UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/31/L.2/Add.1

UNITED
NATIONS / EP
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/31/L.2/Add.1
/ United Nations
Environment
Programme / Distr.: Limited
5 August 2011
English only

Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer
Thirty-first meeting

Montreal, 1–5 August 2011

Summaries of presentations by the members of the assessment panels and the technical options committees[1]

Addendum

I.Presentation on the progress report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (agenda item 6 (b))

Michelle Marcotte, MBTOC Co-chair, summarized the interim recommendations for the critical use nominations pertaining to structures and commodities. There were six CUNs, plus aspects of a multi-element CUN for MB on research in alternatives. Parties submitting CUNs were Australia, Canada, Japan and the US. Interim recommended amounts of MB were given for five CUNs and one was unable to assess pending the receipt of research results. One aspect of the postharvest research CUN was also unable to assess pending the receipt of further information. This information has since been received from the Party and it will be assessed before the next TEAP report.

Marcotte also summarized the postharvest aspects of the Assessment Report and the Progress Report. The Assessment Report reviews all alternatives to the use of MB for structures and commodities with special emphasis on integrated pest management, heat and sulfuryl fluoride for structures and on numerous fumigants and also controlled atmosphere treatment for commodities. In addition there is a special section on treatments for dates. The TEAP Progress Report focuses on a review of the fumigant sulfuryl fluoride with the intent to provide data and analysis which will improve its efficacy and reduce the prospect for pest resistance.

II.Presentation by the task force on the environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances (decisionXXI/2, paragraph 7, and decision XXII/10)

Co-chair Mr Ian Rae introduced the members of the Task Force and the requirements of Decision XXII/10. He outlined the Task Force approach to the two criteria: Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) and the more comprehensive Destruction Efficiency (DE), the suggested lowering of the dioxin/furan criterion, and the use of chlorine-related TEQs for the brominated dioxins and furans. Four of the submitted technologies for ODS destruction were recommended for approval and a further two were seen as highly promising (one concerning methyl bromide). A further methyl bromide technology was considered as unable to assess. In answer to a question on dioxin/furan concentration standards, he said these were internationally recognised but that jurisdictions could recognise alternative criteria such as quantities emitted. Mr. Paul Ashford continued the presentation by noting that the emphasis on the destruction of ODS had largely moved from production stockpiles to end-of-life recovery and destruction processes. With this shift had come an increasing need to have localised destruction facilities. These facilities would need to deal with a number of product types, with particular challenges arising from foams. He noted that experience was still largely limited to non-Article 5 countries and that TEAP was awaiting for further information from the Executive Committee on ODS bank management projects in order to respond fully to Decision XXI/2 para 7. In this context, TEAP welcomed the report contained in ExCom 64/49.In many instances the quantification of destroyed amounts was rapidly becoming a pre-requisite for co-financing and some ODS Destruction Protocols were restricting the number of facilities that could qualify through lack of appropriate verification criteria. It had been recognised that the Code of Good Housekeeping, whilst useful, was not sufficiently definitive to be the basis of verification. In this respect a proposal had been made for the text of a possible Voluntary Annex and this was contained in Section 5.6 of the TEAP’s 2011 Progress Report. In answer to a question from Australia concerning the DRE proposal for methyl bromide, Mr. Ashford confirmed that the experience on destruction of methyl bromide was limited, leading to the proposal for a relatively precautionary DRE of 99.99%. He noted that this could be reviewed with a possible wider review of ODS destruction criteria in due course. It was noted that methyl bromide should be well destroyed by plasma technologies in view of the temperatures achieved.

______

1

[1]The summaries in the present document appear as submitted by the presenters, without formal editing.