t ENVIRONMENT

As CFC Ban Quietly Comes Into Force, Attention Turns To Other Concerns

• Vienna meeting debates stricter controls on HCFCs, methyl bromide, process agents, and how to handle Russia's noncompliance

Pamela S. Zurer, C&EN Washington

The Dec. 31 deadline for ending production of chlorofluorocar-bons (CFCs) in industrialized

countries is now just four weeks away. But this final phaseout of chemicals con­sidered indispensable only a few years ago is causing remarkably little tension.

Plenty of other issues related to pro­tecting Earth's ozone layer are sparking anxiety, however. The parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, meeting this week in Vienna, are struggling to reach a consensus on a variety of proposals affecting both developed and develop­ing countries. Unlike previous meet­ings, where the outcome of most ques­tions was settled well in advance of the formal sessions, this time opposing fac­tions were unable to negotiate compro­mises at preliminary talks.

For example, the European Union (EU) is pressing to accelerate the phaseout of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that are now substituting for CFCs. More stringent controls on the pesticide methyl bromide are under debate. And contro­versy swirls around the use of process agents—ozone-depleting substances that are used in chemical processes without being entirely transformed.

Moreover, the parties to the treaty must decide whether to grant Russia extra time to complete its phaseout of CFCs. Russia has admitted it cannot meet the looming 1996 deadline.

Perhaps more surprising than the former U.S.S.R/s and some other East­ern European countries' not meeting the deadline is the smoothness of the transi­

tion in the rest of the industrialized world. When first signed in 1987, the Montreal protocol called for a 50% re­duction in output of CFCs by 1998. The accumulation of bad news about the ozone layer, however, led to the 1990 London amendments requiring a phase-out of CFCs, halons (brominated fluoro-carbons used to fight fires), carbon tetra­chloride, and methyl chloroform by 2000.

The treaty was amended again in Copenhagen in 1992, advancing the deadline to the end of this year. HCFCs were classified as transitional com­pounds to be banned in 2030 after a gradual phaseout. And methyl bro­mide output was frozen at 1995 levels.

"Despite our fears, despite problems nearly everyone was projecting, we have made the transition four years ahead of the original schedule/' John Lord, presi­dent of Carrier Corp., Syracuse, N.Y., told an international conference on CFC and halon alternatives earlier this fall.

James E. Wolf, chairman of the Alli­ance for Responsible Atmospheric Poli­cy, Arlington, Va., which sponsored the meeting, pointed out that production of halons and methyl chloroform has al-

Wilkinson: sound practices shouldn't change

Ahmadzai: don't warp feedstock definition

ready ended. "CFCs are no longer used in foams, new air conditioners, and al­most all refrigeration equipment," he said. "There have been many retrofits of equipment using CFCs. Solvent users have made unprecedented progress to­ward making the transition away from ozone-depleting compounds. There are stockpiles to service and maintain exist­ing equipment. And recovery, recycling, and reclamation of refrigerants . . . will continue to be important."

Those first hurdles were relatively easy compared with the challenges ahead, Wolf said, including "finding al­ternatives to methyl bromide, managing HCFCs in developed countries, control­ling HCFC use in developing countries, and obtaining compliance to the Mon­treal protocol by all countries."

To U.S. industry and government, the debate over the fate of HCFCs is a major concern. Although HCFCs are thought to be much less damaging than the fully halogenated CFCs, they do have some potential to deplete the ozone layer. A United Nations Envi­ronment Program (UNEP) assessment completed last year identified an earli­er phaseout of HCFCs as one of the few

26 DECEMBER 4,1995 C&EN

steps not yet taken that could speed the recovery of the ozone layer.

Citing the "worsening situation of the state of the ozone layer both in the Ant­arctic and Arctic regions and on the glo­bal level," the EU is proposing that the final phaseout date for HCFCs should be moved up to 2015—the same deadline the EU has already set for itself. In addi­tion, the EU wants the treaty's cap on HCFC consumption, now set at 3.1%, re­duced to 2.0%. The percentage is calcu­lated based on the combined ozone de­pletion potential of CFCs and HCFCs consumed by a country in 1989.

"The accelerated phaseout is techni­cally feasible but would result in capi­tal abandonment at great cost," says Stephen O. Andersen, deputy director of the Environmental Protection Agen­cy's Office of Stratospheric Programs. "The U.S. and Japan have made large investments in new equipment that uses HCFCs."

An accelerated HCFC phaseout also could have unexpected effects in devel­oping countries, which are not required by the Montreal protocol to phase out CFCs until 2010.

"If we put further restrictions on use of HCFCs, developing countries will continue to use CFCs," argues Jerry Dziedzic, general manager of fluoro-chemicals for Elf Atochem, Philadel­phia. "We are opposed to any changes in the Montreal protocol."

Whether the parties to the treaty agree to tighten HCFC controls at the Vienna meeting may depend in part on the outcome of negotiations over meth­yl bromide. Every decision about the treaty to date has been made by con­sensus, so countries often make conces­sions on one issue in order to gain ground elsewhere.

The U.S., which already requires a methyl bromide phaseout by 2001 un­der the Clean Air Act, is prodding the rest of the world to move faster as well. Developing countries that rely on the fumigant to treat crops for export are resisting further controls on methyl bromide. Europe is split on the issue.

"What's hard to predict right now is the dynamics of the U.S. positions on methyl bromide and HCFCs," says Kevin Fay, counsel to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. "It's very difficult to predict how the poli­tics will play out."

Another issue whose outcome was still uncertain as the Vienna meeting

got under way was what should be done about chemical process agents. These ozone-depleting substances are used somewhat like feedstocks, but with a critical difference. Unlike feed­stocks—which may be produced after the phaseout deadline as long as they are converted entirely to materials that do not affect the ozone layer—process agents are not completely chemically transformed and cannot be used after 1996 unless their current exemption from control is extended.

For example, Vulcan Chemicals, Bir­mingham, Ala., produces CC14 as a feedstock for perchloroethylene. But like some other firms in the chlor-al-kali industry, Vulcan also uses CC14

as a process agent to scrub explosive nitrogen trichloride from its chlorine stream. The CC14 is then either inciner­ated or fed to Vulcan's perchloroethy­lene plant.

Until 1997, the parties to the Mon­treal protocol are allowing production of ozone-depleting chemicals for use as process agents, treating them as if they were feedstocks. But earlier this year, a UNEP-sponsored study identified sig­nificant and growing emissions of pro­cess agents in developing countries, mostly from the manufacture of chlori­nated rubber.

Sweden is proposing that after 1996, process agents no longer be treated as feedstocks. Instead, users would have to apply for an essential-use exemp­tion, under criteria that are extremely difficult to meet.

The U.S., Canada, and New Zealand, however, propose to continue treating process agents as feedstocks until 1998, while the issue is studied further. They argue that decisions on whether to allow continued production of process agents should take into account how well con­trolled emissions of the ozone-depleting substances are.

E. John Wilkinson, director of govern­mental affairs for Vulcan Chemicals, points out that, in the U.S., industry al­ready tightly controls emissions of CC14

because it is a suspected human carcino­gen. "Why should facilities that are al­ready operating in an environmentally sound way be forced to make a substan­tial capital investment?" he asks. "We would have to change our plants to un-proven and in some cases inappropriate technology with virtually no benefit to the ozone layer."

But Husamuddin Ahmadzai, princi­pal executive officer of the Swedish En­vironmental Protection Agency, notes, "Emissions [of process agents] are very well controlled in the West, but ozone depletion is a global problem. We should not warp the definition of feed­stock in order to accommodate a few specific uses."

The Vienna meeting also is ponder­ing what to do about Russia, which has asked to be given until 2000 to com­plete its phaseout of CFCs. When the Montreal protocol was conceived, the U.S.S.R. and its satellites were classified as industrialized countries. But now many of these "countries with econo­mies in transition" want to be treated more like developing countries, which are granted a 10-year grace period un­der the terms of the treaty.

"Legally speaking, there is no provi­sion for a party to be given extra time," says K. Madhava Sarma, of the UNEP Ozone Secretariat in Nairobi, Kenya. "The parties may take a sympathetic view. Or they can take punitive mea­sures with regard to trade."

UNEP has been warning that compla­cency could undermine the Montreal protocol's success to date: "Although approximately 25% of the world's popu­lation has nearly completed the phase out of ozone-depleting substances as called for in the protocol, the remaining 75% in the developing world and in countries with economies in transition have yet to begin." As Carrier's Lord said, "Our next steps are as significant as those of the past five years." •

DECEMBER 4,1995 C&EN 27

HCFC output grows as CFC production drops