Report of the XXII/10 Task Force TEAP Report of the XXII/10 Task Force M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 1, M o n t r e a l 1 1

Decision XXII/10 Task Force Membership Co-chairs Ian Rae - Australia Paul Ashford - UK Members Christoph Becker - Germany Kristian Bruning - Finland Rick Cooke - Canada Tim Kidman - USA Bella Maranion - USA Koichi Mizuno - Japan Syd Partridge - USA Cristina Poli - Brazil M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 1, M o n t r e a l

Outline of Decision XXII/10 To update the Destruction and Removal Efficiencies (DRE) for existing substances To evaluate and recommend a DRE for methyl bromide To review the existing List of Approved Technologies To further evaluate Emerging Technologies identified in the 2010 Progress Report and submissions related to them To consider other developments including those notified through the call for submissions To develop verification criteria for the destruction of ODS at facilities using Approved Technologies M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 1, M o n t r e a l

Update on Destruction Criteria Destruction Efficiency (DE) is a more comprehensive measure of destruction effectiveness than DRE. However, DE is more difficult and expensive to assess because of multiple factors to be considered Other chemical destruction protocols are increasingly favouring DE Task Force is not proposing a specific change but need to keep the matter under review by Parties Shift from destruction of stockpiles to End-of-Life would support the lowering of DRE to 99.9% Need to re-assess previously screened-out technologies? Consultation required on possible move of dioxin/furan limits to 0.1 ng ITEQ Nm3 M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 1, M o n t r e a l

Methyl Bromide Destruction (1) The Decision focuses on destruction efficiency rather than recovery efficiency Pending any more general review of DRE vs DE, the DRE for methyl bromide is proposed at 99.99% Brominated Dioxins/Furans also pose a significant hazard but, since limits are set by aggregating hazard/exposure combinations, the figure of 0.1ng TEQ Nm3 is still valid as a limit (as used for chlorinated species). Jurisdictions may choose other concentration limits depending on the volume of emissions M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 1, M o n t r e a l

Methyl Bromide Destruction (2) Submissions on methyl bromide received from SRL Plasma and Nordiko Insufficient data/experience to approve these submissions SRL Plasma considered as having ‘high potential’, although initial run(s) showed incomplete destruction Nordiko need to refine their submission in order to provide a specific technology proposal. Therefore, currently ‘unable to assess’ Additional information has since been received M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 1, M o n t r e a l

Summary of other ODS Assessments Sponsor Technology Type Current Assessment Comments SGL Carbon Thermal Oxidation Recommended for Approval None Lesni A/S Gas phase catalytic de-halogenation High Potential Subsequent review pending decisions on review of criteria ASADA Corporation Small scale Plasma Despite small-scale, still meets screened in criteria Midwest Refrigerants Irreversible transformation Semi-commercial but still sufficient evidence University of Newcastle Initial concerns on conversion levels addressed M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 11, M o n t r e a l

Verification Criteria for Destruction (1) Switch of focus from stockpile management to end-of-life recovery and destruction. ODS Bank management particularly challenging in the foam sector and both mechanical recovery/destruction and direct incineration are options Measurement of recovery efficiencies is more important now that credits for climate benefit need to be quantified Geographic experience remains limited and activities have mostly occurred in non-Article 5 countries so far TEAP continues to monitor progress pursuant to Decision XXI/2 para 7 & has viewed with interest the content of ExCom 64/49 M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 1, M o n t r e a l

Verification Criteria for Destruction (2) One of the barriers has been lack of local destruction facilities that can verify destruction Current MP Code of Good Housekeeping has much useful guidance but does not provide an auditing framework for quantified savings Lack of verification options has prevented international destruction facilities from being eligible so far in ODS Destruction Protocols of carbon crediting standards organisations (e.g. Climate Action Reserve) Possible text has been proposed in the Progress Report (Section 5.6) as a Voluntary Annex to the current Code of Good Housekeeping M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O E W G - 3 1 m e e t i n g, 1 - 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 1, M o n t r e a l