1. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l 1 1

2. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l

3. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l

4. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l

5. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l

6. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l

7. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l

8. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l

9. 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 m e e t i n g, A u g u s t , M o n t r e a l