (UL, 2017), as streaming agents in certain equipment types.
Detailed discussion of substitutes for halons, HCFCs and high GWP HFCs is given in HTOC
Technical Note #1, Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons and other Halocarbon Fire Extinguishing
Agents, which can be found on the Ozone Secretariat website at:
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/technical_note1_2018.pdf
Page 23 of 147
3.5 References
HTOC (2018): Report Of The Halons Technical Options Committee December 2018, Volume 2
Supplementary Report #1: Civil Aviation
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/HTOC_supplement_report1_2018.pdf
IPCC/TEAP (2005): “Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues
Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”. Bert Metz, Lambert Kuijpers, Susan
Solomon, Stephen O. Andersen, Ogunlade Davidson, José Pons, David de Jager, Tahl Kestin,
Martin Manning, and Leo Meyer (Eds) Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 478.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf
ISO (2015): ISO 14520, Gaseous fire-extinguishing systems — Physical properties and system
design, Part 1 (systems), Parts 5, 8, 9, and 10 (halocarbon agent properties), and Parts 12 to 15
(inert gas agent properties), available at https://webstore.ansi.org.
NFPA (2018): NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2018 Edition, 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts, 02169.
UL (2017): UL 2129, Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers, 333 Pfingsten Road,
Northbrook, IL, 60062, 2017-01-05.
Page 24 of 147
4 Long Term Halon, HCFC, and HFC Uses
4.1 Civil Aviation
4.1.1 Introduction
Engine/APU and cargo compartment civil aviation fire protection needs are among the most
demanding uses of halon 1301, requiring its high fire suppression effectiveness and acceptable level
of toxicity, particularly for cargo compartments. However, despite over 20 years of research, the
civil aviation industry has failed to find any replacements that they deem are acceptable from an
efficiency perspective (i.e., space and weight). Given the anticipated 25-40-year lifespan or more of
a newly produced civil aircraft, halon 1301 dependency is likely to continue beyond the time when
recycled halon is readily available. A separate report on the status of halons and their alternatives in
use in civil aviation was produced, HTOC Supplementary Report #1, Volume 2: Civil Aviation, and
is summarized below.
4.1.2 Estimated Halon Installed Base and Emissions
4.1.2.1 Halon 1301 and Halon 1211 Installed Base
The halon 1301 installed base estimates for civil aviation were updated from the Decision XXVI/7
estimates using activity data and new fleet estimates, ICF (2018). The total worldwide fleet of
mainline, regional, business jet and turboprop aircraft for 2018 is estimated to be approximately
52,500 rising to 82,250 by 2036. To estimate the halon installed base, the same activity data for
engine nacelles, cargo compartments, APUs, and lavatory trash receptacle extinguishing systems
from previous analyses were used, as well as feedback from airframe manufacturers. It is estimated
that for 2018, there are approximately 2,700 metric tonnes of halon 1301, and approximately 270
metric tonnes of halon 1211 installed across the mainline and regional fleet. For halon 1301 this is
projected to rise to 4,900 metric tonnes in 2036. For halon 1211, the projection for 2036 is to fall to
110 metric tonnes if the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements are fully
followed, discussed below, but to rise to as much as 500 metric tonnes if the ICAO requirements are
not followed at all. Since 2-BTP has begun to replace halon 1211 for newly-produced aircraft it is
likely that the halon 1211 installed base will stay approximately level or begin to fall. HTOC
Supplementary Report #1, Vol.2: Civil Aviation, details the calculations used for these estimates and
also provides estimates for additional years.
4.1.2.2 Estimated Civil Aviation Emissions
One of the main goals of the ICAO efforts under Decision XXIX/8 on the future availability of
halons and their alternatives, was to obtain information on the difference between the amount of
halon that comes into civil aviation halon 1301 service provider facilities in cylinders for servicing
(recovered) and the amount that goes out of the facility in serviced cylinders (filled) as a way of
estimating the size and rate of emissions. Unfortunately, many facilities do not keep these exact
records and many facilities did not provide complete data, so it was not possible to make this type
of determination. For the 10 facilities that did provide some data in this area, the difference
between the amount of recovered halon and the amount filled ranged from 4% to 50%, with an
Page 25 of 147
average of about 14%. While it is not possible from these limited data to determine the relationship
between the 14% data point and the actual emission rate, it does provide additional anecdotal
information on top of that contained in the 2014 FAA Halon Aviation Rulemaking Committee
report, FAA (2014) that the aviation emissions rate for halon 1301 may be significantly higher than
the global industry average of 3-4%.
In reviewing the surveys, it was determined that a number of major aviation service companies have
not responded and some that did provided data only from the facility that received the survey and
not from all of the company’s facilities. Seven of the survey respondents that do not service halon
1301 systems themselves provided information on the companies that they contract with to do the
service. ICAO is following up with these companies and those that did not respond in an attempt to
obtain additional and more complete survey responses.
4.1.3 Estimates of When Halon 1301 Might Run Out
4.1.3.1 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 HTOC expresses concern that this source 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 HTOC has previously reported that this
might result in civil aviation submitting 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. 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.
4.1.3.2 Estimated Halon 1301 Supplies
The 2018 HTOC model estimates the remaining worldwide bank of halon 1301 to be approximately
37,750 metric tonnes at the end of 2018 (See Chapter 5). This remaining bank of halon 1301 is
assumed to be currently installed in fire suppression equipment (e.g., in aviation, computer
facilities, oil and gas, military, maritime, etc.), as well as in available stockpiles.
Of the estimated 37,750 metric tonnes of halon 1301 globally, approximately 16,250 metric tonnes
are maintained by Japan and are not expected to be available to support other continuing uses
(including aviation needs) of halon outside of Japan. The remaining 21,500 metric tonnes of halon
1301 is comprised of the following estimated global uses and stockpiles in 2018:
• Military applications are estimated to have 4,500 metric tonnes in the installed base and
reserves.
• Oil and gas facilities are estimated to have 1,500 metric tonnes.
Page 26 of 147
• Nuclear facilities are estimated to have 200 metric tonnes
• The global aviation bank (100 metric tonnes) and installed base are estimated to be a
total of 2,800 metric tonnes.
• Marine (non-military) applications are estimated to be 1,500 metric tonnes, assuming
each ship has an average 30-year lifetime, ICF (2015), which means this source of
supply is projected to run out in approximately 2023.
• Electronics facilities, such as computer rooms and communications rooms, are estimated
to be 11,000 metric tonnes.
The stockpiles and installed base for the military, oil and gas facilities, and nuclear facilities (i.e., a
total of about 6,200 metric tonnes) are assumed not to be available to meet continuing uses of
aviation needs. Furthermore, the amount of halon currently installed in aviation applications is
accounted for in the worldwide supply, but also is not assumed to be available for future aviation
needs, as it is already in use (i.e., an additional 2,700 metric tonnes in 2018 rising to 4,900 in 2036).
This leaves about 12,500 metric tonnes of halon 1301 that could become available to support civil
aviation if all of it went only to civil aviation. However, many other on-going uses of halon 1301
will also need to share in this available supply to meet their ongoing needs to refill discharged
systems and/or leaks.
To determine the potential availability of halon 1301 to support civil aviation, eight scenarios were
developed 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. Each
scenario 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%), which were reevaluated and refined for this update. 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 HTOC is aware of anecdotal information that supports this potentially high
emission rate.
The eight scenarios model +/- 10% of the initial total available worldwide supply of halon 1301 as
of the end of 2018 at 12,500 metric tonnes (i.e., a low and a high of approximately 11,500 and
13,750 metric tonnes respectively). 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 4.1. The best-case and worst-case scenarios are highlighted in yellow.
These scenarios do 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
trash receptacle systems, while a constant portion of the fleet still contains halon lavatory trash
receptacle systems (i.e., in aircraft manufactured before 2010).
Page 27 of 147
Based on the results of this 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 2032 to 2054, depending on the initial total
worldwide supply in 2018 and annual emission rates.
Table 4.1. Assumptions and Results for Eight Drawing Down Halon 1301 Scenarios
Annual Global
Total Available Annual Year Available
Emission Overall
Scenario Worldwide Emission Rate Supply Runs
Rate Emission
Supply in 2018 (non-Aviation) Out
(Aviation) Rate
1 11,250 2.3 – 2.8% 0.1 – 3% 1.6% 2048
2 11,250 7.6% 0.1 – 3% 1.9% 2038
3 11,250 5.0% 1 – 5% 2.3% 2040
4 11,250 15.0% 1 – 5% 3.9% 2032
5 13,750 2.3 – 2.8% 0.1 – 3% 1.6% 2054
6 13,750 7.6% 0.1 – 3% 2.0% 2042
7 13,750 5.0% 1 – 5% 2.3% 2045
8 13,750 15.0% 1 – 5% 3.8% 2034
The analysis shows the importance of the effect of the civil aviation emission rate. The high rate of
15% reduces the run-out date significantly, with all scenarios falling within 2032-2035, thus
confirming the need for the ICAO informal working group to continue to try to firm up the
emissions data. Figures 4.1-4.4 present the run-out date results graphically for the worst-case
scenario (i.e., Scenario 4) and best-case scenario (i.e., Scenario 5), respectively. The graphs also
show “demand deficit,” which represents the amount of halon that would be needed for newly
manufactured aircraft and to service existing systems.
4.1.3.3 Potential for Smaller Global Halon 1301 Bank
The above assessment was based on the estimated halon 1301 global bank in the HTOC 2018
model. Atmospheric concentration-based emission estimates in the updated mean data through
mid-2017 provide cumulative emissions of 118,000 metric tonnes (Vollmer et al., (2016); this
emission rate is more than was estimated previously in the 2014 HTOC Assessment Report, HTOC
(2014). The global total cumulative production data provided by HTOC and the emission data
calculated by Vollmer et al. (2016) results in a remaining bank of only 30,000 metric tonnes versus
the HTOC model estimate of approximately 109,000 metric tonnes of cumulative emissions and a
remaining bank of 39,000 metric tonnes. Using the average of the two bank sizes, the difference in
remaining banks is nearly 25%. This difference is becoming significant as the global bank (i.e., the
amount halon that is available to support fire protection uses) becomes smaller over time. The
updated Vollmer et al. (2016) data, provide a much higher mean annual emission rate for 2016/2017
of about 4% of the bank/year than the approximately 2.5% composite rate used by the HTOC. The
combination of a potential higher emission rate than assumed by the HTOC and a smaller bank of
halon 1301 could also imply that there is going to be significantly less halon 1301 available to
support civil aviation and others needs than estimated above. As the supply of halons gets further
reduced the likelihood of a significant disruption in supply increases dramatically. If civil aviation
Page 28 of 147
16,000 Total Demand Deficit Total Halon Installed Computer Facilities
14,000 Maritime Aviation Bank
Metric Tonnes of Halon 1301
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
Figure 4.1 - Scenario 4: Drawing Down Halon 1301 Showing the Entire Available Supply (3.9%
Overall Emission Rate; 11,250 metric tonnes of Available Supply)
16,000
14,000 Aviation Demand Deficit Total Aviation Installed
Metric Tonnes of Halon 1301
Computer Facilities Maritime
12,000
Aviation Bank
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
Figure 4.2 - Scenario 4: Drawing Down Halon 1301 Showing the Available Supply and Civil
Aviation Bank (3.9% Overall Emission Rate; 11,250 metric tonnes of Available Supply)
Page 29 of 147
16,000 Total Demand Deficit Total Halon Installed Computer Facilities
16,000
Maritime Aviation Bank
14,000 14,000
Metric Tonnes of Halon 1301
12,000 12,000
10,000 10,000
8,000 8,000
6,000 6,000
4,000 4,000
2,000 2,000
- -
Figure 4.3 - Scenario 5: Drawing Down Halon 1301 Showing the Entire Available Supply (1.6%
Overall Emission Rate; 13,750 metric tonnes of Available Supply)
16,000 Aviation Demand Deficit Total Aviation Installed16,000
14,000 Computer Facilities Maritime 14,000
Metric Tonnes of Halon 1301
12,000 Aviation Bank 12,000
10,000 10,000
8,000 8,000
6,000 6,000
4,000 4,000
2,000 2,000
- -
Figure 4.4 - Scenario 5: Drawing Down Halon 1301 Showing the Available Supply and Civil
Aviation Bank (1.6% Overall Emission Rate; 13,750 metric tonnes of Available Supply)
Page 30 of 147
does not stop producing new aircraft using halon 1301, they soon will be, and likely are, already
producing and potentially designing new aircraft that cannot be sustained over their economic
lifetimes with existing supplies of recycled halon 1301.
4.1.4 Status of Halon Replacement Options
4.1.4.1 Introduction
Civil aviation has only instituted a halon 1301 replacement for its smallest use, lavatory trash
receptacle extinguishing systems, estimated to be less than 0.5% of its total installed base on
aircraft. Its two largest uses, engine nacelles/APUs and cargo compartments, continue to have no
alternatives available to be approved by aviation authorities.
4.1.4.2 Lavatory Trash Receptacle Systems
As previously reported in the 2014 Assessment Report, research and testing has shown that there
are suitable halon alternative lavatory trash receptacle suppression systems using HFC-227ea or
HFC-236fa. It is reported that now, virtually all current production aircraft lavatory trash
receptacles are fitted with halon replacement agents albeit with these high GWP HFCs. Many older
legacy platforms have not transitioned to the replacement agents, 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 trash receptacle systems with
these halon-free alternatives during scheduled maintenance operations. There are no approved low-
GWP alternatives for this application to replace the HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa or halon 1301, and the
HTOC is not aware of any research to develop one at this time.
4.1.4.3 Handheld Extinguishers
Despite three halon alternatives, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa and HCFC Blend B, having completed all
of the required handheld UL and Minimum Performance Standard (MPS) tests and having been
commercially available since 2003, airframe manufacturers chose not to pursue qualification and
installation certification for these alternatives. This was reported as being due to the fact that all
three alternatives have increased space and weight characteristics over halon 1211 and there are
environmental concerns that the two HFCs are high-GWP greenhouse gases and the HCFC already
had production phase-out dates under the Montreal Protocol. In short, the airframe manufacturers
were waiting for an agent without most of these adverse characteristics. The fire extinguishant 2-
BTP is now commercialized and qualified for civil aviation use. It is the closest to a “drop-in”
replacement for halon 1211. Two companies now offer portable extinguishers containing 2-BTP and
have started supplying major aircraft manufacturers on a platform-by-platform basis. The transition
to 2-BTP for newly produced aircraft is currently ongoing.
4.1.4.4 Engine and APU Compartment
HFC-125 could be an effective halon 1301 replacement but has increased space and weight
characteristics over halon 1301 that reportedly present installation and environmental concerns to
the airframe manufacturers. Although, some military aircraft have been fitted with HFC-125
systems, airframe manufacturers have chosen not to pursue qualification and installation
certification for HFC-125 in civil aviation engines/APUs.
Page 31 of 147
A recent interest has been growing for trifluoroiodomethane (CF3I) as a total flooding agent in
aviation-related normally unoccupied spaces such as Engine/APU applications. This agent was
evaluated in the late 1990’s but following some adverse toxicity testing attention was focused
elsewhere. As iodine shares the catalytic radical recombination reactions with bromine, it is a very
efficient fire extinguishing agent. It is very close to a “drop-in” replacement for halon 1301 in terms
of volume and has a small weight penalty. Following evaluation by the U.S. FAA, a certification
concentration of 7.1% has been defined, equivalent to halon 1301 at 6%, Ingerson (2007). Refer to
Chapter 3 for more information on CF3I.
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 original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) Airbus, Boeing,
Bombardier, Embraer, Textron, and the Ohio Aerospace Institute acting as
administrator. Engagement with fire extinguishing suppliers and distributors, chemical companies,
airline operators, engine manufacturers, universities, consultants and other stakeholders is planned.
The consortium has mapped out a three phase multi-year approach for alternatives development and
has recently completed Phase I (administrative start-up), with a signed Joint Collaboration
Agreement in place. Phase II (formal creation of Technical and Non-Technical Task Teams) has
commenced and has completed the initial FAA Engagement and drafts for a technical requirements
document and a Request for Information. Work in-progress includes definition of high level
solution(s) strategy, design requirements, performance validation, down selection criteria,
regulatory requirements, certification path proposals and formation of the non-technical task team
to develop supplier engagement documentation. The consortium projects that Phase II is expected to
be complete no later than the end of October 2019 with agent down selection. Phase III will then
establish supplier agreements for in-depth agent evaluation and testing. The HTOC notes that the
progress of this consortium is slower than was originally forecast by the consortium and reported in
the 2014 HTOC Assessment Report. The consortium is of the opinion that the benefits of industry-
wide solution(s) will pool resources for testing and development, support more timely agency
approvals, and leverage supply chain readiness for more economically viable implementations.
Except for the customized approval for use of phosphorous tri-bromide in one private jet, the only
approved agents for use in civil aviation engine nacelles/APUs remains halon 1301 and HFC-125
on a military derivative of a large commercial aircraft (Boeing 767; military derivative KC-46).
4.1.4.5 Cargo Compartments
To date, there have been no cases of halon 1301 replacement with an alternative agent in cargo
compartments of civil aircraft. Part of the approval process is a test involving a simulated exploding
aerosol can and all chemical fire extinguishing agents (apart from halon 1301) that have undergone
this exploding aerosol can test 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. In other words, it can make the event worse than if there was no fire
extinguishant at all. The cargo MPS now requires that pressure increase not occur upon application
of the fire extinguishant in a quantity less than that needed to suppress a fire or deflagration event.
On this basis, all chemical fire extinguishants tested so far have been found to be unacceptable.
Page 32 of 147
Currently there are two approaches being developed by industry. Data have been presented to a
U.S. FAA fire protection forum by one fire suppression system manufacturer showing that inert gas
alone is capable of passing the MPS. The FAA recently presented data showing a combination of
water mist and nitrogen (IG-100) can pass the current MPS and a challenge test focused on lithium
ion batteries. Commercial development of both the inert-gas-only and the water mist/nitrogen cargo
fire suppression systems continues.
As previously reported in the 2014 Assessment report, the International Coordinating Council of
Aerospace Industries (ICCAIA) formed the Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Working
Group (CCHRWG) in 2013 to coordinate a single industry effort to effort to promote and assess
alternatives to halon 1301 in cargo compartments. This group recommended to ICAO the end of
2024 as the time by which a cargo compartment fire suppression system containing a replacement
agent, system or concept could be developed and a Type Certificate applied for. The group
(renamed as the Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Advisory Group, CCHRAG) is currently
conducting a technical assessment of nine potential halon replacements, including inert gases,
chemicals, and other not-in kind technologies. A report summarizing the status will be presented at
the 2019 ICAO General Assembly and available for the 31st Meeting of the Parties.
4.1.4.6 Regulatory Timelines
At the 39th General Assembly meeting, ICAO accepted the recommendation from the CCHRWG
(Amendment 106 to Annex 8) and adopted as Resolution A39/13, the date of 2024. This now
means that all halon applications on civil aircraft have dates by which new designs (an application
for a Type Certificate in aircraft certification terminology) or aircraft currently in production require
halon alternatives be used as follows:
• in lavatory fire extinguishing systems used in aircraft produced after December 31, 2011;
• in hand-held fire extinguishers used in aircraft produced after December 31, 2018 8;
• in engine and auxiliary power unit fire extinguishing systems used in aircraft for which
application for Type Certification will be submitted after December 31, 2014 (current
designs are allowed to continue to use halon for production of new aircraft); and
• in cargo compartment fire suppression systems used in aircraft for which application for
Type Certification will be submitted on or after 28 November 2024 (current designs are
allowed to continue to use halon for production of new aircraft).
However, these are not necessarily requirements that Member States must follow. Instead, States
can, and some have filed “differences” indicating that they will not meet these standards and will
continue to use halons or allow the use of halons past these dates.
Within the EU, all current on-board uses of halons in aviation are listed as critical uses in the
current Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2009. Annex VI was revised in 2010 as per
Commission Regulation (EU) No 744/2010 of 18 August 2010 and contains “cut-off dates” for the
use of halons in new designs of equipment or facilities (including aircraft) and “end dates” when all
8
Amendment 41 to ICAO Annex 6 modified the date from December 31/2016 to December 31/2018
Page 33 of 147
halon systems or extinguishers in a particular application must be decommissioned. Table 4.2
provides a comparison of the ICAO and EU dates.
Table 4.2 – Comparison of EU and ICAO halon Phase-out Requirements
Requirement Lavatory Handheld Engine Cargo
Extinguisher / APU
EC Cutoff Date 2011 2014 2014 2018
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
Additionally, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), as the Regulatory Aviation Agency for
the EU, has included provisions (as part of the airworthiness standards for the issue of type
certificates - EASA CS-25) for the use of alternative fire-extinguishing agents. The time scale for
the Halon replacement is in line with the dates given in the Commission Regulation (EU) No
744/2010.
4.1.5 New Generation Aircraft
The civil aviation regulatory authorities should closely monitor and ensure that the testing and
approval of alternatives for engine nacelle and cargo compartment applications is completed in the
near-term for new airframe designs. New airframe designs should take into account these tested and
approved alternative fire extinguishants and systems. However, this is not happening to date. The
timing of the inclusion of the available alternatives in new aircraft designs remains uncertain, and
unless the processes of designing, conforming, qualifying and certifying new extinguishing systems
on civil aircraft are made a priority by the airframe manufacturers and approval authorities – and
expedited accordingly – these are significant barriers to the transition away from halons and will
continue to use up the diminishing supplies of halon 1301 leading to shortages in the future.
The HTOC continues to report that it remains markedly disappointing that, given the extensive
research and testing efforts that have been expended on aviation applications since 1993,
alternatives are used only in the lavatory fire extinguishing systems of new Airbus, Boeing and
Embraer aircraft systems and hand-held extinguisher applications. This leaves unaddressed the
engine/APU and cargo bay applications, which are by far the largest civil aviation uses of halon
1301.
4.1.6 Crash Rescue Vehicles
In addition to on-board civil aircraft applications, halon 1211 is used in some Aircraft Rescue and
Fire Fighting (ARFF) or Crash Rescue vehicles on airport ramps. Since 1995, a significant number
of airports in the U.S. have used HCFC Blend B as an alternative to halon 1211 for this application.
However, because HCFC Blend B is an ODS, national regulations may limit its use for this
Page 34 of 147
application in other countries. A recent TEAP Working Group Report, TEAP (2018), concluded 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 through the supply of halon
1211 or HCFC Blend B. Originally the report estimated that up to 900 metric tonnes per annum of
HCFC Blend B might be required, but more recent information from the U.S. indicated that the
quantity likely to be needed could be reduced to between 120 and 450 tonnes per year. The
fluoroketone FK-5-1-12 has recently been evaluated in ARFF vehicle applications but the results
have not been published at the time of writing this report.
In November 2018, the parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to adjust the Protocol and adopted a
corresponding Decision XXX/2 to allow the use of newly produced HCFCs for the servicing of
niche applications such as fire suppression and fire protection equipment existing on 1 January
2020 for the period 2020-2029 for non-A5 parties and also on existing equipment in 1 January 2030
for the period 2030-2039 for A5 parties.
4.2 Military Applications
The parties’ defence ministries and military organisations 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 or
until alternatives can be fitted. Although prices of recycled halons continue to rise, at this point,
supplies appear to be sufficient to support most anticipated future military needs. The HTOC is not
aware of any reports of shortages other than those of individual parties whose national regulations
restrict the imports or exports of halons.
Due to a lack of priority, much of today’s fielded weapon systems and support equipment will
remain in service, and their mission-critical halon fire protection systems will need to be supported
until 2050 and potentially beyond. However, the EU requires phase-out of halons in military uses
as shown in Table 4.3 (Commission Regulation EU, 2017/605), where the cut-off date is 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 and the end date is 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.
Given that the last end date for halon in these military critical use applications is 2040, the
replacement process would have to be initiated years ahead of these legislated phase-out dates.
Military fire protection systems are unique in that, besides protecting against ‘peacetime’ fires from
routine use, they must protect military personnel and platforms from the consequences of combat
damage. Fires due to combat events are generally very fast-growing and relatively large and
military fire protection systems are required to counter these threats, often while allowing occupants
to remain in the affected spaces.
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 (for
example, acid gases including hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen bromide (HBr), and/or hydrogen
Page 35 of 147
chloride (HCl) as well as carbonyl species such as carbonyl fluoride (COF2) and carbonyl chloride
(COCl2, phosgene), depending on the particular halon used) that are inevitably generated at some
levels by thermal breakdown of the agent during the fire suppression process. 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. These examples illustrate the fact that a suitable alternative
for one party may not be acceptable to another.
Page 36 of 147
Table 4.3: Phase-out dates for military applications within EU
CRITICAL USES OF HALONS
Category of Cut-off date End date
Type of Type of
equipment or Purpose/Applications (31 December (31 December
extinguisher halon
facility of stated year) of stated year)
1. On military 1301
1.1. For the protection of engine Fixed
ground vehicles 1211 2010 2035
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
surface ships normally occupied machinery 2010 2040
system 2402
spaces
2.2. For the protection of 1301
Fixed
normally unoccupied engine 1211 2010 2035
system
spaces 2402
2.3. For the protection of
Fixed 1301
normally unoccupied electrical 2010 2030
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 1301
Fixed
flammable liquid storage 1211 2010 2030
system
compartments 2402
2.7. For the protection of aircraft
Portable 1301
in hangars and maintenance 2010 2016
extinguisher 1211
areas
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 diesel Fixed
1301 2010 2040
generator spaces system
3.4. For the protection of Fixed
1301 2010 2040
electrical compartments system
7. In land-based
command and 7.1. For the protection of Fixed 1301
2010 2025
communications normally occupied spaces system 2402
facilities 7.2. For the protection of Portable
essential to 1211 2010 2013
normally occupied spaces extinguisher
national
security 7.3. For the protection of Fixed 1301
2010 2020
normally unoccupied spaces system 2402
Page 37 of 147
4.2.1 Military Ground Vehicle Applications
Parties continue to make progress 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 initiated
conversion programs to replace halon 1301 in crew and/or engine protection systems with a more
environmentally friendly agent based upon an HFC-227ea/powder blend, 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 HFC alternatives (HFC-227ea and HFC-236fa) and
replaced halon portable extinguishers in the vehicle crew compartments. Carbon dioxide
extinguishers have also replaced halon portable extinguishers on all Swedish military vehicles.
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 could be made for the same military application.
4.2.1.1 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, with and without sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) dry chemical, HFC-227ea,
HFC-236fa, and HFC-125, and the zero-GWP water with 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 combination and aqueous
system were down-selected. The HFC-236 based blend also met requirements but was not chosen
because of its higher GWP compared to HFC-227ea. The HFC-227ea/NaHCO3 mix was
subsequently SNAP-listed by the U.S. EPA as HFC 227-BC and is the only halon alternative agent
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 engineered to simulate the blast
overpressure and fireball development 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 U.S. 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 subject to incapacitation (immediate or
delayed). Key elements of the criteria are summarized in Table 4.4.
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
agent was available at that time which could be considered to be a drop-in replacement for halon
1301 or HFC227-BC for this application. 9 The U.S. Army continues to research low- and zero-
9
An interesting observation made during this study was that the byproducts from FK-5-1-12 evolved quite differently
than those from halon 1301 or HFC-227; specifically, FK-5-1-12 produced hazardous levels of hydrogen fluoride (HF)
and carbonyl fluoride (COF2) simultaneously, whereas halon 1301 and HFC-227 generally produced lower levels of
COF2 initially which then decayed into HF. The result was that the dose of byproducts from FK-5-1-12 were
Page 38 of 147
GWP potential alternatives but has not yet found anything to replace HFCs that meets the
performance requirements listed in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: 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 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 LOAEL (per 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%
4.2.1.2 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 on military vehicles. Several live-
fire test programs were carried out over years that involved fuel-spray live-fire tests developed to
simulate the blast overpressure that follows a ballistic penetration of the armour and fuel tank (in
conformity with Level 4 of STANAG 4317, NATO (2017)). The crew casualty criteria used are
similar to those in Table 4.4, apart from overpressure where the Swedish/German criteria allow a
maximum of 5.5 psi (0.38 bar) as shown in Table 4.5.
consistently well above the U.S. Army casualty criteria limit, while byproducts from HFC227-BC and halon 1301 were
below the limit (Hodges and McCormick, 2010; Hodges and McCormick, 2013). It should also be noted that measuring
the total averaged fluorine levels is not an adequate method to determine incapacitation due to inhalation of these toxic
gases. Overall, this points to the fact that chemicals that are designed to be more reactive, thus yielding shorter
atmospheric lifetimes and therefore lower GWPs, generate much higher byproduct levels during the fire suppression
process than more stable, and thus likely higher GWP, compounds.
Page 39 of 147
Table 4.5: Swedish key elements of crew casualty criteria (Schepers, 1999; Schepers, 2000)
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 flux ≤ 3.9 cal/cm²
Lung damage < 0.38 bar (5.5 psi)
Overpressure
Ear damage ≤ 0.28 bar (4 psi)
Not to exceed LOAL (per applicable NFPA standard)
Agent Concentration
Min. 10% vol; Max 15% vol HFC236fa
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 and HFC Blend B (HFC-134a (CH2FCF3), HFC-125 and carbon dioxide),
- Water mist with additives,
- HFC-227ea mixes with NaHCO3,
- FK-5-1-12, and
- FK-5-1-12 with NaHCO3 10
As a result of the 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, while HFC227-BC was not
selected because of short-term visibility reduction and powder residue left in the vehicle.
Overall, on main battle tanks, armoured and light armoured vehicles, halon 1301 has either been
replaced or is scheduled to be replaced when the vehicles go through modification or maintenance.
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.
10
It should be noted that this blend is not stable as the two materials are reactive.
Page 40 of 147
4.2.1.3 Brazil
Brazil has deployed FK-5-1-12 in its crew AFES on its Guarani medium wheeled personnel carriers
U.S. Army/MOD Brazil (2018). Using test methods and performance criteria similar to the U.S.
Army, testing verified that
- fires were extinguished in less than 250 ms without reflash,
- temperatures at crew locations were less than the threshold of 2nd 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 byproducts were not addressed during the reported
verification process, which potential users should consider for occupied applications.
4.2.2 Military Aviation Applications 11
Halon replacement can only be achieved when there are technically and economically feasible
alternatives available. To date, many military aviation applications have continued to rely on halons
as the only viable option. As an example, the A400M military cargo aircraft has been ordered by
eight European and Asian countries (Germany, France, Spain, UK, Turkey, Belgium, Luxembourg,
and Malaysia) and entered service in late 2013 using halon 1301 for its engine nacelle fire
extinguishing system. The extinguishers are installed at the rear of each engine nacelle using the
very limited space available. Halon 1301 is used due to its fire extinguishing capability under the
wide range of operating conditions that are likely to be experienced. The A400M and its halon 1301
extinguishing system are expected to have a minimum service life of 30 years. A retrofittable
alternative is unlikely to be available for the foreseeable future due to the complex technical issues
associated with the current aircraft design.
On the other hand, HFC-125 has been used successfully as an alternative to halon for engine fire
protection and APUs on U.S. military fighters and helicopters developed since the early 1990s. In
addition, HFC-125 is currently being specified for use on a military derivative of a large
commercial aircraft currently under development (Boeing 767; military derivative KC-46), Robin
(2014). The aircraft is designed to have a minimum service life of 30 years so support for the
current system will be required beyond 2040; it is not likely this system could be converted to a
lower-GWP agent in the foreseeable future.
As stated in the civil aviation section, in 2013, the U.S. Army announced the development of a
drop-in replacement for its halon 1301 handheld fire extinguishers used in aviation applications that
is based on HFC-227ea in combination with very finely ground sodium bicarbonate powder.
Military specifications (MIL-DTL-32412, 2012) have been developed and procurement has been
initiated for these units.
In the U.S., there has been success in replacing the standard 150 lb halon 1211 wheeled units
employed on military flight lines with similar size units containing either HCFC Blend B or
FK-5-1-12 at facilities operated by the military inside and outside the U.S. These units are UL
11
This section should be read in conjunction with Supplementary Report #1 on Civil Aviation.
Page 41 of 147
listed and have somewhat lower ratings than the 150 lb. halon 1211 unit employed (with the
distinctive yellow/green colour) for more than 20 years at U.S. DOD sites.
4.2.3 Military Naval Applications
For the most part, halons are no longer being installed in new designs of naval vessels. However,
they 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 carbon dioxide systems.
However, carbon dioxide systems are prohibited in all spaces on all new U.S. naval vessels due to
crew safety considerations based on the toxicity of carbon dioxide at concentrations needed to
extinguish fires. Militaries that use carbon dioxide systems rely on warnings, established egress
procedures, and training for safe usage.
On Norwegian naval vessels, mainly halon and HFC alternatives are used. This includes IG-541 in
electrical compartments, and water sprinklers and water mist with and without aqueous film
forming foam (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, conversion programs continue for normally-
unoccupied spaces such as paint lockers and diesel or gas turbine modules. In these applications,
both carbon dioxide and HFC extinguishants have been found to be acceptable. Australia and
Germany have also converted some main machinery space halon systems to HFC-227ea and carbon
dioxide, respectively. The Italian Department of the Navy has qualified the halon and HFC
alternative FK-5-1-12 for local explosion suppression on board its military ships, based on the result
of live-fire tests performed using a fuel-spray fire inside a trial room representing a ship’s
machinery space. In these tests, an explosion was considered successfully suppressed when these
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, most naval vessels have been converted and the rest will be converted when the
upcoming midlife modifications are due within a few years. They have mainly been converted to
the halon and HFC alternative FK-5-1-12 for occupied and normally unoccupied spaces but also
some carbon dioxide systems for normally unoccupied spaces and a small number of inert gas
systems have been installed.
In Denmark, where HFCs are not acceptable because of national legislation, inert gas systems have
been installed to protect the engine compartments of some surface ships. When considering inert
gas systems for naval vessels, the weight and space occupied by the system must be taken into
account. For example, inert gas systems require over three times the cylinder weight and deck
space of an equivalent HFC-227ea system.
Page 42 of 147
A point to consider when choosing an extinguishing agent for shipboard compartments that are
normally occupied (e.g., command centers) is to decide if the enclosure must stay operational
during combat operations or can be evacuated. Requirements can then be established similar to
crew compartments on ground vehicles where evacuation is not always an option or can be
addressed more like a commercial application.
4.2.4 Military Applications Summary
As the introduction of potentially viable new alternatives being developed and marketed by industry
slows, so too does the research and development that can be executed by the parties’ militaries.
Most, if not all, commercially available extinguishing agents have been assessed against the range
of unique military fire protection requirements. Alternatives have been adopted where they have
been found to be technically and economically feasible. For new designs, there are virtually no
applications where a halon must be used although there are many applications that the only
alternative is a high-GWP HFC, i.e., there are no low-GWP alternatives for those applications. In
legacy (existing) designs, there are several applications where both no suitable halon or HFC
alternatives exist. Therefore, in these applications halons and several of the high-GWP HFCs are
the only viable fire and explosion protection solutions to maintain parties’ levels of national security
and the safety of their military personnel and equipment. This will, in all likelihood, continue to be
the case for both new designs and legacy systems for the foreseeable future.
Historically, in general, where halon replacement programmes have not been implemented, it was
likely due to several possible reasons, including:
• Uncertainties related to the ultimate availability and costs of the high-GWP HFC, which is
now less uncertain with the Kigali Amendment.
• An HFC or other alternative system generally requires more space and is heavier than the
halon system it is to replace.
• Potentially unacceptable levels of toxic combustion byproducts may result from systems
utilizing fluorinated alternatives.
• Converting a fielded platform to a new extinguishing system can be very expensive and
demand considerable resources for a significant period.
It is clear that without major progress in the development of more suitable alternatives, there will
continue to be a need for recycled halons and high-GWP HFCs for a substantial number of military
applications including vehicle crew compartments, aviation engine nacelles, naval machinery
spaces and submarines, at least until, if not well past, the middle of the century. However, the
military sector has incorporated alternatives to halons on many of its newer platforms, reducing its
future demand for the diminishing supplies of the halons while at the same time limiting the use of
high-GWP agents where feasible.
4.3 Pipelines / Oil and Gas
The use of halon 1301 and halon 2402 systems in this industry for explosion prevention (inerting)
and fire protection has been focused on inhospitable locations such as the Alaskan North Slope in
the U.S., the North Sea in Europe, and parts of the former Soviet Union, where facilities have had to
be enclosed due to the harsh climatic conditions. The process areas in the production modules and
Page 43 of 147
the oil and gas pumping stations live under constant threat of methane gas and crude oil leaks that
can lead to potential explosive atmospheres sometimes in close proximity to personnel housing
facilities. Halon 1301 was the agent of choice for mitigating this threat in the U.S. and Europe, and
halon 2402 in the Russian Federation and Ukraine. When reviewing the reliance on existing halon
banks, there are two distinct cases to consider, existing facilities and new facilities. Existing
facilities will likely remain protected by halon while new facilities will adopt alternatives based on
the specific risks and agent functionality in the given ambient environment.
4.3.1 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 design as well as the physical layout of the facility.
As with civil aviation, after extensive research, it has been determined that in some cases, the
replacement of such systems with currently available alternatives is economically impossible, and
that current research is unlikely to lead to an economic solution. Thus, these facilities will likely
rely on existing halon banks for their operating lifetimes. However, in order to reduce the impact on
the halon banks, measures have been taken to reduce emissions through either of two
methodologies, which can be summarized as follows:
1) Reassess the hazards and evaluate whether the potential for an explosion still exists.
In some aging offshore platforms, process pressures have declined such that an
accidental gas or crude oil release could not result in an explosive cloud. In others,
advantage can be taken of the high winds that prevail in the area to assist in the
exhausting of any gas accumulation from a hydrocarbon release. In both cases, the
result may be a fire hazard but not an explosion hazard and so the original fixed
halon 1301 system can often be decommissioned, the halon recycled, and an
alternative fire suppression system installed.
2) Contain the halon and avoid spurious releases.
Typically, if an inerting system has been required then it is also used for fire
suppression in the same facility. Thus, in looking at methods to avoid spurious
emissions, focus has been on upgrading both the fire and the gas detection systems to
utilize modern technologies. Such systems are immune to common false alarms such
as hot carbon dioxide emissions, reflections from flare radiation, black body
radiation, hot work such as welding, and other problems that affect older technology
detectors.
For offshore platforms, physical space and weight constraints create a barrier to the replacement of
legacy systems. Systems that have not already been removed or replaced with an alternative will
likely remain in service for the life of the facility unless a cost effective “drop-in” alternative is
discovered, or the capital cost of the necessary infrastructure expansions required to accommodate
replacement with current agents becomes significantly less than the predicted management costs of
legacy systems.
A5 parties in the Asia Pacific region, including India, installed halon 1301 systems in refineries, gas
pumping stations and offshore oil platforms. Oil pumping stations are gradually switching over to
dry powders and HFC-227ea, FK-5-1-12, and inert gas systems are being installed in refineries
Page 44 of 147
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
supply is typically met by local sources of recovered halon, which are used to refill existing
cylinders. However, there is no halon recycling, banking or quality testing facility for such
recovered halon in much of Asia and therefore the quality and effectiveness of the halon supply in
this region is currently a major concern. Both newly produced and recycled high- GWP HFCs are
available. In land-based halon 1301 systems, where a clean agent is important, some companies are
hesitating to switch over to HFCs because of their high GWP as they do not want to switch over
twice. It is reported that HFC-23 has never been used in this region by the oil industry unlike in
cold climates.
Halon 1301 is also used for fire extinguishing systems and hydrocarbon inerting systems that
protect offshore oil exploration platforms in tropical regions of Asia.
Due to the adoption of alternatives in new facilities, this sector on a whole is reducing the reliance
as a percent of protected facilities on halons. However, enduring uses related to existing halon and
HFC systems will continue indefinitely.
4.3.2 New Facilities
For new facilities, the oil and gas industry companies appear to be adopting an Inherently Safer
Design approach (including enhanced isolation capabilities to minimize potential volume/exposure
and/or process blow-down, gas detection, and ventilation) to mitigate risk within their facilities.
This approach focuses on minimizing the probability of a release of hydrocarbons, the available
quantity of flammable or explosive materials, and the potential for ignition such as by through use
of explosion proof equipment or by diluting explosive hydrocarbon vapour concentrations. Only
when all such measures have been considered, and a residual risk of the hazard still remains, are
other risk reducing measures considered such as hydrocarbon inerting systems.
In most cases, robust hydrocarbon gas detection systems are employed to shut-down, isolate, blow-
down 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 inerting agent. An unintended consequence of high
rate ventilation in an Arctic climate is that the protected, enclosed process module may be at or near
ambient outside winter time temperatures during hydrocarbon gas release and subsequent
hydrocarbon inerting system discharge events. The potential extreme low temperature can require
the use of an agent with very high volatility such as HFC-23. In some specific instances,
temperatures permitting, total flooding FK-5-1-12 systems and fine water mist systems have been
employed for fire extinguishment only, to replace the need for high GWP HFCs.
4.4 Telecommunications and Computer Rooms (Electronics)
In the early 1990s, the HTOC estimated that telecommunications and computer rooms accounted
for about 65% of the annual use of halon 1301. In its 1993 Assessment, the HTOC indicated that by
then a wide range of suitable non-ODS alternatives including both traditional and new technologies
existed for new applications. The HTOC 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-125 and -227ea.
Page 45 of 147
The following halon alternatives are reported as used in electronics sector, with non-HFCs (1st
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
• Inert Gas Systems
• Carbon Dioxide systems (very limited)
• HFC-227ea
• HFC-125
On a regional basis, it is reported that in some of the European countries (in particular, Hungary,
Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece) HFC-125 and HFC-227ea extinguishing systems are utilized while in
Italy, mainly inert gas systems and a small percentage of FK-5-1-12 systems are used.
It has been reported that Japan used IG-100 and high-GWP HFCs as the main alternatives to halon
but halon is still installed in significant quantities in this sector. The installation rates from 2006 to
date in Japan are shown in Figure 4.5 below:
IG-55, 0.8%
FK-5-1-12, 5.1% CO2, 1.0%
IG-541, 5.2%
HFC-227ea, 9.5%
IG-100, 41.0%
Halon 1301,
17.4%
HFC-23, 20.0%
Figure 4.5: Installation Rates of Fire Protection Agents in Telecommunications and Computer
Rooms in Japan from 2006 to date.
Page 46 of 147
In Australia, it is estimated that the inert gas agents and HFC-227ea were introduced and widely
installed, along with a very small number of HCFC Blend A (HCFC-22, HCFC-124, HCFC-125 and
d-limonene) installations. FK-5-1-12 has also been promoted over the last several years. Aerosol
agents and water mist have been proposed but are not-in-kind alternatives and have found very little
application in this sector.
In Egypt, the majority of the Telecommunications and Computer Rooms have switched to using
HFC-227ea, at about 85%, with the remainder going to inert gas, at about 10%, water mist about
5% and FK-5-1-12, currently at less than 1%.
In India, fire protection for Telecommunications and Computer Rooms is estimated as follows: FK-
5-1-12 at about 60%, HFC-227ea at about 30% and carbon dioxide at about 10%. Carbon dioxide
systems are no longer being used for new installations and HFC-236fa is being used in server racks.
In Sweden, it is estimated that HFC-227ea makes up about 60% of the systems, IG-541 and -55
about 15% and water mist systems about 5%. The remaining 20% are not using in-kind alternatives
but choosing rather to employ alternative risk management strategies such as enhanced detection
coupled with fire services quick response.
4.5 Merchant Ships
4.5.1 Background
In the mid-1970s passenger ships and tankers switched from carbon dioxide to halon 1301 as it was
more cost effective. When the International Maritime Organization (IMO) banned the use of halons
in new constructions in 1992 (IMO, 1992), carbon dioxide 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 HTOC to try to
estimate the amount of halon 1301 and 1211 that could that could come onto the market from the
breaking of ships. Below is the information contained in the Decision XXVI/7 report.
4.5.2 Estimated Halon 1301 Installed on Merchant Ships
In order to estimate the amount of halon 1301 that may still be installed in merchant shipping, five
questions need to be answered:
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 first two questions the HTOC could provide answers based on direct experience or other
information available. Halon1301 was primarily used for the protection of machinery spaces on
passenger ships and machinery spaces and cargo pump rooms on tankers. Data on quantities of
halon 1301 by ship size, quantities of ships constructed during 1975 – 1993 and the average lifetime
were still needed.
Page 47 of 147
It had been hoped that the IMO would provide two of the missing pieces of information to the
HTOC: 1) quantities of ships constructed during 1975 – 1993 and 2) year of ship breaking so that
average lifetimes could be established. The Ozone Secretariat provided a point of contact at IMO
who informed the HTOC that they were not allowed to provide such information owing to a
contractual agreement with the ship registry company and that access to the data would need to be
discussed with commercial providers. The Ozone Secretariat subsequently directed HTOC to a
partially open access website, http://www.world-ships.com/, which contained information on year
and sizes of ships constructed. Additional information on year of ship breaking was reported as
being available through this registry but was not able to be obtained in time for this report. For the
purposes of this report, the useful lifetime of all ships is estimated to be between 30 - 40 yrs.
Data on passenger ships and tankers were extracted from the World Shipping Register including
ship name, ship type, deadweight tonnage (DWT), year built, and flag. The database constructed
only includes ships that were built between 1975 and 1993. The database includes approximately
4,000 tankers (i.e., asphalt tankers, chemical/oil tankers, crude oil tankers, LNG tankers, LPG
tankers, water tankers, and other tankers) and approximately 2,700 passenger ships (i.e., cruise
ships, ferry ships, and other passenger ships).
The average charge size of halon 1301 systems on passenger ships and tankers was assumed to vary
by the ship’s DWT. These charge sizes are listed in Table 4.6 for each size range of passenger ships
and tankers.
Table 4.6: Halon 1301 Charge Sizes for Passenger Ships and Tankers of Various Sizes (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
Figure 4.6 shows the number of passenger ships and tankers built between 1975 and 1993 and
Figure 4.7 shows the estimated total residual amount of halon 1301 remaining in service for an
assumed 30 year and 40-year lifetime. In 2014, approximately 2,628 metric tonnes is estimated to
remain in service for a 30-year lifetime of ships.
Page 48 of 147
450
400
350
Total Number of Ships
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993
Total Passenger Ships Built Total Tankers Built
Passenger Ships Built with Halon Tankers Built with Halon
Figure 4.6: Number of Passenger Ships and Tankers Built Between 1975 and 1993, ICF (2015)
Halon 1301 Remaining in Service on Ships (metric tonnes)
4,000
3,500
3,000
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 4.7: Total Residual Amount of Halon 1301 Remaining in Service, ICF (2015)
This amount would provide on average a little less than 300 metric tonnes annually through 2023.
For a 40-year lifetime of ships, 3,775 metric tonnes of residual halon 1301 is estimated to remain in
service in 2014. This would provide on average a little less than 200 metric tonnes annually through
Page 49 of 147
2033. It is not known how much of this halon is actually being recovered and making its way into
the recycled halon market.
4.5.3 References
ASTM (2017): Halon 1301 Specification: https://www.astm.org/Standards/D5632.htm.
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.
European Commission (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.
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/605/oj
FAA (2014): FAA Halon Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) Final Report:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/hrarc-
7022013.pdf
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 (2006): Hodges, S. E., “Challenges in Integrating Halon-Alternate Agents into Automatic
Fire Extinguishing Systems (AFES),” Halon Options Technical Working Conference (HOTWC),
NIST, 2006, https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/fire_research/R0601288.pdf
Hodges and McCormick (2010): Hodges, S. E. and McCormick, S. J., “Fire Extinguishing Agents
for Protection of Occupied Spaces in Military Ground Vehicles,” Suppression & Detection
Symposium (SUPDET), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2010.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a517470.pdf
Hodges and McCormick (2013): Hodges, S. E. and McCormick, S. J., “Fire Extinguishing Agents
for Protection of Occupied Spaces in Military Ground Vehicles,” J. Fire Technology, 49:379, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-012-0271-z
HTOC (2018): Report Of The Halons Technical Options Committee December 2018, Volume 2
Supplementary Report #1: Civil Aviation
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HT
OC/HTOC_supplement_report1_2018.pdf
ICF (2015): ICF International, Projections of Halon 1301 Supply and Demand for Aviation
Applications, May 2015
ICF (2018): ICF International, Drawing Down Halon 1301 Inventories: Updated Analysis,
September 2018
Page 50 of 147
IMO (1992): 1992 Amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention (resolution MSC.27(61))
Ingerson (2007): Engine Nacelle Halon Replacement, International Aircraft Systems Fire
Protection Working Group, April 16-17, 2007,
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/April07Meeting/ingerson-0407-Engine.pdf
McCormick, et al., (2000): McCormick, S. J., Clauson, M. and Cross, H., “US Army Ground
Vehicle Crew Compartment Halon Replacement Program,” Halon Options Technical Working
Conference (HOTWC), 2-4 May 2000,
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/fire_research/R0002178.pdf
McCormick and Clauson (2006): McCormick, S. J., and Clauson, M., “Crew Compartment Halon
Replacement Program for Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems (AFES): Status and Successes,”
Halon Options Technical Working Conference (HOTWC), NIST, 2006.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/fire_research/R0601287.pdf
NATO (2017): STANAG 4317 - Procedures For The Assessment Of Fire Protection Levels For
Land Vehicles Aep-4317, Edition A, 29 November 2017
Ripple and Mundie (1989): Ripple, G. and Mundie, T., “Medical Evaluation of Nonfragment
Injury Effects in Armored Vehicle Live Fire Tests,” Walter Reed Army Institute of Research,
September 1989, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a233058.pdf
Robin (2014): Robin, Mark L., Clean Agents in Aviation Fire Protection, International Fire
Protection P58-62., 2014
Schepers (1999): Schepers, H. Detoxifikation Substitution Löschmittel” WTD91, Wehrtechnische
Dienststelle für Waffen und Munition; Abschlussbericht WTD Nr. 91-100/011/99, 1999
Schepers (2000): Schepers, H. BUA ETB Leo2 mit FE36“ WTD91, Wehrtechnische Dienststelle
für Waffen und Munition; Abschlussbericht WTD Nr. 91-100/010, 2000
SDMO (2018): Correspondence between Swedish Defence Material Organization (FMV) and
Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA), Naval Engineering section, 11 April 2018
U.S. Army/MOD Brazil (2018): Official correspondence between U.S. Army Tank-Automotive
Research, Development, and Engineering Center and Ministry of Defense of the Federative
Republic of Brazil, 4 April 2018
U.S. DOD (2012): MIL-DTL-32412, HFC-227ea Fire Extinguishing Agent Enhanced with Special
Sodium Bicarbonate Powder (HFC-227ea/SBCS), 10 December 2012
Available at http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx
US DOD (2012): MIL-DTL-32403, Item Specification for the Fire Extinguisher Employing HFC-
227ea Agent Enhanced with Special Sodium Bicarbonate Powder (HFC-227ea/SBCS), Portable,
with Bracket, 11 December 2012, available at http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx
Page 51 of 147
Vollmer et al. (2016): Vollmer, M. K., et al. (2016), Atmospheric histories and global emissions of
halons H-1211 (CBrClF2), H-1301 (CBrF3), andH-2402 (CBrF2CBrF2), J. Geo-phys. Res. Atmos.,
121, 3663–3686, doi:10.1002/2015JD024488
Page 52 of 147
5 Global Estimates of Halons and HFC Fire Extinguishing Agent Quantities
5.1 Introduction
Beginning with the first HTOC Assessment report in 1989, the HTOC has included estimated
historic and projected future uses and emissions of halons 1211 and 1301. This was initially based
on the work of former HTOC 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 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 emissions 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 (former Soviet bloc countries), and 5) Montreal Protocol “Article 5” countries, which are
the remainder of the countries. Different practices that lead to emissions were separately identified
for each of the regions and are periodically updated by the HTOC 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 just venting it. With the
advent of the Montreal Protocol, emissive practices were all 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 took into account 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 HTOC developed and reported on a model for halon 2402 similar to the halon
1211 and 1301 models.
For the 2018 Assessment, the HTOC is again providing the most current estimates of inventories for
halon 1301, halon 1211 and halon 2402. These models have been updated to reflect all quantities
that have been reported as destroyed and to account for imports and exports between the five
modelled regions where data are available. No new information was found to warrant changing any
of the emission pattern assumptions from the 2014 Assessment. Only some minor modelling
updates have been made to round-out changes in assumptions to obtain smoother transition points.
In general, this assessment is similar, but not identical, to the 2014 Assessment for all three halons.
The 2018 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 alternatives to halon 1301 is also
included to provide a sense of the relative size of the use, bank and emissions of these other HFCs
from the fire protection sector.
Page 53 of 147
5.2 Emissions and Inventories of Halons
5.2.1 Halon 1301
Table 5.1 summarizes the HTOC 2018 Assessment of estimates of total production, annual
emissions, cumulative emissions and resulting inventories (bank) for halon 1301 in five-year
increments from 2014 - 2049. Future projected detailed yearly estimates for 2019 – 2050 are
provided in Table 5.2. Historic yearly detailed results from 1963 to 2018 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 in this report are the result of either destruction or export out of the
model region. Destruction results in a net loss of total cumulative production. Export is matched
by an import to a different region so that there is no net change to total cumulative production.
Positive values in the production columns after 1993 for non-A5 and after 2009 for A5 parties are
the result of import of recycled 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 through 2016. Using the methodology provided by O’Doherty et
al., (2015), the emissions for North West (NW) Europe for the period 2000 – 2017 are consistent
with the latest data, published in O’Doherty et al., (2018). To compare O’Doherty et al., (2018)
with the HTOC model, the HTOC model emission estimates were scaled for NW Europe 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 further by 1.65 to
scale down to the NW Europe countries included: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland,
Luxembourg, The Netherlands and the UK. The NW Europe emissions for 2014 – 2017 are 125
metric tonnes, 120 metric tonnes, 115 metric tonnes and 111 metric tonnes, respectively, as
compared to the O’Doherty et al. (2018) updated mean emission estimate of 115 metric tonnes, 128
metric tonnes, 107 metric tonnes and 105 metric tonnes, respectively. While the HTOC model
tends to be higher for those years it is well within the uncertainty range of the O’Doherty et al.
(2018) updated data. This implies that a significant amount of halon 1301 is still contained within
NW Europe. This amount includes halon 1301 in the EU critical uses including civil aviation fleets
operating in Europe.
Figure 5.1 provides graphically, the future projected regional distribution of the global inventory of
halon 1301 and shows that at the end of 2019, the HTOC projects 45% of the total inventory of
halon 1301 will be in Japan and 31% in North America. Although the regional disparity in the
distribution of halon itself does not necessarily constitute a regional imbalance, it is anticipated that
regional imbalances may result in shortages in one country or region with excesses in other
countries and regions. Where information is available on import/export, it has been included in the
HTOC model.
As shown in Figure 5.2, the HTOC model emissions and bank estimates compare well with the
mean emissions derived from mixing ratios (atmospheric concentrations) from the latest data using
the methodology of Vollmer et al. (2016) until the last few years where the HTOC model emissions
are consistently lower than the mean. Taking into account the uncertainties in the updated Vollmer
et al. (2016) data, as shown in Figure 5.2, the HTOC estimates generally fall within one sigma of
the mean except for three periods, approximately 1986 – 1988, 2000 and 2011 – 2014, where the
HTOC estimates are all lower than the 16th percentile value. For the period 2011 – 2014, the HTOC
is unaware of any singular current fire protection use that could account for the higher level of
Page 54 of 147
emissions as they are at least an order of magnitude higher than the largest single fire protection
systems known to exist. The only potential source from fire protection systems would be from ship
breaking (decommissioning) activities but that is not anticipated, as recovered halon 1301 has a
significant market value. Halon 1301 continues to be produced as a feedstock for the pesticide
Fipronil, whose emissions would not be accounted for in the HTOC model but would be included in
the Vollmer et al. (2016) estimates. None-the-less, as a result, the updated Vollmer et al. (2016)
mean data through mid-2017 provide cumulative emissions of 118,000 (86,000 16th percentile –
151,000 84th percentile) metric tonnes, which is more than was estimated previously in the 2014
HTOC Assessment Report, HTOC (2014) and in this current HTOC assessment. Based on the
global total cumulative production data from the HTOC, which are also used by Vollmer et al., the
mean values of the updated Vollmer et al. (2016) data through mid-2017 provide a remaining bank
of only 30,000 (0 – 62,000) metric tonnes versus the HTOC model estimate of approximately
109,000 metric tonnes of cumulative emissions and a remaining bank of 39,000 metric tonnes.
Using the average of the two bank sizes, the difference in remaining banks is nearly 25%. This
difference is becoming significant as the global bank (i.e., the amount of halon that is available to
support fire protection uses) becomes smaller over time. The updated Vollmer et al. (2016) data also
provide a much higher mean annual emission rate for 2016/2017 of nearly 4% of the bank/year
(with a low of 1.3% and an upper emission rate of more than 6%) than the approximately 2.5%
composite rate used by the HTOC. This assumes the smallest bank from known remaining amounts
as provided in the Decision XXVI/7 Report, TEAP (2015) of approximately 25,000 metric tonnes.
The combination of a potential higher emission rate than assumed by the HTOC and a smaller bank
of halon 1301 could also imply that there is going to be significantly less halon 1301 available to
support on-going needs in civil aviation, oil and gas, militaries, etc., which could result in a much
earlier “run-out date” as already discussed in Section 4.1 Civil Aviation.
Page 55 of 147
Table 5.1 HTOC Halon 1301 Model Summary (in metric tonnes)
2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,423 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365
former Countries with Economies in Transition 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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 148,421 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362
148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 474 402 338 285 240 202 170 143
Western Europe and Australia 228 188 158 134 113 95 80 68
Japan 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24
former Countries with Economies in Transition 69 56 45 36 29 23 19 15
Article 5 392 234 140 83 50 30 18 11
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1,187 903 705 562 456 374 311 260
903 705 562 456 374 311 260
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 29,347 31,497 33,311 34,840 36,127 37,195 38,108 38,877
Western Europe and Australia 24,591 25,601 26,450 27,166 27,771 28,274 28,705 29,068
Japan 10,603 10,726 10,848 10,970 11,090 11,210 11,329 11,446
former Countries with Economies in Transition 6,613 6,917 7,161 7,358 7,516 7,641 7,743 7,826
Article 5 35,296 36,749 37,616 38,133 38,441 38,617 38,727 38,792
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 106,448 111,490 115,386 118,466 120,945 122,937 124,611 126,010
111,490 115,386 118,466 120,945 122,937 124,611 126,010
INVENTORY (BANK)
North America 13,574 11,502 9,688 8,160 6,872 5,804 4,891 4,122
Western Europe and Australia 6,590 5,443 4,594 3,878 3,273 2,770 2,339 1,976
Japan 16,652 16,528 16,406 16,285 16,164 16,044 15,926 15,808
CEIT 1,556 1,252 1,008 811 653 528 425 343
Article 5 3,601 2,148 1,281 764 456 280 170 105
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 41,973 36,873 32,976 29,897 27,418 25,426 23,751 22,353
Page 56 of 147
45,000
North America Western Europe and Australia Japan CEIT Article 5
40,000
35,000
Metric Tonnes of Halon 1301
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049
Year
Figure 5.1: Forecast of future Regional Distribution of halon 1301 inventory
Page 57 of 147
6
Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) mean
HTOC Model
5 Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) 16 percentile
Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) 84 percentile
Gg (ktonnes) Halon 1301 emissions
4
3
2
1
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
-1
Year
Figure 5.2: Comparison of halon 1301 emissions from updated Vollmer et al (2016) and the HTOC model
Page 58 of 147
Table 5.2: Halon 1301 Summary (in metric tonnes)
Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION 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
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 402 388 375 362 350 338 327 316 305 295
Western Europe and Australia 188 181 175 170 164 158 153 148 143 138
Japan 25 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
CEIT 56 53 51 49 47 45 43 41 39 38
Article 5 234 211 190 172 155 140 126 113 102 92
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 903 858 816 777 740 705 673 643 614 587
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362
Page 59 of 147
Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999
Western Europe and Australia 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044
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 8,169 8,169
Article 5 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363
ALLOCATION
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 31,497 31,885 32,260 32,623 32,973 33,311 33,638 33,954 34,260 34,555
Western Europe and Australia 25,601 25,783 25,958 26,127 26,291 26,450 26,603 26,751 26,894 27,032
Japan 10,726 10,750 10,775 10,799 10,824 10,848 10,873 10,897 10,921 10,945
CEIT 6,917 6,970 7,021 7,069 7,116 7,161 7,204 7,245 7,284 7,322
Article 5 36,749 36,960 37,150 37,322 37,476 37,616 37,742 37,855 37,957 38,050
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 111,490 112,348 113,164 113,941 114,681 115,386 116,059 116,702 117,316 117,904
INVENTORY (BANK)
North America 11,502 11,114 10,739 10,376 10,026 9,688 9,361 9,045 8,739 8,445
Western Europe and Australia 5,443 5,261 5,086 4,916 4,752 4,594 4,441 4,293 4,150 4,011
Japan 16,528 16,504 16,479 16,455 16,430 16,406 16,382 16,357 16,333 16,309
CEIT 1,252 1,199 1,148 1,099 1,052 1,008 965 924 885 847
Article 5 2,148 1,937 1,747 1,575 1,421 1,281 1,155 1,042 940 847
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 36,873 36,015 35,198 34,422 33,682 32,976 32,303 31,661 31,046 30,459
Page 60 of 147
Year 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION 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
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 285 275 266 257 248 240 224 217 217 209
Western Europe and Australia 134 129 125 121 117 113 105 102 102 99
Japan 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
CEIT 36 34 33 32 30 29 27 25 25 24
Article 5 83 75 68 61 55 50 40 36 36 33
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 562 538 516 495 475 456 420 404 404 389
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362
Page 61 of 147
Year 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION ALLOCATION
North America 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999
Western Europe and Australia 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044
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 8,169 8,169
Article 5 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION ALLOCATION 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 34,840 35,115 35,381 35,638 35,887 36,127 36,351 36,567 36,784 36,993
Western Europe and Australia 27,166 27,295 27,420 27,541 27,658 27,771 27,876 27,978 28,080 28,179
Japan 10,970 10,994 11,018 11,042 11,066 11,090 11,114 11,138 11,162 11,186
CEIT 7,358 7,392 7,425 7,457 7,487 7,516 7,542 7,568 7,593 7,618
Article 5 38,133 38,208 38,276 38,337 38,392 38,441 38,482 38,518 38,554 38,587
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 118,466 119,004 119,520 120,015 120,489 120,945 121,365 121,769 122,174 122,562
INVENTORY (BANK)
North America 8,160 7,884 7,618 7,361 7,112 6,872 6,648 6,432 6,215 6,006
Western Europe and Australia 3,878 3,748 3,623 3,503 3,386 3,273 3,168 3,066 2,964 2,865
Japan 16,285 16,260 16,236 16,212 16,188 16,164 16,140 16,116 16,092 16,068
CEIT 811 777 744 712 682 653 626 601 575 551
Article 5 764 689 621 560 505 456 415 379 343 310
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 29,897 29,358 28,843 28,348 27,873 27,418 26,997 26,593 26,189 25,800
Page 62 of 147
Year 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and
Japan 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
Article 5 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
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 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
Japan 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
Article 5 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
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 202 195 189 182 176 170 165 159 154 148 143 139
Western Europe and Australia 95 92 89 86 83 80 78 75 73 70 68 66
Japan 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 23
CEIT 23 22 21 20 20 19 18 17 16 16 15 14
Article 5 30 27 24 22 20 18 16 14 13 12 11 9
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 374 360 347 334 322 311 300 289 279 270 260 252
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and
135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365 135,365
Japan
CEIT 1,355 1,355 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 11,643 11,643
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE
148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362 148,362
PRODUCTION
Page 63 of 147
Year 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999 42,999
Western Europe and Australia 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044 31,044
Japan 27,254 27,254 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 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,169
Article 5 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE
PRODUCTION ALLOCATION 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363 148,363
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 37,195 37,391 37,579 37,762 37,938 38,108 38,273 38,432 38,585 38,734 38,877 39,016
Western Europe and Australia 28,274 28,366 28,455 28,541 28,624 28,705 28,782 28,857 28,930 29,000 29,068 29,134
Japan 11,210 11,234 11,257 11,281 11,305 11,329 11,352 11,376 11,399 11,423 11,446 11,470
CEIT 7,641 7,663 7,685 7,705 7,725 7,743 7,761 7,779 7,795 7,811 7,826 7,840
Article 5 38,617 38,644 38,668 38,689 38,709 38,727 38,742 38,757 38,770 38,781 38,792 38,801
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 122,937 123,297 123,644 123,978 124,301 124,611 124,911 125,201 125,480 125,749 126,010 126,261
INVENTORY (BANK)
North America 5,804 5,608 5,420 5,237 5,061 4,891 4,726 4,567 4,414 4,265 4,122 3,983
Western Europe and Australia 2,770 2,678 2,589 2,503 2,420 2,339 2,261 2,186 2,114 2,043 1,976 1,910
Japan 16,044 16,021 15,997 15,973 15,949 15,926 15,902 15,878 15,855 15,831 15,808 15,784
CEIT 528 505 484 463 444 425 407 390 373 358 343 328
Article 5 280 253 229 208 188 170 155 140 127 116 105 96
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 25,426 25,066 24,719 24,384 24,062 23,751 23,451 23,162 22,883 22,613 22,353 22,101
Page 64 of 147
5.2.2 Halon 1211
During the 2014 HTOC Assessment, the HTOC was concerned with the status of banking
capabilities in some regions of the world and the handling of halon 1211. As a result, the HTOC
had 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. HTOC expresses the same
concerns in this assessment but does not have any additional quantitative information to justify
any changes in emission factors. Table 5.3 summarizes the HTOC 2018 Assessment of estimates
of total production, annual emissions, cumulative emissions and resulting inventories (bank) for
halon 1211 in five-year increments from 2019 - 2049. Future projected detailed yearly estimates
for 2019 – 2050 are provided in Table 5.4. Historic yearly detailed results from 1963 to 2018 are
provided in Appendix D. Negative production values in the tables in this report 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 5.3 provides graphically, the future projected regional distribution of the global inventory
of halon 1211 and shows that at the end of 2019, the HTOC projects almost 80% to be equally
divided between the North America, and Western Europe and Australia regions with about 20%
estimated to remain in A5 parties. The estimate for A5 parties is significantly lower than the more
than 50% projected in the 2010 Assessment, which again is a reflection of HTOC concerns with
halon 1211 bank management. Although the regional disparity in the distribution of halon itself
does not necessarily constitute a regional imbalance, it is anticipated that regional imbalances
may result in shortages in one country or region with excesses in other countries and regions.
As shown in Figure 5.4, there is significantly more uncertainty in the updated Vollmer et al.
(2014) halon 1211 data 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). 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 amount
of resulting emissions and would increase the size of the bank. The HTOC emission estimates for
North America are consistent with 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 reported by the Japanese Fire and Environment Protection Network annually.
Using the methodology provided by O’Doherty et al., (2015), the emissions for NW Europe for
the period 2000 – 2017 are consistent with the latest data, published in O’Doherty et al., (2018).
For example, the HTOC model emission estimates scaled for NW Europe for 2014 – 2017 are 278
metric tonnes, 266 metric tonnes, 257 metric tonnes, and 246 metric tonnes respectively, as
compared to the O’Doherty et al. (2018) updated mean emission estimate of 147 metric tonnes,
138 metric tonnes, 144 metric tonnes and 158 metric tonnes, respectively. While the HTOC
model is considerably higher for those years it is well within the uncertainty ranges over that
period for the O’Doherty et al. (2018) updated data. While perhaps not as much as the HTOC
model estimates, this implies that a significant amount of halon 1211 is still contained within NW
Europe and likely Europe overall. This amount includes halon 1211 in the EU critical uses
including civil aviation fleets operating in Europe.
As shown in Figure 5.4, the estimates of emissions from the updated Vollmer et al. (2016) data
and the HTOC model have compared fairly well within uncertainty until about 2002, thereafter,
Page 65 of 147
the HTOC model emissions are consistently lower and below the 16th percentile until the end of
the record. HTOC is aware 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 HTOC model is based on the best handling practices over time, the lack of handling by
professional servicers makes the prediction or estimation of emission factors for that amount of
halon difficult at best. HTOC believes that it is certainly possible that the emissions are higher
than the HTOC model predicts because of the inability to reliably estimate emissions from
“unwanted” halon 1211. As halon 1211 is still managed carefully in other parts of the world, the
HTOC model may come back into closer agreement once the non-professionally managed halon
1211 is emitted and emission rates are more predictable. As indicated above, HTOC does not
have any quantitative basis to make specific changes to the current assumptions on emission
factors at this time.
The updated Vollmer et al. (2016) data estimates mean cumulative emissions through mid-2017 of
311,000 metric tonnes (190,000 – 431,000) and a remaining bank of only 1,500 metric tonnes (0 –
122,500) versus the HTOC model estimate of 286,000 metric tonnes of cumulative emissions and
a remaining bank of 26,000 metric tonnes.
Page 66 of 147
Table 5.3: HTOC Halon 1211 Model Summary (in metric tonnes)
2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 195,596 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 312,453 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 457 375 308 253 207 170 140 115
Western Europe and Australia 505 409 347 282 242 197 150 114
Japan 12 10 8 6 5 4 3 3
CEIT 61 41 27 18 12 8 6 4
Article 5 1,024 582 331 189 107 61 33 19
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 2,059 1,417 1,021 748 574 441 331 254
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 47,774 49,808 51,477 52,847 53,971 54,894 55,651 56,272
Western Europe and Australia 73,824 76,055 77,881 79,402 80,647 81,730 82,570 83,208
Japan 1,700 1,754 1,798 1,833 1,861 1,883 1,900 1,915
CEIT 10,163 10,403 10,564 10,672 10,745 10,793 10,826 10,848
Article 5 146,654 150,350 152,453 153,649 154,329 154,717 154,931 155,052
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 280,116 288,371 294,173 298,402 301,553 304,017 305,878 307,295
INVENTORY
North America 11,342 9,308 7,639 6,270 5,145 4,223 3,466 2,844
Western Europe and Australia 11,421 9,177 7,352 5,831 4,586 3,502 2,663 2,025
Japan 259 207 165 132 105 84 67 54
CEIT 674 452 304 204 137 92 62 41
Article 5 7,659 4,357 2,479 1,410 802 457 267 158
TOTAL INVENTORY 30,422 22,750 17,315 13,335 10,351 8,007 6,248 4,903
Page 67 of 147
35,000
Article 5 CEIT Japan Western Europe and Australia North America
30,000
25,000
Metric Tonnes of halon 1211
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
Year
Figure 5.3: Forecast of future Regional Distribution of halon 1211 inventory
Page 68 of 147
15
Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) mean
13 HTOC Model
Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) 84
11 percentile
Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) 16
percentile
9
k tonnes halon 1211 emissions
7
5
3
1
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
-1
-3 Year
Figure 5.4: Comparison of halon 1211 emissions from one sigma of updated Vollmer et al (2016) and the HTOC model
Page 69 of 147
Table 5.4: Halon 1211 Summary (in metric tonnes)
Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 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
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALLOCATION
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 375 361 347 333 320 308 296 285 274 263
Western Europe and Australia 409 391 379 362 346 347 328 313 299 299
Japan 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7
CEIT 41 38 35 32 30 27 25 23 21 20
Article 5 582 520 465 415 371 331 296 264 236 211
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1,417 1,319 1,235 1,151 1,076 1,021 953 893 837 799
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Page 70 of 147
YEAR 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
ALLOCATIONS
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 49,808 50,169 50,516 50,849 51,169 51,477 51,773 52,058 52,331 52,594
Western Europe and Australia 76,055 76,446 76,826 77,188 77,534 77,881 78,209 78,522 78,821 79,120
Japan 1,754 1,764 1,773 1,782 1,790 1,798 1,806 1,813 1,820 1,826
CEIT 10,403 10,440 10,475 10,507 10,537 10,564 10,589 10,612 10,634 10,654
Article 5 150,350 150,870 151,335 151,750 152,121 152,453 152,749 153,013 153,249 153,460
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 288,371 289,690 290,925 292,076 293,151 294,173 295,125 296,018 296,855 297,654
INVENTORY
North America 9,308 8,948 8,601 8,268 7,947 7,639 7,343 7,059 6,785 6,522
Western Europe and Australia 9,177 8,786 8,407 8,045 7,698 7,352 7,024 6,711 6,411 6,113
Japan 207 198 189 181 173 165 158 151 144 138
CEIT 452 418 386 356 329 304 280 259 239 221
Article 5 4,357 3,893 3,477 3,107 2,775 2,479 2,215 1,978 1,767 1,579
TOTAL INVENTORY 22,750 21,516 20,364 19,289 18,267 17,315 16,422 15,585 14,786 14,038
Page 71 of 147
YEAR 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 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
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 253 243 234 224 216 207 199 192 184 177
Western Europe and Australia 282 269 256 245 233 242 225 232 220 208
Japan 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4
CEIT 18 17 16 14 13 12 11 10 10 9
Article 5 189 168 150 134 120 107 96 86 76 68
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 748 703 662 623 588 574 537 524 495 467
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
Page 72 of 147
YEAR 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
ALLOCATIONS
YEAR 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 52,847 53,090 53,323 53,548 53,764 53,971 54,170 54,362 54,546 54,723
Western Europe and Australia 79,402 79,671 79,927 80,172 80,405 80,647 80,872 81,104 81,324 81,533
Japan 1,833 1,839 1,845 1,850 1,855 1,861 1,865 1,870 1,874 1,879
CEIT 10,672 10,689 10,705 10,719 10,732 10,745 10,756 10,766 10,776 10,785
Article 5 153,649 153,817 153,968 154,102 154,222 154,329 154,425 154,511 154,587 154,656
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 298,402 299,105 299,767 300,391 300,979 301,553 302,089 302,614 303,109 303,576
INVENTORY
North America 6,270 6,027 5,793 5,569 5,353 5,145 4,946 4,754 4,570 4,393
Western Europe and Australia 5,831 5,562 5,306 5,061 4,828 4,586 4,360 4,128 3,908 3,700
Japan 132 126 120 115 110 105 101 96 92 88
CEIT 204 188 174 160 148 137 126 117 108 99
Article 5 1,410 1,260 1,126 1,006 898 802 717 640 572 511
TOTAL INVENTORY 13,335 12,673 12,049 11,462 10,888 10,351 9,826 9,331 8,864 8,424
Page 73 of 147
YEAR 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and
Japan Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 Production 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
Western Europe and Australia 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
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 ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 170 164 157 151 145 140 134 129 124 119 115 110
Western Europe and Australia 197 187 177 167 158 150 142 134 127 120 114 108
Japan 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
CEIT 8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3
Article 5 61 55 49 44 34 33 30 27 24 22 19 18
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 441 416 394 372 348 331 314 298 283 268 254 242
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and
195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583 195,583
Japan
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE
312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
PRODUCTION
Page 74 of 147
YEAR 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
North America 59,117 59,117 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 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 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 10,893 10,893
Article 5 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE
312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440 312,440
PRODUCTION ALLOCATIONS
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 54,894 55,057 55,215 55,366 55,511 55,651 55,785 55,914 56,038 56,158 56,272 56,382
Western Europe and Australia 81,730 81,917 82,094 82,261 82,420 82,570 82,712 82,846 82,973 83,094 83,208 83,316
Japan 1,883 1,887 1,890 1,894 1,897 1,900 1,903 1,906 1,909 1,912 1,915 1,917
CEIT 10,793 10,801 10,808 10,814 10,820 10,826 10,831 10,836 10,840 10,844 10,848 10,851
Article 5 154,717 154,771 154,820 154,863 154,898 154,931 154,961 154,987 155,011 155,033 155,052 155,070
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE
304,017 304,433 304,827 305,199 305,546 305,878 306,192 306,490 306,773 307,041 307,295 307,537
EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
North America 4,223 4,059 3,902 3,751 3,605 3,466 3,331 3,202 3,078 2,959 2,844 2,734
Western Europe and Australia 3,502 3,316 3,139 2,971 2,813 2,663 2,521 2,386 2,259 2,139 2,025 1,917
Japan 84 80 77 73 70 67 64 61 59 56 54 51
CEIT 92 85 78 72 67 62 57 53 49 45 41 38
Article 5 457 408 364 330 297 267 240 216 195 175 158 142
TOTAL INVENTORY 8,007 7,614 7,241 6,894 6,562 6,248 5,950 5,668 5,399 5,145 4,903 4,674
Page 75 of 147
5.2.3 Halon 2402
In 2014, the HTOC estimated cumulative production of halon 2402 based on data from Kopylov
et al. 2003, (in Russian) and by making a series of assumptions about halon 2402 production
based on available data. It was assumed that the difference between total Article 7 production
data for all halons in non-A5 parties and the halon 1211 and 1301 quantities used in the HTOC
models represents additional halon 2402 production outside of the former Soviet Union from the
years 1986 - 2010. The Soviet Union’s production represented 7% of the total quantity of halons
produced over that period. To estimate the 1963 – 1985 production, the 7% factor was applied to
the halon 1211 and 1301 production quantities per year. No changes have been made to the model
initially provided in the 2014 Assessment.
Table 5.5 provides a summary of HTOC 2018 Assessment of estimates of cumulative production,
annual emissions, cumulative emissions and resulting inventories (bank) for halon 2402 in five-
year increments from 2014 - 2049. There is little information available on import / export of halon
2402. Future projected detailed yearly estimates for 2019 – 2050 are provided in Table 5.6.
Historic yearly detailed results from 1963 to 2018 are provided in Appendix E.
Figure 5.5 provides the regional distribution of the global inventory of halon 2402 based on the
HTOC model. The HTOC estimates that the majority of halon 2402 remains in the former CEIT
countries but also with significant quantities remaining in Europe. However, the emissions for
Europe from the HTOC model are much higher than estimates using the methodology provided
by O’Doherty et al., (2015) in O’Doherty et al., (2018) for NW Europe for the period 2014 –
2017. The HTOC model emission estimates scaled for NW Europe for 2014 – 2017 are 74 metric
tonnes, 69 metric tonnes, 64 metric tonnes, and 60 metric tonnes, respectively, as compared to the
O’Doherty et al. (2018) updated mean emission estimate of 33 metric tonnes, 28 metric tonnes, 13
metric tonnes and 17 metric tonnes, respectively. The HTOC model is over predicting the
emissions and is outside of the range of uncertainly in the O’Doherty et al. (2018) updated data.
While there is still halon 2402 in Europe, it is likely less than predicted by the HTOC model.
As shown in Figure 5.6, the HTOC estimate of emissions is generally higher than the mean
estimate of emissions from the updated Vollmer et al. (2016) data since about 1980 and above
even the 84th percentile estimate of emissions starting about 1983. The updated Vollmer et al.
(2016) data provide a mean cumulative emissions through mid-2017 of 43,000 metric tonnes
(27,000 – 58,000) and a remaining mean bank of 16,000 metric tonnes (500 – 31,500) versus the
HTOC estimate of 52,000 metric tonnes of cumulative emissions and a remaining bank of about
7,000 metric tonnes. This places the HTOC model emissions and bank estimate within the range
of uncertainty of the updated Vollmer et al. (2016) data
Page 76 of 147
Table 5.5: HTOC Halon 2402 Model Summary (in metric tonnes)
2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049
CUMMULATIVE 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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 57 42 31 23 17 12 9 7
Western Europe and Australia 134 94 66 47 33 23 16 11
Japan 12 10 8 7 6 5 4 3
CEIT 391 275 193 136 96 67 47 33
Article 5 45 30 21 14 10 6 4 3
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 639 452 319 226 160 114 81 57
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 4,930 5,168 5,344 5,473 5,568 5,638 5,690 5,728
Western Europe and Australia 8,662 9,208 9,591 9,861 10,050 10,184 10,278 10,344
Japan 860 915 959 996 1,026 1,051 1,072 1,088
CEIT 30,202 31,792 32,909 33,696 34,248 34,637 34,910 35,103
Article 5 5,278 5,456 5,577 5,659 5,715 5,753 5,779 5,796
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 49,932 52,538 54,381 55,685 56,608 57,263 57,728 58,058
INVENTORY
North America 903 665 489 360 265 195 143 106
Western Europe and Australia 1,838 1,292 909 639 449 316 222 156
Japan 306 252 207 171 140 116 95 78
CEIT 5,356 3,766 2,649 1,862 1,310 921 648 455
Article 5 556 377 256 174 118 80 54 37
TOTAL INVENTORY 8,959 6,353 4,510 3,206 2,282 1,628 1,163 832
Page 77 of 147
10,000
9,000
North America Western Europe and Australia Japan CEIT Article 5
8,000
7,000
Hlaon 2402 Bank in tonnes
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049
Year
Figure 5.5: Forecast of future Regional Distribution of halon 2402 inventory
Page 78 of 147
2.5
Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) mean
HTOC Model
Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) 16 percentile
2
Vollmer, M.K., et al. (2016) 84 percentile
1.5
kt Halon 2402 Emissions
1
0.5
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
-0.5
Year
Figure 5.6: Comparison of halon 2402 emissions from one sigma of updated Vollmer et al (2016) and the HTOC model
Page 79 of 147
Table 5.6: Halon 2402 Summary (in metric tonnes)
Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 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
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 42 40 37 35 33 31 29 27 26 24
Western Europe and Australia 94 88 82 76 71 66 62 58 54 50
Japan 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7
CEIT 275 256 239 222 207 193 180 168 156 146
Article 5 30 28 26 24 22 21 19 18 16 15
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 452 421 393 367 342 319 298 278 260 242
CUMMULATIVE 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 80 of 147
YEAR 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
YEAR 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 5,168 5,208 5,245 5,280 5,313 5,344 5,373 5,400 5,426 5,450
Western Europe and Australia 9,208 9,295 9,377 9,454 9,525 9,591 9,653 9,711 9,764 9,814
Japan 915 924 934 942 951 959 967 975 982 989
CEIT 31,792 32,048 32,286 32,509 32,716 32,909 33,090 33,257 33,414 33,560
Article 5 5,456 5,484 5,510 5,534 5,556 5,577 5,596 5,614 5,630 5,645
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 52,538 52,959 53,353 53,719 54,062 54,381 54,679 54,957 55,217 55,459
INVENTORY
North America 665 625 588 553 520 489 460 433 407 383
Western Europe and Australia 1,292 1,204 1,122 1,046 975 909 847 789 736 686
Japan 252 242 233 224 216 207 199 192 184 177
CEIT 3,766 3,510 3,272 3,049 2,842 2,649 2,468 2,301 2,144 1,998
Article 5 377 349 323 299 277 256 237 219 203 188
TOTAL INVENTORY 6,353 5,931 5,538 5,172 4,829 4,510 4,212 3,934 3,674 3,432
Page 81 of 147
YEAR 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 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
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 23 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13
Western Europe and Australia 47 43 40 38 35 33 31 28 27 25
Japan 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5
CEIT 136 127 118 110 103 96 89 83 77 72
Article 5 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 8 8 7
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 226 211 197 184 172 160 150 140 130 122
CUMMULATIVE 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 82 of 147
YEAR 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
ALLOCATIONS
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 5,473 5,495 5,515 5,534 5,552 5,568 5,584 5,599 5,613 5,626
Western Europe and Australia 9,861 9,904 9,945 9,983 10,018 10,050 10,081 10,109 10,136 10,161
Japan 996 1,003 1,009 1,015 1,021 1,026 1,032 1,037 1,042 1,047
CEIT 33,696 33,822 33,940 34,050 34,153 34,248 34,337 34,420 34,498 34,570
Article 5 5,659 5,672 5,684 5,695 5,706 5,715 5,724 5,732 5,740 5,747
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 55,685 55,896 56,093 56,277 56,448 56,608 56,758 56,898 57,028 57,150
INVENTORY
North America 360 339 318 299 282 265 249 234 220 207
Western Europe and Australia 639 596 555 517 482 449 419 390 364 339
Japan 171 164 158 152 146 140 135 130 125 120
CEIT 1,862 1,736 1,618 1,508 1,405 1,310 1,221 1,138 1,060 988
Article 5 174 161 149 138 128 118 109 101 94 87
TOTAL INVENTORY 3,206 2,995 2,798 2,614 2,443 2,282 2,133 1,993 1,863 1,741
Page 83 of 147
Year 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 Production 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
Western Europe and Australia 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
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 ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 12 12 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6
Western Europe and Australia 23 21 20 19 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 11
Japan 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
CEIT 67 63 58 54 51 47 44 41 38 36 33 31
Article 5 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 114 106 99 93 86 81 75 70 66 61 57 54
CUMMULATIVE 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 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 35,558 35,558
Article 5 - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 84 of 147
Year 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
North America 5,833 5,833 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 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 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 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 5,833 5,833
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 5,638 5,650 5,661 5,671 5,681 5,690 5,698 5,706 5,714 5,721 5,728 5,734
Western Europe and Australia 10,184 10,205 10,225 10,244 10,261 10,278 10,293 10,307 10,320 10,332 10,344 10,354
Japan 1,051 1,056 1,060 1,064 1,068 1,072 1,075 1,079 1,082 1,085 1,088 1,091
CEIT 34,637 34,700 34,758 34,812 34,863 34,910 34,954 34,995 35,034 35,069 35,103 35,134
Article 5 5,753 5,759 5,765 5,770 5,774 5,779 5,783 5,787 5,790 5,793 5,796 5,799
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 57,263 57,369 57,468 57,561 57,647 57,728 57,803 57,874 57,940 58,001 58,058 58,112
INVENTORY
North America 195 183 172 162 153 143 135 127 119 112 106 99
Western Europe and Australia 316 294 274 256 238 222 207 193 180 168 156 146
Japan 116 111 107 103 99 95 91 88 85 81 78 75
CEIT 921 858 800 746 695 648 604 563 524 489 455 424
Article 5 80 74 69 64 59 54 50 47 43 40 37 34
TOTAL INVENTORY 1,628 1,521 1,422 1,330 1,243 1,163 1,087 1,017 951 890 832 779
Page 85 of 147
5.3 HFC Estimates
5.3.1 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, in order to estimate
the amount of the global emissions that are from the fire protection sector, it was necessary to
create a model that can separate the annual emissions into those three categories of use. It is also
known that HFC-227ea is 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, so it is a conservative
estimate in that it would overestimate the amount of emissions from fire protection. The model
was developed in coordination with a Medical and Chemicals (MC) TOC co-chair and a Rigid
and Flexible Foams (F)TOC co-chair. It is a top-down model using best estimates of annual
global production capacity of HFC-227ea beginning in 1993 and carried out until 2018, Walter-
Terrinoni (2018). This is a much 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 (2018). The amount that was used for production of foam was
provided by Walter-Terrinoni (2018), who also provided the estimated annual emissions from
both the production and use of foams. The amount that went into fire protection applications was
taken to be the remainder of the 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 HTOC halon models. The annual emission rates used are as follows.
• MDIs – 100%
• Foams – Production – 25%
• Foams annual from installed base – 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 2.5% (the same as the HTOC estimates for current halon systems) by
2011 and remaining at 2.5% thereafter.
Updated data from Montzka, et al., (2015) were obtained on the global emissions of HFC-227ea
through mid-year 2017 and are in excellent agreement with the simplified HTOC model, as
shown in Figure 5.7. The HTOC simplified model is generally between the 16th and 84th
percentile estimates, except for the period from 2008 – 2014. Even then, it is very close to the
16th percentile estimate. It is important to note that the input values for the model were not
adjusted to try to get the two estimation techniques to agree.
Page 86 of 147
7
Updated Montzka et al., (2015) Mean
6 Updated Montzka et al., (2015) 16 percentile
Updated Montzka et al., (2015) 84 percentile
ktonnes emissions of HFC-227ea
5 HTOC (MCTOC and FTOC) Simple Model
4
3
2
1
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
-1
Year
Figure 5.7: Comparison of updated Montzka et al. (2015) HFC-227ea estimated global emissions with the simplified HTOC model
Page 87 of 147
All of the input data of the model was based directly on the expert opinion of the
HTOC, MCTOC and FTOC co-chairs who provided data and expert opinion. Only
small differences in the model assumptions would be needed to get the two to agree
but having done so would eliminate the independence of the two methods. If there
becomes additional independent information available or data in the future such as
refrigerant use and emissions of HFC-227ea, the model would be updated at that time.
For now, the very good agreement from the two independent methods is felt as
sufficient to use the HTOC simplified model to estimate the size of the fire protection
bank of HFC-227ea and the amount of the overall global emissions that comes from
fire protection applications. Based on the estimated emissions of 3,381 metric tonnes
in 2018 and a 2.5% annual emission rate, the global HFC-227ea fire protection bank
is estimated to be 128,500 metric tonnes at the end of 2018.
To put that amount into context, the largest that the global halon 1301 bank was
projected to be in the HTOC model was 77,000 metric tonnes in 1991. An initial
impression is this might make the HFC-227ea bank seem too high. However, if one
considers that although halon 1301 was commercialized and used as early as 1963, it
was not really until the mid-1970s that halon 1301 really 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
market place. Further, well above 50% more HFC-227ea is required over halon 1301
to protect against the same fire threat. Therefore, to protect the same spaces being
protected by the 77,000 metric tonnes of halon 1301 would require about the 128,500
metric tonnes now projected to be in the HFC-227ea fire protection bank. Lastly, the
bank of HFC-227ea is not emitted at nearly the same rate that was common for halons
up until the Montreal Protocol, meaning that the bank continues to grow steadily.
Regionally, U.S. 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 U.S. use and emissions of HFC-227ea for foams and MDIs, some
assumptions on percentages of use in the U.S. ranging from no use in foams and
MDIs to their global average, provide an estimate that the U.S. emissions of HFC-
227ea from the fire protection sector are about 15 to 25% of the global emissions
from the fire protection sector. All anecdotal information available to the HTOC
would indicate that this range is reasonable, which would provide further support to
the HFC-227ea model estimates in Figure 5.7.
5.3.2 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 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. 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 HTOC does not have the necessary information to
perform such modelling.
Page 88 of 147
5.3.3 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 3.4.4 on
alternatives, and 4.3.1 on oil and gas production. 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. In one case, where more precise information is
available, its use is higher than typical at around 20% - 25% of HFC-227ea, Yagi
(2018). However, this is limited to a region where inert gases dominate this sector
and therefore is not illustrative of the overall percentage globally. 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 (2018), using the
correlation shown in Verdonik (2004). If this region was using the average amount of
HFC-227ea at 6% of the global total, its HFC-227ea installed base (bank) would be
over 7,000 metric tonnes in 2018. 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 theoretical 7,000 metric tonnes of HFC-227ea
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.
5.3.4 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 widely used in
European military vehicle applications and there is also one other known small use for
fire protection in U.S. auto racing, National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing,
known as NASCAR. At this time, there is not sufficient information to estimate HFC-
236fa installed quantities or emissions in the fire protection sector.
5.4 Global Halon, HCFC, and HFC Banking
5.4.1 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 same concepts and terminologies apply to HCFCs and HFCs.
Many parties have halon banking programs that are fully operational, but more parties
have implemented only partial programs 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 it
Page 89 of 147
is a straightforward step to expand those programs, practices, and processes to include
all halocarbons (preferably all halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents).
HTOC has a continuing concern regarding the historical knowledge that has been lost
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 halon (and halocarbon) use, recycling, and banking. HTOC notes
that this is becoming more and 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 apparent loss
in institutional memory.
5.4.2 HCFC and HFC Banking
Like halons, HFC and HCFC fire extinguishing agents can be recovered from
decommissioned fire protection systems and extinguishers and reused. For HFCs, this
practice is fairly common in non-A5 parties that have an established halon recycling
industry. Unlike halons, where recovered agent is used in both new fire protection
equipment and to service existing fire protection equipment, recovered HFCs are used
mostly to service existing equipment and are not commonly used in new fire
protection systems or extinguishers. This may change in the future as the phasedown
of HFC production and consumption proceeds. HFC recycling is performed by the
primary halon recycling companies. The U.S. Defense Logistics Agency recycles
HFCs for military uses. In addition, recovery and reuse of HFCs occurs at the
distributor level. Data from the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation’s HFC
Emission Estimating Program shows that in recent years about 75% of the HFCs used
to service existing fire protection equipment in the U.S. 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 use of HCFCs in fire protection is much smaller than the use of HFCs and more
regionally specific, and as of now recovery of HCFCs from fire protection equipment
is somewhat limited. This may change as the phase-out of HCFC production and
consumption proceeds.
The banking of HCFCs is in its infancy and is discussed in the TEAP Working Group
Report on Decision XXIX/9, TEAP (2018a). Likewise, there have been no reports of
HFC banking with the exception of the few non-A5 parties who already have well-
established halon banking programs such as Australia, Japan, and the U.S.
The HTOC Supplemental Report #3 on Global Banking has some country-specific
information on HFC and HCFC banking for most regions globally. The following are
two examples:
India: A regulation was passed in India in 2014 banning the import of HCFCs and
limiting their use in many applications. India now has a bank management plan in
place to address the phase-out of HCFCs. Multi-lateral Fund support was provided in
2017 to assist India in moving forward the phase-out dates for HCFCs from 2040 to
2025.
Page 90 of 147
Egypt: The Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) with UNIDO conducted
workshops in August and November to discuss the feasibility of establishing recycling
facilities. Such operations are not expected to be on-line before the year 2022.
It is the conclusion of the HTOC that parties who have not implemented halon
management programmes (or organized recycling) are unlikely to be recycling or
managing other halogenated fire extinguishing agents. In all of those cases, there are
no reported activities for HFCs and HCFCs.
Countries/regions who have more recently begun working on halon banking have
indicated awareness of the need to bank HFCs and HCFCs and are at various levels in
the planning stages.
Parties with well-established halon bank management programmes and who are in
most cases the largest remaining users have already incorporated HFCs into their bank
management operations.
5.4.3 Halon 1211 and 1301 Banking
Halon banking programmes are well established in non-A5 parties that need them
such as Australia, Japan, and the U.S.
China’s Foreign Economic Cooperation Office (FECO) recently signed a contract
with an office under the Ministry of Public Security to function as the national halon
management office and to maintain a database on halon 1211 and 1301 installed,
collected, and stored in China. This office is essentially the halon bank programme
office and they are in the process of setting up a halon recycling website. A survey on
halon installed in fire extinguishing systems and portable fire extinguishers and
collected by fire equipment companies and fire brigades covering several provinces,
was competed in in 2016. While conducting this survey, some recycling companies
were identified. One of the companies, located in Shanghai, has been active in the
collection of halons from fire extinguishing systems on-board ships. No other details
are available on the aforementioned recycling companies. All of the identified
recycling activities are now part of the national halon management programme. A
former producer of halon 1211 has a large enough stock available to meet the
commercial aviation and military needs for numerous decades. This surplus is a result
of continued halon production through 2010. An unfortunate consequence of the
surplus is that it seems to be inhibiting banking and recycling efforts. As of 2018, the
regulatory issue of halon being classified as a hazardous waste in China has been
resolved, and the halon banking and recycling activities have restarted. FECO signed
a contract with a company who set up a halon 1301 recycling centre. The company
has a small stock of halon 1301, which is now also managed under the national halon
management activities.
India has an active halon bank management program. The Indian Air Force utilizes
halon 1211 and halon 1301, and in 2016 is reported to have procured the quantities
needed to support their remaining applications.
South American countries continue in their efforts to eliminate the use of the halons in
fire protection applications, where feasible, such as communications, banks,
transportation, and marine vessels. Meanwhile civil aviation and military branches
Page 91 of 147
still use halons in their equipment. Legislation was passed prior to 2014 in most Latin
American countries to prohibit the import and export of halons (including recycled).
This has created difficulties for some companies who provide servicing to the
remaining users such as aviation and military.
Many A5 parties have indicated an interest in getting support in various aspects of
banking such as collecting data on remaining users, recycling, navigating
import/exports of halons, and transitioning to long-term acceptable alternative (e.g.,
non- or low-GWP) solutions for their fire protection applications. Parties may wish to
consider projects aimed at providing such support, particularly at the regional level.
5.4.4 Halon 2402 Banking
Halon 2402 had been produced nearly exclusively in the former USSR, and
production was continued by the Russian Federation after 1991 until the end of 2000.
The bank of halon 2402 was very small at the time of production phase-out 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, the objective being to build a bank of halon 2402 that existing
applications could rely on for the remaining useful lives of their equipment.
However, as reported in the 2006 HTOC Assessment Report, 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. (This release of halon 2402 is not yet included in the HTOC model.)
More recently, halon 2402 was commercialized for the Russian market as an
encapsulated component of a flame-retardant material, which can be used as a
painting or coating, further reducing the inventory for existing uses.
Equipment associated with halon 2402 systems was almost exclusively manufactured
in the USSR until its dissolution in 1991, and in the Russian Federation and the
Ukraine thereafter. In other countries of the former Eastern Bloc (e.g., Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia) use of halon
2402 was associated with the use of Russian military equipment and civilian aircraft.
However, now many of these are no longer in use. Halon 2402 based fire protection
equipment was also exported to some Asian countries together with Russian products,
mostly for use in military vehicles, ships, and aircraft.
Countries that still use halon 2402 as a fire protection agent can be grouped as
follows:
• Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus;
• Other former USSR and other countries of the former Eastern Bloc:
Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia; Central Asia: Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; Non-EU states of East-
South Europe: e.g., former Yugoslavia; EU member states: Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia;
and
• South-East and East Asia: India, Vietnam, Japan.
Page 92 of 147
Some military and aviation equipment employing halon 2402 may still be in use in
countries that purchased equipment from the USSR, and later from Russia, e.g.,
Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Mongolia and Syria.
The needs of some parties for halon 2402 cannot be estimated due to the
unavailability of market information, but it should be assumed that a demand for
halon 2402 for the servicing of operating equipment exists and that halon from
outside sources will be required, as banking and recycling facilities do not exist.
While there is no apparent shortage of halon 2402 on a global basis, in the absence of
bank management plans and, given the prevalence of low quantity installed bases
spread over large geographical areas, there may be regional shortages in the near
future that parties may wish to address with increased awareness programmes,
particularly on the need to prevent venting. The HTOC believes that it remains
essential to maintain a readily viable path for transfer of decommissioned halons, or
destruction of contaminated halons when necessary.
Italy reports no halon 2402. O’Doherty et al., (2018) data indicates the presence of
halon 2402 in NW Europe but the HTOC has not been able to ascertain where. Halon
2402 is still being used in Russia, central Asia, and Japan. Russia is the largest user of
halon 2402 with an estimated installed base of approximately 920 tonnes, annual
emissions of 3 tonnes, and an average of 30 tonnes available for the global market.
The next two largest users are Japan (159 tonnes) and the Ukraine (128 tonnes). The
‘market’ appears to be balanced. Most critical uses are in the military sector, except in
Japan where the majority of uses are non-military. Data show no increase in demand
and no increases are expected in the future. Contaminated agent and mixtures, such as
that with ethyl bromide, continue to enter the market and may represent an increasing
proportion of the remaining stock as the overall global bank diminishes. While there
is no direct data at this time showing this trend, it is a possibility that should be taken
into consideration when forecasting and planning for future remaining needs.
5.4.5 Conclusions
Some countries have classified halons as hazardous wastes, which is hampering
movement. The HTOC has a concern that the transboundary movement of halons
(which would facilitate movement of halons to where they are needed) is not possible
due to legislation in some countries. An example of a national restriction is one
country’s policy on transferring halon out of their country; they will not allow halons
to be moved unless the halon goes to another country operating under the Basel
Convention.
The HTOC 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 HTOC 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 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 6 of this
report, HTOC Technical Note #2, and HTOC Technical Note #4 for best practices.
Page 93 of 147
HTOC Technical Note #2 can be found at
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEA
P/Reports/HTOC/technical_note2_2018.pdf
and
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEA
P/Reports/HTOC/technical_note4_2018.pdf
respectively.
The subject of global halon banking was addressed at length in earlier editions of the
HTOC Assessment Reports. For the 2014 Assessment Report, the HTOC elected to
move the contents of this chapter to Supplementary Report #2, Volume 3: Global
Halon 1211, 1301, and 2402 Banking, where it could be continuously updated as
necessary.
Supplementary Report #2- Volume 3: renamed Global Halon, HCFC, and HFC
Banking (2018) has been updated to include specific reference to all halogenated fire
extinguishing agents. This chapter is only a summary of the latest version of HTOC
Supplementary Report #2, Volume 3 which can be found on the Ozone Secretariat
website at:
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEA
P/Reports/HTOC/HTOC_supplement_report2_2018.pdf
5.5 References
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 (2018): International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April
– 2018, downloaded from
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/download.aspx.
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
Montzka et al, (2015): Montzka, S.A., M. McFarland, S.O. Andersen, B.R. Miller,
D.W. Fahey, B.D. Hall, L. Hu, C. Siso, J.W. Elkins, Recent trends in global emissions
of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons—Reflecting on the 2007
Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol, J. Phys. Chem. A, 119, 4439-4449,
doi:10.1021/jp5097376, 2015.
Noakes (2018): Noakes, TJ, Mexichem Fluor, United Kingdom, personal
communication with a co-chair of the Medical and Chemicals Technical Options
Committee, 2018.
O’Doherty et al. (2015): O’Doherty, S., Grant, A., Ganesan, A., Say, D., Stavert, A.,
Manning, A. J., Derwent, R. G., Simmons, P., Young, D., Humphfrey, S., Oram, D.,
and Sturges, B.: Long-term atmospheric measurement and Interpretation (of
Page 94 of 147
radiatively active trace gases), Annual Report (May 2013 – April 2014), 1 May 2014,
downloaded from:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/migrated/final_ar1
4_mainreport_aug14.compressed.pdf
O’Doherty et al. (2018): O’Doherty, S., Stanley, K., Rigby, M., Stavert, A., Manning,
A., Reddington, A., Simmonds, P., Young, Di., Sturges, B., Wisher, A., Palmer, P.,
Rennick, C., and Arnold, T.: Long-term atmospheric measurement and Interpretation
(of radiatively active trace gases), Annual Report (Sept 2017 – Sept 2018), 10
September 2018, downloaded from:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/research/ar18_repo
rt.pdf
TEAP (2018a): TEAP Decision XXIX/9 Working Group Report on
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons and Decision XXVII/5, March 2018
Terrinoni (2018): Walter-Terrinoni, H., co-chair, Foams Technical Options
Committee, personal communication, 2018
Tope (2018): Tope, H., co-chair, Medical and Chemicals Technical Options
Committee, personal communication, 2018
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
Vollmer et al. (2016): Vollmer, M. K., Mühle, J., Trudinger, C. M., Rigby, M.,
Montzka, S. A., Harth, C. M., Miller, B. R., Henne, S., Krummel, P. B., Hall, B. D.,
Young, D., Kim, J., Arduini, J., Wenger, A., Yao, B., Reimann, S., O’Doherty, S.,
Maione, M., Etheridge, D. M., Li, S., Verdonik, D. P., Park, S., Dutton, G., Steele, L.
P., Lunder, C. R., Rhee, T. S., Hermansen, O., Schmidbauer, N., Wang, R. H. J., Hill,
M., Salameh, P. K., Langenfelds, R. L., Zhou, L., Blunier, T., Schwander, J., Elkins, J.
W., Butler, J. H., Simmonds, P. G., Weiss, R. F., Prinn, R. G. and Fraser, P. J.:
Atmospheric histories and global emissions of halons H-1211 (CBrClF2), H-1301
(CBrF3), and H-2402 (CBrF2CBrF2), J. Geo-phys Res Atmos., 121, 3663-3686,
doi:10.1002/2015JD024488
Yagi (2018): Yagi, M, Japan Fire and Environment Protection Network, personal
communication, 2018
Page 95 of 147
6 Recommended Practices for Recycling Halons and Other Halogenated
Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents.
With the halt in production, halons from fire suppression systems and units removed
from service have been recycled/reclaimed and become the sole replenishment source
for the recharge of these units. While production of HFCs is ongoing, there are
increasing amounts of recycled agent being used in lieu of new production. The
HTOC sees this trend continuing for all halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents
as the preferred source to recharge systems and extinguishers. Poor recovery,
recycling and reclamation processes can inadvertently compromise the purity and
quality of the agents by the introduction of contaminants rendering the agents not fit
for purpose.
The most common halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents in use today are:
• Halon 1301
• Halon 1211
• Halon 2402
• HCFC-123 (in appropriate blends only)
• HFC-23
• HFC-125
• HFC-227ea
• HFC-236fa
• FK-5-1-12
In the fire protection industry, there are several terms used to describe the treatments
of halons and other gaseous halogenated fire extinguishants 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.
• Recycle: To clean recovered agent without meeting all the requirements for
reclamation. In general, recycled agent has its pressurizing nitrogen removed
in addition to being processed to only reduce moisture and particulate matter.
• Reclaim: To reprocess 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
machinery usually not available at a servicing company.
Faced with this high reliance on recycled and reclaimed agents for the replenishment
of systems, it is essential that recovered agents be properly processed to remove
impurities and to return the agents’ purity levels to be consistent with newly
manufactured agent and/or the applicable purity standards.
Page 97 of 147
It has been shown that it is important to meet all of the quality assurance requirements
throughout the recovery, recycling, reclamation and testing phases, in order for there
to be a credible gaseous halogenated fire extinguishant resupply industry.
Contamination mitigation strategies by the key players involved in the supply chain
offering recycled agent for replenishment can also play an important role. These key
players include the recycling companies, the accredited testing laboratories, the
servicing companies and the end users. All have a role to play in employing robust
quality assurance processes throughout each of their operations to ensure processed
agent is returned to the correct quality specifications.
Many, if not all of the recommended practices for recycling or reclaiming halons will
apply to other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents. Quality testing of
halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents made up of blends will determine
whether recycling or reclamation processes will need to be applied to return these
types of agent back to their quality specifications. Where agents are made up of
halogenated blends, recycling will reduce physical contaminants like acidity, water
content, particulate matter and nitrogen if the agents have been pressurized.
Reclamation practices involving a form of distillation on the other hand, may be
required to separate the blend components out, rectify their respective purities and
then re-blend to achieve the overall purity requirement of the agent. From time to
time, depending on the overall quality of the agent, it may need to be subject to both
recycling and reclamation processes.
Guidance on the practices for recycling halon was addressed in earlier editions of the
HTOC Assessment Reports. For the 2014 Assessment Report the HTOC elected to
move the contents of this chapter to Technical Note #4: Recommended Practices for
Recycling Halons, where it could be continuously updated as necessary.
Technical Note #4, Revision 2: renamed Recommended Practices for Recycling
Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents (2018) has been
updated to include specific reference to all halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing
agents. This chapter is only a summary of the latest version of HTOC Technical Note
#4 which can be found on the Ozone Secretariat website at:
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEA
P/Reports/HTOC/technical_note4_2018.pdf
Page 98 of 147
7 Emission Reduction Strategies
Releasing fire extinguishing agents into the atmosphere is fundamental to the process
of flame extinction and enclosed space inerting. Historically, less than 5% of all halon
emissions have been a result of using halons to extinguish fires. While most (it is
presumed all) parties have discontinued system discharge testing and discharge of
extinguishers for training purposes, additional significant reductions of emissions can
be realized by improving maintenance procedures, detection, and control devices,
recovery and recycling, recordkeeping, proper training, and utilizing standardized
procedures for agent transfers and storage.
There are a number of non-technical actions that could be taken which have been
shown to be equally important to the aforementioned technical actions. Non-technical
steps include development of codes of conduct, implementing awareness campaigns,
workshops and training, policies, and legislating regulations and ensuring
enforcement. Emissions Reduction Strategies are a combination of “responsible use”
and political regulatory action.
Emission reduction strategies are grouped into the following ten areas (refer to HTOC
Technical Note #2 for more coverage of each area):
1. Alternative Fire Protection Strategies: Do not use ODS or high-GWP
halogenated gaseous fire extinguishants in new fire protection applications or new
designs of equipment where feasible. Alternatives are available for virtually all
applications with very few exceptions, e.g., some aircraft and military
applications, low temperature applications, etc. Clearly, emissions can be reduced
if the agent is no longer employed as the fire protection agent. Other active fire
extinguishing systems, which perform the same function as gaseous halogenated
fire extinguishant systems, should not be considered as the only alternative to
halon, HCFC or HFC systems. A combination of prevention, inherently safe
design, minimization of personnel exposure, passive protection, equipment
duplication, detection, and manual intervention should be considered.
2. Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishant Use Minimization: When protection
using halogenated gaseous fire extinguishants against fire or explosion hazards is
considered vital, practices such as local application and zoned systems should be
considered to minimize the use of agent quantities, and thus reduce emissions
potential.
3. Maintenance Programs: Attention to maintenance programs can add years to a
bank of agent by reduced emissions. This represents money saved in two ways. It
minimizes the need to purchase recycled agents, and it prolongs the useful life of
the existing fire protection system.
4. Detection Systems: Automatic systems go hand in hand with sensitive detection
systems. Poor design and improper maintenance of detection systems can result in
significant unwanted releases, i.e., emissions.
5. Hazard and Enclosure Review: Monitor and control the hazard. Check for
enclosure modifications or changes to the configuration of the protected space.
Check with local/national fire regulations and manufacturers’ recommendations
Page 99 of 147
for specific requirements or in their absence support the development or adoption
thereof.
6. Personnel Training and Documentation: It is recommended that the personnel
performing on-site maintenance as well as the user be trained and competent in
the maintenance and proper operation of the system/unit and aware of activities
that could result in an unwanted discharge. It is recommended that both groups
should be educated on ozone depletion and climate change issues and the impact
of halogenated gaseous fire extinguishant releases, as well as the restrictions on
future supplies.
7. Agent Transfers and Storage: The component emissions related to agent
transfers can be substantially reduced by the use of approved filling rigs.
Recovery rigs should be operated to avoid contaminating agent supplies. By
recovering all on-site agent that is not in use for fire protection purposes, the risk
of accidental discharge or agent leakage is minimized. The agent can be recovered
into large storage tanks, if the quality can be verified, and the tanks monitored for
leaks. Where testing of agent quality (followed with recycling/reclamation if
needed) is not feasible, the agent should be stored in separate appropriate-for-use
containers in a common area and monitored for leaks.
8. Agent Discharging: The discharging of halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing
agent systems and portable fire extinguishers for testing, training, and other non-
fire related procedures can be a cause of unnecessary emissions and should be
avoided. Training with substitute agents should be considered where possible.
With the increase in awareness of the environmental problems associated with
halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs, many users are switching to the not-in-kind
agents or fire protection strategies discussed in Chapter 3.
9. Awareness Campaigns and Policies: Non-technical actions for emission
reduction strategies can include:
• Policies, Regulations, and Enforcement: Each National Ozone Unit (NOU)
has been tasked with the responsibility for implementing policies, programs,
and regulations in support of those obligations under the articles of the
Montreal Protocol specific to their country. Some parties have elected to
utilize a Steering Group to formulate plans for ODS phase-out, 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 phase-out such
as the following.
− Public fire services
− Fire equipment trade associations
− Insurance companies
− End users (civil aviation, military, telecommunications, etc.)
− Environmental advocacy groups (NGOs)
− Environment Ministry
− Customs officials
− Defence Ministry
Page 100 of 147
Without the support of the NOU, decommissioned halons within the country
may be lost rather than banked for the parties’ critical needs. A proactive
approach has the benefit of also managing the other fire extinguishing agents
regulated under the Montreal Protocol, i.e., HCFCs and HFCs.
• Awareness Campaigns: Emission Reductions can be achieved by
implementing a comprehensive awareness campaign which can include
workshops, training, brochures, television commercials, website, newsletters
directly or through fire protection equipment/service providers, fire protection
and trade publications, etc. Involve the stakeholders, who may include the
NOU delegate, Ministry of Environment, fire protection users, code enforcing
authority, military branches, maritime and airline industries, research and
testing laboratories, and others in the fire protection community.
• Standards and Code of Practice: The fire protection community could
adopt or develop technical standards on the design, installation, testing, and
maintenance of extinguishers and fire suppression systems both for halons and
other halogenated fire extinguishing agents. Additionally, many countries have
developed or adopted a Voluntary Code of Practice that is intended to focus
the industry’s efforts on minimizing emissions of gaseous fire protection
agents.
• Record keeping: Record keeping can be an integral part of managing these
agents from the system user to any national or commercial banks.
10. Decommissioning, Transportation, and Destruction: Decommissioning is the
process of removing a system from service. This must be done in order to recover
the agent, so it can be made available for other uses. It is important to develop
procedures and ensure they are properly followed so that the agent is handled,
transported, and stored in such a way that it is not emitted, and its physical
property value is not degraded. Destruction of these agents is a final disposition
option that should be considered only if they are contaminated and cannot be
reclaimed to an acceptable purity.
The subject of halon emission reduction strategies was addressed at length in earlier
editions of the HTOC Assessment Reports. For the 2014 Assessment Report the
HTOC elected to move the contents of this chapter to Technical Note #2: Halon
Emission Reduction Strategies, where it could be continuously updated as necessary.
Technical Note #2, Revision 3: renamed, Halons and Other Halogenated Gaseous
Fire Extinguishing Agents Emission Reduction Strategies (2018) has been updated to
include specific reference to all halogenated fire extinguishing agents. This chapter is
only a summary of the latest version of HTOC Technical Note #2 which can be found
on the Ozone Secretariat website at:
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEA
P/Reports/HTOC/technical_note2_2018.pdf
Page 101 of 147
8 Destruction Technologies
With the worldwide end of halon production for fire protection uses at the end of
2009, and the imminent phase-out of HCFCs and phase-down of HFCs, including as
fire suppressants, global inventory management and responsible disposal practices
become important considerations to prevent emissions during a critical period of
global environmental protection. The options for avoiding emissions of unwanted
stockpiles of fire extinguishants include destruction and transformation (also referred
to as conversion) to useful and more environmentally friendly chemical products.
Halogenated gaseous fire extinguishants, more than some of the other ODSs and
HFCs, are readily accessible for collection, storage, and disposal or reuse. Owing to
the continued global demand in applications such as aviation, the HTOC has
previously recommended that destruction as a final disposition option should be
considered only if the halons are contaminated and cannot be reclaimed to an
acceptable purity. The HTOC recommends extending that to all halogenated gaseous
fire extinguishants. Approved ODS destruction technologies and facilities can be
found in many countries and those are often applicable to HCFCs and HFCs.
Destruction of halons presents some unique considerations. A number of the
technologies screened by the TEAP Task Force on Destruction Technologies (TFDT)
satisfied the criteria for the destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and HCFCs but
had not been tested for halon destruction. The TFDT, therefore, could not recommend
such technologies for halon destruction since the presence of bromine in halons can
significantly alter the process parameters. In particular, molecular bromine tends to be
formed and is very difficult to remove from the exhaust gases. Technologies that are
recommended for CFC and HCFC destruction, but have not been tested for halon
destruction, are described as potential technologies for halon destruction. As there is
nothing particularly different with the HFC fire extinguishants, 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.
Based on a further evaluation of destruction technologies by the TEAP in response to
Decision XXII/10, the following technologies were approved by the parties (Decision
XXIII/12 and Annex, UNEP/OzL.Pro.4/15) for the destruction of halons:
• Liquid injection incineration
• Chemical reaction with hydrogen and carbon dioxide
• Rotary kiln incineration
• Argon plasma arc
• Inductively coupled radio frequency plasma
• Thermal reaction with methane
These technologies are also approved for HFC and HCFC fire extinguishants.
In early April 2018, the TEAP TFDT published its Advance Report TEAP (2018b) in
response to Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force Report on Destruction Technologies
for Controlled Substances. Based on the consideration of the chemical similarity of
HFCs, HCFCs, CFCs and halons and including the practice of destroying them
together, the TFDT performed an assessment of the destruction technologies with a
Page 103 of 147
view of confirming their applicability to HFCs and reviewed other technologies for
possible inclusion in the list of approved destruction technologies in relation to those
controlled substances.
A summary of the recommendations was set out in Appendix 3 of the Advance
Report, including several cases where technologies were recommended as “high
potential” or “unable to assess”.
Taking into account the new information that was submitted post the Advance Report,
a Supplementary Report was produced and submitted to the 40th Open-ended
Working Group. The Supplementary Report updates the assessment of destruction
technologies approved under Decision XXIII/12. The assessment criteria remain
unchanged from the April 2018 TFDT report.
The subject of halon destruction was addressed at length in earlier editions of the
HTOC Assessment Reports. For the 2014 Assessment Report the HTOC elected to
move the contents of this chapter to Technical Note #5: Halon Destruction, where it
could be continuously updated as necessary.
Technical Note #5, Revision 2: renamed Destruction Technologies for Halons and
Other Halogenated Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Agents (2108) has been updated to
include destruction considerations for HCFC and HFC fire extinguishants, in addition
to halons, and can be found on the Ozone Secretariat website at:
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/Assessment_Panels/TEA
P/Reports/HTOC/technical_note5_2018.pdf
8.1 References
TEAP (2018b): Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume
2, Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force on Destruction Technologies for Controlled
Substances, April 2018.
http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg-40/presession/Background-
Documents/TEAP-DecXXIX4-TF-Report-April2018.pdf
Page 104 of 147
Appendix A: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
A5 Article 5 Party
AFES Automatic Fire Extinguishing System
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
2-BTP Bromotrifluoropropene (2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene)
CCHRWG Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Working Group
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DWT Deadweight Tonnage
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
EC European Commission
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)
GHG Green House Gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAAPS Halon Alternatives for Aircraft Propulsion Systems
HBFO Hydrobromofluoro-olefin
HBr Hydrogen Bromide
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HCFC-123 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (CF3CHCl2)
HCFO Hydrochlorofluoro-olefin
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
HFC-23 Trifluoromethane (CHF3)
HFC-125 Pentafluoroethane (CF3CHF2)
HFC-227ea 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane (CF3CHFCF3)
HFC-236fa 1,1,1,3,3,3-Hexafluoropropane (CF3CH2CF3)
HTOC Halons Technical Options Committee
IG Inert Gas
IG01 ISO 14520 Code for the inert gas argon
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
IG100 ISO 15420 Code for the inert gas nitrogen
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
ICCAIA International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industry Associations
IGG Inert Gas Generator
IMO International Maritime Organization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO International Standards Organization
kg kilogramme
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MPS Minimum Performance Standard
OBIGGS On-board Inert Gas Generating System
Page 105 of 147
ODP Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS Ozone Depleting Substance
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PFC Perfluorocarbon
PGA Pyrotechnically Generated Aerosol
TEAP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
TFDT Task Force on Destruction Technologies
UK United Kingdom
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
US United States
Page 106 of 147
Appendix B: Definitions
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 Phase-out
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 and storage cylinders within any organisation, country, or region.
Bank Management: A method of managing a supply of banked fire extinguishing
agents. Bank management consists of keeping track of agent quantities at each stage:
initial filling, installation, recycling, and storage. A major goal of a bank is to re-
deploy agents from decommissioned systems. Banks can be managed by a
clearinghouse, i.e., an office that facilitates contact between owners and buyers.
Clean Agent: An agent that is a gas or vaporizing liquid that leaves no residue after
discharge.
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.
Page 107 of 147
Country Programme (CP) A national strategy prepared by an A5 country 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.
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 their 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
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.
General Assembly: The Assembly is an 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
has 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.
Page 108 of 147
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 vaporisation.
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 compound 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.
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).
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.
Page 109 of 147
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: A member state 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.
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 phase-out 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.
Page 110 of 147
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.
Phase Down: The reduction of production and consumption of the HFCs following
the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
Phase-out: 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 extract the fire extinguishing agent from an extinguisher or system
storage container and 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 only reduce moisture and
particulate matter.
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.
Page 111 of 147
Water Mist: A firefighting agent that uses relatively small water droplet sprays to
extinguish fires. These systems generate much smaller droplets than are produced by
traditional water-spray systems or conventional sprinklers.
Page 112 of 147
Appendix C: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2018 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 4 7 9 14 19 24 37 67 165 272 436 561
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 10 30 60 100 150 210 310 510 1,060 1,899 3,191 4,652
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 10 30 60 100 150 210 310 510 1,060 1,899 3,191 4,652
Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Page 113 of 147
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
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 4 11 20 33 52 76 113 180 345 617 1,054 1,614
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
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 6 19 40 67 98 134 197 330 715 1,282 2,137 3,038
Page 114 of 147
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 782 1,133 1,289 1,527 1,814 1,944 2,223 2,807 3,102 3,661
CUMMULATIVE 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 6,671 9,843 13,393 17,408 22,126 27,003 32,697 40,262 47,648 56,440
Page 115 of 147
Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
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 2,396 3,530 4,819 6,346 8,160 10,103 12,327 15,133 18,236 21,896
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
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 4,275 6,313 8,574 11,062 13,966 16,900 20,370 25,129 29,412 34,544
Page 116 of 147
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 0
CEIT 30 30 35 30 30 1,100 50 50 0 0
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 0
Western Europe and Australia 2,445 2,769 2,901 3,138 2,788 2,279 1,832 1,221 611 0
Japan 1,956 2,215 2,321 2,510 2,230 1,823 1,465 977 488 0
CEIT 519 584 615 658 588 1,556 416 294 122 0
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 3,807 4,168 4,244 4,734 5,101 5,564 5,497 5,140 3,844 3,056
CUMMULATIVE 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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 66,345 77,579 89,411 102,206 113,615 124,190 132,137 137,582 140,763 141,463
Page 117 of 147
Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
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 25,704 29,872 34,115 38,849 43,950 49,514 55,011 60,151 63,995 67,051
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
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 40,642 47,707 55,295 63,356 69,665 74,676 77,127 77,432 76,768 74,412
Page 118 of 147
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 2,878 2,757 2,634 2,527 2,417 2,312 2,222 2,207 2,243 2,003
CUMMULATIVE 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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 142,213 143,013 143,758 144,289 144,735 145,160 145,728 146,359 146,767 147,182
Page 119 of 147
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
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 69,928 72,685 75,319 77,846 80,263 82,575 84,798 87,005 89,248 91,251
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
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 72,284 70,328 68,439 66,443 64,472 62,584 60,930 59,355 57,519 55,931
Page 120 of 147
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 650 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION 620 167 183 152 164 (12) (11) (9) (3) (12)
ANNUAL PRODUCTION ALLOCATION
North America 187 76 308 96 80 107 24 49 39 16
Western Europe and Australia (187) (109) (325) (144) (116) (119) (35) (58) (42) (28)
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT (30) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 650 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 620 167 183 152 164 (12) (11) (9) (3) (12)
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 610 595 580 568 552 536 521 505 489 474
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 1,887 1,803 1,711 1,627 1,547 1,460 1,374 1,343 1,258 1,187
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,604 135,571 135,555 135,507 135,470 135,458 135,447 135,439 135,436 135,423
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 CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 147,802 147,969 148,152 148,305 148,468 148,456 148,445 148,437 148,433 148,421
Page 121 of 147
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Western Europe and Australia 32,156 32,047 31,722 31,579 31,463 31,344 31,309 31,251 31,209 31,181
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 8,169 8,169
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 147,802 147,969 148,152 148,305 148,468 148,456 148,445 148,437 148,433 148,421
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 24,527 25,122 25,701 26,270 26,822 27,358 27,879 28,384 28,873 29,347
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 35,296
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 93,138 94,941 96,652 98,279 99,826 101,286 102,660 104,003 105,261 106,448
INVENTORY (BANK)
North America 17,599 17,080 16,809 16,336 15,864 15,434 14,937 14,482 14,032 13,574
Western Europe and Australia 9,732 9,352 8,769 8,381 8,031 7,689 7,439 7,125 6,846 6,590
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 1,625 1,556
Article 5(1) 8,157 7,543 6,989 6,489 6,038 5,446 4,911 4,429 3,994 3,601
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 54,664 53,028 51,500 50,026 48,643 47,170 45,785 44,434 43,172 41,973
Page 122 of 147
Halon 1301 Summary
(All quantities are provided in metric tonnes)
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION (28) (30) 0 0
ANNUAL PRODUCTION ALLOCATION
North America 35 35 8 0
Western Europe and Australia (63) (65) (8) 0
Japan 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION (28) (30) 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 458 444 430 416
Western Europe and Australia 219 209 201 194
Japan 25 25 25 25
CEIT 66 63 61 58
Article 5(1) 354 319 288 259
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1,122 1,060 1,004 952
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 135,395 135,365 135,365 135,365
CEIT 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355
Article 5(1) 11,643 11,643 11,643 11,643
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 148,393 148,362 148,362 148,362
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018
North America 42,956 42,991 42,999 42,999
Western Europe and Australia 31,117 31,052 31,044 31,044
Japan 27,254 27,254 27,254 27,254
CEIT 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,169
Article 5(1) 38,897 38,897 38,897 38,897
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 148,393 148,363 148,363 148,363
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 29,805 30,250 30,680 31,095
Western Europe and Australia 24,809 25,018 25,219 25,413
Japan 10,627 10,652 10,677 10,701
CEIT 6,679 6,742 6,803 6,861
Article 5(1) 35,649 35,968 36,256 36,515
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 107,570 108,630 109,634 110,586
INVENTORY (BANK)
North America 13,151 12,741 12,319 11,904
Western Europe and Australia 6,308 6,033 5,824 5,630
Japan 16,627 16,602 16,578 16,553
CEIT 1,490 1,426 1,366 1,308
Article 5(1) 3,248 2,929 2,641 2,382
GLOBAL INVENTORY (BANK) 40,823 39,732 38,728 37,776
Page 123 of 147
Appendix D: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2018 for Halon 1211
Halon 1211 Summary
(All quantities are 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(1) Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 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(1) 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(1) 2 6 13 22 38 58 81 115 158 213 277 350
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 11 30 66 113 193 295 416 587 812 1,090 1,420 1,791
CUMMULATIVE 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(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 50 150 350 650 1,150 1,850 2,750 4,010 5,710 7,910 10,660 13,960
Page 124 of 147
YEAR 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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(1) 10 30 70 130 230 370 550 802 1,142 1,582 2,132 2,792
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 50 150 350 650 1,150 1,850 2,750 4,010 5,710 7,910 10,660 13,960
CUMMULATIVE 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(1) 2 8 21 43 80 138 219 333 492 704 982 1,332
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 11 41 107 220 413 709 1,124 1,712 2,523 3,613 5,033 6,825
INVENTORY
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
TOTAL INVENTORY 39 109 243 430 737 1,141 1,626 2,298 3,187 4,297 5,627 7,135
Page 125 of 147
Halon 1211 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 3,800 4,356 5,000 5,650 6,280 6,910 6,689 7,485 8,259 10,408
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Article 5(1) Production 0 0 0 210 266 336 425 538 680 1,061
Total Production 3,800 4,356 5,000 5,860 6,546 7,246 7,114 8,023 8,939 11,499
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 1,140 1,307 1,500 1,695 1,884 2,073 2,007 2,246 2,478 3,122
Western Europe and Australia 1,672 1,917 2,200 2,486 2,763 3,040 2,943 3,293 3,634 4,580
Japan 38 44 50 57 63 69 67 75 83 104
CEIT 190 218 250 283 314 346 334 374 413 550
Article 5(1) 760 871 1,000 1,340 1,522 1,718 1,763 2,035 2,332 3,142
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 3,800 4,356 5,000 5,860 6,546 7,246 7,114 8,023 8,939 11,499
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 613 736 871 1,017 1,170 1,139 959 1,119 1,272 1,498
Western Europe and Australia 1,031 1,227 1,443 1,673 1,913 1,939 1,608 1,899 2,154 2,554
Japan 23 27 32 37 43 36 41 46 52 61
CEIT 90 108 129 151 175 199 219 242 266 308
Article 5(1) 428 511 604 749 895 1,050 1,179 1,343 1,532 1,853
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 2,184 2,609 3,079 3,628 4,195 4,363 4,005 4,648 5,276 6,273
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 17,760 22,116 27,116 32,766 39,046 45,956 52,645 60,130 68,389 78,797
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 210 476 812 1,237 1,775 2,456 3,516
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 17,760 22,116 27,116 32,976 39,522 46,768 53,882 61,905 70,845 82,343
Page 126 of 147
YEAR 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
North America 5,328 6,635 8,135 9,830 11,714 13,787 15,794 18,039 20,517 23,639
Western Europe and Australia 7,814 9,731 11,931 14,417 17,180 20,221 23,164 26,457 30,091 34,671
Japan 178 221 271 328 390 460 526 601 684 788
CEIT 888 1,106 1,356 1,638 1,952 2,298 2,632 3,007 3,419 3,970
Article 5(1) 3,552 4,423 5,423 6,763 8,285 10,003 11,766 13,801 16,133 19,276
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 17,760 22,116 27,116 32,976 39,522 46,768 53,882 61,905 70,845 82,343
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 2,501 3,237 4,108 5,125 6,294 7,433 8,392 9,511 10,783 12,281
Western Europe and Australia 4,293 5,520 6,962 8,636 10,548 12,488 14,095 15,994 18,148 20,702
Japan 95 123 155 192 235 271 312 359 411 471
CEIT 360 468 597 748 922 1,122 1,341 1,582 1,849 2,156
Article 5(1) 1,760 2,271 2,875 3,624 4,519 5,568 6,747 8,090 9,621 11,474
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 9,009 11,618 14,697 18,325 22,519 26,882 30,888 35,536 40,812 47,084
INVENTORY
North America 2,827 3,398 4,027 4,705 5,419 6,353 7,401 8,528 9,734 11,358
Western Europe and Australia 3,521 4,211 4,969 5,781 6,632 7,733 9,068 10,463 11,943 13,969
Japan 98 116 135 155 188 214 243 273 317 370
CEIT 638 759 891 1,030 1,176 1,291 1,424 1,571 1,814 2,117
Article 5 2,152 2,548 3,139 3,766 4,435 5,019 5,711 6,512 7,802 9,406
TOTAL INVENTORY 10,498 12,419 14,651 17,003 19,886 22,994 26,369 30,033 35,259 41,681
Page 127 of 147
Halon 1211 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 12,491 13,731 17,058 20,181 16,182 14,852 11,882 7,921 3,960 0
CEIT Production 30 30 35 35 80 700 50 50 0 0
Article 5(1) Production 1,342 1,658 2,049 2,545 3,074 3,717 4,646 7,002 8,713 10,448
Total Production 13,863 15,419 19,142 22,761 19,336 19,269 16,578 14,973 12,673 10,448
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 3,747 4,119 5,117 6,054 4,855 4,456 3,565 2,376 1,188 0
Western Europe and Australia 5,496 6,042 7,506 8,880 7,120 6,535 5,228 3,485 1,742 0
Japan 125 137 171 202 162 149 119 79 40 0
CEIT 655 717 888 1,044 889 1,443 644 446 198 0
Article 5(1) 3,840 4,405 5,461 6,581 6,310 6,687 7,022 8,586 9,505 10,448
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 13,863 15,419 19,142 22,761 19,336 19,269 16,578 14,973 12,673 10,448
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 1,764 2,028 2,401 2,829 2,976 3,109 1,792 1,766 1,463 1,369
Western Europe and Australia 3,018 3,459 4,115 4,857 4,988 4,464 4,290 2,155 1,978 1,906
Japan 71 82 96 113 111 114 67 66 51 47
CEIT 352 404 472 554 624 731 710 668 330 298
Article 5(1) 2,236 2,646 3,192 3,843 4,272 4,718 5,143 5,822 6,517 7,258
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 7,441 8,618 10,277 12,196 12,972 13,137 12,004 10,477 10,339 10,877
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 91,288 105,019 122,077 142,258 158,440 173,292 185,174 193,095 197,055 197,055
CEIT 60 90 125 160 240 940 990 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5(1) 4,858 6,516 8,566 11,111 14,185 17,901 22,547 29,549 38,262 48,710
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 96,206 111,625 130,768 153,529 172,865 192,133 208,711 223,684 236,357 246,805
Page 128 of 147
YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
North America 27,386 31,506 36,623 42,677 47,532 51,988 55,552 57,929 59,117 59,117
Western Europe and Australia 40,167 46,208 53,714 62,594 69,714 76,248 81,477 84,962 86,704 86,704
Japan 913 1,050 1,221 1,423 1,584 1,733 1,852 1,931 1,971 1,971
CEIT 4,624 5,341 6,229 7,273 8,162 9,605 10,249 10,695 10,893 10,893
Article 5(1) 23,116 27,520 32,981 39,562 45,873 52,560 59,582 68,168 77,673 88,121
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 96,206 111,625 130,768 153,529 172,865 192,133 208,711 223,684 236,357 246,805
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 14,045 16,072 18,473 21,302 24,278 27,387 29,180 30,945 32,408 33,777
Western Europe and Australia 23,720 27,179 31,294 36,151 41,139 45,603 49,893 52,048 54,026 55,933
Japan 543 624 721 834 945 1,060 1,127 1,193 1,244 1,290
CEIT 2,508 2,912 3,384 3,938 4,562 5,293 6,003 6,671 7,000 7,299
Article 5(1) 13,710 16,356 19,549 23,392 27,664 32,382 37,526 43,348 49,865 57,123
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 54,525 63,143 73,421 85,617 98,588 111,725 123,729 134,206 144,544 155,421
INVENTORY
North America 13,342 15,433 18,150 21,375 23,254 24,600 26,373 26,983 26,709 25,340
Western Europe and Australia 16,447 19,030 22,420 26,443 28,575 30,645 31,583 32,913 32,678 30,772
Japan 426 500 589 639 673 725 738 727 680 637
CEIT 2,429 2,845 3,335 3,600 4,312 4,245 4,024 3,892 3,594 3,319
Article 5 11,164 13,432 16,170 18,209 20,177 22,056 24,820 27,808 30,998 34,245
TOTAL INVENTORY 48,482 57,347 67,912 74,276 80,408 84,982 89,479 91,813 91,383 91,468
Page 129 of 147
Halon 1211 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 0 (1) 0 (7) 0 (4) (1) (14) (265) (184)
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) Production 11,250 14,180 12,124 8,175 6,265 4,278 3,599 2,954 2,384 1,568
Total Production 11,250 14,179 12,124 8,169 6,265 4,274 3,598 2,940 2,119 1,384
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Europe and Australia 0 (1) 0 (7) 0 (4) (1) (14) (265) (184)
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 11,250 14,180 12,124 8,175 6,265 4,278 3,599 2,954 2,384 1,568
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 11,250 14,179 12,124 8,169 6,265 4,274 3,598 2,940 2,119 1,384
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 1,299 940 895 860 827 795 764 735 706 679
Western Europe and Australia 1,545 1,461 1,388 1,319 1,253 1,190 1,130 1,073 1,098 883
Japan 44 28 27 26 24 23 22 21 20 20
CEIT 275 254 235 217 200 185 171 158 146 134
Article 5(1) 8,003 8,555 9,186 9,007 8,181 7,581 6,912 6,247 5,594 4,924
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 11,166 11,239 11,731 11,429 10,486 9,774 9,000 8,233 7,564 6,639
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 197,055 197,054 197,054 197,048 197,048 197,044 197,043 197,028 196,763 196,579
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5(1) 59,960 74,140 86,264 94,439 100,704 104,982 108,581 111,535 113,919 115,487
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 258,055 272,234 284,358 292,526 298,791 303,065 306,663 309,603 311,722 313,106
Page 130 of 147
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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 86,703 86,703 86,697 86,697 86,693 86,692 86,678 86,412 86,228
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(1) 99,371 113,551 125,675 133,850 140,115 144,393 147,992 150,946 153,330 154,898
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 258,055 272,234 284,358 292,526 298,791 303,065 306,663 309,603 311,722 313,106
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 35,075 36,015 36,910 37,771 38,598 39,393 40,157 40,892 41,598 42,277
Western Europe and Australia 57,478 58,939 60,327 61,646 62,899 64,088 65,219 66,292 67,389 68,272
Japan 1,334 1,362 1,389 1,415 1,439 1,462 1,485 1,506 1,527 1,546
CEIT 7,574 7,828 8,063 8,280 8,480 8,665 8,836 8,993 9,139 9,273
Article 5(1) 65,126 73,681 82,866 91,874 100,055 107,636 114,548 120,794 126,389 131,313
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 166,587 177,826 189,556 200,985 211,470 221,244 230,244 238,478 246,042 252,681
INVENTORY
North America 24,041 23,101 22,206 21,346 20,519 19,723 18,959 18,225 17,518 16,839
Western Europe and Australia 29,226 27,764 26,376 25,051 23,798 22,604 21,473 20,386 19,023 17,956
Japan 608 582 556 531 508 486 464 444 424 406
CEIT 3,064 2,830 2,613 2,413 2,228 2,057 1,899 1,754 1,619 1,495
Article 5 39,870 42,808 41,976 40,060 36,757 33,444 30,151 26,941 23,585 19,601
TOTAL INVENTORY 94,408 94,801 91,541 87,321 81,821 76,419 71,125 65,680 60,425 54,903
Page 131 of 147
Halon 1211 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production (84) (332) (307) (112) (14) (12) (49) (51) (11) (11)
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) Production 165 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 81 (167) (307) (112) (14) (12) (49) (51) (11) (11)
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Europe and Australia (84) (332) (307) (112) (14) (12) (49) (51) (11) (11)
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 165 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 81 (167) (307) (112) (14) (12) (49) (51) (11) (11)
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 653 627 603 580 557 536 515 495 476 457
Western Europe and Australia 658 628 590 574 549 528 507 486 528 505
Japan 19 18 17 16 16 15 14 14 13 12
CEIT 124 115 106 98 90 83 77 71 66 61
Article 5(1) 4,149 1,658 1,509 1,383 1,268 1,162 1,065 977 1,146 1,024
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 5,602 3,046 2,825 2,651 2,479 2,324 2,179 2,043 2,228 2,059
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 196,495 196,163 195,856 195,745 195,731 195,719 195,670 195,618 195,607 195,596
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5(1) 115,652 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 313,187 313,020 312,713 312,601 312,588 312,576 312,526 312,475 312,464 312,453
Page 132 of 147
YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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 86,144 85,812 85,505 85,394 85,380 85,368 85,319 85,268 85,256 85,246
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(1) 155,063 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 313,187 313,020 312,713 312,601 312,588 312,576 312,526 312,475 312,464 312,453
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 42,930 43,557 44,160 44,739 45,296 45,832 46,347 46,842 47,317 47,774
Western Europe and Australia 68,930 69,558 70,148 70,722 71,271 71,798 72,305 72,792 73,320 73,824
Japan 1,565 1,583 1,600 1,616 1,632 1,647 1,661 1,674 1,687 1,700
CEIT 9,397 9,512 9,618 9,715 9,806 9,889 9,966 10,037 10,102 10,163
Article 5(1) 135,462 137,120 138,629 140,012 141,280 142,443 143,508 144,485 145,631 146,654
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 258,283 261,330 264,154 266,805 269,285 271,608 273,787 275,830 278,057 280,116
INVENTORY
North America 16,187 15,560 14,957 14,377 13,820 13,285 12,770 12,275 11,799 11,342
Western Europe and Australia 17,214 16,254 15,357 14,672 14,109 13,570 13,013 12,476 11,937 11,421
Japan 388 371 355 339 324 310 296 283 271 259
CEIT 1,381 1,275 1,177 1,087 1,004 927 856 790 730 674
Article 5 18,108 16,599 15,215 13,947 12,785 11,720 10,743 9,597 8,573 7,659
TOTAL INVENTORY 51,690 48,558 45,796 43,303 40,967 38,739 36,646 34,407 32,337 30,422
Page 133 of 147
Halon 1211 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production (10) (3) 0 0
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) Production 0 0 0 0
Total Production (10) (3) 0 0
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 0 0 0 0
Western Europe and Australia (10) (3) 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION (10) (3) 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 440 422 406 390
Western Europe and Australia 483 467 446 427
Japan 12 11 11 10
CEIT 56 52 48 44
Article 5(1) 915 817 730 652
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1,905 1,769 1,640 1,523
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 195,586 195,583 195,583 195,583
CEIT 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Article 5(1) 115,817 115,817 115,817 115,817
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 312,443 312,440 312,440 312,440
Page 134 of 147
YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
North America 59,117 59,117 59,117 59,117
Western Europe and Australia 85,235 85,233 85,233 85,233
Japan 1,971 1,971 1,971 1,971
CEIT 10,893 10,893 10,893 10,893
Article 5(1) 155,228 155,228 155,228 155,228
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 312,443 312,440 312,440 312,440
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 48,214 48,636 49,043 49,433
Western Europe and Australia 74,307 74,774 75,220 75,647
Japan 1,712 1,723 1,734 1,745
CEIT 10,219 10,271 10,318 10,362
Article 5(1) 147,569 148,386 149,116 149,768
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 282,021 283,790 285,430 286,954
INVENTORY
North America 10,903 10,480 10,074 9,684
Western Europe and Australia 10,928 10,458 10,013 9,586
Japan 247 236 226 216
CEIT 622 574 530 490
Article 5 6,842 6,112 5,460 4,878
TOTAL INVENTORY 28,650 27,010 25,486 24,070
Page 135 of 147
Appendix E: Historical Production, Emissions and Bank Values from 1963 – 2018 for Halon 2402
Halon 2402 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 4 8 16 24 39 53 70 102 158 213 283 333
CEIT Production 0 0 30 30 50 50 100 275 275 275 275 550
Article 5(1) Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 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 0 0 30 30 50 50 100 275 275 275 275 550
Article 5(1) 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 7 10 14 19 25
Western Europe and Australia 0 1 1 2 4 6 8 12 18 25 35 45
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 4
CEIT 0 0 4 6 10 14 23 50 69 86 101 149
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 6 9 13 18 25
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 0 1 6 10 18 26 40 76 107 140 177 248
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 4 13 29 53 91 144 214 316 474 687 970 1,303
CEIT 0 0 30 60 110 160 260 535 810 1,085 1,360 1,910
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 4 13 59 113 201 304 474 851 1,284 1,772 2,330 3,213
YEAR 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Page 136 of 147
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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 0 0 30 60 110 160 260 535 810 1,085 1,360 1,910
Article 5(1) 1 3 7 13 23 36 54 79 118 172 242 326
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 4 13 59 113 201 304 474 851 1,284 1,772 2,330 3,213
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 0 0 1 2 4 8 12 19 28 42 62 87
Western Europe and Australia 0 1 2 4 8 14 22 33 51 76 111 156
Japan 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 5 7 11 15
CEIT 0 0 4 10 20 33 56 106 175 261 362 511
Article 5(1) 0 0 1 2 3 6 10 16 24 37 55 79
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 0 1 8 18 36 62 102 177 284 424 600 848
INVENTORY
North America 1 3 6 11 18 28 42 61 90 129 181 239
Western Europe and Australia 2 5 11 19 33 51 75 109 162 233 326 430
Japan 0 1 1 2 4 6 9 13 19 27 38 50
CEIT 0 0 26 50 90 127 204 429 635 824 998 1,399
Article 5(1) 1 3 7 12 20 30 44 63 94 135 188 246
TOTAL INVENTORY 4 11 51 94 165 243 372 674 1,000 1,348 1,729 2,364
Page 137 of 147
Halon 2402 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 407 527 599 677 770 825 867 1,054 1,095 1,337
CEIT Production 550 550 550 550 1,100 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
Article 5(1) Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 957 1,077 1,149 1,227 1,870 3,025 3,067 3,254 3,295 3,537
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 102 132 150 169 192 206 217 263 274 334
Western Europe and Australia 183 237 269 304 346 371 390 474 493 602
Japan 20 26 30 34 38 41 43 53 55 67
CEIT 550 550 550 550 1,100 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
Article 5(1) 102 132 150 169 192 206 217 263 274 334
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 957 1,077 1,149 1,227 1,870 3,025 3,067 3,254 3,295 3,537
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 32 41 51 62 73 85 91 106 120 139
Western Europe and Australia 58 75 92 111 132 152 164 192 216 250
Japan 6 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 22 25
CEIT 182 212 240 265 356 552 687 811 925 1,029
Article 5(1) 32 41 52 64 78 92 106 120 137 155
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 310 377 444 513 652 896 1,064 1,248 1,420 1,599
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 1,710 2,237 2,836 3,512 4,282 5,107 5,974 7,027 8,123 9,460
CEIT 2,460 3,010 3,560 4,110 5,210 7,410 9,610 11,810 14,010 16,210
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 4,170 5,247 6,396 7,622 9,492 12,517 15,584 18,837 22,133 25,670
Page 138 of 147
YEAR 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
North America 428 559 709 878 1,071 1,277 1,493 1,757 2,031 2,365
Western Europe and Australia 770 1,007 1,276 1,580 1,927 2,298 2,688 3,162 3,655 4,257
Japan 86 112 142 176 214 255 299 351 406 473
CEIT 2,460 3,010 3,560 4,110 5,210 7,410 9,610 11,810 14,010 16,210
Article 5(1) 428 559 709 878 1,071 1,277 1,493 1,757 2,031 2,365
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 4,170 5,247 6,396 7,622 9,492 12,517 15,584 18,837 22,133 25,670
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 119 160 211 273 346 431 522 628 748 887
Western Europe and Australia 214 288 380 491 623 775 939 1,130 1,346 1,596
Japan 21 28 37 48 61 76 93 112 134 159
CEIT 693 906 1,146 1,411 1,767 2,319 3,006 3,817 4,742 5,771
Article 5(1) 111 152 205 269 347 438 544 664 801 957
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 1,158 1,535 1,979 2,492 3,144 4,039 5,103 6,352 7,771 9,370
INVENTORY
North America 309 399 498 605 725 846 972 1,129 1,283 1,478
Western Europe and Australia 556 718 896 1,090 1,304 1,523 1,749 2,032 2,309 2,661
Japan 64 83 104 127 153 179 206 239 272 314
CEIT 1,767 2,104 2,414 2,699 3,443 5,091 6,604 7,993 9,268 10,439
Article 5(1) 316 407 504 609 724 838 949 1,093 1,229 1,408
TOTAL INVENTORY 3,012 3,712 4,417 5,130 6,348 8,478 10,481 12,486 14,361 16,300
Page 139 of 147
Halon 2402 Summary (All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 1,559 1,736 2,006 2,291 1,913 1,678 1,345 896 448 0
CEIT Production 2,200 2,200 2,300 2,200 2,450 2,450 1,800 1,391 400 400
Article 5(1) Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 3,759 3,936 4,306 4,491 4,363 4,128 3,145 2,287 848 400
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 390 434 502 573 478 419 336 224 112 0
Western Europe and Australia 702 781 903 1,031 861 755 605 403 202 0
Japan 78 87 100 115 96 84 67 45 22 0
CEIT 2,200 2,200 2,300 2,200 2,450 2,450 1,800 1,391 400 400
Article 5(1) 390 434 502 573 478 419 336 224 112 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 3,759 3,936 4,306 4,491 4,363 4,128 3,145 2,287 848 400
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 161 184 211 242 256 186 160 161 157 149
Western Europe and Australia 289 330 380 435 461 276 290 292 286 270
Japan 29 33 38 44 47 29 30 30 30 28
CEIT 1,125 1,214 1,307 1,376 1,396 1,022 1,057 1,070 1,019 985
Article 5(1) 178 204 234 267 302 204 218 224 221 210
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1,782 1,965 2,169 2,365 2,462 1,717 1,754 1,778 1,713 1,642
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 11,019 12,755 14,761 17,053 18,966 20,644 21,988 22,885 23,333 23,333
CEIT 18,410 20,610 22,910 25,110 27,560 30,010 31,810 33,201 33,601 34,001
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 29,429 33,365 37,671 42,163 46,526 50,654 53,798 56,086 56,934 57,334
Page 140 of 147
YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
North America 2,755 3,189 3,690 4,263 4,742 5,161 5,497 5,721 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 4,958 5,740 6,643 7,674 8,535 9,290 9,895 10,298 10,500 10,500
Japan 551 638 738 853 948 1,032 1,099 1,144 1,167 1,167
CEIT 18,410 20,610 22,910 25,110 27,560 30,010 31,810 33,201 33,601 34,001
Article 5(1) 2,755 3,189 3,690 4,263 4,742 5,161 5,497 5,721 5,833 5,833
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 29,429 33,365 37,671 42,163 46,526 50,654 53,798 56,086 56,934 57,334
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 1,047 1,231 1,442 1,684 1,940 2,125 2,285 2,446 2,603 2,752
Western Europe and Australia 1,885 2,215 2,595 3,030 3,492 3,768 4,058 4,351 4,636 4,906
Japan 189 222 261 305 351 380 410 441 470 499
CEIT 6,897 8,110 9,417 10,793 12,189 13,211 14,267 15,337 16,356 17,341
Article 5(1) 1,135 1,339 1,573 1,840 2,142 2,346 2,564 2,788 3,009 3,220
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 11,152 13,118 15,287 17,652 20,114 21,830 23,585 25,362 27,075 28,717
INVENTORY
North America 1,707 1,958 2,249 2,580 2,802 3,035 3,212 3,275 3,230 3,081
Western Europe and Australia 3,073 3,524 4,048 4,643 5,043 5,522 5,837 5,948 5,864 5,594
Japan 362 416 477 548 597 652 689 704 696 668
CEIT 11,513 12,500 13,493 14,317 15,371 16,799 17,543 17,864 17,245 16,660
Article 5(1) 1,620 1,850 2,118 2,423 2,600 2,815 2,933 2,933 2,824 2,613
TOTAL INVENTORY 18,276 20,247 22,384 24,511 26,412 28,823 30,214 30,723 29,858 28,617
Page 141 of 147
Halon 2402 Summary (All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT Production 400 352 300 255 160 90 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 400 352 300 255 160 90 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 400 352 300 255 160 90 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 400 352 300 255 160 90 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 183 172 162 153 143 135 127 119 112 106
Western Europe and Australia 232 223 213 204 196 188 180 173 165 159
Japan 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 19 18
CEIT 866 841 815 787 758 726 691 656 622 590
Article 5(1) 195 180 167 154 143 132 122 113 105 97
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1,502 1,441 1,381 1,321 1,262 1,202 1,141 1,080 1,023 969
CUMMULATIVE 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 34,401 34,753 35,053 35,308 35,468 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 57,734 58,086 58,386 58,641 58,801 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 142 of 147
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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 34,401 34,753 35,053 35,308 35,468 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5(1) 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 57,734 58,086 58,386 58,641 58,801 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 2,935 3,108 3,270 3,422 3,566 3,701 3,828 3,947 4,059 4,165
Western Europe and Australia 5,138 5,361 5,574 5,778 5,974 6,162 6,342 6,515 6,680 6,838
Japan 524 549 572 595 617 638 658 678 696 714
CEIT 18,207 19,048 19,863 20,650 21,408 22,134 22,825 23,481 24,103 24,693
Article 5(1) 3,414 3,595 3,761 3,916 4,059 4,191 4,313 4,426 4,531 4,628
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 30,219 31,659 33,040 34,362 35,624 36,826 37,966 39,047 40,070 41,039
INVENTORY
North America 2,898 2,725 2,563 2,411 2,267 2,132 2,006 1,886 1,774 1,668
Western Europe and Australia 5,362 5,139 4,926 4,722 4,526 4,338 4,158 3,985 3,820 3,661
Japan 643 618 594 572 550 529 508 489 470 452
CEIT 16,194 15,705 15,190 14,658 14,060 13,424 12,733 12,077 11,455 10,865
Article 5(1) 2,419 2,239 2,072 1,917 1,775 1,642 1,520 1,407 1,302 1,205
TOTAL INVENTORY 27,515 26,426 25,346 24,279 23,177 22,065 20,924 19,844 18,821 17,852
Page 143 of 147
Halon 2402 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Production 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
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 99 93 88 83 78 73 69 65 61 57
Western Europe and Australia 187 246 219 205 191 178 166 154 144 134
Japan 17 17 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12
CEIT 770 686 640 596 556 518 483 450 419 391
Article 5(1) 90 83 77 71 66 61 56 52 48 45
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1,164 1,126 1,040 970 905 844 787 734 685 639
CUMMULATIVE 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) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
Page 144 of 147
YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
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(1) 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 4,264 4,357 4,445 4,528 4,605 4,679 4,747 4,812 4,873 4,930
Western Europe and Australia 7,026 7,272 7,491 7,696 7,887 8,064 8,230 8,384 8,528 8,662
Japan 732 748 764 780 794 809 822 836 848 860
CEIT 25,463 26,149 26,789 27,385 27,941 28,459 28,942 29,392 29,811 30,202
Article 5(1) 4,718 4,801 4,878 4,949 5,015 5,076 5,132 5,185 5,233 5,278
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 42,202 43,328 44,368 45,338 46,243 47,087 47,874 48,608 49,293 49,932
INVENTORY
North America 1,569 1,476 1,388 1,305 1,228 1,155 1,086 1,021 961 903
Western Europe and Australia 3,474 3,228 3,008 2,804 2,613 2,435 2,270 2,115 1,972 1,838
Japan 435 418 402 387 372 358 344 331 318 306
CEIT 10,095 9,409 8,769 8,173 7,617 7,099 6,616 6,166 5,747 5,356
Article 5(1) 1,115 1,032 955 884 818 757 701 649 600 556
TOTAL INVENTORY 16,688 15,563 14,523 13,553 12,648 11,804 11,017 10,283 9,598 8,959
Page 145 of 147
Halon 2402 Summary
(All quantities are metric tonnes)
YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan
Production 0 0 0 0
CEIT Production 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) Production 0 0 0 0
Total Production 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION
North America 0 0 0 0
Western Europe and Australia 0 0 0 0
Japan 0 0 0 0
CEIT 0 0 0 0
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION
ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL EMISSIONS
North America 54 51 48 45
Western Europe and Australia 125 116 109 101
Japan 12 11 11 10
CEIT 364 339 316 295
Article 5(1) 41 38 35 33
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS 596 556 519 484
Page 146 of 147
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
North America, Western Europe and Japan 23,333 23,333 23,333 23,333
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5(1) 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018
CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS
North America 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
Western Europe and Australia 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Japan 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
CEIT 35,558 35,558 35,558 35,558
Article 5(1) 5,833 5,833 5,833 5,833
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE PRODUCTION
ALLOCATIONS 58,891 58,891 58,891 58,891
CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS
North America 4,984 5,034 5,082 5,126
Western Europe and Australia 8,787 8,904 9,012 9,113
Japan 872 883 894 905
CEIT 30,566 30,905 31,222 31,517
Article 5(1) 5,319 5,357 5,393 5,426
TOTAL CUMMULATIVE EMISSIONS 50,528 51,084 51,603 52,087
INVENTORY
North America 850 799 752 707
Western Europe and Australia 1,713 1,596 1,488 1,386
Japan 295 283 272 262
CEIT 4,992 4,653 4,336 4,041
Article 5(1) 514 476 440 408
TOTAL INVENTORY 8,363 7,807 7,288 6,804
Page 147 of 147