ES&T
The Military's Role in Protection of the Ozone Layer n only a few years, U.S. industry and the military have developed and implemented substitute chemicals and processes that in most cases have eliminated the need for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and other ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Moreover, they have done so in some of the most high-precision industrial applications, including inertial guidance systems for aircraft and missiles and fire safety systems for ships, aircraft, and armored vehicles. A 1994 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conference in Brussels highlighted this military and civilian effort (see box on recommendations, p. 587A) and changes in the way the U.S. military views its mission. Through NATO's Committee on the Challenges of a Modern Society (CCMS), the U.S. military has ventured outside traditional alliances to promote technical exchanges with militaries from developing countries and even with the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. These exchanges suggest that a proactive approach to environmental protection can both speed the military's adoption of new, e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y friendly technologies and focus its research institutions on solving global environmental problems. More broadly, and perhaps even more significantly, military organizations may find that common environmental problems serve as a basis for establishing new relationships that otherwise would not be possible.
I
tional security and safety concerns. Many people held that environmental regulations would diminish readiness, encumber weapon systems development, and distract commanders from their missions. In about 1987, the military's environmental programs became an increased priority. Budgets for clean-
S T E P H E N O. A N D E R S E N
U.S. leadership to protect the ozone layer Most people have associated military organizations with environmental problems rather than solutions. In the United States, the military sometimes has been exempted from environmental laws and regulations and from citizen suits and penalties applicable to private parties, on the basis of na586 A Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 13, 1994
EPA Stratospheric Protection Division Washington, DC 20001
E. T H O M A S MOREHOUSE, JR. Institute for Defense Analyses Alexandria, VA 22311
ALAN
MILLER
University of Maryland College Park, MD 20740
ing up hazardous waste sites and complying with environmental laws and regulations began to escalate dramatically. By fiscal year 1994, the cleanup and compliance budgets combined exceeded $4 billion annually, and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act all but eliminated military exemptions from environmental regulations. Commanders at all levels were well aware of their legal responsibility to comply with environmental laws. In 1987, signatories to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer agreed to a 50% reduction in CFC production from 1986 levels by 1998 and a freeze in halon production at 1986 levels by 1993. The negotiators realized that there was a lack of scientific knowledge about the dynamics of the ozone layer and that more stringent control measures might have to be negotiated to achieve the goals of the treaty. However, indus-
0013-936X/94/0927-586A$04.50/0© 1994 American Chemical Society
try had become so dependent on these chemicals that in the absence of alternative technologies, economic development and ozone layer protection would have been incompatible. To resolve this dilemma, the negotiators included in the Protocol provisions for continuous scientific assessments of the condition of the ozone layer and simultaneous technical assessment of alternatives to ODS uses. Each new piece of scientific information indicated that the ozone layer was more depleted than was previously believed, which added fuel to calls from the environmental community for an outright ban on ODS production. To enact more stringent controls, however, technical solutions were needed. To find these solutions, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established technical options committees, one devoted to each of the critical industrial sectors that were heavy ODS users. U.S. and U.K. military experts served on these committees and contributed to the
global effort to identify and share CFC and halon alternatives. The resulting pace of technical innovation was so swift that by June 1990 the parties to the treaty agreed to a 100% phase-out of CFCs and added methyl chloroform (CHC13) to the list of controlled ozone-depleting chemicals. In February 1992, thenPresident Bush announced that the United States would unilaterally accelerate the phase-out schedule, halting ODS production by December 31, 1995. With more than 140 countries now party to the Protocol, the o p p o r t u n i t i e s for DoD and NATO to collaborate with other countries on ozone layer protection and expand the agenda to broader environmental issues has never been greater. Environmental organizations expected, and critics of the Protocol hoped, that the military would seek an exemption to the Protocol. In fact, had the military wanted to make a case for an exemption, it had plenty of ammunition. The military's overall budget was being cut
Recommendations of the Second International NATO/CCMS Conference on the Role of the Military in Protecting the Ozone Layer Although NATO members are meeting or exceeding the production phase-out goals of the Montreal Protocol, some military standards and specifications still require ODS use. To minimize their use and mitigate the need for future ODS production, the participants recommended that NATO improve streamlining and cooperation, create an "information highway," and organize tiger teams. Streamlining and coordination • Harmonize environmental regulations and military standards to allow military organizations and their suppliers to reduce and eliminate ODS use quickly and efficiently • Coordinate testing and certification of halon alternatives for critical applications among the military, civilian organizations, and the fire equipment industry • Clarify treaties to ensure that transborder shipments of recycled halons and refrigerants are allowed consistent with the intent of the Montreal Protocol • Evaluate the usefulness of national refrigerant banks that might operate like halon banks; evaluate appropriate mechanisms for cooperation between national civilian and military banks of refrigerants, solvents, and halons • Change military standards, specifications, and technical orders to allow the use of ODS alternatives and substitutes; whenever possible, international industry standards should replace military standards • Establish a mechanism for the NATO countries to develop and implement joint tests to evaluate alternative chemicals and technologies for military fire and explosion suppression applications Information highway • Support NATO's proposed environmental database and clearinghouse initiative; encourage NATO members and partners to contribute technical information on alternatives and substitutes • Share information on critical ODS uses via electronic databases, publications, workshops, and informal working groups • Propose a pilot study to document and communicate technical information on alternatives and substitutes for critical applications Tiger teams • Organize "tiger teams" of experts to verify and implement new technologies and coordinate national regulations and halon banks
dramatically, the environmental portion of that budget was already increasing for other reasons, and high costs were predicted for conversion. Moreover, adopting new internal operating procedures would be enormously time-consuming and burdensome. Instead, the military took the offensive to protect the ozone layer. Because the Montreal Protocol was led by the United Nations, and a phase-out would directly affect military o p e r a t i o n s , the military launched a program to find technical solutions. Seven years after the signing of the Protocol, the military not only supports the treaty, but actually leads the world in identifying, developing, and implementing many of the most sophisticated ODS alternatives. The military quickly developed technology; changed procurement rules; modified standards; eliminated training with halon; and built networks of experts, communication channels, and computer databases. Testimony to the military's increased commitment to the environment can be found in the new office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security, which was established solely to manage the Pentagon's environmental affairs. Two examples of the military's contribution to ozone layer protection document how this transformation was accomplished and its significance for the global environment: the U.S. military's phaseout of halons and its cooperation with NATO to achieve environmental objectives. Halon phaseout by the U.S. military Halons were presumed to be strategically essential to defense because of their role in firefighting and explosion suppression (see box on strategy, p. 588A). Critics of the Protocol cited d e p e n d e n c e on halons to protect command posts and its use in ships to protect propulsion and communications systems, on carrier flight decks, and in armored vehicles. However, these critical uses represented only a fraction of the military's total halon use. Defense analysts quickly discovered that by eliminating halons w h e n other firefighting agents would work and banking the halon the military already had, it could ensure a supply well into the next century. The Air Force formulated its halon strategy by using Total Qual-
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 13, 1994
587 A
ity Management, which empowered its halon users and the research community to work -with civilian aerospace organizations that shared the same halon uses. This bottom-up approach emphasized use reduction, containment, and recycling with the ultimate goal of replacing h a l o n w i t h other fireextinguishing means. This strategy was so successful that it became the model for eliminating other ODS uses and the foundation for a comprehensive pollution prevention program at DoD. In 1988 and 1989, Gary Vest, the Air Force's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health, quickly endorsed and issued an Air Force policy that halons could be used only for combat situations when there was no alternative that would satisfy fire protection needs. To help speed widespread acceptance of halon alternatives and manage the existing halon inventory, the Air Force teamed up with EPA and private companies to organize the Halon Alternatives Consortium. This organization helped identify the most promising research opportunities and served as an ad hoc coordinating body for military and civilian agencies involved in research on halon alternatives. It has since evolved into a private industry-led corporation that acts as a broker to match those needing recycled halon for critical uses with those owning excess halon. To manage existing halon stocks, the Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force cooperated to develop the first practical halon recycling equipment. The first systems were built in military laboratories and displayed frequently at international ozone conferences. The private sector realized the market potential and collaborated with the Marines and Navy to reconfigure, commercialize, and deploy the system to military bases worldwide. The Navy teamed up with EPA to teach halon recycling to fire protection experts from 18 developing countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Fiji, Guatemala, India, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mexico, Panama, the Philippines, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The halon phase-out presented some unique problems for the U.S. Army. Halon is currently the only means to protect armored vehicle crews against fire during combat. The Army eliminated halon use 588 A
when alternatives would work and recycled excess halon 1301 for use in combat situations. However, with no accepted standards of purity for recycled halon, there was a reluctance to accept it for Army applications. Instead of developing its own standard, a slow and expensive process, the Army spearheaded a government—industry effort to develop an American Society for Testing of Materials standard for recycled halon. The Army also persuaded DoD to accept these commercial standards in lieu of military standards. Meanwhile, the Coast Guard eliminated standards that required the use of halon on commercial and pleasure craft and began to promote alternative fire protection strategies. Cooperation with NATO The U.S. military took the un-
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 13, 1994
precedented step of working with the world's other major militaries through NATO to address ODS use. NATO's involvement has speeded the identification and sharing of substitutes for all ozone-depleting substances and accelerated the adoption of alternative standards. It was especially creative for the United States to view NATO, an organization with a primarily strategic purpose, as providing an opportunity to achieve environmental goals. The United States also has found other partners within NATO willing to pursue a larger environmental agenda, most notably Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Although NATO was created as a mutual defense pact during the Cold War era, by 1969 it had established CCMS to respond to environmental problems. In 1991, NATO/CCMS organized
The Strategy for Managing Halons Although there remain important halon uses for which alternatives have not yet been found, adequate supplies are available and research is under way to find alternatives. The Halons Technical Options Committee of the Montreal Protocol estimates that current halon supplies should last beyond the year 2030. The oil industry and the military are both represented on the Halons Technical Options Committee and have been leaders in helping to devise a global strategy to protect society from the consequences of fire and preserve the Earth's ozone layer. Research should yield solutions for the few remaining uses well before halon stocks run out. There are estimates indicating that approximately 150,000 metric tons of halons were produced globally through the end of 1990, and additional halon was produced until 1994. Much of it was sold to protect mainframe computers, which have largely been replaced by personal computers. Today's remaining uses are only a tiny fraction of the halon market that existed in 1986, the year before the Montreal Protocol was signed. Halon is stored in cylinders and can be removed from one place and resold for use in another. It is this feature that enabled production to be phased out while some important uses remain. Halon "banks" operate in several countries to facilitate trade in recycled halons. In the United States, the Halon Recycling Corporation matches halon buyers with sellers. Similar organizations exist in Australia, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and other countries. Halons are used as fire-extinguishing agents in engines, cabins, and lavoratories on commercial and military aircraft. The Department of Defense, the aircraft manufacturers, and the Federal Aviation Administration have been working together for the past three years to find other fire protection systems and to develop ways to certify the airworthiness of aircraft without halons. The U.S. Army protects armored vehicle crews with halons. When a tank is hit by enemy fire, a sophisticated halon system discharges within milliseconds. Unless crew members are actually hit by a round, they will survive. This ability to survive an attack improves the morale of tank crews and the Army's combat capabilities. The U.S. Navy also uses halons to protect areas of ships that house critical or hazardous equipment, such as communications and propulsion systems. Aircraft carriers use halons on flight decks, and the Navy is working with other services to find solutions. To provide for the U.S. military's halon needs, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has established a DoD halon bank. Interestingly, one of the largest suppliers of halon to the DLA is the military itself. As computer systems are upgraded, halons are removed and sent to DLA to be reused in airplanes, tanks, and ships. In addition, the oil industry uses halons to protect oil-processing facilities from explosions that can result from a buildup of flammable gases.
its first c o n f e r e n c e to c o m p a r e p r o g r e s s on e l i m i n a t i n g o z o n e depleting solvents and fire protection agents and to share technical information. The members concluded that there are relatively few fire p r o t e c t i o n s i t u a t i o n s that require halons and that existing halon s u p p l i e s are a d e q u a t e to meet essential military needs for the foreseeable future. Presentations by defense contractors also revealed that many of the high-precision cleaning applications traditionally satisfied w i t h ODS s o l v e n t s c o u l d be met w i t h other, more environmentally benign alternatives. The myth of the t e c h n i c a l s u p e r i o r i t y of o z o n e depleting substances was being shattered across a wide range of industries and uses. The participants r e c o m m e n d e d i m p r o v e d cooperation to expand military-to-military transfer of n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s that e l i m i n a t e d ODS u s e s in c e r t a i n aerospace and electronics applications and to focus research on the m o s t difficult c o m m o n c l e a n i n g challenges. In 1992, NATO officials wrote directly to UNEP Executive Director Mustafa Tolba in support of a 1994 phase-out of halon and a 1996 phase-out of CFCs. In 1994, NATO/CCMS held the Second International Conference on the Role of the Military in Protecti n g t h e O z o n e L a y e r . By t h e n , N A T O h a d e l i m i n a t e d most ODS uses in military e q u i p m e n t . Particularly notable was the a t t e n d a n c e of 14 n o n m e m b e r c o u n t r i e s , including developing countries (Algeria, Brazil, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Taiwan, Thailand, and Uruguay) and former Warsaw Pact states (Belarus, H u n g a r y , Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine). By sharing t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h these countries, NATO has revealed that it too believes global environmental security transcends political b o u n d a r i e s and systems. This dev e l o p m e n t has i m p o r t a n t p o l i c y implications for other global environmental protection issues, particularly pollution prevention a n d global warming. Lessons from military leadership in stratospheric ozone protection The ozone story is a u n i q u e victory for the military in global environmental protection, a victory whose tactics may be applied to a wider array of environmental problems. Despite the considerable obstacles it faced, the U.S. military responded decisively to the problem
of ozone layer protection. This response was forged during a period of increased emphasis on environmental performance across the spectrum of military activities. The military fundamentally changed the way it does business to comply with environmental laws, particularly to a v o i d d e p e n d e n c e on c h e m i c a l s that will be unavailable or restricted in the future. Today, it embraces environmental security as a new mission and even has founded an office to provide leadership on environmental issues. If the U.S. military can do it, it is hard to believe other large organizations cannot. There is great benefit from cooperation among nations, among agencies, and between government and the private sector. Many of the technical challenges associated with eliminating ODS use could not have been overcome so quickly without cooperation between EPA and the m i l i t a r y . Private c o n t r a c t o r s also played a key role in finding alternatives once it was clear that the environment was a top military priority. U.S. military leadership in ozone l a y e r p r o t e c t i o n h a s an i n t e r n a tional parallel through NATO's g r o w i n g i n v o l v e m e n t in e n v i r o n mental problems. As NATO accepts n e w global m i s s i o n s , it can h e l p find t e c h n i c a l s o l u t i o n s to global environmental problems. An enormous pool of environmental expertise and technical resources resides w i t h i n military organizations and their contractors. The rapid dissemination of environmental information at the NATO forum shows that N A T O also m a y be a n effective mechanism for the transfer of complex technical information on solutions to environmental problems to developing nations.
Stephen O. Andersen is deputy director of the EPA Stratospheric Protection Division. He helped organize the first Technology Assessment for the Montreal Protocol and cochaired the UNEP Assessment Panel, the Economics Panel, and the Solvents Technical Options Committee. He has organized industry-government consortiums, including the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation and the Industry Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection.
L£fi
Thomas Morehouse was the military assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security and formerly chief of Pollution Prevention for the Air Force. He represented the U.S. Air Force at Montreal in 1987 when the Protocol was signed. He organized joint government-industry halon replacement research efforts, helped write Air Force and DoD policy to protect the ozone layer, and is cochair of the UNEP Halon Technical Options Committee. Since this article was written, he has left the military and now works for the Institute for Defense Analyses.
Suggested readings Reports of the Halons Technical Options Committee of the Montreal Protocol, 1990, 1992. 1994. Report of the Technology and Economics Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol, 1992. [The above four reports are available from the United Nations Environment Programme's Industry and Environment Program Activity Center in Paris.] Proceedings of the Second International NATO/CCMS Conference on the Role of the Military in Protecting the Ozone Layer, Brussels, Belgium. Jan. 1994. Proceedings of the First International NATO/CCMS Conference on the Role of the Military in Protecting the Ozone Layer, Williamsburg, VA, Sept. 1991. Allenby, B. R.; Richards, D., Eds.; The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, March 1994.
Alan Miller is executive director of the Center for Global Change at the University of Maryland. With Curtis Moore, Miller wrote Green Gold: Japan, Germany, the United States and the Race for Environmental Technology (Beacon Press, 1994). While working as an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, he brought suit against EPA, ultimately resulting in a consent decree that compelled EPA to develop a stratospheric ozone protection plan.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 13, 1994
589 A
