TL: Neglecting Alternatives: How Government inaction is destroying
the ozone layer 
SO: Greenpeace UK (GP)
DT: June 1992
Keywords: ozone atmosphere uk policy failures europe
greenpeace reports governments cfcs alternatives gp /

Greenpeace UK
Canonbury Villas
London N1 2PN
June 1992


CONTENTS

1. The Problem

1.1 Introduction 
1.2 Main Findings 
1.3 Ozone Destroying Chemicals In The UK: Uses, Production,    
    Consumption and the 'Bank' 
1.4 Pollution and Depletion Of The Ozone Layer

2. Shortcomings Of Government Policy

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Alternatives Inhibited By The 'Essential Uses' Policy
2.3 The Recycling/Recovery Failure
2.4 Growth in Use of HCFCs: Government Ignoring Its Own        
    Scientists 
2.5 Government Failure To Act On The Basis of Its Own Studies Of 
    Alternatives
2.6 Government Inaction Preventing Pollution from Ozone
    Depleting Substances: Non-Use of Powers
2.7 An Industry-Driven Policy

3. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Compression systems
3.2.1 Ammonia
3.2.2 Hydrocarbons
3.2.3 Water
3.3 Absorbtion systems
3.3.1 Ammonia
3.3.2 Water and lithium bromide
3.4 Other alternatives
3.4.1 Sterling cycle
3.4.2 Air cycles
3.4.3 Water zeolite air conditioning
3.4.4 Expendable refrigerant
3.5 The production of a CFC free fridge for Greenpeace

4. Foams

4.1 Introduction 
4.2 Flexible polyurethane foams 
4.3 Rigid polyurethane foams 
4.4 Rigid polystyrene foams 
4.5 Other foams

5. Solvents

5.1 Introduction
5.2 No clean
5.3 Aqueous cleaning
5.4 Non-halogenated organic solvents
5.5 Novel cleaning methods
5.6 Dry cleaning

6. Fire Extinguishers

6.1 Introduction
6.2 Alternatives
6.2.1 Portable systems
6.2.2 Fixed systems
6.2.3 Carbon dioxide
6.2.4 Water
6.2.5 Foam
6.2.6 Powder

7. Medical Aerosols

7.1 Introduction
7.2 CFCs and asthma inhalers
7.3 CFC-free asthma inhalers
7.4 Recycled CFCs for asthma inhalers


THE PROBLEM

1.1 Introduction

This report documents alternative technologies, processes and
policies which could help protect the ozone layer from chemical
pollution, but which are being neglected by the British
Government and industry.

Destruction of the ozone layer has reached unprecedented levels
over Britain and is expected to worsen for at least the next
decade. The United Nations Environment Programme forecasts
significant increases in skin cancer and eye cataracts, as the
world's protective shield against ultraviolet radiation
continues to be destroyed. In the stratosphere, chlorine and
bromine chemicals responsible for ozone loss are at record
levels.

The UK Government refuses to ban production or use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),
halons and other ozone-destroying chemicals because it claims
there are 'essential uses' and an absence of alternatives. Yet
as this report clearly shows, these arguments are false. The
vast majority of 'essential uses' are easily substituted for by
ozone-benign alternatives. The technologies already exist but
they have been grossly neglected.

This report details how in each of the main sectors in which
CFCs and other ozone destroying compounds are used -
refrigeration, foams, solvents, fire extinguishers - alternative
technologies are being ignored by the Government. It is waiting
for the chemical industry to develop profitable new products in
its own time, while failing to promote safer alternatives which
are cheap, technically proven and well established.

The Government assumes that everything which can or should be
done to introduce ozone-safe alternatives is now being done, and
that nothing more need happen to save the ozone layer than the
existing proposed revisions of the Montreal Protocol. This
amounts to a policy of 'giving up' on the ozone layer. As this
report shows this is based on false premises.

Section 3 identifies alternative refrigerants to replace
ozone-depleting substances in absorbtion and compression systems
as well as more novel technologies for refrigeration and
chilling, together with examples of industrial applications.
Section 4 describes technologies that avoid the use of foams
blown with ozone-depleting substances, together with companies
and commercial products involved in industrial application.
Section 5 details the major alternative systems to use of ozone-
depleting substances as solvents, together with instances of
their industrial application. Section 6 identifies alternatives
to the use of halons in fire fighting, together with fire
prevention policies. Section 7 details how the 'asthma inhaler'
argument has been wrongly used to justify continued CFC
production.

While recommendations made in the Government's own studies
designed to speed a switch to alternatives lay dormant, and
while sweeping new powers to control pollution are not used to
prevent release of ozone destroying chemicals, opportunities for
British industry are being lost.

Instead, the Government sanctions an increase in use of
'transitional' chemicals such as HCFCs which are themselves
ozone destroyers, and endorses ICI's HFC-134a which is a
powerful greenhouse gas.

Greenpeace does not specifically recommend or endorse any of the
alternatives discussed in this brief survey but has uncovered a
range of commercially established and near-market technologies.
It is clear that with active Government promotion and judicious
use of regulation, Britain can put a stop to the release of
ozone-destroying chemicals immediately. On latest figures ICI
alone produces over 500 tonnes of ozone destroying chemicals
every day.

Recycled CFCs or halons should be made available for those short
term essential applications for which alternatives are not yet
commercially available. For instance, for asthma inhalers for
patients who cannot use other methods of treatment and for fire
extinguishers in aircraft cockpits.

The first steps in developing alternatives to ozone depleting
chemicals should be through a clean production system. Clean
production is a way of providing food, goods and services with
systems deliberately designed to avoid the manufacture and use
of toxic chemicals, the generation of toxic waste or the
manufacture of toxic products. Water, energy and other raw
materials are renewed, re-used and conserved.

Greenpeace calls for immediate and determined government action
to ensure that the most environmentally sound and ozone-benign
technologies are used. These do not include CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs
and other halogenated substances.


1.2 Main Findings

The main findings of this report are:

1. Production and use of CFCs, halons, HCFCs and other ozone
depleting substances is being allowed to continue despite the
existence of environmentally safer technologies.

2. The Government has adopted a policy which 'gives up' on
saving the ozone layer, based on the false assumption that
nothing more can be done to speed the adoption of alternatives
to ozone depleting substances, and that nothing can be done to
save what remains of the ozone layer itself.

3. Ozone-depleting HCFCs, together with HFC-134a which is a
powerful greenhouse gas, are being used instead of ozone-benign
technologies to replace CFCs. If the use of HCFCs is allowed to
grow, the severity of ozone loss may increase in the short term.

4. In every major sector (refrigeration, foams, solvents, fire
extinguishing and aerosols), proven alternatives exist (for
example propane or ammonia for refrigeration) but are being
neglected by the Government.

5. Government research into alternatives to ozone depleting
chemicals (by DTI and DOE) has been minimal, and Government has
left it to the chemical industry to determine which alternatives
should be developed.

6. The Government has failed to use the sweeping powers it has
under the Environmental Protection Act (1990), to prevent
release of ozone destroying chemicals into the air, and has not
regulated the use or production of such substances as other
countries have.

7. The Government has failed to:
ù introduce mandatory recycling for minor uses of CFCs and
halons which may be deemed essential (eg aircraft cockpit fire
extinguishing). 
ù investigate the granting of the necessary licences for medical
products, or specify use of existing stocks.

ù introduce a legally-binding scheme to recover CFCs and other
ozone depleting chemicals held 'banked' in equipment (equivalent
to several year's production).

8. The Government has shown a massive lack of interest in
recycling of CFCs and does not even know how much CFC is
recycled or HCFC is produced.

9. The Government has issued groundless statements claiming the
existence of 'essential uses' of ozone depleting chemicals,
ignoring evidence of safer alternatives.


1.3 Ozone Destroying Chemicals In The UK: Uses, Production,
Consumption and the 'Bank' 

The figures below are the most recent available of UK
production, consumption, uses and the 'bank' of ozone-destroying
chemicals. The Government has no figures for HCFC production or
CFC recovery. It is believed that over 99% of such chemicals
used in the UK will eventually be released into the atmosphere.
A major recovery scheme would be needed to prevent release of
the large quantities stored in products (the 'bank') but no such
scheme has been introduced to date.

PRESENT MAIN USES OF OZONE DEPLETING CHEMICALS

CFC-11         foams, aerosols, refrigeration, air conditioning, 
               solvents
CFC-12         aerosols, air conditioning, foams, refrigeration
CFC-113        aerosols, foams, solvents
CFC-114        aerosols, foams, refrigeration, air conditioning
CFC-115        aerosols, refrigeration
Halons         fire fighting
methyl 
chloroform     solvents, adhesives
carbon 
tetrachloride  feed stock, pesticides, solvents, pharmaceuticals
HCFCs          refrigeration, foams, aerosols, air conditioning

UK CONSUMPTION (1989)

                               tonnes

CFCs                           33,000
carbon tetrachloride           40-50,000
methyl chloroform              30-35,000
halons                         2,120

Total (between)                105,120 to 120,120 tonnes

From: DTI, CFCs & Halons. Alternatives and the scope for
recovery for recycling and destruction HMSO London 1990: DTI
Chlorinated Solvent Cleaning. The impact of environmental and
regulatory control. HMSO. London 1990.


ICI PRODUCTION 1990

                               tonnes

CFCs                           44,000
carbon tetrachloride           56,000
methyl chloroform              80,000
halons                          5,000
HCFC 22                        up to 30,000

Total                          215,000 tonnes

From Letter to Greenpeace from Chris Tane, ICI Chemical
Products, August 21st 1991


THE UK "BANK" OF CFCS AND HALONS BY APPLICATION (1989)

                                         tonnes

rigid foams                              65-75,000
refrigeration and air conditioning       32,000
fire extinguishing                       18,150*

Total   (between)                        115,500 to
                                         125,000 tonnes

*This gives a falsely low impression of the relative ozone
depleting potential of halons in the 'bank'. When weighted for
ozone depletion, halons account for approximately 45% of the
ozone depletion potential of the 'bank'.

From: DTI. CFCs and halons. Alternatives and the scope for
recovery for recycling and destruction. HMSO. London 1990


1.4 Pollution and Depletion Of The Ozone Layer 

It is well recognised that stratospheric pollution with CFCs has
led to the high levels of ozone depletion which are being
experienced in both hemispheres. Long lived chemicals like CFCs
and halons eventually reach the stratosphere where they
breakdown and trigger ozone destruction through the production
of reactive forms of chlorine or bromine (in the case of
halons).

In February 1992 NASA and European researchers reported
unprecedented levels of chlorine pollution over the Northern
Hemisphere. The reactive chlorine levels over cities including
London, Moscow and Amsterdam on 11 January were comparable to
those observed within the Antarctic ozone hole.(1) Dr John Pyle,
one of the European researchers, described the arctic ozone
situation as "frightening" and "worse than we expected." (2)

In 1991 when the UK Stratospheric Ozone Review Group (SORG)
reported that Britain was already experiencing up to 8% ozone
depletion in the spring (3), Environment Minister Mr David
Trippier said "Ozone depletion is now running at
twice the level we had previously believed .. it is imperative
that we must address the ozone issue now. We must act - and
quickly." (4)

In April 1992, EASOE (European Arctic Stratospheric Ozone
Experiment) scientists reported that 10 - 20% ozone loss had
occurred over Europe in December and January 1992 with
concentrations reduced by 18% over Belgium and 10% over Germany
(5)

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) now forecasts a
5 -10% ozone loss over mid latitudes in spring and summer, when
incident UV-B levels are higher. It notes that worldwide 'a
sustained 10 per cent loss of ozone would lead to an increase of
these [non melanoma] skin cancers by 26 per cent.'(6) In England
and Wales this means there could be a 6,100 increase in cases,
at a cost to the NHS of œ7.4 million. (7) This excludes the much
more dangerous melanoma skin cancers and is probably an
underestimate because recording of skin cancers in Britain is
not complete. This cost to the NHS also excludes the treatment
of extra eye cataract cases which will also increase as a result
of ozone depletion.

Clearly this figure is by no means an adequate description of
the true human cost. It also takes no account of the damage to
ecosystems, pets and farm animals which increased UV-B will
bring. It has already been reported for example that plankton
production was reduced by 6 - 12% under the Antarctic ozone hole
in the spring of 1990, equivalent to a 2-4% annual reduction in
production.(8) This is a clear threat to fisheries, marine
wildlife and the entire marine ecosystem.

The SORG forecasts increased chlorine loading of the
stratosphere until at least 1997 and that ozone depletion will
worsen into the next century given current international
controls on ozone-depleting chemicals.(3) UNEP forecasts that
stratospheric chlorine pollution will not return to 'pre-
Antarctic ozone-hole' levels until the second half of the next
century.(9) Continued production of ozone destroying chemicals
will extend and worsen ozone loss, with HCFC use adding to the
damage in the coming decades.

References

(Omitted here .. unscannable)

2. SHORTCOMINGS OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.1 Introduction

The overwhelming failing of British policy is to match controls
that limit or prevent production, use and release of CFCs and
halons to the need to protect the ozone layer. There are no
controls at all on some ozone depleting chemicals such as HCFCs.

But the most inexcusable element of this failure is the neglect
of existing and near market technologies which could help save
the ozone layer. As a result, the British public - and many
companies - are denied the use of alternative technologies which
could avoid the use and release of ozone destroying chemicals.

This report contains a large number of specific examples. It is
the Department of Trade and Industry which appears to have been
responsible for not publicising, promoting, encouraging or
regulating for the use of these alternatives. The Minister
responsible has refused to meet Greenpeace to discuss the issue.
However, other Departments must also share the blame. For
instance, the Department of the Environment has not taken steps
to bring in or use regulations to prevent polluting emissions by
ozone destroying substances and the Department of Health has
failed to investigate the possibility of using recycled CFCs for
asthma inhalers or to promote alternative inhalers.

Greenpeace lacks the resources of Government Departments. Yet as
Section 3.5 describes, it has been able to demonstrate and put
into practice one technology - a truly CFC-free fridge - at the
cost of around one thousand pounds and within a matter of
months.

The Greenpeace fridge was converted from a conventional CFC-
filled shop-bought fridge, to one using propane as a refrigerant
and CO2 blown-foam for insulation (both commercially available
substances). The work was done by scientists at South Bank
Polytechnic's Institute of Environmental Engineering (IoEE). Not
only does the CFC-free fridge work but it used less electricity
than an unconverted 'control' fridge purchased at the same time
(see section 3.5).

In contrast, the Government supports ICI's HFC-134a which is
likely to cost up to 5 times more than CFCs, is a greenhouse gas
over 3,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide, and is not yet
widely available. HFCs are long lived chemicals and the pathway
by which they will breakdown is by no means understood. Fears
have already been raised that HFC-134a may breakdown in the
atmosphere to form the toxic trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). Another
unpleasant environmental surprise may be in store. However,
opening the pilot plant for HFC-134a at ICI's Runcorn factory,
Mr Major said "The fact is that industry and technology are
finding a solution". The Independent noted he 'made clear that
he was on the side of industry against "extreme"
environmentalists.


This 'search' for solutions is a false one, as is demonstrated
by the simple case of propane, a long-established refrigerant.
It would be more accurate to say that it is a search for new
profit areas. New processes to produce chemicals such as
HFC-134a can be patented and the product sold at a considerable
profit. Old technologies and chemicals cannot be, and are much
less attractive to the chemical industry.

By continually referring to the 'development of' or 'search' for
alternatives, the Government has created the impression that new
chemical product development is essential before production of
ozone depleting chemicals can be stopped (see statements below).
This remarkable falsehood has elevated existing alternatives
almost to the level of official secrets.

However, as is noted throughout this report, in other countries
industry is making greater use of safer alternatives. It
therefore seems likely that Britain will once again lose an
industrial opportunity because of a lack of Government
commitment to drive technological development using
environmental regulation, support and incentives.


2.2 Alternatives Inhibited By The 'Essential Uses' Policy
Government policy statements, which are almost identical to
those of ICI (see below) repeatedly claim that the existence of
'essential uses' - asthma inhalers, blood banks and
refrigeration - means that CFC production has to continue. Yet
alternative inhalers are marketed, as are a wide range of
refrigeration technologies (the 'blood bank' use is in
refrigeration and chilling).

These 'essential' uses are mostly a fiction. However, they are
used to justify continued production of ozone destroying
chemicals, and that, coupled with non-promotion of safer
alternatives, prevents the rapid uptake of alternatives. The
only long-term beneficiaries of this policy will be some of the
major chemical companies.

For example, Environment Minister Tony Baldry stated in the
House of Commons on 4 March 1992: "It has often been asked why
we do not ban CFCs straightaway. An immediate ban would not be
practicable for a number of applications. For example, medical
aerosols such as asthma inhalers still use CFCs; they cannot use
recycled materials."

Similarly, Mark Adams, Private Secretary to the Prime Minister
stated in a letter to Greenpeace, 4 March 1992: 'Ministers have
carefully considered the possibility of an immediate ban on
these substances [CFCs], but have concluded, based on medical
evidence, that this would not be practicable. There are a number
of applications, notably medical aerosols such as asthma
inhalers, where CFCs still need to be used. Recycled substances
are not suitable for this purpose'.


And the then Environment Minister David Trippier stated in the
House of Commons 5 on February 11 1992: "An immediate CFC phase
out is not practicable - for many applications, such as food
preservation, insulating foam and medical aerosols, replacement
technologies are not yet adequately developed".

In the same vein, John Beckitt of ICI stated in a Guardian
article on 26 April 1991: 'For many important applications such
as food preservation, operating theatres, asthma inhalers and
blood banks, alternatives are not yet available'.

Asthma inhalers are an emotive product and have received
enormous prominence in Government policy statements. As a
result, doctors and the public have been given the clear
impression that this is a reason why CFC production has to
continue. However, it seems from Greenpeace's enquiries that
this is not the case at all. Alternative inhalers suitable for
the majority of asthma suffers do exist and, for those patients
who are unable to use CFC-free inhalers, recycled CFCs could be
used instead. The main problem is not technical so much as
bureaucratic (see Section 7). Indeed, until prompted by
persistent enquiries from Greenpeace earlier this year, it seems
no action was taken by the Department of Health to investigate
the possibility of introducing a licence for the use of
reprocessed (ie recovered and recycled) stocks of CFCs for
asthma inhalers should there prove to be a specific medical
need.

The Government has never said exactly what uses of CFCs or other
substances it regards as 'essential'. On 11 February 1992, in
response to a request to 'list those applications for which Her
Majesty's Government considers chlorofluorocarbons are still
needed and where substitutes are not yet available', the
Environment Minister Mr Tony Baldry MP merely stated: 'CFCs are
still needed for some refrigeration, air conditioning and
solvent applications, and for certain foams and medical aerosol
products'.

On 16 March Mr David Trippier MP said for the Government that
"an immediate phase out" of CFCs and other ozone depleters with
use of existing stocks for small volume uses such as asthma
inhalers (0.5% of UK use) "would not be possible, because
substitutes for some relatively high volume uses of CFCs still
require further development before the overall demand will be
low enough to be met by existing stocks". This seems to suggest
that the Government does not consider aggressive promotion of
real alternatives as part of its strategy to put a stop to CFC
use.


2.3 The Recycling/Recovery Failure 

Large amounts of CFCs, halons and other ozone-destroying gases
exist 'banked' in products. As timescales for phaseouts shorten
and ozone depletion worsens, it is essential that these gases
are not allowed to escape into the atmosphere. Clearly, it is
vital to recover them until they can be safely destroyed.

A voluntary 'recycling' scheme was launched with Government and
ICI backing in 1990, following the recommendation of the House
of Commons Environment Select Committee Report on Air Pollution
in 1988. But it has been a failure.

Only around 1% of ICI's CFC production returns to ICI. Other
countries have introduced mandatory schemes (e.g. the USA,
Sweden, Canada, Australia, Netherlands) but Britain has not.


2.4 Growth in Use of HCFCs: Government Ignoring Its Own        
    Scientists 

The failure to adopt ozone-benign alternatives as fast as is
technically possible not only means that there is continued use
of CFCs and halons but that ozone-depleting HCFCs, not currently
controlled by the Montreal Protocol, will be allowed to grow as
'transitional' substances, in place of CFCs.

Alternatives apply to HCFCs as they do to CFCs. The need for
proactive Government action to ensure that HCFCs are not used,
is indicated by the 1992 Coopers, Lybrand Deloitte study for the
DTI. This found that only 10% of firms using HCFCs in the
industrial refrigeration, retail refrigeration and air
conditioning sectors felt they had 'no alternative' to HCFCs. Of
the firms questioned, 35% of those in industrial refrigeration,
25% in retail and 45% in air conditioning were simply unaware of
possible alternatives. The report predicts growth in use of
HCFCs from 12,800 tonnes a year in 1995, to 20,400 tonnes a year
in 2005 and growth in production running at 10% a year.

HCFCs - Hidden CFCs 

One reason why HCFCs are being adopted is that the Government
and the chemical industry have made misleading claims about how
damaging they are. The Government and industry are using ODP -
Ozone Depletion Potential - as an indication of HCFC's
environmental impact. This approach has been described by the
Government's own Stratospheric Ozone Review Group (SORG) as
'limited by the failure of models to predict ozone depletion
correctly and by the fact that it refers to steady state
conditions which precludes predictions of changes over the next
few decades' (the critical time for depletion and ecological and
human UV-B hazards); and as 'seriously misleading when applied
to short-lived compounds in the short term'; and, 'quite
unreliable as [a] guide to the short-term impact of these
substances on the ozone layer'.

When concerns were first raised about the effects of CFCs on the
ozone layer scientists developed the ODP which calculated the
effect that one CFC would have on the ozone layer compared to
another compound. Because CFCs are long lived in the atmosphere
a standard steady state ODP was determined for each CFC which
would estimate its effect over 100 or more years. With the
advent of HCFCs, which have far shorter lifetimes, legislators
have continued to rely on this approach.

However, because it is a relative method, ODP neither gives an
indication of the total amount of ozone which may be destroyed
nor the time scale on which this may occur. CFC 11, the standard
to which most compounds are compared, has an atmospheric
lifetime of 55 years. Therefore, using a 100 year time horizon
or 'averaging time' gives a fair idea of its effect on the
environment.

In contrast, comparing HCFC-22, which has an atmospheric
lifetime of 15 years, using this time scale is misleading
because the majority of its effect on the ozone layer will occur
in the first two decades. If the 100 year estimate of its effect
is used then the seriousness of its impact in the first few
decades will be lost. This is because the effect, which is in
reality concentrated in the first few decades, is averaged out
over a century.

The short comings of the use of ODPs have been highlighted
recently both by the UK Government's own Stratospheric Ozone
Review Group and by a recent paper in Nature by two of the
world's most highly respected ozone researchers.

Chlorine loading 

There are two other ways of looking at the ozone depleting
effects of a chemical. One is to use its chlorine loading
potential which is a measure of the amount of chlorine which a
compound will contribute to the stratosphere which is directly
related to the potential for ozone depletion. Chlorine loading
is, therefore, much more closely related to absolute ozone
destruction.

A comparison of chlorine loading values with steady state ODPs
shows how the ODP may understate the effect of HCFCs in the
short term. The ODP of HCFC-22 relative to CFC-11 is given as
0.05, however if the chlorine loading potential is used HCFC-22
has a relative value of 0.14. This makes it as damaging as
another ozone depleter, methyl chloroform, which has an ODP of
0.15 and which is considered dangerous enough to be banned under
the Montreal Protocol.

Short term ODPs 

The other method, for determining more realistic estimates of
the impacts of HCFCs on ozone in the short term is described by
scientists in a recent paper in Nature. These scientists have
recalculated ODPs for different time horizons which allows the
short term impact of HCFCs to be visualised. For HCFC-22 the
revised ODP is 0.19 over 5 years, 0.17 over ten years, and 0.13
over 25 years. HCFC-22 does not reach the calculated steady
state ODP figure of 0.05, currently used by the UK Government in
its assessment, until about a 500 year time horizon is used. In
other words whilst the Government bases its policy on HCFC-22
having 5% of the ozone depletion potential of CFC-12, it will be
having 19% - almost a fourfold greater effect.

Both of these methods indicate the folly and dangers of using
steady state ODP to make policy decisions related to HCFCs. In
addition, models which determine ODPs incorporate a large number
of assumptions and uncertainties which could be incorrect and
give misleading results.

However, the DTI leaflet 'Protecting the Ozone Layer: Action for
Business' states under the heading 'HCFCs (Transitional
Substances)' that: 'HCFCs (such as HCFC22) ... have ozone
depletion potential-typically one twentieth that of CFCs 11 and
12'.

Delaying repair of the ozone layer

One way of assessing the rate of repair of the ozone layer under
different phase out scenarios is to consider when stratospheric
chlorine levels will fall below the level at which the Antarctic
ozone hole is predicted to repair. This level is considered to
be around 1.5 - 2 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) chlorine
and should be reached by the second half of the next century if
the Montreal Protocol is adhered to, there are no further
chlorinated or brominated substitutes and HCFC-22 use is
restricted.

Even the temporary use of HCFC-22 not only increases the peak
amount of stratospheric chlorine but could delay the return to
pre-ozone hole levels by 10 years. Any delay in the reduction of
peak chlorine levels means that the northern hemisphere will
continue to experience serious levels of ozone depletion for an
unnecessarily extended period. To ignore the opportunity of
avoiding this delay means 'giving up' on attaining the maximum
possible protection for the ozone layer.

The Stratospheric Ozone Review Group has said that if there was
global adoption of the European Regulation of 1991, which
brought CFC phase out dates forward by only two and half years
compared to the Montreal Protocol, that chlorine levels would
fall below 2ppbv 10 years more quickly. These figures
demonstrate the importance of both an immediate end to
production of CFCs and the inclusion of HCFCs in the ban if the
ozone layer is to heal as quickly as possible.

Naming HCFCs as an example, the 1990 SORG Report stated: 'the
short-lived halocarbons capable of carrying chlorine to the
stratosphere must be controlled if the benefit of cutting CFCs
is not to be lost'. In 1991 the SORG Report added unequivocally
that 'anything other than a very modest substitution of HCFCs
for CFCs could both increase the peak chlorine loading above
that now expected and sustain unprecedented levels of
stratospheric chlorine for decades'.

Dr John Pyle, Chairman of the SORG commented in May 1990 that if
'substitutes' containing chlorine "are allowed to grow out of
control, we could be back in the same situation in five years
time".


2.5 Government Failure To Act On The Basis of Its Own Studies Of 
    Alternatives 

Government complacency in allowing increased production of HCFCs
and its lethargy in not introducing mandatory controls to ban
production and release of ozone destroying chemicals is all the
more difficult to explain given its own statements about the
evidence of ozone depletion, and the existence of alternatives.

In December 1991, when spring-time ozone loss over Britain was
reported to have reached 8% (in 1992 it was twice as high),
Environment Minister Mr David Trippier said at an EC Council of
Environment Ministers meeting "Ozone depletion is now
running at twice the level we had previously believed .. it is
imperative that we must address the ozone issue now. We must act
- and quickly." 

Action however, has not matched the technical potential
identified in the Governments' own studies. Again policy has
'given up' on the ozone layer. A DTI study by Coopers and
Lybrand Deloitte noted that 'there are no current or potential
applications of HCFCs in the sectors examined for which no other
technically feasible alternatives exist or are likely to be
available in the short to medium term'.

An earlier DTI study 20 identified hydrocarbons, dimethyl-ether,
carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and nitrogen as alternatives to
CFCs in aerosols, along with trigger pumps, electrostatic spray
dispensers and non-aerosol dispensers. For flexible foams it
identified alternatives including recovery and recycling at
manufacture and alternative foam blowing agents and insulation
materials. These included formic acid, water, modified polyols,
polyester matting, natural latex, metal springs and horsehair.
For rigid foams it identified water blown foam, fibreglass, and
expanded polystyrene. Alternatives for phenolic foam production
included hydrocarbon blown foam, fibreglass, plasterboard and
fibreboard. Those for polystyrene foams included perlite,
cellular glass board and fibreboard, along with paper, cardboard
and foil.

In the refrigeration sector, the same DTI study 20 noted that:
'Ammonia has been, and still is, used in industrial
refrigeration applications'. It added: 'The small quantities of
ammonia used would be contained within hermetically sealed units
.. As such, there is no technical reason why ammonia cannot be
used again in domestic refrigeration equipment'. For 'retail
refrigeration' HFCs, ammonia and hydrocarbons were ranked as
equally attractive. Propane is in use as a refrigerant in
industrial applications in Germany and has a lengthy technical
pedigree (see Section 3).

A 1991 report on Halon use for the Department of the Environment
shows, most uses, particularly in portable extinguishers could
be substituted now. No regulatory action however, appears to
have been taken in this respect.


2.6 Government Inaction Preventing Pollution from Ozone        
    Depleting Substances: Non Use of Powers 

In 1988 the Department of the Environment and Her Majesty's
Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) reported to the Environment
Select Committee Inquiry on Air Pollution that they were
studying the possibility of imposing emission limits. Under the
Health and Safety at Work Act an operator is required to use the
'best practicable means for preventing the emission into the
atmosphere from the premises of noxious and offensive
substances'. The Select Committee's recommendations that 'CFCs
should be treated as 'noxious and offensive gases' with the
terms of the Act and that HMIP should proceed to require the
installation of [such] emission abatement equipment' were not
acted upon.

Two years later Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte reported in a study
for the Department of Trade and Industry that a substantial
solvent user of CFC-113 was disposing of it after use by
spreading it on the company car park and allowing it to
evaporate.

At the same time as the Government seems to have done nothing to
promote most or any of the alternatives identified in the
Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte studies, it has not used powers
available to it under Section 3 of Part 1 of the 1990
Environment Protection Act.

This Act enables the Secretary of State for the Environment to
prescribe any described process (Section 2) in relation to any
substance or medium, and to establish standards, objectives or
requirements regarding any prescribed processes or release of
particular substances into the environment. Part 1 Section 1
establishes that this is to protect the environment by
preventing pollution, stating "'Pollution of the Environment"
means pollution of the environment due to the release (into any
environmental medium) from any process of substances which are
capable of causing harm to man or any other living organisms
supported by the environment'. "Harm" is widely defined to
include 'harm to the health of living organisms or other
interference with the ecological systems of which they form part
and, in the case of man, includes offence to any of his senses
or harm to his property'.

Given that ozone depleting substances lead to an increase in the
total penetration of ultraviolet light and that this causes
blindness, skin cancer and widespread damage to plants and
animals, pollution from ozone depleting substances clearly falls
within the scope of the Act. 

However, when asked by Mr Win Griffiths MP on 12 March 1992
whether he intended to make use of this power, the then
Environment Minister Mr David Trippier stated that he did not,
referring instead to EC regulation 594/91. This set out EC
policy with some phase out dates, not as stringent as those now
being proposed by the EC in the Montreal Protocol negotiations,
and says nothing about preventing release of CFCs into the
atmosphere. There is however, nothing to stop the UK Government
from going further (under Article 130t of the Single European
Act) than a Regulation requires. The answer merely avoided the
issue.

The Government did announce in March that it would produce a
leaflet for consumers on recycling. The consumers were then
supposed to 'encourage' industry and local authorities. Given
that the Government has powers to require, not merely encourage,
this seems a completely inadequate response. Similarly, in
December 1991 a DTI Minister told Mr Simon Hughes MP that the
Department would be running 'an awareness campaign' aimed at
users of ozone depleting substances.

A DTI leaflet 'Protecting The Ozone Layer' advises industry that
HCFCs 'should be used only where necessary and recovered for re-
use, recycling or proper disposal' but only 'wherever possible'.
The Government has failed to introduce any regulation to require
this, while it seems ready to allow an increase in use of HCFCs.

The Government has also refused to introduce fiscal measures to
prohibit the sale and export of ozone depleting substances. It
states that it has no powers to prohibit the advertising of
ozone depleting substances. HCFCs have been described in ICI
promotional literature as 'meeting societal needs' and
'protecting the environment'. ICI has claimed HCFCs and HFCs
'offer an option for safe, timely, cost-effective solutions to
the ozone depletion and global warming concerns presented by
CFCs'.

The Government claims not to know how much CFC is recycled in
the UK. It apparently also does not know how much HCFC is
produced in the UK. This ignorance does seem to indicate lack of
interest.

In contrast, many countries have now adopted regulations
designed to hasten and ensure the move away from ozone depleting
substances. The examples below are taken from a detailed survey
by the Institut fur Europaische Umweltpolitik in Bonn, but there
are further examples in other areas of the world. Such
regulations have the effect of driving manufacturers and users
to reduce the production and consumption of ozone depleting
substances. No such steps have been taken in Britain.

Bans, controls and prohibitions of use of CFCs in aerosols exist
in Belgium, Germany, Australia, Finland, New Zealand, the United
States, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. Controls to prevent
release of ozone depleting substances during dry cleaning have
been introduced in Australia, Austria, Switzerland, New Zealand
and Norway. Regulations pertaining specifically to halons and
fire fighting exist in Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New
Zealand and Norway. Controls related to release of ozone
depleting substances during manufacture of plastic foams exist
in Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Australia, Austria,
Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, while for
refrigeration, new regulations (in some cases for HCFCs) have
been introduced in Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Norway and
Switzerland. Use of ozone depleting substances in solvents is
regulated in Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, New
Zealand and Switzerland.


2.7 An Industry-Driven Policy 

At the root of the inconsistencies in Government policy and its
failure to act, is the assumption that the principal impetus and
the products and technologies for replacing CFCs and HCFCs will
come from the sectors of the chemical industry which currently
produce CFCs and HCFCs. As these are highly product-led
companies, and are consequently heavily influenced by custom,
practice, narrow expertise and existing investment in plant and
feed stock, they tend to develop and promote chemicals which are
very similar to those already causing the problem. Because
industry has an over riding duty to its shareholders to make a
profit and not to protect the environment, this is reflected in
the policies they seek to promote.

The investment in halocarbon alternatives is being made at the
expense of other readily available technologies. Clearly the
halocarbon industry stands to profit more from the patenting and
use of new chemical production processes than it does through
promoting existing alternatives.

So, for example, ICI has put forward both HCFCs and HFCs as
substitutes for CFCs. The DTI has stated, 'UK producers continue
to be in the forefront of both national and international
research into drop-in replacements and new technologies,
including the Programme for Alternative Fluorocarbon Toxicity
Testing'. The Programme for Alternative Fluorocarbon Toxicity
Testing is a coalition of CFC producers.

This however, ties society to products which are convenient for
ICI and other halogen based chemical manufacturers to produce.
It only emphasises fluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons
and precludes for example, promotion of hydrocarbons in
refrigeration. Moreover, the production processes for substances
like propane and ammonia are not patented and are therefore far
less profitable for such companies although they could benefit
both user industries and the public. In contrast, HCFCs and HFCs
are expected to cost three to five times the price of CFC 12.

The DTI 1992 'Executive Guide' for businesses 'Manufacturing and
the Environment' highlights 'Ozone depleting substances' under
the heading 'Products to avoid'. It mentions CFCs, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride and halons but not HCFCs.
And with respect to alternatives it says: 'new products and
processes will have to be selected and developed to replace
those dependent on these substances'. It does not say that there
are many alternatives already in existence (although an IBM
executive explains in the report how that company plans to use
deionised water instead of CFC as a cleaning agent).

The same line appears in the 1991 DTI booklet 'Environment A
Challenge for Business', in which manufacturers are urged to
examine 'which of the range of alternatives that are being
developed' could substitute for their use of CFCs, rather than
using those that already exist.

The Government has done very little alternatives research of its
own. According to a Parliamentary Answer the DTI has 'no firm
plans to do further research' on alternatives to CFCs in 1992,
and carried out only seven studies between 1987 and 1992. The
DTI did not even attend a major international conference on
alternative CFCs in Berlin in February 1992.

As a result of following such policies, which are driven by the
chemical industry and not determined by the needs of environment
and society, the Government is encouraging reliance on products
which will cause further significant global atmospheric
pollution including both ozone depletion and the build up of
greenhouse gases.

The close relationship between ICI and Government is illustrated
by the 'Business Environment' publication of ICI Fluorochemicals
in which John Beckitt of ICI states: 'dealing with the
legislators is "no difficulty at all. Why should it be ? We've
been open and honest in everything we do. In the global sense,
we've led the way in the whole process of responding"' and which
adds 'ICI has been using its huge body of knowledge and
expertise to brief UK government Ministers on the CFC issue'.

Similarly, the ICI Publication 'Chemicals For A Better Future'
(June 1990) states: 'ICI supports the phase out of CFCs, halons
and carbon tetrachloride once alternative products are available
.... A combination of industry's research and testing programmes
.... [will bring about] a timely and an orderly transition
without unacceptable costs to society'.

ICI seem to forget the unacceptable costs to society of ozone
depletion in their equation. In contrast, a 1992 UNEP report
concluded that, in fact, the so-called costs to society of more
rapid phase out dates are not as great now as was thought in
1989. It states that "..the benefits of early action increase as
the evidence and scientific understanding of ozone-depletion
processes develops, and it becomes clear that the problem is
more serious than previously thought. This implies that a
balance between costs and benefits can be achieved with a more
rapid phase-out of controlled substances..." (emphasis added).
They go on to state that "Many high-volume uses of controlled
substances can be reduced or eliminated at a net saving in
costs. These include uses in aerosols, flexible and packaging
foams, some solvent and cleaning applications and fire-fighting
equipment, as well as the recovery and recycling of halons and
refrigerants."

The timetable however is that of marketing new chemical
products, and it is the potential for costs 'unacceptable to'
commercial interests which appear to be the driving factor, not
costs to society in terms of health or the environment. A DOE
civil servant for example told a chemical industry conference in
Germany in February 1992, "we must have phase out dates - long
enough in advance not only to find substitutes but also to allow
the necessary investments in HCFCs to take place with a
reasonable payback". Clearly this is a policy promoted by
industry.

Similarly, at a seminar to launch the 1992 DTI study, Robin
Simpson of the DTI suggested dates of 2010 - 2030 for a phase
out of HCFC-22, even though ozone benign alternatives to HCFCs
exist in 1992, and despite the warnings of SORG. The next two
decades are expected to bring of maximum damage to the ozone
layer.

References

(Omitted .. unscannable)


3. REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

3.1. Introduction

Refrigeration and air conditioning is the largest sector of CFC
use in the UK (weighted by ODP); in 1989 it was 31%, whereas in
1989 this sector only accounted for 11% of CFC use, partly due
to the reduction in volume of production as use of CFCs in
aerosols decreased.

The CFC consumption of the UK refrigeration and air conditioning
sectors in 1989 was 9,700 tonnes, divided, as shown below,
between five main applications (DTI, 1989).

Domestic refrigeration                       3%
Retail food distribution and storage        29%
Industrial refrigeration                    54%
Air conditioning                            14%
Transport                                    1%

Additionally, there is an estimated 'bank' (ie. CFCs in
equipment currently in use) of 32,000 tonnes of CFCs. However,
this is an underestimate as CFCs are also contained in the foams
which act as insulation in fridges. In a typical domestic or
household fridge 150g of CFCs would be used as coolant and 500g
would be in the foam.

Air conditioning uses exactly the same technologies as
refrigeration, one difference being that a secondary coolant is
often used. However, since refrigeration and air conditioning
are both basically cooling systems they can be considered
jointly.

The best way to immediately minimise energy consumption is to
reduce the amount of cooling we use by, for example, utilising
less air conditioning. For instance, when planning new
buildings, optimum building design, air circulation and
ventilation should be actively investigated as alternatives to
air conditioning. However, when refrigeration or air
conditioning is considered essential after a full analysis it is
clearly desirable that alternative refrigerants have energy
efficiencies better than, or similar to, those of the CFCs to be
replaced.

Refrigeration technology was first developed in the nineteenth
century but it was not until early this century that commercial
systems became available. Early refrigeration commonly used
refrigerants such as ammonia and propane, but these were
superseded in many applications by the development of CFCs in
the 1930s. CFCs were chosen for their thermodynamic properties,
stability, compatibility with oil, because they are inflammable
and because of their perceived safety.

The refrigeration and refrigerant industries are presently
advocating alternative halocarbon compounds as substitutes for
CFCs in refrigeration and air conditioning. The chemical
industry is spending large sums of money testing substitutes
such as HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) and HFCs
(hydrofluorocarbons) for toxicity and suitability as
refrigerants. However, the HCFCs are ozone depleting substances
and both HFCs and HCFCs are powerful global warming gases (4 &
see section 2).

There are other refrigerants which do not rely on the production
or use of halocarbons. The list below is by no means exhaustive
but highlights refrigerants and refrigerating techniques which
could both be of long term value and are immediately available.
Some of these alternative refrigerants are already available in
developing as well as developed countries, unlike halocarbon
technologies. This section describes the two most common
refrigeration systems and the refrigerants that can be used in
these systems and then looks at other developing technologies.

3.2 Compression Systems 

The most common refrigeration system is the compression system
which is found in most domestic, retail and many large
refrigeration applications. This uses electrical energy to pump
the refrigerant between the gaseous and liquid phases. The
compressed gas is cooled to form a liquid. The liquid then
expands and evaporates, absorbing heat from the space to be
cooled.

The efficiency of the system depends on the system design, which
needs to be optimised for a particular refrigerant, and on the
properties of the refrigerant. The two refrigerants discussed
below are in use for certain applications and are readily
available.

3.2.1 Ammonia 

Ammonia has been successfully used for industrial refrigeration
for more than 100 years, and it has demonstrated excellent
system efficiency and reliability. The cost is typically 4% that
of HFC 134a, it is technically superior to it, and it has
obvious benefits for developing countries. Compression driven
ammonia systems are currently widely used in the food storage
and in the chemical industry. Compression is particularly useful
where large areas, such as supermarkets and wholesale food
depots, need to be kept at low temperatures. In the USA, 81% of
refrigerated warehouses are run on ammonia. In Germany, nearly
two thirds of the present systems of cold storage and food
processing use ammonia, compared to only 7% for CFCs. A similar
trend is seen in the Nordic countries, and ammonia is the most
widely used refrigerant in Eastern Europe and in most developing
countries.

The widespread use of ammonia results from its excellent
thermodynamic properties and easy availability. Research has
found it to have a greater efficiency at most temperatures than
HCFC-22. to have several operational advantages over HCFC-22 as
well as being cheaper and more readily available. Two areas in
which it has been proposed that ammonia compression systems
could readily replace halocarbon systems are air conditioning
systems which circulate chilled water around a building, and
supermarket refrigeration. Such systems which use a secondary
coolant may be equally applicable to other industrial uses such
as refrigeration for blood banks.

British Standard BS 4434 details the precautions which need to
be taken with ammonia in the UK. Ammonia gas is toxic at low
concentrations in the atmosphere but is not persistent in the
environment. Therefore, great care needs to be taken with the
installation and maintenance of equipment, which in turn will
result in smaller losses of refrigerant. It is easy to detect
leaks of ammonia because of its pungent smell, and given
appropriate design, the toxicity of ammonia should not restrict
its use. Safety considerations dictate that large systems should
generally be isolated from an occupied rooms and cool a
secondary medium which can be circulated to facilitate cooling. 

One example of the use of ammonia as a refrigerant is by the UK
supermarket chain William Low. Their two main cold stores have
the equivalent capacity of 75,000 large family sized freezers. 

In Germany, the company Aerotech is developing systems which
could supply supermarkets with all their cooling requirements
such as frozen food storage, cool cabinets and counters for
sales, meat cutting rooms and general air conditioning. In this
situation a secondary cooling medium, such as water or brine, is
circulated around the building and the ammonia compression unit
is isolated from the public area of the store. Following
optimisation of the design of this system in an air conditioning
trial it had an approximately 7% better performance (drive
energy to generated refrigeration capacity) than systems using
HCFC-22.

Ammonia was used in domestic fridges in the past, but this
ceased because of the perceived benefits of CFCs. However, the
use of small quantities (about 100g) and the use of hermetically
sealed units in appropriate corrosion free materials should
present few problems. A DTI report in 1990, noted that 'there is
no technical reason why ammonia cannot be used again in domestic
refrigeration equipment.' 

3.2.2 Hydrocarbons 

Although little known among the public and the press,
hydrocarbons are well established as refrigerants and were, like
ammonia, used extensively in domestic and small commercial
facilities in the past. Hydrocarbons are now commonly used as
refrigerants on industrial sites where the facilities are
already set up to meet the standards concerning the use of
flammable substances. Propane is extensively used by York
International all over the world, in a range of industrial
installations.

A range of hydrocarbons can be used for refrigeration such as
propane and isobutane. Thermodynamic assessment of this family
of compounds shows many of them to have efficiencies similar to
or better than the commonly used CFCs and other halocarbons for
refrigeration and freezing. This has also been demonstrated in
practical tests. The similarity of propane and propylene to
CFC-502 makes them excellent candidates for replacing the CFCs
in small retail freezer cabinets in both existing and new
systems.

As described in Section 3.5, scientists from the South Bank
Polytechnic have retrofitted a domestic fridge with propane and
found, even without design changes, that good performance is
possible. The efficiency is likely to be improved if the system
is optimised for use with propane. They encountered no problems
with compressor lubrication (which can result in problems with
substitution of halocarbon compounds) and that hydrocarbon gases
cost fifty times less than compounds such as HFC-134a.

The use of hydrocarbons in small facilities ceased in the 1930s
as a result of hypothetical concerns about the flammability of
these compounds. However, even in those days despite the poorer
technical ability and the greater quantity of refrigerant
required (possibly 1,500g) the safety record was excellent. In
fact, in 1930 the US National Fire Protection Agency stated that
'to date the fire record of mechanical refrigeration has been
exceptionally good'.

Considering this, the improved technical abilities and smaller
volumes of refrigerant required (50-100g, similar to the amount
found in a lighter refill container) it seems surprising that
the DTI report states perfunctorily and without explanation that
'British Standard BS 4434 prevents the use of hydrocarbons as
refrigerants within the occupancy categories of industrial,
public assembly and residential'. This seems extraordinary
considering that the same compounds are permitted to be used in
aerosols where they are sprayed into the air, for example as a
hairspray.

In a typical domestic fridge about 50-100g of propane would be
contained in a hermetically sealed unit. Numerous experts have
noted that the added hazard represented by a hydrocarbon fridge
in a typical kitchen would be insignificant.

Tests for flammability of propane in domestic fridges have been
carried out at the Fire Services College test facility in
Moreton, Gloucester to look at both the likelihood of the
propane causing a fire and the result were the fridge to be
involved in a fire. The first test, which allowed the propane to
leak into the refrigerated space before it was ignited, produced
an explosion so small that it was not sufficient to start a fire
within the fridge.

The second test, in which the whole refrigerator was burnt,
showed very little difference between the CFC-filled and
propane-filled fridges. By far the worst effect was the choking
smoke and toxic fumes caused by the CFC filled foam burning -
these would include choking smoke, phosgene and cyanides.

System optimisation and technology changes, such as designs
which prevent the refrigerant charge leaking into the cold space
will require minimum time and investment when compared to the
use of an entirely new system. A critical point in favour of
refrigerants such as hydrocarbons is their ready availability
and low cost, making them ideal for all areas of the world.

According to Star Refrigeration Ltd, 'in the short term domestic
refrigerators and deep freezers could be run on propane with
negligible risk provided the charge were kept below 100g and
there were no in-built sources of ignition in the appliances.
What is lacking is the will to do it.' 


Also, the Institute of Refrigeration state that "it would appear
sensible in the short term to use propane as the refrigerant for
domestic fridges and to use CO2 blown polyurethane as the
insulation".

3.2.3 Water 

Water can be used as the refrigerant in a compression system to
cool to temperatures down to 0øC. These systems operate at very
low pressures and thus use two stage compression, and also
require large-sized refrigeration plants because of the
thermodynamic properties of water. It is widely used for air
conditioning.

Moreover, the use of water improves energy efficiency; by up to
50%, and of course water is an 'environmentally friendly'
refrigerant. Refrigeration systems which use water as the
refrigerant are available under the name 'Ecochiller', are
manufactured by Integral Technology GmbH, and these have been
used for air conditioning and as heat pumps for many years. The
plant for refrigeration systems using water can be relatively
simple in design and maintenance, cost no more than a
conventional system and as such may be especially appropriate
for developing countries.

Absorption Systems 

Absorption systems are available which can use simple
refrigerants such as water and ammonia. These use heat, from a
gas flame for example, to drive the refrigerant between the
liquid and gaseous phase (instead of a compressor) and thus to
cause the cooling effect. Absorption systems are currently used
in domestic, caravan, industrial refrigeration and air
conditioning applications.

The Cranfield Institute of Technology has even developed a
refrigerated back pack which is a kerosene-fired absorption
unit. It was designed to keep life-saving vaccines cold as they
are transported to remote villages in Nepal. If primary heat, or
better still waste heat from a combined heat and power unit, is
used the efficiency of energy generation is comparable to that
of a compression system. It has been suggested that it is
advantageous to use absorption refrigeration for all
applications where there are plans to use primary energy in the
medium to long term. Two absorption systems are widely used at
present.

3.3.1 Ammonia 

Ammonia absorption refrigerators are currently used widely in
mobile homes, hotel rooms and hospitals and make up about 5% of
the German household market. They typically have a better energy
efficiency than conventional compressor fridges when run using
gas, which is readily available in most kitchens, or on waste
heat. There are very few moving parts in a absorption fridge and
so operation is virtually silent and free from vibration.

Small fridges contain about 200 grammes of ammonia and concerns
are sometimes raised over their safety. However, as with the
compression systems the small quantity of refrigerant required
and the engineering techniques available should be able to
minimise any risks. In addition their widespread use in hotel
rooms, where silent operation is paramount, testifies to their
good reputation. Such absorption systems are proposed by the
United Nations Environment Programme as immediately usable
alternatives for domestic refrigeration and chilling.

Absorption fridges and fridge/freezers which utilise ammonia are
marketed in the UK by Electrolux in sizes varying from 25 to 170
litres. Some only operate using electricity but many can be
switched between 12V, 240V and gas operation. They are commonly
used in caravans and boats, as mini bars in hotel rooms and for
the storage of vaccines and insulins in doctors dispensaries,
pharmacies and clinics.

Ammonia heater/chiller appliances have been developed by Servel
and British Gas for air conditioning of buildings and have been
found to offer an improved efficiency and lower capital costs.
Large units need to be isolated, for instance on the roof, to
avoid problems of toxicity associated with leakage. Ammonia
absorption chillers are used widely in air conditioning have
been supplied by Servel to banks, local authorities,
restaurants, and gas and rail companies.

3.3.2 Water and lithium bromide 

Water can be used as the refrigerant in a lithium bromide solid
adsorbent refrigeration system. These are usually used to cool
water or a similar substance for air conditioning and water
chillers. Water itself cannot be cooled to a temperature below
0øC but the addition of other chemicals such as glycols means
that colder temperatures can be reached.

These systems are fairly widely used for air conditioning large
buildings such as hospitals and office blocks especially where
waste heat is available. Carrier Corporation market lithium
bromide chilling systems to cool process water for industrial
applications and for air conditioning in hospitals.

Air conditioning systems using lithium bromide and water are
engineered by York International. Lithium bromide and water
absorption systems have been called the 'state of the art'
technology in air conditioning.

3.4 Other alternatives 

This section discusses briefly some specialist alternatives and
others under development. These vary in sophistication and in
the areas of refrigeration in which they may be applied.


3.4.1 Sterling Cycle 

The principle of the Sterling cycle was developed in the mid-
nineteenth century and has been used intermittently for heat
pumps and engines ever since. The Sterling cycle works using two
opposing pistons to compress and expand a working fluid such as
helium which is passed through a regenerator matrix in the
middle, which acts like heat exchanger. This enables the
Sterling cycle to be very efficient but in the past technical
difficulties have limited its use. Future development may make
it a very attractive proposition. 

The Sterling cycle is currently used in refrigeration
installations which operate at temperatures between -80øC and
-184øC where it offers excellent efficiency. Using more than one
unit in combination can enable temperatures of -268øC to be
reached. Interest in the use of the Sterling Cycle for other
types of refrigeration has now been revived and a company called
Sunpower in Ohio have completed prototype tests on a domestic
Sterling cycle refrigerator. Sunpower predict that the
efficiency will be better than for a standard household fridge
and that costs will be comparable.

3.4.2 Air Cycles 

Air can be used as a refrigerant in a variety of cycles and has
obvious advantages for various applications. Air cycle
refrigeration has been used extensively in the past, especially
for ships, and is used to air condition aircraft. The efficiency
of these systems depends very much on the machinery used.
Compressors used in the past were inefficient but improvements
have now been made and it has been proposed that these systems
could be applied to food processing where temperatures of around
-20 to -80øC are required.

The Institute of Food Research, Bristol Laboratory at Bristol
University has done a considerable amount of research into air
cycle refrigeration and considers that 'it has a great future'.
The Institute is especially interested in the application of
this technology to low temperature food freezing but suggest
that air cycle cooling could also be used in transport
applications (trains and lorries), for air conditioning where
heating is also required and in supermarkets.

Water zeolite air conditioning 

A water-zeolite system is being developed for use in automobiles
which can be used either to heat or cool the interior of the
car. Zeolite is made up of aluminosilicate materials which are
widely used by industry and are thus readily available at
reasonable cost.

These systems can be run using waste heat from car exhaust
enabling considerable savings in costs and emissions. A company
called Zeotech is developing this technology. Other systems
employing metal compounds, which would use heat to recharge the
cooling system, are also being developed for automobile air
conditioning.

3.4.4 Expendable refrigerant system. 

This system which is used in refrigerated lorries and
containers, is basically an extension of the ice room principle
where ice would be stored in a well insulated box with the food
to be cooled. The expendable refrigerant system involves
spraying into the refrigerated area a pre-cooled liquid which
evaporates and causes cooling. The liquids, such as carbon
dioxide or nitrogen which turn from liquid to gas at -197C and
-78.5øC respectively, are cooled and liquefied at a depot and
stored in a large 'vacuum flask'. The temperature in the
container is controlled by the rate at which the gases are
released. The term expendable refrigerant is a little misleading
as in fact the gases will be cooled by some conventional system,
such as a compression system with ammonia refrigerant, before
being supplied to the lorry and the cooled gases such as
nitrogen would be discharged into the cool space.

The transport of frozen and chilled foods uses around 1% of CFCs
currently used for cooling operations in the UK. Expendable
refrigerant is said to be fairly common internationally and of
use for a variety of transport methods such as trains and
containers. Safety precautions are required to prohibit the
liquid being vaporised in the presence of people, but the use of
these gases is rapidly expanding. It is also possible to use ice
or dry ice in this way but temperature control is more
difficult.

References

(Omitted .. unscannable)


3.5 The production of a CFC free fridge for Greenpeace

The refrigeration group of the Institute of Environmental
Engineers, South Bank Polytechnic, has been engaged by
Greenpeace to build a demonstration fridge which is
CFC free and to audit this fridge in terms of composition,
energy efficiency and health aspects. This was done by replacing
CFC-12 with propane gas, and CFC-11 blown foam with carbon
dioxide blown foam.

A typical domestic fridge uses about 150g of CFC-12 as a
refrigerant and 500g of CFC-11 as the blowing agent to make the
rigid closed cell polyurethane foam used as cabinet insulation.

Two standard fridges (Make: Hotpoint - 8221) were obtained, one
fridge (Unit A) was modified and the other fridge (Unit B)
remained unchanged to provide a basis of comparison. Energy
consumption was measured for both units before and after the
changes, so that energy comparisons could be made.

This report briefly covers the details of the refrigerant and
insulation change and presents the results of energy consumption
tests.

Replacement of CFC-12 with Propane

A programme of research work concerning the application of
propane in domestic refrigerators has been undertaken by the
Polytechnic (see eg 1, 2, 3). The direct global warming
influence of propane is zero and its ozone depletion potential
is zero. Propane presents an attractive alternative to current
CFCs in small systems such as domestic refrigerators if given
correct technical application for operational and safety
factors. Propane was therefore chosen to replace CFC-12 for Unit
A. The fridge was originally charged with 90g of CFC-12 which
was recycled using a refrigerant reclaiming unit. 29g of propane
was found to be the required replacement charge.

Changing the Insulation 

The current insulation material for domestic refrigerators uses
CFC-11 as blowing agent. Rigid carbon dioxide blown foam with a
similar thermal conductivity (at 20 øC) of 0.0228 W/mK was
identified. (Manufacturer: Liquid Polymers, Newhouse Road,
Huncoat, Accrington, Lancashire, BB5 6NT, UK.). The thermal
conductivity for CFC foam is about 0.021 to 0.023 W/mK.

The CFC foam was manually removed from Unit A. All the parts
were cleaned and the carbon dioxide blown foam was injected into
the wall cavities where it provided both insulation and support.
A thin layer of mineral wool (rock wool) was used together with
a piece of aluminium sheet to seal the fridge at the rear, to
maintain water vapour exclusion.

Energy Consumption Tests 

Before the changes, an energy consumption test was conducted for
each fridge operating with R12 using a standard kilowatt-hour
meter. The two units were placed together in a large space of
known isothermal characteristics. The first test lasted for
seven days (from 15:05, 27th of February to 15:05, 5th of
March). A 60 W light-bulb was placed inside the compartment of
each unit and switched on for 60 min in every two hours to a
simulate identical cyclical loads. The second test was repeated
in like manner after the changes for Unit A were conducted (from
11 :30, 2nd of April to 11 :30, 9th of April). Results of tests
are shown in the following table. It should be noted that the
difference in energy consumptions between the two tests was
because of the differing environmental conditions. The first
test taking place in February and the second in April therefore
ambient temperature was higher in the second than the first.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION TEST RESULTS

                           first test        second test
                        (before change)     (after change)
                              kWh                kWh           
     
Unit A                        7.6                7.5
(+ CFC)

Unit B                        6.8                8.5
(CFC free)


Discussion 

The energy efficiency test results showed that the change of
refrigerant and insulation did not result in an increase in
relative energy consumption by the altered Unit A. Indeed, the
CFC free unit showed an improvement in energy consumption in
line with previous tests on other comparative refrigerator
pairs. However the differences which may exist between serially
produced items and the limitations of such a test borne in mind.
The test results reflect the calculations of thermodynamic
performance expected.

The system efficiency is expected to be further improved by
component optimisation such as use of a larger condenser and a
more appropriate compressor.

The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide foam used might
increase with age, possibly ending at about 0.0274 W/møK.
Optimisation of overall cabinet design including insulation
thicknesses is desirable on other grounds i.e. in reducing life
costs.

References

(Omitted .. unscannable )


4. FOAMS

4.1 Introduction

CFCs and HCFCs are used in the manufacture of some blown plastic
foams which are termed either rigid or flexible. Rigid plastic
foams are mainly used in insulation but are also used for
packaging material and as filler. Flexible foams are primarily
used for articles such as upholstered furniture, car seats and
ma tresses. Polyurethane foams account for 78% and polystyrene
foams for 15% of consumption in the UK. Polyolefin and phenolic
foams comprise the remaining 8%.

CFCs and HCFCs are used as blowing agents to ensure that an
appropriate cellular structure is formed within the plastic
foam. They were used because they are noncombustible, have low
toxicity and good thermal insulation properties. In rigid
insulation foams, the CFCs and HCFCs are retained to improve
insulation. In nonrigid foams the blowing agent is not fully
retained. CFC-11 is the most widely used CFC in this
application.

In 1989, the UK consumed 8,800 tonnes of CFCs in foams, but
figures are not available for HCFC use. In addition, there are
65-75,000 tonnes of CFCs stored in existing foam uses, in a
"bank". All of the CFCs eventually end up being emitted in to
the atmosphere; in some flexible foams this happens immediately,
in others, the majority of emissions occur during destruction
although the technology exists to recover CFCs from foam (see eg
3, 4).

When considering alternatives it is possible either to find an
alternative blowing agent for the plastic or to use a completely
different material altogether. In addition the necessity for
blown plastic foams in many applications such as food packaging
is questionable. Considerable reductions could be made simply by
eliminating excessive packaging.

The alternatives, already available for the main types of foams
used - rigid and flexible polyurethane and polystyrene foams -
are considered below.

4.2 Flexible Polyurethane foams 

Polyurethane (PUR) foams are produced during a heat generating
reaction between isocyanates and polyol together with a variety
of blowing agents, catalysts and stabilisers to make the various
foams. These are used mainly in upholstery, car seats, ma
tresses as well as for insulation and packaging.

Carbon dioxide is already widely used as a blowing agent for
these foams and it is only in the production of low density, low
quality foams where substitution for CFC 11 appears difficult.
CO2 is generated by the reaction between water and isocyanate.
Carbon monoxide can also be generated to blow foams using the
Alternative Blowing technology (As Technology) which utilises
the reaction between formic acid and isocyanate. Safety
precautions are needed for workers.

Although a DTI report labours the difficulties of producing low
density foams, the equivalent German report concluded that
banning the use of CFCs in this application is simple, by
substitution of high for low quality foams and they state that
this would not require any significant changes to existing
equipment. They also considered that perfecting the AB
Technology would probably result in its successful application
to low density foams anyway.

However, the DTI have pointed out the opportunities for
alternatives to flexible polyurethane foams in upholstery where
polyester matting and natural latex products are readily
available.

Rigid Polyurethane Foams 

Rigid PUR foam has a closed-cell, hard pore structure made of
the same material as the flexible foam but has increased thermal
insulation properties because the blowing agent (often CFC-11)
is retained within the structure of the foam.

There are three main areas of application - in laminated and
slab stock foams; appliance insulation foams and in sprayed
foams. The bulk of these are used in either refrigeration (20%)
or building insulation (66%). Alternatives may either be foams
blown with different agents or completely different materials.

Refrigeration insulation Other foam blowing agents for rigid
foams suitable for refrigeration insulation include pentane and
carbon dioxide. Thermal conductivity may be slightly higher for
such foams but this can be offset by slightly thicker insulation
panels. The German company Bayer is committed to using pentane
as a blowing agent. Fire prevention measures need to be taken
during production.

The practical efficacy of CO2 blown foams is also widely
accepted. For instance ICI stated that "the use of an all-CO2
blown foam in refrigerated vending machine production gave
performance equivalent to, or better than, the CFC foam it
replaced". The Greenpeace fridge also used carbon dioxide blown
foam insulation (see section 3.5).

Liquid Polymers Group pic of Accrington, Lancs, is a major
independent urethane system producer that sells rigid foams
blown with carbon dioxide which have a wide range of
applications.

Vacuum insulation panels (VIPS), made from silicas can be used
in fridges and freezers in conjunction with a CFC free foam. The
energy saving potential for VIP cabinets compared to
conventional cabinets can reach up to 39% depending on the
degree of coverage and the foaming system. Degussa AG in Germany
have started construction of a VIP plant, and has the capacity
to supply 0.5-1 million refrigerators by mid 1993.

Buildings insulation

Non-foam alternatives

In buildings the thickness of the insulation material does not
generally put the same constraints on construction as in
refrigeration. Therefore there is a much greater range of non-
foam alternatives which are easily available. For example
mineral fibres, vermiculite, plywood, volcanic rock, gypsum,
timber, cellulose fibre, and foamed glass.

In the construction industry, 80% of insulation material is
already taken up by non-CFC mineral fibres. Pilkington
Insulation Ltd of St Helen's, Merseyside, is one UK company that
sells mineral wool, and they state that it can substitute for
any CFC foam used in building applications. 

Euroroof Ltd, in Northwich, Cheshire, sells cork insulation,
which is harvested from trees on a 9 year cycle. Cork provides
a stable, compatible base for roof waterproofing, which
minimises stress to waterproofing at insulation joints. Cork
comprises 70% of Euroroof Ltd sales, excluding those bonded to
Urethane foam. As a flat roof insulant, Euroroof Ltd also sell
Fesco, which is roof insulation board made from Perlite, a
volcanic rock. Over 750 million cubic metres of Fesco has been
used over twenty years.

Non-CFC blown foams

There are non-CFC blown foam alternatives available for the
building trade. For instance, Thanex Chemicals in Germany has
developed a chemi-mechanical process for producing polyurethane
foam without using ozone destroyers. They plan to sell 2 million
square metres of roof board annually in the UK, Germany and
Holland.

Nmc-kenmore, Crook, Co. Durham, sells Climaflex, which is a CFC
and HCFC free polyethylene pipe insulation. It is used in
Tesco's in Stoke on Trent, for example.

Rigid Polystyrene foams 

Many polystyrene (PS) foams are made without the use of CFCs by
using hydrocarbon blowing agents such as pentarle. However, in
the production of extruded panels and sheets for use in
buildings and especially basements where water may be a problem
CFC-12 and ethyl chloride are used to blow the foam (to produce,
for instance, the Dow Chemical product, Styrofoam) which has
good thermal insulation properties and is water resistant.

However, foam glass forms a suitable substitute for such
insulation boards as it is similarly water resistant and gives
good thermal insulation. Foam glass insulation has been in use
for over forty years. It is produced by adding carbon to natural
materials which at high temperatures forms minute glass cells.
The advantages include compressive strength, resistance to damp
and rot, no additional fire risk, water and diffusion tightness.

Polystyrene foam sheets used for disposable tableware cannot be
considered an essential use of resources and substitute reusable
materials are easily available.

4.5. Other foams 

Cape Insulation, Tyne & Wear, sell a phenolic foam alternative
that is made with calcium silicate, and Darchem sells a similar
insulant, Supermagnesia, that is made from magnesium carbonate
mixed with well opened reinforced fibres. It can be used in, for
example, power stations, oil refineries, food processing areas,
hospitals, schools and breweries. Super magnesia has been on the
market for 25 years.

References

(Omitted .. unscannable)


5. SOLVENTS

5.1 Introduction

CFC-113 and methyl chloroform have been the main solvent
cleaning agents in electronics, metal and precision cleaning.
Dry cleaning has been a minor but important use. The UK consumes
7,500 tonnes of CFC-113 and 30-35,000 tonnes of methyl
chloroform annually. ICI is the sole UK manufacturer of methyl
chloroform, and in 1990 produced 80,000 tonnes.

CFC-113 is used mainly in electronics cleaning while methyl
chloroform is used in metal cleaning. In electronics, solvents
are used for defluxing and degreasing; in metal cleaning to
remove contaminants from the raw materials and prior to
operations such as machining, painting and packaging; and in
precision cleaning to remove particulate and non-particulate
matter in situations where extremely high cleanliness is needed,
where there are sensitive compatibilities of materials or they
have other sensitive physical characteristics.

APPLICATIONS OF CFC-113 IN THE UK

Electronics                  45%
Precision clean              35%
Others                       15%
Dry clean                     5%

APPLICATIONS OF METHYL CHLOROFORM IN THE UK

Metal cleaning               73%
Electronics                   4%
Adhesives                    10%
Aerosols                      4%
Extraction                    2%
Others                        7%

From: DTI (1990) Chlorinated Solvent Cleaning. The impact of
environmental and regulatory controls. HMSO. London

CFCs were selected as solvents because of their high chemical
and thermal stability, and because of their solvent properties.
They are also relatively inert, inflammable and explosive.
However the obvious existence of alternatives has demonstrated
that such properties are available in other systems or are not
necessary for many of their applications. Other chlorinated
solvents (such as terachloroethylene and trichloroethylene)
cannot be considered suitable alternatives to CFCs because of
their pernicious environmental and human toxicity.

There are several approaches to eliminating the need for CFCs
and methyl chloroform as solvents. Firstly, and most
importantly, the whole process should be audited and processes
introduced to render the cleaning stage unnecessary where
possible (No Clean). Secondly there are alternative solvents
which may be either aqueous systems or non-halogenated solvents.
There are also totally new cleaning processes.

No clean fluxes offer the best environmental option for the
electronics industry because they cut out the need to wash flux
residues from assemblies of electronic components. A flux is a
material applied to the surface of an electronic component prior
to soldering which improves its solderability. Defluxing is the
process to remove the flux residue. Low solid fluxes are
composed primarily of liquids such as isopropyl alcohol and
because they contain less rosin or other solids than
conventional fluxes it is not necessary to use CFC-113 or methyl
chloroform to remove the residue. Low solid fluxes also leave
almost no deposit on the circuit boards and so do not interfere
with function. No clean options have been widely taken up in
consumer electronics, and also reduce energy consumption.

For instance Apple computers have developed a process for
circuit board assembly which does not require the boards to be
cleaned - this is already in use at plants in Singapore, Ireland
and California. Philips Circuit Assemblies in Dunfermline,
Scotland also use a no clean process for circuit boards.

Other companies that have developed no clean fluxes include
Northern Telecom in the USA and AT&T, Bracknell, Berks. Northern
Telecom have been building CFC-free solvent facilities since
1988 and have eliminated CFCs from 42 plants worldwide. The
company estimates that this will prevent 9 000 tonnes of CFCs
being emitted into the atmosphere, and save US$50m in costs over
the next eight years.

Another approach to no clean is to use controlled atmosphere
soldering. For several years Stickland Electronics in the UK
have been using a soldering technique called the nitrogen
system, which uses little or no flux. Oxidisation during
soldering is prevented by using nitrogen which reduces the
amount of oxygen at the surface of the component, eliminating or
radically reducing the need for fluxes. Many other companies
worldwide are using this type of process.

5.3 Aqueous cleaning Aqueous cleaning has been the workhorse
method for many large multinationals for up to 25 years. The
selection of an aqueous cleaning system will necessitate
designing a combination of surfactants and complex formers.
Water is a very effective solvent for ionic contaminants but
other additives are needed to remove nonpolar substances such as
oil and rosin flux. However, it is important to ensure that a
toxic effluent is not produced as a result and pollutants
produced such as grease, oils and heavy metals must be extracted
and recycled. purr Ltd, a UK and German company has many years
experience of selling aqueous systems internationally which
incorporate waste water reclamation systems in closed loop
cycles.

The first major company to introduce an aqueous cleaning system
was Hewlett-Packard, followed by IBM, ICL, Burroughs, NCR,
Olivetti, Bull and many others. It is estimated that about 40%
of the US electronics industry production is cleaned by aqueous
solutions. The UK computer company ICL have eliminated the use
of CFCs by developing a water based processing alternative which
uses a small amount of caustic soda and which works just as well
as the CFC. IBM's plant in Greenock, Scotland eliminated the use
of CFCs in the second quarter of 1990 by switching to a soap and
water cleaning solution.

America Metal Wash Inc state that "Using soap and water is a
very effective method for cleaning industrial components".

Swedish Ericsson. one of the world's leading telecommunications
manufacturers has completely eliminated the use of CFCs - it was
using 500 tonnes of CFC 113 in 1987 and stopped on January 1st
1991 - they have switched to the use of low solid fluxes for
printed board assemblies in conjunction with water based
cleaning.

Chem-tech International Inc, an American company specialises in
the chemical cleaning of electronic equipment, metal and
plastics. Chem-tech's aqueous cleaning system was developed by
a German company and is in widespread use. Their customers
include the Federal Aviation Administration, the US Navy,
Raytheon Corp, Nato armies, air force and navies, FRG air force
and Texas instruments in Germany.

Dow Chemicals use a semi-aqueous process involving glycol ether
technology, and cleaning was judged to be as good as or better
than results using methyl chloroform, since oil and metal fines
that usually get trapped in dead-end holes were also removed in
the semi-aqueous process. Dow state they are making a major
effort to develop a closed-loop water technology where cleaning
agents would be recycled.

5.4 Non-halogenated organic solvents 

There are non-halogenated organic solvents which degrade more
rapidly than CFCs and which do not produce the toxic materials
associated with the breakdown of chlorinated hydrocarbons. They
include ketones, alcohols, and esters. Closed-systems must be
designed where solvent is recaptured and recycled. They are also
highly volar and flammable so require specially designed
equipment but this is not prohibitively expensive. For instance,
isopropanolol and citrus terpenes are useful for cleaning the
surfaces of electronic equipment and although expensive the cost
of explosive proof facilities is no higher than a system which
traps and recycles CFCs.

AT&T investigated 23 aqueous or semi-aqueous commercial cleaners
(traditional detergents such as aliphatic hydrocarbons mixtures,
caustic cleaners and aliphatic esters). An aliphatic ester
mixture was equally as effective as CFCs.

Petrofirm Inc., another US company based in Florida, use a semi-
aqueous process, under trade mark BIOACT and EC7 and claim to
have cleaned over 20 million square feet of electronic
assemblies. According to the Satellite Systems Operations of
Honeywell Inc., these semi-aqueous alternatives meet of exceed
the specifications for cleaning laid down by NASA and the US
Department of Defense.

Exxon chemicals, like other petrochemical companies are using
hydrocarbon based systems, typically paraffins and petroleum
fractions.

5.5 Other Cleaning Methods 

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation in Japan has developed an ice
scrubber cleansing system, which cleans with the use of a high
velocity ice particle jet spray. The vapour system generates
vapour by heating super pure water and makes cluster ice
particles by instantaneously freezing the vapour with liquid
nitrogen. The particles are sprayed at the semi-conductor wafers
with the use of nitrogen.

Phasex Corporation use carbon dioxide in its super critical
state as a solvent. It is derived from fermentation, and is able
to remove oils and polymers. Cleaning applications for precision
parts include gyroscopes, laser optic components and thermal
switches.

Plasma cleaning is another novel process which is dry and does
not involve the use of solvents. A gas is ignited by a high
voltage in a vacuum chamber and the resulting chemical radicals
formed react with surface impurities, forming volatile compounds
which are suctioned off by vacuum.

5.6 Dry Cleaning

Dry cleaning machines operate in the same way as conventional
washing machines but use an organic solvent, usually
perchloroethylene or CFC-113 as a cleaning fluid instead of
water. CFC-113 is ozone depleting and perchloroethylene, a
chlorinated organic, is a serious human and environmental toxin.

However, 70-90% of fabrics currently labelled as needing dry
cleaning could be cleaned using a gentle wash cycle on a
conventional washing machine.

Before the advent of solvents, clothes were spot cleaned,
brushed and steamed. Effective and inexpensive means of removing
stains and grease include talcum powder, salt, water, glycerine,
ammonia and hydrogen peroxide. Newer methods of cleaning
involve drying, vacuuming, steaming, local spot removal, and
pressing are now available in the UK from companies such
Ecoclean.

References

(Omitted .. unscannable)


6. FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

6. 1 Introduction

Halons have been used since the late 1950s as fire extinguishing
agents primarily for electrical and flammable liquid fires. They
were initially developed and used in military applications but
their use expanded to other sectors in the 1970s. They are
chemical suppression agents which act by removing very reactive
species from the combustion zone. They leave no residue,
minimising secondary damage, and are nonconducting enabling them
to be used on electrical equipment fires. However, halons are
only effective in the early stages of a fire and the
decomposition products in the event of a fire are aggressively
corrosive.

The two main halons used in the UK are halon-1211
(bromochlorodifluoromethane) which is produced by ICI and
halon-1301 (bromotrifluoromethane) which is imported. The
estimated UK consumption of halons was 2,000 tonnes in 1986 and
1,500 in 1990. ICI produced 5,000 tonnes of halon-1211 in 1990.

Although halons only account for a small percentage of the
worldwide consumption of ozone destroying substances by weight,
the bromine they contain increases their ozone depleting
potential enormously. The ozone depleting potential of
halon-1211 is five times greater than that of CFC-11 and that of
halon-1301 is 10 times more so.

The United Nations Environment Programme's Halon Technical
Options Committee has estimated that the existing world wide
'bank' of halon-1211 should be sufficient for the maintenance of
equipment and to supply the most essential applications into the
next century and of halon-1301 for up to 45 years. In the UK
alone the Halon 'bank' has been estimated to be between
4,500-6,500 tonnes of halon-1211 and 6,600-13,650 tonnes of
Halon-1301.

There has been a disturbing lack of commitment in the UK to
manage this 'bank' of halons which are so damaging to the ozone
layer. Although the Dutch government has already helped set up
a national halons 'bank', the UK government is only reported to
be "considering following suit".

Halons may be used in fixed systems or portable extinguishers.
Halon-1211 is most commonly used in portable extinguishers which
are used in the transport (25%), electronic (35%), residential
(10%) and other sectors (30%). Halon-1301 is more commonly used
in fixed total flooding systems which are used in systems where
water or other extinguishing agents would damage valuable
equipment. These facilities in the UK are broken down into
electronic equipment (65%), pipeline and flammable liquid
pumping stations (10%). storage and miscellaneous uses (13%),
ships (10%) and aviation (2%).

Most applications can be readily substituted now. Even for
applications where alternatives are more difficult such as in
aircraft cockpits, these are now being developed. A new gas
mixture of nitrogen, argon and carbon dioxide called Inergen is
available in Denmark and the Netherlands and is currently being
tested by the fire protection company Wormald in the UK. One of
the conclusions of the Department of the Environment user survey
of halons is that the "majority of Halon employed in fixed
systems is used to protect against property loss and business
interruption, and not for life safety". They also note that only
a small proportion of Halon use is as a result of regulatory or
legislative controls as these usually offer several options for
fire protection.

A report for the Nordic Environmental Program concluded that
there were only three truly essential uses for halons in fire
extinguishing systems, in aircraft, in submarines and in
military installations which have to be manned 24 hours a day.
However, in an effort to increase the market for Halon fire
extinguishers they have been sold for uses which can by no means
be considered necessary, such as portable home fire
extinguishers which should be stopped immediately. The promotion
of the use of the many safe alternatives available is a matter
of urgency particularly given the large ozone depleting
potential of halons.

6.2 Alternatives

Halons can be used to extinguish either class A, B or C fires as
defined by BS 4547 1:

Class A ... fires involving solid materials, usually of an     
             organic nature, in which combustion normally takes 
            place with the formation of glowing embers (eg wood 
            and paper); 

Class B ... fires involving liquids or liquefiable solids: 

Class C ... fires involving gases.

Of the currently available alternative fire extinguishing
agents, powder is suitable for all three classes of fire, foam
is suitable for classes A and B, water is primarily suitable for
class A and carbon dioxide is suitable for all three although it
has a poor capability on class A.

6.2.1 Portable systems 

The use of halons in portable fire extinguishers expanded
rapidly primarily because they leave no residue after use and
cause minimum disruption. Portable Halon extinguishers rarely
constitute the only fire extinguishing agent in a building and
thus there may already be sufficient means of extinguishing
fires. If neither carbon dioxide or powder extinguishers may be
used, a combination can be used to replace previous portable
Halon devices for complete protection. There are few differences
in the extinguishing efficiency of halons, carbon dioxide or
powder systems and for local application these can easily be
used as alternatives. There are a very few applications where
these agents may be inappropriate, such as in aeroplane cabins
and certain military applications, but for the vast majority of
cases there should be no requirement for portable Halon
extinguishers to be used.

6.2.2 Fixed systems 

The first step towards substituting a fixed Halon based fire
extinguishing system must be an assessment of precautions taken
to avoid fire and the other systems in operation. In the first
instance for areas where, for example, a computer room is
controlling a dangerous process, the initial steps should be to
reduce the risk of fire by planning for fire prevention,
installing good maintenance and prevention procedures and
ensuring all staff are adequately trained. In a small number of
cases it may then be possible to simply eliminate the Halon
extinguishing system without supplying a replacement.

Secondly, damage may be limited in the event of a fire by means
such as early warning systems, use of fire resistant materials,
enclosures and good smoke control systems. By improving these
systems it may be relatively simple to provide better fire
prevention and detection systems which negate the need for
halons particularly in areas where alternative extinguishing
materials are already supplied. For example, where a building is
continuously occupied increased surveillance by people trained
in fire fighting may be seen as a viable alternative once a
Halon system is decommissioned. In another approach to the
problem, a US company, Phoenix 2000 of Arlington, Virginia, have
developed a computer enclosure system which allows any type of
fire extinguishing agent to be used.

However, in many cases it may be felt that alternative
protection will be required to replace the halons no longer in
use. The four alternative materials are carbon dioxide, water,
foam and powder. These are commonly used extinguishing agents
for which supply should not present any problems. In some cases
more than one of the different agents discussed below may be
used to provide complete fire protection.

6.2.3 Carbon dioxide 

Of the four agents carbon dioxide has properties which are most
similar to halons. The agent is clean, nonconducting and is a
gas which can penetrate into enclosed spaces. It is reported to
cause no harm to computer equipment. However, it is not as
efficient as halons (i.e. higher concentrations are needed to
extinguish a fire) and is lethal at extinguishing concentrations
although it was originally used for many of the applications in
which halons now predominate.

For total flood systems, when a whole area such as a computer
room is filled with gas, it is necessary to have both early fire
detection and alarm and safety mechanisms which prevent the
system discharging carbon dioxide while personnel are still
within the protected area. A wide variety of protection devices
can be installed to give warning before use of carbon dioxide,
to enable personnel override the release mechanism and to warn
people not to enter the flooded zone.

Where a total flood system is not appropriate it may be possible
to employ partial flood systems which will fill the immediate
area around the fire, such as inside a cabinet or between false
floors, with carbon dioxide. This will enable less carbon
dioxide to be used, reducing the size of systems used, but will
still require evacuation procedures. Carbon dioxide systems
which can be retrofitted to existing Halon pipe work and nozzles
have been developed by an Australian company, Pyrazone Pty. Ltd,
Alberton, Queensland.

Although safety is the main factor which counts against the
increased use of carbon dioxide, it is commonly used and
providing appropriate procedures are followed has not been found
to be a major hazard. The Department of the Environment reported
that insurers to whom they talked did not foresee problems with
insuring systems which were protected by carbon dioxide even
though there may be a short delay before the system could be
actuated. While concern may be raised by users of such systems
the DOE report notes that the "Health and Safety Executive are
satisfied that the safety of carbon dioxide systems can be made
perfectly adequate by the implementation of the various
precautions outlined in GS16."

The carbon dioxide used in fire extinguishers is a by product of
an industrial process and so will not contribute to global
warming.

6.2.4 Water 

Water has long been used to extinguish fires and is still one of
the most effective means. The technology for automatic sprinkler
systems is well developed and these may be used in many
circumstances as it is a well proven and highly reliable form of
fire protection. The primary disadvantage reported is that
secondary damage may occur and clean up after a fire may be more
difficult. It also conducts electricity and so equipment must be
isolated before actuation. Water cannot usually be described as
a substitute for halons because it is primarily an extinguishing
agent for a different hazard. However, in combination with
carbon dioxide it can be a very efficient agent and both IBM and
Texas Instruments are reported to recommend sprinkler systems
for the protection of computer equipment. It complements the use
of carbon dioxide because it acts well against class A fires. 

6.2.5 Foam

Foams can be used for class A and B fires and are already used
for flammable liquid hazards such as pumping stations and
flammable liquid storage facilities. The types of foams used as
fire extinguishing agents vary according to the extent to which
they expand. They act by forming a barrier between the liquid
and the air and also by cooling the liquid. Foams may be sprayed
from a sprinkler system and may be used in three dimensional
situations such as for engine fires. High expansion foams can be
used as a total flooding system for class A fires which may
occur in spaces in which manual fire fighting would be difficult
such as floor voids and engine rooms.

6.2.6 Powder

The mechanism by which powder extinguishes fires is not well
understood but they are very effective at causing rapid knock
down of flames and can be used for all classes of fire. However,
it does not prevent reignition and has little cooling effect. It
can also cause damage to electrical equipment. Powder can be
used on running fuel fires, pressurised fuel fires and areas in
which many different substances may be alight. Therefore it can
be considered to be a substitute for halons in many applications
although clean up may be more difficult.

References

(Omitted .. unscannable)


7. MEDICAL AEROSOLS

7.1 Introduction

CFCs have been widely used as propellants in aerosols in the
past. Aerosols have the product mixed with a propellant in a
canister and are used to give a spray delivery of the product.
Propellants, such as CFCs, are gases which are either liquids at
raised pressure or highly volatile liquids. The container is
pressurised and the propellant both acts to disperse the product
when the aerosol is used (as the propellant rapidly expands in
the lower pressure of the normal atmosphere) and to maintain the
internal pressure of the canister.

Aerosols have had many applications including the delivery of
cosmetics, polishes, paints and perfumes. Clearly these
applications cannot be considered essential and indeed many
alternatives, often based on simple physical processes already
exist. There are atomizers, roll-ons, dips and brushes for
instance. However, the use of CFCs in medical aerosol products
for the treatment of potentially life-threatening respiratory
conditions such as asthma needs careful consideration.

7.2 CFCs and asthma inhalers 

It has been estimated that medical aerosol inhalers use 0.4-0.5%
of worldwide annual production. This is the same proportion as
that used for medial aerosols in the UK. Therefore in comparison
to other applications the usage of CFCs in medical applications
is tiny. Most of the pressurised metered dose inhalers (MDIs)
which are used to deliver drugs such as bronchodilators,
corticosteroids and sodium chromoglycate use a blend of two or
three CFCs, CFC-12, CFC-11 and CFC-114, to give the desired
propellant, solvent and pressure characteristics.

MDIs are used for symptomatic relief and prophylaxis in patients
with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by
delivering doses of drug to the lung from the aerosol.

There are two means by which the need for asthma therapy could
be met following an end to the production of CFCs. An
alternative drug delivery system could be used or recycled CFCs
utilised in aerosol production. Both of these alternatives are
already available.

7.3 CFC free asthma inhalers 

There already exists two other methods of delivering drugs by
inhalation to the lung without the need for CFC aerosols:

1. Nebulising devices which deliver aqueous solutions. They are
already established in the treatment of asthma and COPD in young
children and some adults especially in hospitals and their use
in the treatment of other respiratory conditions is considered
likely to increase, particularly as smaller more mobile devices
are developed.

2. Dry powder inhalers (DPls) which deliver a specific dose of
drug in a powder form and are activated by patient inhalation.
The advantages of DPls are that they are more easily used by
most patients, they contain no additives and new devices have
been developed which have a multiple dose facility (early models
had to be loaded with a gelatin capsule for each dose).

The major disadvantage of DPls is that the patient's inspiratory
flow has to be above a certain level to ensure adequate delivery
of the drug. However, one specialist concluded that the vast
majority of patients with severe acute asthma would be able to
use such devices. 

The same classes of drugs which are used to treat asthma and
COPD by CFC driven MDIs are available in DPIs. They are also
widely used in some countries. In a letter to Greenpeace one
company (Astra Draco AB, PO Box 34, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden) state
that "In two countries, Sweden and Holland, approximately 65 and
61 percent respectively of all asthma doses were given from
powder inhalers in 1990."

Therefore alternative, non-CFC drug delivery systems already
exist for the delivery of drugs by the respiratory route to
treat asthma and COPD and these may offer some advantages to
patients in terms of ease of use and avoidance of poor
inhalation technique which sometimes accompanies MDI use.

7.4 Recycled CFCs for asthma inhalers 

Because, in the short term, some patients may not be able to
change to an alternative drug delivery system, there will be a
continued need for CFCs. Greenpeace believes that such an
essential need should be met by the recycling of existing stocks
of CFCs. The amount needed will be small even on a global basis.
The DTI estimated that 32,000 tonnes of CFCs are held in
refrigeration equipment alone in the UK.

ICI initially said in conversations with Greenpeace and their
medical advisors, that CFCs can be recycled (the retrieved CFC
enters the existing production system) to the virgin chemical
state and to British Pharmacopoeia standards but only
subsequently that the suitability of provision of CFCs for
asthma inhalers from this source is only now under active
investigation. It is vital that chemicals for medical
applications are provided in the proper state but it seems that
what should have been a matter of urgency years ago has been
left to a last minute scramble to find if retrieved CFCs can be
cleaned up to the specifications required for medical
applications. However, ICI have also said that they would not
keep a production plant open purely for recycling (in fact
reprocessing) because it would not be economic to do so.

The Medicines Control Agency, following prompting from
Greenpeace, are pursuing the matter with ICI to ensure the
relevant medicines legislation is complied with and that
recycled or reprocessed CFCs are available in a suitable form
for medical products.

References

(Omitted .. unscannable)