Strategic Plan for

Replacing Ozone Depleting Chemicals in

U.S. Army Tactical Weapon System Applications

August 1992

Prepared by

Dr. Daniel P. Verdonik

U. S. Anny Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office

(SARD-CS-E)

U.S. Anny Materiel Command 5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, Virginia 22333

The Strategic Plan for Replacing Ozone Depleting Chemicals in US. Army Tactical Weapon System Applications was prepared with the assistance of

George H. Evans Prospective Technology, Incorporated

Post Office Box 1106 Graham, North Carolina 27253

under US. Army Contract No. MDA903-91-D-0033

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U. S. Army is committed to eliminating the use of Ozone Depleting Chemicals (ODCs). ODCs are used in the test, manufacture, operation and maintenance of almost every Army weapon system. These chemicals include two families of substances known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons.

In tactical systems, the U.S. Army uses CFCs in three applications; air conditioning, refrigeration and parts cleaning. None of these applications are unique to the Army nor are they considered mission critical. Halonsl are used for fire and explosion suppression. Halon 1301 is the only agent capable of safely suppressing combat induced explosions within 250 milliseconds. Halon 1301, used for explosion suppression in occupied areas of ground combat systems, is the Army’s only mission critical application. On-board hand- held fire extinguishers (portables) and automatic fixed-flooding fire suppression system for unoccupied areas are considered essential but not mission critical. The Army has over 17,000 operational ground combat vehicles and over 8,800 operational aircraft that are cur- rently protected by Halon 1301. These tactical vehicles and aircraft in addition to 113 watercraft, selected missile systems and over 9,000 tactical shelters require replacement or redesign of air conditioning, refrigera tion and fire /explosion suppression systems to suc- cessfully replace ODCs.

The Army has initiated a program to replace essential applications of ODCs for tac- tical weapon systems. The Army has planned to stockpile Halon 1301 for the unique com- bat-related application. This will be accomplished by recycling Halon 1301 from all other applications where substitutes are available. Through this replacement program 100% of all applications other than the combat application will use replacement chemicals.

i

This strategic plan addresses all Army tactical weapon system applications; a sim- ilar program is being developed to address Army facility applications and will be pro- mulgated at a later date. This plan is consistent with and supports the milestones set by President Bush when he announced that O K production, with limited exception, will be eliminated in the United States by 31 December 1995. The main thrust of this plan is to pm- cure new or redesign systems to accommodate commercially available, qualified alterna- tives. The Army intends to use available alternatives to the maximum extent in the near term. The cost of implementing this strategic plan is $490,000,000.

The Army’s ODC Replacement+YiTgram will implement the Strategic Plan for Replacing ODCs in Tactical Weapon System Applications. It is centrally managed by the U.S. Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office. Specific projects will be man- aged by the Program Executive Officers and the Major Subordinate Commands.

\ TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

UNDERSTANDING THE OZONE DEPLETION PROBLEM ...................................... 3

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 7

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. NATIONAL POLICY AND MILITARY POLICY ...................................................................................... 11 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES ............................................................................... 11 NATIONAL POLICY ................................................................................................ 11 . LOCALE REGULATION ......................................................................................... 13 THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE’S POLICY ........................................................ 14 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY POLICY ............................................................. 15 ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND POLICY ............................................................ 16 ARMY ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE POLICY ..................................................... 16 POLICY ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................... 17

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) ......................................... 17 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) ....................... 17 Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Environment (DASD(E))

Environment (SAILE) ......................................................................... 17

Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command (CG, AMC) ............. 18 A m y Acquisition Pollution Preuention Support Ofice (AAPPSO)

..... 17 Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics and

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition (SARDA) ......................................................................... 18

............. 18

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . ARMY TACTICAL USES OF-ODCs .................................................................... 21

Ground Combat Systems ................................................................................. 21

Fire Suppression Systems ................................................................................ 23

Watercraft ........................................................................................................ 24

HALON 1301 ............................................................................................................. 21

Mission Critical. Application - Explosion Suppression System ...................... 23

Aviation Systems ............................................................................................. 24

Missile Systems ............................................................................................... 25 Tactical Shelters ............................................................................................... 25

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS ............................................................................... 26

I

THE ARMY’S ODC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 27

ARMY PROJECTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE ARMY’S ODC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR HALON FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENTS ................................................................................ 31 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................... 31 ARMY ODC REDUCTION PROJECTS ................................................................. 32

Use of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) as an Alternative to Simulate Halon 1301 for Discharge Testing ....................................................... 37

Halon 1301 Stockpile Project .......................................................................... 39 Modification of Halon 1301 Recharge Equipment to Prevent

Venting Emissions ............................................................................... 41 Firebox Test Cell .............................................................................................. 43 Carbon Dioxide Handheld Fire Extinguishers ................................................ 45

.... 47 Aviation Engine Nacelle Fire Suppression Systems ....................................... 49 Technology Base Research for an Alternative Explosion

..................... 51

Combat Ground Vehicle Engine Compartment Fire Suppression Systems

Suppression Agent for Category I System Applications

ARMY STRATEGY FOR ELIMINATING DEPENDENCE ON CFCs FOR AIR CONDITIONING. REFRIGERATION AND METAL CLEANING ................................................. 53

CFC Recovery Equipment ............................................................................... 57 Refrigeration .................................................................................................... 59 Air Conditioners ............................................................................................. 61 Surface Cleaning: Generic Metal Cleaning ..................................................... 63

MANAGEMENT OF THE ARMY’S ODC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR TACTICAL WEAPON SYSTEMS ........................................................................

Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff ......................................................... Assistant Secretary of the A m y for Research, Development and

Acquisition ........................................................................................... Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics and

Environment ........................................................................................ Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics .................................................................. Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans .............................................. Office of the Surgeon General .......................................................................... Army Safety Center ......................................................................................... Chief of Engineers ............................................................................................

Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office ................................

HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY .........................................

COMMANDING GENERAL, AMRY MATERIEL COMMAND ......................

65 65 65

65

66 67 67 67 67 67 67 67

ENDNOTES .......................................................................................................................... 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 71

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ 73

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 . Sales Tax on Halon 1301 per Pound Purchased ............................................ 132

Figure 2 . Approximate Distribution of Halon 1301 by Application and Category ...................................................................... 22

Figure 3 . Halon 1301 Replacement Project‘s Milestones ................................................ 34

Figure 4 . CFC Replacement Project’s Milestones ............................................................ 54

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 . Ozone Depletion Potential of Common Halogenated Chemicals .................... -4

Table 2 . Pounds of Halon 1301 Used Onboard each Type of Army Ground Combat Vehicle ............................................................... 22

Table 3 . Pounds of Halon 1301 Used Onboard each Type of Army Aircraft .............. 25

Table 4 . Summary of Program Funding Requirements ($K) ......................................... 29

............................ 33

.

Table 5 . Halon 1301 Replacement Project’s Funding Requirements

Table 6 . CFC Replacement Project’s Funding Requirement .......................................... 54

~ ~~ ~~ ~

INTRODUCTION

On 11 February 1992, President Bush announced that with limited exceptions for essential (what the DoD refers to as ”mission critical”) uses and for servicing certain exist- ing equipment, all production of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons in the United States will be eliminated by 31 December 1995. Under the terms of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the President has the authority to accelerate the phase-out of these ozone depleting chemicals (ODCs) without new legislation.2 Phasing-out production of ODCs means that all ODCs normally used to recharge air conditioning, refrigeration and fire suppression systems will have to be procured from recycled sources or be stockpiled immediately; 0th- envise, alternatives must be identified and employed.

The Amy’s strategy replaces ODCs with proven environmentally acceptable alter- natives. This strategy supports our national policy to cease production and reduces the need to stockpile or recycle all ODCs except Halon 1301 for a single mission critical appli- cation. The Army is also supporting common efforts, sponsored by the Navy and Air Force, addressing long term alternatives for mission critical applications. To enhance the Department of Defense’s (DoD) ability to procure commercially available alternatives, the Army is leading efforts to develop and adopt non-government specifications. To ensure industrial efforts are leveraged, the Army supports the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation. International cooperative work has been initiated through the Army’s par- ticipation in the United Nations Environmental Program and other bilateral agreements.

In tactical weapon systems, the U.S. Army uses CFCs in three important but not mission critical areas: air conditioning, refrigeration, and parts cleaning. None of these are unique to the Army or the military. The Army’s strategy is to follow commercial indus- try‘s lead by incorporating new heat exchange working fluids and by procuring new air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. The Navy’s Electronics Manufacturing Productivity Facility has identified alternatives for electronic cleaning which the Army will use. The Army has taken the lead for DoD in finding alternatives for generic and pre- cision metal parts cleaners. Some metal parts cleaners have already been tested and imple- mented. This effort will continue at the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence. The fact remains that near term and some long term substitutes for CFCs are available and can be implemented quickly, if qualification testing is accelerated.

The US. Army uses halons for fire suppression. A recent Army study prepared by an internationally renowned expert has identified alternatives for all but one ”mission critical” use of halons. Automatic fixed-flooding explosion suppression systems in the normally occupied crew compartment of ground combat vehicles is the Army’s only mis-

I

sion critical application. Halon 1301 is used in occupied areas of turrets because Halon 1301 systems demonstrate explosion suppression effectiveness (250 milliseconds detec- tion to suppression), and the human toxicity risk is acceptable to the Army’s Surgeon General. This system is an explosion suppression system (not a fire suppression system) and is automatically discharged after ballistic penetration of the vehicle occurs during combat. A research and development project is planned to address this application where toxicity of the agent is one of the key considerations.

Halon 1301 is also used in many category 11, mission essential fire suppression applications. In ground combat vehicles and aviation assets, a fixed automatic Halon 1301 fire suppression system has been installed in engine compartments. Handheld Halon 1301 fire extinguishers are also stored internally in almost all systems. In these cases of pro- tecting unoccupied areas, toxicity is not the overriding issue. Near term substitutes are available now for all of these, normally peacetime, fire suppression applications and these will be retrofitted into currently fielded Army systems.

This strategic plan addresses how the US. Army intends to replace ODCs with alternatives in new or redesigned tactical weapon systems. The main thrust of the plan is procuring equipment designed to use near-term ODC alternatives. The total cost of imple- menting this strategic plan is $490,000,000; the largest portion of which is procurement expenditure. The balance is dedicated to research and development, and operational and maintenance expenditures to evaluate CFC and halon alternatives. Resources are also ded- icated for recycling and stockpiling Halon 1301 for the combat-related mission critical application.

2

I

-UNDERSTANDING THE OZONE DEPLETION PROBLEM

!

d on

Ozone (03) can be found throughout our Earth's atmosphere. Ozone is a poison, even in small concen- t r a t i o n ~ . ~ In the lower level (Troposphere), ozone is associated with the formation of photochemical smog and is considered a constituent of pollution. There are references to "Ozone Non-Attainment Areas" through- out the country. Atmospheric ozone concentration in these areas exceed allowable standards and present a vegetation, animal and human health risk. This is not the layer of ozone with which we are concerned in this strategic plan.

. In the Stratosphere, a layer beginning approxi- mately 7 miles above our Earth's surface, the atmos- phere is normally rich in ozone. At this height above our Earth, ozone serves a highly constructive purpose; preventing dam radiation (UV-B)

iaging biologically activc from reaching our Earth's

: ultrav inhabit

riolei: ants,

land and water. The "Stratospheric Ozone Shield" absorbs UV-B radiation; protecting plants and animals. The common effect of exposure to UV-B is sunburn. However, the effects of exposure to increasing levels of UV-B radiation include destroying nucleic acids (DNA/RNA) and protein.4 The destruction of these basic elements of life can have serious latent conse- quences throughout future generations. However in our generation, UV-B exposure also has chronic effects, triggering skin cancers, eye cataracts and other ail- ments. Similar deleterious effects occur in animal pop- ulations, and crop damage could severely effect the food chain.

~- As the ozone layer is depleted by ODCs, greater

levels of ultraviolet radiation reach our Earth's surface. Simultaneously, less infrared radiation is being allowed to escape the atmosphere by a phenomena known as the "Greenhouse Effect". Heat is radiated outward as

infrared radiation. ODCs and other trace gases are preventing portions of outbound radi- ation from escaping our Earth's atmosphere. Hence the Greenhouse effect, which con- tributes to global warming, is being accelerated by the increasing concentration of ODCs.

3

I

Improved stratospheric ozone protection is the goal of this strategic plan. There have been many references recently to the "Hole-in-the-Ozone". These reports refer to areas of the Stratosphere where the concentration of ozone is measurably reduced. The initial measurement reports of reduced stratospheric ozone levels occurred geographi- cally over the southern polar region. Recently additional "ozone holes" in the Stratosphere over the northern hemisphere have been identified. In April 1992, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that the concentration of stratospheric ozone over the continental United States had been reduced five percent during the last decade. It has been suggested that a five percent reduction in ozone concentration would cause forty thousand additional cases of skin cancer in the United States alone.5 The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has predicted that the stratospheric ozone concentration over the middle northern latitudes will be reduced as much as ten percent by the year 2000. These studies have generated increasing awareness and concern by the public and by international lawmakers.

1 Stratospheric ozone depletion has been tied directly to the emission of a select group of industrial chemicals, primarily halogenated compounds. The halogenated com- pounds include the common-named Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) groups, Halon groups, Methyl Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). These chemical compounds have been classified based on their "Ozone Depletion Potential" (ODP), which relates to the potency of destroying stratospheric ozone. Table 1 shows a listing of common ODCs, their respective ozone depletion potentials and sample appli- cations.

Table 1. Ozone Depletion Potential of Common Halogenated Chemicals

CFC-113

ODP

10 6 3 1 - 1 J 1 0.8

Fire Suppression Fire Suppression Fire Suppression Refrigerant Refrigerant Air Conditioning Solvent

4

During the 1970's a British researcher was interested in using CFCs as tracers in mapping atmospheric circulation patterns. He chose CFCs as tracers because they are a sta- ble molecule that would not react with other atmospheric compounds. Air circulation would carry CFCs undisturbed between the northern hemisphere and the Antarctic. CFCs at the time were primarily used in the northern hemisphere industrialized nations. CFCs were measured in trace amounts over Britain, at sea far from land and later in Antarctica.

In 1973, a researcher at University of California-Irvine became aware of work pre- dicting the concentration of CFCs in the atmosphere was approximately the same as the estimated emissions from known sources. This data suggested that CFCs were very sta- ble in the environment. Calculations of the environmental fate of CFCs showed that under normal tropospheric conditions they were very stable. However, in the stratosphere where CFC molecules are subject to ultraviolet radiation, the normally stable molecules dissoci- ate and produce free chlorine atoms.

The reactions are shown as:

Cl+ O3 = ClO + O2 c10 + o= c1+ 0 2

yielding 03 + 0 = 202

Chlorine atoms are the catalyst of reaction. Chlorine atoms are eventually released, free to initiate a sequence of follow-on reactions. In fact based on subsequent research it has been shown that the dis- sociation of a single OTIC molecule can result in destruction of 100,000 ozone moledes.6

O K s are stable in the Troposphere and are minor constituents in smog. In the Stratosphere, under conditions exposing them to ultraviolet radiation, they provide a cata- lyst for the destruction of our Earth's ozone shield. The sta- bility that makes them so attractive for engineering purpos- es, allows them to survive in the Troposphere, eventually migrating to the Stratosphere long after initial release as an air emission. Once in the Stratosphere, the effect of the dissociated molecule is long lived. The potential for continued ozone depletion even long after emissions are reduced to zero has driven lawmakers to eliminate halogenated compounds from air emissions as soon as possible.

5

Ballistic Test of M60A3 Automatic Explosion Suppression System

6

BACKGROUND

Chlorofluorocarbons were discovered at General Motors' research laboratory in 1928 during investigations of refrigerant working fluids. Two gases, dichlorodifluo- romethane and trichloromonofluoromethane, were shown to be inert, nonflammable and had excellent refrigeration properties. These gases were the original "CFCs". By 1938, CFCs had been marketed by E.I. du Pont de Newmours and Co., Inc. (DuPont) under the tradename Freon. Throughout the 1940's and 1950's, DuPont expanded the use of Freon to include aerosol propellants for products ranging from insecticides to hair sprays. Aerosol propellant was the largest application of CFCs. By 1968,2.3 billion aerosol cans were being sold each year.7

Military applicati of CFCs grew along with industrial applications for air con- ditioning and refrigerati CFCs were also found to be excellent solvents for cleaning fabricated metal parts without attacking surfaces or non-metals. The subsequent growth in the electronics industry made CFCs the leading cleaning agent for circuit boards. In fact, CFCs became a pana throughout the world.

ments and goals for fire extinguishing effectiveness, non-corrosiveness, low toxicity, low electrical conductivity, low volatility, low freeze point, low cost and commercial avail- ability as target goals. The control agent, methyl bromide, was assigned a weight effec- tiveness of 100 percent. Halon 1301 was the only material tested that exceeded 100% weight effectiveness in laboratory fire tests.

Agent toxicity tests were conducted by the U.S. Army using screening tests to estab- lish the approximate lethal concentration (ALC) for the agent. Halon 1301 "was found to be of negligible corrosiveness, and the least toxic, in its natural chemical form, of the var- ious agents tested, including carbon dioxide."8 As a result, Halon 1301 was selected for ser- vice testing for military applications.

7

During the 1960’~~ the Vietnam War caused renewed interest and evaluation of halon fire fighting agents. An automatic fixed-flooding Halon 1301 explosion suppression system was tested. The explosion suppression system successfully deployed upon ballis- tic penetration of the crew compartment, activated dispersion of the fire suppressant and suppressed the flame front within the occupied area of the vehicle. The results of the tests showed that survivability of the vehicle’s occupants increased dramatically using the Halon 1301 explosion suppression system. Based on these tests, in 1969 the Army, with concurrence from the Office of the Surgeon General, recommended that Halon 1301 sys- tems be installed within the crew compartment of future ground combat vehicles.

Following the efficacy studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of Halon 1301 in explosion suppression, the M-113 and other ground combat vehicles continued using car- bon dioxide. The MBT-70 (a prototype for the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank) became the first ground combat vehicle with Halon 1301 for fire and explosion suppression. Thereafter, based on logistic considerations, Halon 1301 was adopted as the Army’s fire extinguishing and explosion suppression agent in fixed flooding systems for normally occupied and normally un-occupied areas and in handheld fire extinguishers in these vehicles.

An increasing trend of higher costs and greater vehicle destruction in vehicles not protected by Halon 1301 resulted in convening a ”blue ribbon panel” to study the Army’s problem of vehicle fire survivability. The conclusions of the panel were published in 1986 in “US. Army Sponsored Tracked Vehicle Fire Survivability Blue Ribbon Panel”. The pri-- <, mary finding of the panel was that no central management ,existed for fire survivability. The panel recommended that a General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC) be organized to expedite and assign priorities and resources to a tracked vehicle fire protection pro- gram. Another recommendation was to establish a central management office for tracked vehicle fire protection.9 Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel , were never fully implemented.

As a general rule the following is true about fire and explosion suppression SYS-~ tems found in Army tactical weapon systems: ~

o In Ground Combat Systems an automatic fixed-flooding Halon 1301 _.

Explosion Suppression System is installed within the crew compartment., An automatic fixed-flooding Halon 1301 Fire Suppression System is installed in the engine compartment. Handheld Halon 1301 fire extinguish- ers are installed in the crew compartment to increase the crew’s capability to safely suppress small fires during peacetime operations.

~

-.

8

o In Aviation Systems, Halon 1301 is not used in a fixed, flooding system in the crew compartment because there is a negligible fire threat in these areas. Handheld Halon 1301 fire extinguishers are located in the occupied areas. A fixed flooding Halon 1301 fire suppression system is installed in the engine nacelle of military and civilian aircraft.

o In Watercraft and Tactical Shelters handheld Halon 1301 fire extinguishers have been employed. In most watercraft these are now being replaced with carbon dioxide and dry powder fire extinguishers. Previously installed auto- matic fixed-flooding Halon 1301 fire suppression systems in watercraft are being removed.

Halon 1301 became a panacea for all fire suppression requirements based on good extinguishing properties, low toxicity and the Army's desire to minimize logistic consid- erations in weapon system deployment. The major benefit of Halon 1301 was demon- strated on Class B fires of ignited petroleum, oils and lubricants (POLS).

During the same time period when military and commercial fire fighting equip- ment was changing out agents to halons, international concern with ozone depletion was reaching a level of importance that demanded government action. In 1987, the "Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer" was signed by the United States and 23 other nations.lO The provisions of the Montrqal Protocol, made it clear that the empha- sis on fire survivability would need to address future fire suppression systems, equip- *

ment and agents using alternatives to halons.

In 1989, the U.S. Department of Defense issued it's directive to implement the Montreal Protocol. The U.S. Army had already established the CFC/Halon Working Group in 1988 to begin focussing efforts to meet the Montreal Protocol provisions. The General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC) for CFCs and Halon was formally established in 1989. In 1990, the Department of the A m y issued it's policy letter stating that procur- ing and using ODCs would be eliminated. Most Major Commands have issued policies implementing the reduction of Oms. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition (SARDA) has issued a policy statement to the Program Executive Officers. SARDA also established a single lead office to manage efforts to replace ODCs used in tactical weapon systems, the US. Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office.

9

\

10

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, NATIONAL POLICY AND MILITARY POLICY

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

In September 1987, twenty four countries signed the ”Montreal Protocol”l*. The Montreal Protocol was the first international treaty which addressed reducing the pro- duction and consumption of ozone depleting chemicals by industrialized nations. The Montreal Protocol became effective 1 January 1989 and established two categories of con- trolled substances based on the ozone depleting potential (ODP):

- . Group I CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113

CFC-114 CFC-115

Group I1 Halon 1211 Halon 1301 Halon 2402

The major provisions12 of the Montreal Protocol provided for:

d consumption of CFCs (Group

on and consumption of CFCs (Group I) by 20% of the 1986 level by 1994.

The major provisions12 of the Montreal Protocol provided for:

o Participating nations to freeze production and consumption of CFCs (Group I) to the 1986 level by 1989.

o Particip on and consumption of CFCs (Group I) by 20% of the 1986 level by 1994.

o Participating nations to reduce production and consumption of CFCs (Group I) by 50% of the 1986 level by 1999.

o Participating nations to fre 2402 (Group 11) at the 1986 level by 199

The Montreal Protocol also laid the ground work for developing a systematic method of reporting ODC production, consumption, import and export data and sharing the results of research and development work supporting substitute materials. The Montreal Protocol was implemented in the United States in February 1989 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final rule ”Protection of Stratospheric Ozone” in the Federal Register (40 CFR Part 82).

NATIONAL POLICY

In support of the Montreal Protocol and the U.S. EPA final rule, the U.S. Congress developed a graduated sales tax that provides monetary incentive to eliminate purchase, consumption and hence production of ODCs. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

11

I

198913 established a sales tax on ODCs based upon the ozone depletion potential. The sales tax on Halon 1301 is $0.25 per pound for 1990 through 1993, then as seen in figure 1, the tax increases dramatically from 1994 through 2000. The cost of the tax in year 2000 will be $53.50. Using the Army's 1991 purchase data for Halon 1301, the total tax paid at $53.50 per pound would amount to roughly $2,000,000. In addition to the sales tax, a significant increase is expected in the purchase price of ODCs as their production is phased-out. The total cost growth of Halon 1301, combining the sales tax and market price as supplies are reduced, has been projected to exceed $150.00 per pound. A common household fire extin- guisher contains about 2.75 pounds of Halon 1301.

/ $60.00 T

$50.00

$40.00

$30.00

$20.00

$10.00

$0.00 4 .< 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Calendar Year Figure 1. Sales Tax on Halon 1301 per Pound Purchased

5. In 1990, the United Nations Environmental Program sponsored a follow-up.meet-

ing to review and amend the Montreal Protocol. This second meeting was held in response to new scientific data which indicated that the effect of ozone depletion was much greater k , than previously calculated. The London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol was signed ,

by 68 nations (including the United States) in 1990. The London Amendment14 included more stringent production phase-out requirements and addressed additional ozone depleting chemicals. In the London Amendment:

\

.

o Participating nations agreed to reduce CFC consumption and production by 20% by 1993, by 50% by 1995, by 85% by 1997'and phaseout consumption completely by 2000.

12

o Participating nations agreed to reduce Halon production by 50% by 1995 and phase-out production completely by 2000 with exceptions for "essen- tial" uses.

o Participating nations also agreed to phase out production of carbon tetra- chloride by 2000 and methyl chloroform by 2005.

o Participating nations agreed to use hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)15 only where other substitutes were not feasible and phase-out consumption of HCFCs by 2020.

Following the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. again adopt- ed new legislation when President Bush signed the 1990 Amendment of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 1990 CAA amendment provided stricter controls of ODCs than the Montreal Protocol, but adhered to a similar schedule of phase-out by the year 2000. The 1990 CAA amendment also requires HCFC production to be phased out by the year 2015, five years ahead of the Montreal Protocol schedule.

More recently, on 11 February 1992 President Bush announced that the United States (with limited exceptions) will unilaterally phase out all production of ODCs by the end of 1995. This announcement accelerated the phase-out plan by five years.

LOCALE REGULATION

Generally, neither the Montreal Protocol nor the Clean Air Act specifically exclude the use of ODCs, except that the Clean Air Act does address eliminating sales of O K s and eliminates use of CFCs in automotive air conditioners. As in many other cases regarding air pollution emissions, California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is ahead of federal regulators. SCAQMD has taken the lead in restricting the sale and use of halon firefighting equipment by issuing Rule 1418 "Halon Emissions from Fire Extinguishing Equipment". The stated purpose of Rule 1418 is "to reduce halon emis- sions ... by limiting the use of halon to specified necessary applications, and by prohibit- ing the sale of portable fire extinguishers that contain less than 5 pounds of halon".*6 This rule applies to any person who retails, owns, operates or services halon fire extinguishers. This prohibition virtually eliminates all handheld portable halon fire extinguishers in use in households and by the military, and makes discharge for purposes other than extin- guishing fires illegal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to propose a similar new rule establishing a national prohibition on the use of halon fire fighting agents in handheld fire extinguishers.

The Army foresaw the eventual adoption of rulings such as SCAQMD Rule 1418 and actively planned to phase-out halon as a fire fighting agent. The SCAQMD ruling

13

lends credence to the military’s contention that not only system design and procurement must cease, but also deploying halon in non-mission critical systems must cease.

While efforts to eliminate use of ODCs focus on U.S. federal, state and local regu- lations, the Army’s overseas installations must also conform to local legislation within foreign countries. As participants in the Montreal Protocol, Germany and other countries of the European Economic Community are also legislating restrictions on ODC use and production. The Army may not be able to support overseas assets as these laws take effect. This strategic plan was developed based on international cooperation as well as expected locale restrictions.

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSES POLICY

Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 6050.9 was the first statement of policy by the Office of the Secretary of Defense which addressed eliminating the use of ODCs. This requirement was promulgated to ”enact a long term process of decreasing DoD depen- dence on CFCs and halons because of reduced availability in future years due to produc- tion limitations”. The key elements of DoD Directive 6050.9 are:

o Procure and store CFCs and halons and ensure supplies are available to meet ”mission critical” needs. /

o

o

Establish procedures to eliminate unnecessary releases of halons and CFCs.

Establish procedures to prevent or minimize use of CFCs and halons in exist- ing and future systems. \

o Adopt suitable alternatives when consistent with mission requirements.

The military services are required by DoD Directive 6050.9 to identify applications of ODCs by classification categories:I7

Category I: Mission-Critical Uses - Mission critical uses have a direct impact on combat mission capability and include uses that are integral to combat mission assets or affect the operability of these assets.

Category 11: Essential Uses - Essential uses include those applications which have an indirect effect on combat mission assets and play an auxiliary role in ensuring the operability of those assets.

14

Category 111: Non-Essential Uses - Non-essential uses include uses for com- fort cooling in family housing and installation support activi- ties.

The Department of Defense’s definition of mission critical is analogous to the ”essential” classification used in the Montreal Protocol. However DoDs definition of mis- sion critical is so broad that the military services have exercised significant latitude in interpreting and classdying mission critical applications. In November 1991, the General Accounting Office reported the following:

”...For example, while the Army’s only mission critical use of halon is for explosion suppression in the crew and turret area of specific combat vehicles, the Navy has categorized all shipboard, aircraft and aviation flightline uses as mission critical.”**

The Army’s narrow interpretation of mission critical is consistent with international consensus. The Halons Technical Options Committee of the United Nations Environmental Program has determined that no substitute for Halon 1301 in fixed flood- ing explosion suppression systems for normally occupied areas exists or is even antici- pated in the foreseeable future. Therefore, for this single mission critical application, pro- tecting human lives during combat, the Army must stockpile Halon 1301.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY POLICY

The Army implemented the guidance of DoD Directive 6050.9 and the Montreal Protocol by issuing Headquarters, Department of the b y letter (HQDA LTR) 200-90-1, ”Eliminating or Minimizing Atmospheric Emissions of Ozone Depleting Substances”. HQDA LTR 200-90-1 provided important direction toward eliminating the use of halons and CFCs for both tactical and non-tactical applications. In particular, it required the for- mation of a General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC) to provide policy direction for implementing the Army’s efforts to eliminate the use of ozone depleting chemicals. The GOSC first met in July 1989. HQDA LTR 200-90-1 established the following requirements:

o Annual reporting of the usage of ozone depleting chemicals.

o Purchase of ODCs only in the absence of suitable alternatives.

o

o

o

Prohibition of direct release of ODCs into the atmosphere.

Employment of recycling and conservation practices.

Revision of military specifications to minimize use of ODCs.

o Active participation in joint efforts with private industry to foster research and development of alternatives to ODCs.

o Ensuring the availability of ODCs for mission critical uses. (Stockpiling)

o Preparation of training programs for Army maintenance personnel in accor- dance with U.S. EPA certification requirements and the development of pub- lic awareness programs.

The General Officer Steering Committee acting as a representative of the Headquarters, Department of the Army reviewed the priority listing of applications of halons and CFCs and approved the single mission-critical application for Halon 1301 explosion suppression systems. Other weapon systems applications could possibly be redesignated as ”mission critical” in the future if engineering data suggests that it is nec- essary.

ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND POLICY

Army Materiel Command (AMC) issued it‘s policy in AMC Regulation Number 70- 68, ”Elimination of Ozone Depleting Substances’’ on 4 September 19-91. The AMC regula- tion applies to all major subordinate commands and installations reporting directly to AMC. The regulation included the Army’s definition of mission-critical uses to specifi- cally address systems used to protect the lives of crew members in combat and where no suitable alternative exists. AMC Regulation 70-68 implemented the requirements of the

\ HQDA LTR 200-90-1.

ARMY ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE POLICY

On 27 April 1992, the Army Acquisition Executive issued Army Acquisition Executive Policy Memorandum 92-119 to the acquisition community citing the environ- mental responsibilities of Program Executive Officers (PEOs) and Program Managers (PMs). This policy memorandum reaffirmed that sound environmental stewardship man- dated the integration of environmental concerns with the acquisition of systems and the management of programs. In particular, the policy memorandum stated that ”PEOs and PMs will eliminate all uses of halon and chlorofluorocarbons, ... except where defined mis- sion critical uses have been approved.

In a following Memorandum to the Acquisition Community20, on 11 May 1992 the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition (SARDA) authorized ”the Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office (AAPPSO) ... to act as the SARDA staff office for all systems acquisition pollution prevention initiatives, issues and concerns”. AAPPSO is authorized to provide direct support to all SARDA agen- cies, PEOs and PMs and to lead the Army’s efforts to reduce halon and chlorofluorocar- bon use.

16

POLICY ORGANIZATIONS I

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)

The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has been responsible for the development of the Montreal Protocol and subsequent amendments. UNEP has, through the Ozone Trends Panel, continued to monitor the scientific evidence which suggests that depletion of the ozone layer has accelerated. Reliance on this data sponsored the recent London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.

UNEP established assessment panels to address scientific, environmental, tech- nology and economic effects of the Montreal Protocol and phaseout of ODCs. In 1991 the combined technical and economic assessment panel divided into six option committees. The U.S. Army (AAPPSO) is a member of the Halons Technical Options Committee and is a technical advisor of the Military Use Sub-committee.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) developed the rules forming the Clean Air Act of 1977 which was amended in 1990 to incorporate the Montreal Protocol. The U.S. EPA has been very active in developing proposed rulings that promul- gate US. national policy for environmental protection. For example, the President was given the authority to accelerate the phase-out of O K production in the United States. It was under this authority that President Bush unilaterally accelerated the production phase-out of ODCs from the year 2000 to 1995.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Environment (DASD(E))

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Environment (DASD(E)) pro- mulgated DoD Directive 6050.9 establishing the U.S. Department of Defense’s policy to eliminate use of OKs . This policy provided critical guidance and directed the military services to not only stop procuring ODCs, but also to stop using them except for mission critical applications. The policy provided guidelines for categorizing applications and identifpg mission critical applications.

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics and Environment ( S A K E )

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics and Environment (SALE) promulgated HQDA LTR 200-90-1. This letter instructed all active installations to cease using ODCs in accordance with DoD Directive 6050.9. HQDA LTR 200-90-1 also established a General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC) to provide strategic guidance to Army efforts to eliminate dependence on ODCs. The GOSC acted as Department of the Army representatives to approve the definition of mission critical applications and cate- gorization of Army applications of ODCs.

Assistant Secreta y of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition (SARDA)

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition (SARDA) directed all Program Executive Officers (PEOs), who are responsible for procur- ing major weapons systems to eliminate use of ODCs during the acquisition process. SARDA established the Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office as a staff office (SARD-CS-E) to lead the Army’s efforts and support the PEOs in implementing this direction.

Commanding General, U. S. Army Materiel Command (CG,AMC)

The Commanding General of U.S. Army Materiel Command promulgated AMC Regulation 70-68 directing all reporting installations and major subordinate commands (MSCs) to eliminate use of ODCs. The Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office (AMCRD-E) charter includes managing the Army’s Program to reduce dependence of weapons systems on ODCs.

Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Ofice (AAPPSO)

The Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office has been designated by SARDA, SAILE and CG, AMC to lead and manage the Army’s efforts to reduce the dependence of tactical weapons systems on ODCs. In working with the GOSC, the AAPP- SO has directly implemented or supported programs addressing each of the HQDA LTR 200-90-1 and AMC Regulation 70-68 requirements.

o A-AI’PSO is supporting a procurement data recording system that identifies all procurement and use of ozone depleting chemicals.

o AAPPSO is providing training programs and instructions for the Materiel Developer community of Program Executive Officers (PEOs), Program, Project and Product Managers (PMs) and Major Subordinate Commands to eliminate use of ODCs and is helping to idenhfy suitable alternatives for use during the acquisition of weapon systems.

AAPPSO is providing program management to support Army efforts to con- serve, recover and store existing Halon 1301 resources to meet mission crit- ical requirements.

I

/

o

18

o AAPPSO, in cooperation with the US. Army Troop Support Command, has established an EPA certification training program for maintenance person- nel working on equipment using CFCs and halons as working fluids con- sistent with the requirements of the 1990 amendment of the Clean Air Act.

o AAPPSO has organized the team of PEOs and Major Subordinate Commands to build and implement the projects under this plan.

19

M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System Mounted on an M993 Carrier

20

!

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: ARMY TACTICAL USES OF ODCs

HALON 1301

The Army uses Halon 1301 as the primary fire suppression agent in most tactical weapon system applications. Halon 1301 fixed flooding systems generally fall into two categories. Category I contains automatic fixed-flooding explosion suppression systems used in the normally occupied areas of ground combat vehicles. Category I explosion sup- pression systems are the Army’s only mission critical application. Category I1 contains automatic fixed-flooding fire suppression systems designed for normally unoccupied areas such as the engine compartment of ground combat vehicles or the engine nacelle of aircraft. Category I1 also includes handheld portable fire extinguishers installed inside combat vehicles, aircraft, watercraft and tactical shelters. Small (2.75 lbs.) handheId fire extinguishers are installed in most weapon systems. These handhelds serve as the pri- mary fire fighting system for slow growth, peacetime fires in normally occupied areas of these weapon systems.

Figure 2 shows the approximate distribution of Halon 1301 by category and by the major weapon system application. The single mission critical (category I) requirement of explosion suppression in normally occupied areas of ground combat vehicles is 26% of the A r m y ’ s tactical weapon system applications. Of the category 11 applications, ground combat vehicle eagine fire suppression systems account for 41%, whereas watercraft cur- rently account for 10% and aircraft engine nacelle fire suppression systems account for only 1%. The balance of category I1 Halon 1301 is used in handheld fire extinguishers which comprises nearly 48% of category I1 use of Halon 1301.

Ground Combat Systems

Halon 1301 is used in seven ground combat vehicle families, which when com- bined total over 17,000 vehicles:

0 M1 Abrams 0 M992 FAASV o M2/M3 Bradley 0 M9 ACE 0 M993 MLRS 0 FOX

0 M551 Sheridan

The balance of the Army’s tactical vehicles (M113, M88, M109, etc.) still use carbon dioxide fire suppression systems. Table 2 provides a listing, based on the latest fleet den- sities of the pounds of Halon 1301 currently used in each category fire suppression system within the vehicle family.

21

Aviation Engines 1 %

*

Total Application by Category Applications of Category I1

Figure 2. Approximate Distribution of Halon 1301 by Application and Category

Category I is the explosion suppression system installed within the crew compartment. Category I1 includes both the automatic fixed-flooding engine compartment system and the handheld fire extinguishers. The total amount of Halon 1301 onboard ground combat systems is 518,239 pounds.

Table 2: Pounds of Halon 1301 Used Onboard each Type of Army Ground Combat Vehicle

Category I Category I1 Category I1 Vehicle Family Fleet Density (Fixed) (Fixed) (Handheld)

M1 Abrams 7880 7 14 5.5

M992 FAASV 825 40-42 20 5.5 M551 Sheridan 530 8 3.25 2.75 M993 MLRS 855 7 2.75 M9 ACE 448 14 5.5 FOX 333 20 5.5

M2/M3 Bradley 6724 10 7 5.5

22

Mission Critical Application - Explosion Suppression System

Halon 1301 systems are used in normally occupied areas of these vehicles, as an explosion suppression system protecting vehicle crew members from threqt induced fires during combat. The explosion suppression system extinguishes the fire, caused by deto- nation of fuel by a ballistic penetrator, by flooding the compartment and chemically inter- fering with the propagation of the flame front. This system detects, activates and sup- presses the flame front within 250 milliseconds. Halon 1301 was chosen for the explosion suppression system because it is safe and effective. The explosion suppression system is viewed as a combat multiplier. Not only are lives saved in combat, but systems protected by a Halon 1301 explosion suppression system sustain less battlefield damage and are more easily returned to active units.

Halon 1301 used in the crew compartment is the only mission critical use of halon by the Army. The system is mission critical for the following reasons:

0

0

. .

0

0

0

0

..

1

The crew remains present during activation of the explosion suppression system.

Halon 1301 is the only agent that has been approved by the Office of the Surgeon General as being relatively safe in its neat agent (unburned) form and after pyrolysis from fire exposure.

The Halon 1301 system fills the entire volume of the crew compartment within 100 milliseconds. The crew is protected fromsubsequent explosiotv by this rapid activation period.

The concentration of Halon 1301 within the crew compartment throughout activation of the system remains within acceptable limits of human expo- sure.

/

The Halon 1301 explosion suppression system has proven itself in combat.

Halon 1301 is the only agent considered by the United Nations Environmental Program, Halons Technical Options Committee to meet near and far-term requirements for this very unique application.

Fire Suppression Systems

In addition to the crew compartment, ground combat vehicles also have an auto- matic fixed-flooding Halon 1301 fire suppression system in the engine compartment. The Halon 1301 fire suppression system provides protection of the equipment in the engine

23

I

space without causing the need for extensive clean-up that would be required from pow- ders and other similar agents. On ground combat vehicles and aircraft, the fire suppres- sion system is designed to sense the presence of a slow growth fire (deflagration) and extinguish it by flooding the compartment with agent. Manual back-up activation is included as a design feature. Handheld fire extinguishers are also installed in the nor- mally occupied areas of the ground combat vehicles to extinguish small fires typical of peacetime operation.

Aviation Systems

Halon 1301 fire suppression system are installed on 16 types of aircraft:

0 AH-64 0 RC-12 0 RV-1 0 OH-6 0 U-8

0 UH-60 0 c-12 0 UH-1 0 OH-58 0 u-21 0 W-18

. o CH-47 0 ov-1 0 AH-1 0 T 4 0 RU-21

Table 3. lists the current fleet density of Army aircraft and pounds of Halon 1301 per aircraft. The total weight of Halon 1301 used in aircraft is 33,278 pounds. Selected combat aircraft are protected by category I1 automatic fixed- flooding Halon 1301 fire suppression systems installed in the engine nacelles. In all aircraft, the crew compartment is protected by category 11 handheld portable Halon 1301 fire extinguishers. A fixed explosion sup- pression system in the normally occupied areas is not required for aircraft because the fuel fire threat is negligible in these areas. Furthermore, dispersal of the Halon 1301 as a fine mist would'create a hazard to air crews by obstructing vision. This approach of pro- viding automatic fixed-flooding fire suppression within the engine nacelle and portable handheld fire extinguishers is consistent with Air Force, Navy and commercial aircraft fire fighting practices.

Watercraft

Halon 1301 is used in seven classes of watercraft: *

0 LACV-30 o Liquid Barge 0 J-Boat o Tug 0 LSV 0 LCUS

0 ROWPU Barge

Halon 1301 fire suppression systems and handheld portable fire extinguishers are installed in machinery spaces, the engine room, electrical spaces and POL spaces of water- craft. Halon 1301 fire extinguishers are peacetime fire suppression systems promoting troop safety. None of these watercraft applications are considered mission critical. The

24

I

U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command has already initiated a program changing hand- held fire extinguishers from Halon 1301 to other agents such as carbon dioxide and dry powders and removing automatic fixedflooding Halon 1301 systems.

Table 3.

Aircraft Familv

AH-64 UH-60 CH-47 RC-12 c-12 ov-1 RV-1 UH-1 AH-1 OH-6 OH-58

Pounds of Halon 1301 Used Onboard each Type of Army Aircraft

Category I1 Category I1 Fleet Density (Fixed) (Handheld)

61 6 1,119

378 30 122 92 21

3,104 . 1,019

337 1,799

1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

2.75 5.5 8.25 5.5 5.5 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75

T 4 2.75 ' U-8 2.75 u-21 2.75 RU-21 29 5.5 UV-18 6 5.5

i

Missile Systems

Aside from the multiple launch rocket system chassis (M993 MLRS) addressed pre- viously, no other missile transport carrier uses a fixed Halon 1301 system. Category I1 handheld Halon 1301 fire extinguishers are provided for missile support systems.

Tactical Shelters

Halon 1301 handheld portable fire extinguishers are installed in all tactical com- mand and control shelters. Halon 1301 fire extinguishers are for peacetime fire suppres- sion promoting troop safety. None of these applications are considered mission critical.

25

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

The Army uses CFCs for three purposes: air conditioning for atmospheric control within vehicles, watercraft and shelters; refrigeration for field kitchens, specialized med- ical equipment and cooling electronic subsystems in tactical weapon systems; and as a solvent for cleaning electronics and metal parts. Generally, air conditioning and refriger- ation uses are applicable to the same tactical weapon systems which are protected by halon fire suppression systems. Electronic and metal cleaning include production and subse- quent use during field and depot maintenance for almost every Army weapon system and their subsystems.

The primary applications of CFCs for refrigeration are:

0 Food Service o Photographic Laboratories 0 Medical Laboratories 0 Research Laboratories

o Other Specialized Laboratories

None of these applications are Army unique, but each is essential to mission per- formance. The Army uses CFC-12 (Freon 12) for tactical refrigeration which accounts for approximately 38% of CFC-12 usage. In 1991, the Army purchased approximately 57,896 lbs. of CFC-12.

The primary applications of CFCs for air conditioning are associated with com- mand, control and intelligence gathering equipment in tactical mobile shelters. None of these applications are Army unique and are category 11. The Army uses the balance of 62% of CFC-12 for tactical air conditioning applications.

The Army uses three different ODCs for surface cleaning, CFC-113, Methyl Chloroform (MCF) and Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4). During calendar year 1991, the Army purchased 87,463 Ibs. of CFC-113,419,021 lbs. of MCF and 1,133 Ibs. of CCL4.

26

THE ARMY’S ODC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The Army has developed a well balanced program for eliminating dependence on ODCs. The program was developed using a business planning approach applying fund- ing resources from appropriate program elements to projects matching the program ele- ment maturity. The program plan incorporates 6.1 through 6.3a research and development program resources for projects needed to identify and demonstrate the validity of alter- native chemicals to ODCs. Following successful laboratory demonstration, 6.4,6.5 and 6.7 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) resources are used to assess the use of the proposed alternatives through testing in production and on fielded systems. Implementation of the alternatives is planned using a combination of Operation and Maintenance resources and Procurement resources.

The near term program plan (1 to 3 years) concentrates on projects which (in most cases) do not require technology base resources. The near term strategy is heavily depen- dent on using existing commercial replacements, where available. These existing resources can be:

o Used immediately as a replacement agent, such as carbon dioxide, in hand- held portables to replace Halon 1301 fire extinguishers thereby eliminating 84% of aviation and 32% of ground combat vehicle category I1 applications.

Used immediately as a replacement, such as R-22, in air conditioning appli- cations to replace CFC-12.

o

o Used immediately to replace CFC-113, methyl chloroform and carbon tetra- chloride used for electronics and metal parts cleaning.

o Used immediately as a test agent, such as sulfur hexafluoride, for discharge testing of explosion suppression systems to replace Halon 1301.

o Used immediately as a replacement, such as HFC-l34a, in refrigeration applications to replace CFC-12.

The initial efforts in the near term are the low risk portion of the program which address replacing handheld Halon 1301 fire extinguishers with handheld carbon dioxide fire extinguishers and stockpiling Halon 1301 for explosion suppression systems. During

27

the near term, the Army will also change-out Freon (R12) in air conditioning and refrig- eration with R-22 and HFC-134a respectively following the direction of commercial indus- try. Elimination of CFC 113, methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride will also begin through a project to demonstrate the efficacy of alternative materials in cooperation with industry and the other services. This Army lead project will be accomplished at the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence.

During the mid-term (4 to 6 years) portion of the program medium risk projects such as fire suppression systems in ground combat vehicle engine compartments will be pursued. New materials and design changes needed to replace Halon 1301 in automatic fixed-flooding fire suppression systems will require operational testing of the fire sup- pression systems in ground combat vehicle engine compartments. The mid-term strategy also continues to evaluate alternative cleaning solutions.

During the far-term (7 to 10 years) portion of the program, high risk projects such as aircraft engine nacelles will be addressed. The Army has prepared for continued use of Halon 1301 in category I applications by:

o Stockpiling adequate supplies of Halon 1301 for the Army’s mission critical application.

o Developing the capability to recover and recycle Halon 1301 for category I applications.

Supporting long term research and development to idenbfy alternatives to Halon 1301 in explosion suppression systems.

o

For future systems the objective is to design the explosion hazard out of the vehi- cle’s normally occupied areas. The current design that locates the fuel cells within the crew compartment is unacceptably risky and drives the requirement for the Halon 1301 explo- sion suppression system.

International treaties, national and military policies all place a requirement on the Army acquisition community to eliminate dependence of all systems on ODCs. The A n n y ’ s ODC Replacement Program places strategic emphasis on moving the major por- tion of applications away from chemicals which will no longer be produced, and empha- sizes recycling and recovery of Halon 1301 only for the single mission critical application. The following sections address specific projects that are directed at replacing Halon 1301 as a fire suppressant and CFCs in air conditioning, refrigeration and cleaning operations. Table 4. summarizes the latest funding requirements of the Army Halon/CFC Replacement Program.

28

Table 4. Summary of Program Funding Requirements ($K)

Fundinn Source Total Funding

RDT&E 6.1,6.2,6.3 $44,375 RDT&E 6.4 $22,305 RDT&E 6.5 $27,160 RDTdzE6.7 $20,200 Total RDT&E $11 4,040

APA $71,800 PROC. WTCV $130,623 OPA 3 $1 55,900 Total Procurement $358,323

OMA $17,470

Total $489,833

The program funding requirements include projects that were originally planned for execution starting in fiscal years FY 92 and FY 93..Funding resources were requested but not received for these projects. An FY 94 POM funding request for $320,00OK was approved reflecting requirements for FY 94 through FY 98. The program total shown in Table 4 reflects total program requirements extending out eight years and beyond.

29

I

MI13 A3 which employs a Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression System

30

POI ARMY PROJECTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE ARMY’S

ODC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR HALON FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENTS

ALTERNATIVES

The Army completed a comprehensive analysis of Halon 1301 applications to iden- tify reasonable alternatives. The investigation, reported in ”Assessment of Alternatives to Halon Firefighting Agents”, assessed available substitutes for Halon 1301 in five applica- tions. Halon 1301 was used as a baseline agent with well-known operational characteris- tics. The five applications evaluated were:

o Ground Combat Vehicle Engine Compartment (Total Flooding in an Unoccupied Area).

o Ground Combat Vehicle Handh an Occupied Area).

o - Aviation Fixed On-board Firef ’ Unoccupied or Outdoor Areas).

o Aviation Handheld Fire Extinguishers (Streaming Agents in an Occupied Area).

o . Marine Vessel Flammable Liq Unoccupied Area).

The study identified 28 parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of the differing agents. The parameters included effectiveness against class A, B, C and D fires, various aspects of agent deployment, environmental and material degradation, human toxicity and logistic considerations including space, weight and cost. Each fire fighting agent including Halon 1301 was assigned a weighted score in each parameter category.

The results of the report indicated that carbon dioxide might be the replacement agent for handheld portable and fixed-flooding fire suppression systems. This result is important because carbon dioxide is a readily available resource having known charac- teristics from current and previous use. Carbon dioxide represents a minimal risk approach by allowing designers to concentrate on adequate dispersal for fixed-flooding systems rather than on expensive laboratory demonstrations and time consuming and costly toxicity testing.

31

I

I

Using carbon dioxide as the replacement in portable handheld fire extinguishers represents a significant portion of the program because this application accounts for almost 50% of the Army's category I1 tactical use of Halon 1301. Replacing these handheld portables is a near term task because sources of supply of carbon dioxide portable fire extinguishers exist, specifications exist and the extinguishers are produced in similar sizes as Halon 1301. Replacement is a relatively simple one-for-one swap out. While carbon dioxide is a global warming gas, the agent is not "produced". Carbon dioxide is actually removed from the atmosphere and stored in the bottle. Therefore, removal of carbon diox- ide for fire suppression applications is a small but tangible benefit to reduce the potential for global warming.

Based on independent Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certifications, 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide will provide the same protection as 2.75 pounds of Halon 1301. This favor- able weight ratio does not extend itself to fixed-flooding systems however. Current avail- able data suggests that the weight of a carbon dioxide system, equipment and fittings, will approach 2 to 3 times the weight of a comparable Halon 1301 system. This problem is due to the requirement for high pressurization of the carbon dioxide system. In addition, the space required for installing carbon dioxide systems will also be 2 to 3 times the space required for the comparable Halon 1301 system. The Anny has initially concluded that the risks imposed by the space and weight claims may be acceptable for >he current fleet of tactical vehicles and aircraft. In fact, recent tests of a new fire suppression system on the M109 Paladin shows that the 2 to 3 times rule of thumb may not be accurate. The rule of thumb space and weight estimates are based on cup burner data and experience in large, open spaces. This experience may not adequately represent a fire scenario in a small con- fined space such as an engine compartment. The space and weight issue, as it effects ground combat vehicles and aircraft, is constantly under review and may be modified as the program matures.

In the following section eight specific projects are identified which form the core of the Army's program for eliminating reliance on Halon 1301 as a fire extinguishing agent.

ARMY ODC REDUCTION PROJECTS

The Anny has developed eight projects to address the replacement of Halon 1301 fire suppression systems with reasonable alternatives. They are:

0 Use of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) as an Alternative to Simulate Halon 1301 for Discharge Testing.

o Halon 1301 Stockpile Project

32

o Modification of Halon 1301 Recharge Equipment to Prevent Venting Emissions.

0 Fire'Box Test Cell

o Carbon Dioxide Portable Fire Extinguishers.

o Ground System Engine Compartment Fire Suppression Systems.

o Aviation Engine Nacelle Fire Suppression System.

o Technology Base Research for Explosion Suppression Systems in Normally Occupied Areas

Table 5 provides an overview of the resource requirement for each of the eight projects.

Table 5. Halon 1301 Replacement Project's Funding Requirements

PROTECT FUNDING

REQUIREMENT ($K)

SF6 Neat Agent Halon 1301 Stockpile Halon 1301 Recharge Eqmt. Fire Box Test Cell Carbon Dioxide Handheld

Fire Extinguishers Ground Combat Vehicle Fire

Suppression System Aviation Engine Nacelle

Fire Suppression System Tech Base Research for

Explosion Suppression

$ 65 $ 1,220 $ 3,400 $ 13,250

$ 13,730

$1 52,382

$ 91,336

$ 29,000

Total Program Funding $304,383

Figure 3 shows the milestones for each Halon 1301 Replacement Project. The pro- jects are arranged as previously described, initiating low risk, high value projects imme- diately to take advantage of current technological resources and progressing through medium and high risk efforts in the mid-term and far-term.

33

._ . . . ... .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .

. - . . . . . . . . .

-.

. . --_ . - -. . - .

w t.P

!z m

%!- n rD

CD 5 2 2.

e. a v,

Project FY94 FY95 FY96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

SF6 Neat Agent

Halon 1301 Stockpile

Halon 1301 Recharge Eqmt

Fire Box Test Cell Carbon Dioxide Handheld Fire Extinguishers

Ground Combat Vehicle Fire Suppression System

Aviation Engine Nacelle Fire Suppression System

Tech Base Research for Explosion Suppression

FY 2000 & out

to 2003

Research and Development only

7I-r

U. S. Army Ozone Depleting Chemical

Replacement Program

Halon 1301 Replacement Projects

35

Discharge Test of a Halon Fire Suppression System

36

I

Use of Sulfur Hexafluoride ( S F g ) as an Alternative to Simulate Halon 1301 for Discharge Testing

GOAL The goal of this project is to identrfy a non-ozone depleting test agent for neat (unreacted) agent test and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: .

The alternative agent (SFg) has been used to simulate Halon 1301 in fixed fire and explosion suppression systems on Army weapons sys- tems for test purposes. The result of successful task completion is elimination of e

I

e the in-vehicle con-

conditions were co tration versus time

tion, temperature, recharger capa- nt and materials.

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: On-going through Fiscal Year 1994.

37

!

I

Typical Halon 1302 RecoverylRecycling and Reclaiming Equipment 38

Halon 2302 Stockpile Project

GOAL The goal of this project is to ensure adequate availability of Halon 1301 for mission critical applications during combat.

The Army’s only mission critical application of Halon 1301 is for occupied areas within ground combat vehicles. A reasonable substi- tute fire fighting agent has not been identified to replace Halon 1301,

BACKGROUND:

riate locations.

PERFORMING

39

Halon 1301 Recharge Equipment 40

Modification of Halon 1301 Recharge Equipment to Prevent Venting Emissions.

GOAL The goal of this project is develop improvements to existing Halon 1301 system recharging equipment to prevent air emission violations by venting Halon 1301 into the atmosphere.

Release of Halon 1301 during system servicing currently accounts for BACKGROUND:

41

Artist’s Concept of the Fire Box Test Cell

42

Firebox Test Cell

GOAL: The goal of this project is to build a facility to perform all testing of Halon 1301 systems for Category I applications without venting neat

I ’

) I

agent or pyrolysis products into the atmosphere.

BACKGROUND: Ground combat vehicles will continue to use Halon 1301 for explo- sion suppression systems. The Firebox Test Cell will allow the Halon

. . 1301 explosion suppression system to be tested for combat efficacy

ox” used for testin

PERIOD OF PERFORMAN€E: Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.

43

Halon 1301 Handheld Fire Extinguisher (Right) and Rqlacement Carbon Dioxide Handheld Fire Extinguisher

44

Carbon Dioxide Handheld Fire Extinguishers

GOAL: The goal of this project is to eliminate reliance on Halon 1301 hand- held fire extinguishers.

Tactical weapon system occupied areas contain electronic systems that are susceptible to damage by non-volatilizing fire fighting agents

BACKGROUND:

extinguishers with c

APPROACH:

On-going through Fiscal Year 1996

45

MI A1 Abrams Main Combat Tank

46

I

Combat Ground Vehicle Engine Compartment Fire Suppression Systems

GOAL: The goal of this project is to eliminate reliance on Halon 1301 in Category I1 applications on ground combat systems.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-flooding Halon 1301 fire suppression system is currently used in ground combat vehicle engine compartments. Use of an alterna-

ires development of design changes to the existing sure adequate dispersal of the agent for optimal fire

NOD OF PEF&ORMANCE: ough Fiscal Year 1998.

47

. AH-64 Apache Helicopter

48

I

Aviafion Engine Nacelle Fire Suppression Systems

GOAL: The goal of this project is to eliminate reliance on Halon 1301 on avi- a tion weapon systems.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-flooding Halon 1301 system is installed in the engine nacelle of aircraft. This is a category I1 application requiring redesign to accommodate a

address fire suppression system desi

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: Fiscal Year 1993 through Fiscal Year 2003

I

49

\

M3 A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle

50

I

Technology Base Research for an Alternative Explosion Suppression Agent for Category 1 System Applications

GOAL: To eliminate Halon 1301 from crew compartment explosion suppres- sion systems and replace it with an environmentally acceptable agent without degrading crew and vehicle survivability or supportability.

To identify and test environmentally and toxicologically acceptable alternate extinguishing agents ,that can suppress hydrocarbon fires

51

Headquarters, U.S. Army Red River Army Depot

52

ON CFCs FOR AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND METAL CLEANING

The Army's Strategic Plan for eliminating dependence on CFCs in tactical applications is based on the following principles:

o Implementing EPA certification training for maintenance technicians ser- vicing air conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

Providing recovery equipment to Field Commanders for maintenan o

g industry's lead and test retrofitting HFC-134a into existing air ers, where feasible, and procuring new air conditioning equipment

ing HCFC-22 as a working fluid, as an interim measure.

industry's lead in procuring available refrigeration eq -134a as a working fluid.

The Army will follow the Navy's lead in electronics surface cleaning. The Navy's Electronic Manufacturing Productivity Facility (EMPF) has identi- fied and tested numerous non-CFC electronic cleaners. This effort is contin- uing and the Army will export the results to Army industrial facilities.

In precision and generic metal parts cleaning, the Army is the lead service testing cleaners'at the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence for manufacturing applications.

o

Table 6 shows an overall resource plan for the elimination of CFCs in tactical weapon systems. The primary emphasis of the program is procuring and installing avail- able equipment for CFC recovery, air conditioning and refrigeration. Figure 4 shows the milestones for each project eliminating reliance on CFCs in tactical weapon system appli- cations.

53

I

1

Table 6. CFC Replacement Project’s Funding Requirement

PROTECT

CFC Recovery Equipment Refrigeration Air Conditioners Surface Cleaning for Generic Metals

Total

Proiect FY94 FY95 FY96

FUNDING REQUIREMENT ($K)

$ 1,700 $ 20,700 $144,700 $ 19,350

$1 85,450

FY97 FY98

CFC Recovery Equipment

Refrigeration

Air Conditioners

Surface Cleaning - of Generic Metals

Figure 4. CFC Replacement Project’s Milestones

54

FY99 FY2000 & out

U. S. Army Ozone Depleting Chemical

Replacement Program . _

Chlorofluorocarbon Replacement Projects ’ ,

. -

Y .. I .

< . .

55

I

Typical Chlorofluorocarbon Recovery Equipment

56

I

CFC Recov

GOAL: The goal of this project is to meet DoD Directive 6050.9 phase out requirements by procuring recovery equipment that can be used with air conditioning and refrigeration systems.

BACKGROUND: DoD Directive 6050.9 re maintenance units and depots to

being provided by US. EPA certified maintenance personnel at Ft. Belvoir Research, Developm and Engineering Center.

PERFORMING ACTIVITY: U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command, Defense Logistics Agency with assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: On-going through Fiscal Year 1994.

57

I

Field Kitchen Unit

58

Refrigeration

GOAL:

BACKGROUND:

The goal of this project is to change refrigeration working fluids from CFC-12 (R-12) to an alternative to meet DoDD 6050.9 phase out requirements .

Current refrigeration systems work using CFC-12 as a working fluid. In order to comply with DoD Directive 6050.9 and reduce use of CFCs

. in all refrigeration-systems where reasonable substitutes exist, the

59

i *

Field Tactical Shelter with Environmental Control Unit

60

Air Conditioners

GOAL: The goal of this project is to procure air conditioning systems that do not use CFC-12 (R-12) in order to meet the DoDD 6050.9 phase out milestones.

Current air conditioners use R-12 as a working fluid. Two potential BACKGROUND: _ _ _ _ ~ ~

alternatives exist, HFC-134a and HCFC-22. HFC-134a has a zero ozone depletion potential, however it is approximately 70% as effi-

ElUOD OF PERFORMANCE:

61

Laboratory LY Plating Process

e 9

$ .g @ W A C

Powder Coating

Ion Beam Processing

Office Space

fi The Mini-factory at the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence

62

I

Surface Cleaning: Generic Metal Cleaning

GOAL: The goal of this project is to eliminate reliance on CFC-113 for metal cleaning during manufacture, maintenance and rebuilding of weapon systems.

The Army uses CFC-113 for solvent degreasing of metal parts dur- ing manufacture, maintenance and repair of tactical weapon systems. The Army has initiated projects in cooperation with the Navy’s Electronic Manufacturing Productivity Facility to investigate metal surface cleanliness requirements. In addition, the Army’s Environmentally Acceptable Materials, Treatments and Processes Manufacturing Technology Thrust Area sponsored a project at Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) that successfully implemented a non-CFC cleaning agent in the aircraft paint shop. Implementation of this single cleaner saved CCAD in excess of $15,000 per year in . materials alone.

The objective of this project is to d test protocol and demon- strate non-halogenated (non-CFC) solvents and cleaners that are sub- stitutes for CFC-113.

Idenbfy manufacturing Develop cleanliness requirements for specific chemical and surface coating processes. A standard evaluation criteria protocol will be gen- erated and used for testing identified cleaning agents. The cleaning agents will be demonstrated in a production environment where process controls will be investigated and documented. Commercial

BACKGROUND: l

- specifications will be prepared -

U.S. Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office at the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence .

PERFORMING ACTNITY: 1 I

1 I

ERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: On-going through Fiscal Year 1998

63

The Pentagon Headquarters, Department of the A m y

64

MANAGEMENT OF THE ARMY'S ODC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR TACTICAL WEAPON SYSTEMS

HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

In addition to the general responsibilities outlined in the Army policies, the fol- lowing detailed responsibilities are included:

Secreta y of the Army and Chief of Staff

The Department of Army's top-level management will continue to provide strate- gic direction and approval of the O X Replacement Program initiatives. The Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army have approved the will ensure the resources necessary for successful completion are available.

Assistant Secreta y of the

As the A r m y ' s first acquisition-related pollution prevention program, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition (SARDA) has the lead in managing efforts to replace ODCs in tactical weapon systems. All pillars of SARDA's organization partiapate and support the ODC Replacement Program. Examples in each of the piliars are provided below. These actions are consistent with current missions and are not all inclusive:

for Research, Development and Acquisition

SARD-ZT

Continue to support technology base efforts under the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program and approve long term ODC alternative research under the Army's portion of the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). Require the Armfs t to eliminate the inclusion of O K s hi emerging technologi

SARD-ZD

Monitor the international policies with regard to ODCs to ensure Army international acquisition programs are not adversely impacted. Direct the Army's Manufacturing Technology Program to re-instate funding to support the valida- tion of ODC alternatives for manufacturing processes within the Army's industri- al base.

65

SARD-ZP

Review, revise and/or develop (where necessary) Army procurement poli- cies which will implement the Army’s ODC Replacement Program. This may include a formal moratorium/ ban on ODC procurement within the acquisition community.

SARD-ZS

Ensure, through current program assessment techniques, that Army weapon system programs are adequately meeting the intent of Department of the Army policies on ODCs.

SAR D-ZR

Ensure the Army’s Program Executive Officers implement SARDA’s policy to reduce reliance of weapon systems on ODCs during acquisition. Ensure that ODC Replacement Program resource requirements are properly allocated in current budgets and future POM submissions.

SARD-ZCA

Ensure the Army’s ammunition acquisition community is adequately meet- ing the intent of the Department of the Army policies on ODCs. Ensure the DoD Ordnance Environmental Program reflects appropriate resources to eliminate the use of ODCs.

II SARD-ZCS

Through the overall lead of the Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Ofice - Implement the Army’s ODC Replacement Program. Develop and imple- ment training program and assistance for the acquisition community in ODC replacements. Provide oversight to those commands or program offices managing specific projects within the program. Ensure the Army’s ODC Replacement Program remains current with international agreements, national policies, DoD

I Directives and Department of the Army regulations.

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics and Environment

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation, Logistics and Environment is directing efforts to implement a similar ODC replacement program for facilities. The results of research and development will continue to be shared and leveraged between

66

I

these two programs to reduce cost by mutual support. This will be accomplished through the existing Army CFC/Halon Working Group.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics

The Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics will continue to support program aspects related to agent supply requirements.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans $

The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans will define the requirements for stockpiling Halon 1301 to meet mission critical combat needs, and other operational issues. , 1

Offzce of the Surgeon General

The Office of the Surgeon General will continue to support efforts to define and approve exposure limits of ODC replacements.

Amy Safety Center

The Army Safety Center will continue to support safety related issues including investigations of system combat su

Chief of Engineers f

ability and peacebe safety.

The Chief of Engineers will continue to be responsible for developing or updating the overall ODC Reduction Policy. The Chief of Engineers will continue to chair the CFC/Halon General Officer Steering Committee.

COMMANDING GENERAL, ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND

The Commanding General, Army Materiel Command (CG,AMC) is responsible for supporting acquisition and maintenance programs of Army weapon systems related to the Army's ODC Replacement Program; 'CG, AMC will provide the necessary resources to staff and support the Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office (AAPPSO). CG, AMC will manage (through his Major Subordinate Commands) projects'within the program.

A m y Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Offzce

The Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office (AMCRD-E) has been selected to guide the Army's efforts to eliminate dependence on ODCs in tactical weapon systems by the Army Acquisition Executive on 11 May 1992. The Army Acquisition

67

I ' i .

Pollution Prevention Support Office (AAPPSO) has developed projects which will support efforts by the Program Executive Officers to introduce ODC replacements during acqui- sition. AAPPSO has also worked with the major subordinate commands to develop pro- jects to replace ODCs in existing equipment. AAPPSO will continue to support these efforts as directed by SARDA. AAPPSO will continue to support Program Executive Officers and Major Subordinate Commands through a multi-MACOM office. AAPPSO will continue to participate as the Army's representative to the United Nations Environmental Program, the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation and other service coordinating groups on OKs . AAPPSO will recommend policies to ensure that the Army acquisition community remains G e n t with International treaties, national and DoD poli- cies.

68

I

ENDNOTES 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Halon is the common term for a family of firefighting agents. Halon 1301 is a fire- fighting agent manufactured by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Office of the Press Secretaq February 11,1992

Gribbin, The Hole in the Sky 1988, pg. 1

hid, pg. 17

Fisher, Fire and Ice, 1990, pg. 58

Ibid, pg. 54

Ibid., pg. 47

Malcolm, Interim Report: Vaporizing Extinguishing Agents", 1950, pg. 38

U.S. Army Sponsored Tracked Vehicle Fire Survivability Blue Ribbon Panel, June 1986

Department of Defense Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Advisory Committee, Recommendations for Eliminating the Use of Ozone Depleting Compounds in the Defense Sector, 1991, pg.2

United Nations Environmental Program, "Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer", Final Act, 1987

Shabecoff, Philip, "Dozens of Nations Approve Pact to Curb Ozone-Killing Chemicals", The New York Times, September 17,1987

Zallen, Dennis, "Assessment of Alternatives to Halon Firefighting Agents, January 1991

Zallen, Dennis, "Assessment of Alternatives to Halon Firefighting Agents", January 1991

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are partially halogenated fluorocarbons have an ozone depleting potential less than 0.12. These chemicals are considered transi- tional substances by the Montreal Protocol. MontreaZ Protocol 1991 Assessment, Halons Technical Options Committee, United Nations Environmental Program, December 1991.

69

. --

16- Rule 1418. Halon Emissions from Fire Extinguishing Equipment, adopted January 10,1992

17- Headquarters, Department of the Army, "Eliminating or Minimizing Atmospheric Emission of Ozone Depleting Substances", HQDA LTR 200-901,27 July 1990

General Accounting Office, "Ozone Depleting Chemicals; Increased Priority Needed if DoD is to Eliminate Their Use", GAO/NSIAD-92-21, November 1991

1% Memorandum to the Acquisition Community, Subject: Army Acquisition Executive Policy Memorandum 92-1, Program Executive Officer, Program, Project, Product Manager Environmental Responsibilities, SARD-RP dated 27 April 1992

20* Memorandum to the Acquisition Community, Subject: Acquisition Pollution Prevention Staff Office, SARD-ZCS-E dated 11 May 1992

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chafee, Senator John H., "Stratospheric Ozone: The Problem", Reprint from EPA Journal, January-February 1991

"Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Halon Annual Report for Calendar Year 1991", U.S. Army Materiel Command

Cohen, Gary and OConnor, John, "Fighting Toxics", Island Press, 1990 I

Department of Defense Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Advisory Committee, "Recommendations for Eliminating the Use of Ozone Depleting Compounds in the Defense Sector", 1991

Federal Register, Part 111, Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 82, "Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Final Rule", Thursday, February 9,1989

Fisher, David E., ' I Fire and Ice", Harper and Row Publishers, 1990

General Accounting Office, "Ozone Depleting Chemicals; Increased Priority Needed if DoD is to Eliminate Their Use", GAO/NSIAD-92-21, November 1991

Gribbin, John, //The Hole in the Ozone Layer", Bantam Books, 1988

Halons Technical Options Committee, "Montreal Protocol 1991 Assessment", December 1991

. . . Headquarters, Department of the Army "Eliminating or M."uz ing

Atmospheric Emission of Ozone Depleting Substances", HQDA LTR 200-90-1,27 July 1990

Malcolm, "Interim Report: Vaporizing Extinguishing Agents", Purdue Research Foundation, 1950

Memorandum to the Acquisition Community, " Army Acquisition Executive Policy Memorandum 92-1, Program Executive Officer, Program, Project, Product Manager Environmental Responsibilities", SARD-RP, 27 April 1992

Memorandum to the Acquisition Community, "Acquisition Pollution Prevention Staff Office", SARD-ZCS-E, 11 May 1992 .

71

Pellerin, Cheryl, ”Cleanup Day Arrives at Pentagon”, Defense News, Volume 7, Number 17

Popelka, Beverly A., “Weapon Systems: United States Army 1992, US. Government Printing Office, 1992

Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, February 11,1992

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,”Tiip Report on Travel to The Hague and EUCOM, November 3,1988

Shabecoff, Philip, ”Dozens of Nations Approve Pact to Curb Ozone-Killing Chemicals”, The New York Times, September 17,1987

South Coast Air Quality Management District, ”Rule 1418. Halon Emissions from Fire Extinguishing Equipment”, Adopted January 10,1992 .~

United Nations Environmental Program, ”Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer”, Final Act, 1987

U.S. Army ‘Tracked Vehicle Fire Survivability Blue Ribbon Panel”, June 1986

Zallen, Dennis, ”Assessment of Alternatives to Halon Firefighting Agents”, January 1991

72

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The U.S. Army Acquisition Pollution Prevention Support Office would like to thank the following organizations for providing the photographs used in this strategic plan:

The US. National Aeronautics and Space Administration provided the photographs of our Earth.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (PA) provided the photograph of the Pen tagon.

The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command provided the photographs of Ground Combat Vehicles and the test of the Halon Fire Suppression System.

The U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command provided the photographs of the AH-64 Helicopter, the Field Kitchen Unit and the Field Tactical Shelter.

The U.S. Army Belvoir Research, Development and Engineering Center provided the photograph of the Halon 1301 Recharge Equipment.

The US. Army Materiel Command provided the photograph of the Halon 1301 and Carbon Dioxide Handheld Fire Extinguishers.

The US. Army Combat System Test Activity provided the artist's concept of the Fire Box Test Cell.

Red River Army Depot provided the photograph of the headquarters building.

Marrotta Valve Company and Walter Kidde Aerospace, Inc. provided the photographs of the Halon 1301 Recovery/Recycling and Reclaiming Equipment.

SPX Corporation provided photographs of CFC Recovery Equipment.

Concurrent Technology Corporation provided the layout of the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence.

73