1 TEAP Report of the XXII10 Task Force 2 Decision XXII10 Task Force Membership Cochairs Ian Rae Australia Paul Ashford UK Members ID: 1044935
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "1 M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l O ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. 1M 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 l1 TEAPReport of the XXII/10 Task Force
2. 2Decision XXII/10 Task Force MembershipCo-chairs Ian Rae - Australia Paul Ashford - UKMembers 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
3. 3Outline of Decision XXII/10To update the Destruction and Removal Efficiencies (DRE) for existing substances To evaluate and recommend a DRE for methyl bromideTo review the existing List of Approved Technologies To further evaluate Emerging Technologies identified in the 2010 Progress Report and submissions related to themTo consider other developments including those notified through the call for submissionsTo 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
4. 4Update on Destruction CriteriaDestruction 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 consideredOther chemical destruction protocols are increasingly favouring DETask Force is not proposing a specific change but need to keep the matter under review by PartiesShift 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
5. 5Methyl Bromide Destruction (1)The Decision focuses on destruction efficiency rather than recovery efficiencyPending 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 emissionsM 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
6. 6Methyl Bromide Destruction (2)Submissions on methyl bromide received from SRL Plasma and NordikoInsufficient data/experience to approve these submissions SRL Plasma considered as having ‘high potential’, although initial run(s) showed incomplete destructionNordiko 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
7. 7Summary of other ODS AssessmentsM 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 lSponsorTechnology TypeCurrent AssessmentCommentsSGL CarbonThermal OxidationRecommended for ApprovalNoneLesni A/SGas phase catalytic de-halogenationHigh PotentialSubsequent review pending decisions on review of criteria ASADA CorporationSmall scale PlasmaRecommended for ApprovalDespite small-scale, still meets screened in criteriaMidwest RefrigerantsIrreversible transformationRecommended for ApprovalSemi-commercial but still sufficient evidence University of NewcastleIrreversible transformationRecommended for ApprovalInitial concerns on conversion levels addressed
8. 8Verification 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 optionsMeasurement of recovery efficiencies is more important now that credits for climate benefit need to be quantifiedGeographic experience remains limited and activities have mostly occurred in non-Article 5 countries so farTEAP continues to monitor progress pursuant to Decision XXI/2 para 7 & has viewed with interest the content of ExCom 64/49M 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
9. 9Verification 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 HousekeepingM 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