MONTREAL PROTOCOL
ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE
THE OZONE LAYER
UNEP
Report of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
May 2014
Volume 1
Progress Report
1
May 2004 TEAP Progress Report
UNEP
May 2014 Report of the
Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel
Volume 1
Progress Report
1
Montreal Protocol
On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
Report of the
UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
May 2014
Volume 1
Progress Report
The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman.
Co-ordination:Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
Composition of the report:Lambert Kuijpers, Bella Maranion, Marta Pizano
Layout and formatting:Lambert Kuijpers (UNEP TEAP)
Ozone Secretariat (UNEP)
Date:May 2014
Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from:
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya
This document is also available in portable document format from the UNEP Ozone Secretariat's website:
No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with acknowledgement of the source of the material.
1
May 2014 TEAP Progress Report
Disclaimer
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committees Co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation - more information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements will become available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.
UNEP, the TEAP Co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committees Co-chairs and members, and the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing this information, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information.
Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product, either express or implied by UNEP, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Co-chairs or members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee Co-chairs or members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs or members or the companies or organisations that employ them.
Acknowledgements
The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, its Technical Options Committees and the Task Forces Co-chairs and members acknowledges with thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals and organisations that provided support to Panel, Committees and Task Forces Co-chairs and members. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel, the Committees and Task Forces and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.
TEAP thanks the Multilateral Fund Secretariat for the Montreal Protocol, Montreal, Canada for hosting the TEAP meeting, 4-9 May 2014, where the elements for this report were first discussed and decisions were taken for the submission of the final parts of the report.
Foreword
The May 2014 TEAP Report
The May 2014 TEAP Report consists of six volumes:
Volume 1: May 2014 TEAP Progress Report
Volume 2: May 2014 TEAP Essential Use Nominations Report
Volume 3: May 2014 TEAP Critical Use Nominations Report
Volume 4: TEAP Decision XXV/5 Task Force Report on information on alternatives to ODS
Volume 5: TEAP Decision XXV/6 Report on TOC appointment processes, future configurations and the streamlining of annual (progress) reports
Volume 6: TEAP Decision XXV/8 Task Force on the funding requirement for the 2015-2017 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
- Volume 1 contains the TOC progress reports, and a chapter “Other TEAP Matters”, discussing the status of (re-) nominations and challenges to the participation of experts, as well as an annex with the list of TEAP and TOC members, status May 2014
- Volume 2 contains the assessment of the 2014 essential use nominations by the CTOC and the MTOC
- Volume 3 contains the assessment of the 2014 critical use nominations by the MBTOC
- Volume 4 is the report of the TEAP Task Force responding to Decision XXV/5 on information on alternatives to ODS in the refrigeration and air conditioning, foams, medical uses, fire protection and solvent sectors
- Volume 5 contains a description by the TEAP on the TOC appointment processes and their future configurations and the streamlining of the annual (progress) reportsin response to Decision XXV/6
- Volume 6 is the report of the TEAP Task Force responding to Decision XXV/8 on the funding requirement for the 2015-2017 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol.
This is Volume 1, the TEAP May 2014 Progress report.
The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP):
Lambert Kuijpers, co-chair / NL / Jose Pons-Pons / VENBella Maranion, co-chair / USA / Ian Porter / AUS
Marta Pizano, co-chair / COL / Miguel Quintero / COL
Paul Ashford / UK / Helen Tope / AUS
Mohamed Besri / MOR / Dan Verdonik / USA
David Catchpole / UK / Ashley Woodcock / UK
Marco Gonzalez / CR / Masaaki Yamabe / J
Sergey Kopylov / RF / Shiqiu Zhang / PRC
Kei-ichi Ohnishi / J / Jianjung Zhang / PRC
Roberto Peixoto / BRA
UNEP
May 2014 Report of the
Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel
Volume 1
Progress Report
Table of Contents...... Page
Foreword
1Introduction......
2Chemicals TOC (CTOC) Progress Report......
2.1Introduction......
2.2Process Agents......
2.3Feedstocks......
2.3.1Introduction......
2.3.2Montreal Protocol definitions......
2.3.3How the ODS feedstocks are used......
2.3.4Estimated emissions of ODS......
2.5n-PB update......
2.6Solvents......
3Foams TOC (FTOC) Progress Report......
3.1 Progress on phasing out ODS in Article 5 Parties......
3.2 On-going work on low-GWP alternatives to ODS and HFCs......
4Halons TOC (HTOC) Progress Report......
4.1 Civil Aviation......
4.2 Halon Supply/Demand......
4.3 Global Emissions......
4.4 Halon Alternatives......
5Medical TOC (MTOC) Status Report......
6Methyl Bromide TOC (MBTOC) Progress Report......
6.1Introduction......
6.2.Trends in Methyl Bromide production and consumption for controlled uses......
6.3.Progress on alternatives to MB for soil fumigation......
6.3.1.Non chemical alternatives......
6.3.2.Chemical alternatives and regulatory issues......
6.3.3.Remaining and emerging challenges impacting MB phase-out for soils uses......
6.4.Progress on MB alternatives for Structures and Commodities......
6.4.1.Chemical alternatives and regulatory issues......
6.4.2.Non chemical alternatives......
6.4.3.Alternatives to MB in ham house disinfestation......
6.5. QPS Uses of MB (exempted uses)......
6.5.1. Consumption......
6.5.2.Relevant issues for QPS use of MB......
6.5.3.International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)......
6.6.Update on Decision XV/12 - Alternatives for the treatment of high moisture dates......
6.7Update on Decision XXIII/12: Recapture and destruction technologies for methyl bromide.....
6.7.1.Concentrated sources of methyl bromide......
6.7.2.Dilute sources of methyl bromide......
6.8References......
7Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps TOC (RTOC)......
7.1Task Force XXIV/7 report......
7.2Task Force XXV/5 and XXV/8 reports......
7.32014 Assessment Report status......
7.4Progress on alternatives......
8 Other TEAP matters......
8.1 Status of TOC reappointments......
8.1.1CTOC......
8.1.2FTOC......
8.1.3HTOC......
8.1.4MTOC......
8.1.5MBTOC......
8.1.6RTOC......
8.2Continuing challenges......
ANNEX: TEAP and TOC membership list status May 2014......
1
TEAP May 2014 Progress Report
1Introduction
This is volume 1 of 6 of the May 2014 TEAP Report and contains:
- the CTOC progress report;
- the FTOC progress report;
- the HTOC progress report;
- the MTOC status report;
- the MBTOC progress report;
- the RTOC progress report;
- TEAP and TOC organization issues; and
an annex of the TEAP and TOC membership list, status May 2014, which includes the terms for re-appointment, where available.
1
TEAP May 2014 Progress Report
2Chemicals TOC (CTOC) Progress Report
2.1Introduction
The CTOC met on 8-10 April in Madrid, Spain. Ten out of fifteen CTOC members participated in the meeting. Attending members were from China (2), France, India, Japan, Kuwait, Mauritius, Russian Federation, and United States of America.
The meeting covered issues requested by the Parties including process agents, laboratory and analytical uses, n-Propyl Bromide, CTC issues and feedstocks. Attention was also given to considering TEAP/TOC operating procedures and the requirement of Decision XXIII/10 that the present terms of members would end in 2013 or 2014, although re-appointment was possible. The CTOC also reviewed twoessential use nominations (EUNs), one from the Russian Federation on solvent use of CFC-113 for aerospaceindustries and anoher from China on CTC laboratory and analytical use (testing oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water). The results of the CTOC reviews on those EUNs have been in cluded inVolume 2 of the May 2014 TEAP Report (Essential Use Nominations).
2.2Process Agents
Decision XXII/8(5) requested TEAP for 2011, to review in 2013, and every second year thereafter, progress made in reducing process agent uses and to make any additional recommendations to Parties on further actions to reduce uses and emissions of process agents. CTOC will prepare a report in 2015.
2.3Feedstocks
2.3.1Introduction
Feedstocks are building blocks to allow cost-effective commercial synthesis of other chemicals. Use of such compounds as carbon tetrachloride (CTC), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) (also referred to as methyl chloroform), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and several others, all ozone depleting substances, as feedstocks allow incorporation of fluorine atoms into molecule structures. Products used as refrigerants, blowing agents, solvents, polymers, pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals are produced to benefit society. The feedstocks used to produce these chemicals have been carefully selected for these uses as there are no other technologically and economically viable alternative routes available at this time. Such choices involve large investments of capital with plant lifetimes as long as 50 years when properly maintained and upgraded. Feedstocks are converted to other products except for de minimus residues and emissions. Emissions in feedstock use consist of residual levels in the ultimate products and fugitive leaks in the production, storage and/or transport processes. Significant investments and efforts are spent to handle these feedstocks in a responsible, environmentally sensitive manner.
2.3.2Montreal Protocol definitions
The Montreal Protocol in Article 1, clause 5, defines Production as follows: “Production means the amount of controlled substances produced, minus the amount destroyed by technologies to be approved by the Parties and minus the amount entirely used as feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. The amount recycled and reused is not to be considered as Production.” The nature of feedstocks was amplified in Decision VII/30 and although concern was later expressed about emissions of ODS from feedstock uses (Decision X/12) it is argued that feedstocks are not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.
2.3.3How the ODS feedstocks are used
These ODSs can be feedstocks by being fed directly into the process as a raw material stream or as an intermediate in the synthesis of another product. Losses can occur during production, storage, transport, if necessary, and transfers. Intermediates are normally stored and used at the same site therefore fugitive leaks are somewhat lower in this case. Extraordinary efforts are made to minimize such losses.
Table 2-1 shows common feedstock applications but is not necessarily exhaustive.
Table 2-1Common feedstock applications of ozone-depleting substances
Feedstock ODS / Product / Further conversion / CommentsHCFC-21 / HCFC-225 / Product used as solvent.
CFC-113 / Chlorotrifluoro-ethylene / Polymerized to poly-chlorotrifluoroethylene / Barrier film in moisture-resistant packaging.
CFC-11 / HFC-134a / The sequence for production of this refrigerant gas may begin with CFC-113, which is converted to CFC-113a and thence to CFC-114a.
CFC-113 and –113a / HFC-134a and HFC-125 / Very high-volume use.
HCFC-22 / Tetrafluoroethylene / Polymerized to homopolymer (PTFE) and also co-polymers / Very high-volume use. Work has been done for decades to find an alternative commercial route, but without success.
1,1,1-trichloroethane / HCFC-141b, -142b, and -143a / Continues until 2030 Note alternative feedstock 1,1,-dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride) that is not an ODS.
HCFC-142b / Vinylidene fluoride / Polymerized to poly-vinylidene fluoride or co-polymers. / Products are specialty elastomers, likely to have continuing uses and thus continuing feedstock use of 142b.
CTC / CFC-11 and CFC-12 / Production and consumption of these CFCs, and thus this feedstock use, have fallen to very low levels.
CTC / Chlorocarbons / Feedstock for production of HFC-245fa and new HFOs. / HFOs have zero ODP and ultra-low GWP.
CTC with 2-chloropropene / Intermediates / Production of HFC-365mfc
CTC with vinylidene chloride / Intermediates / Production of close to 1 million pounds annually.
HCFC-123, HFC-113a and HFC-133a / Intermediates for TFA and trifluoroethanol / Production of pharmaceuticals and agrichemicals
HCFC-133a / Anaesthetic halothane
Halon-1301 / Production of the pesticide Fipronil
HCFC-123 / HFC-125
HFC-124 / HFC-125
CTC / Intermediates
Production of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) / Pyrethroid pesticides. / CCl3 groups in molecules of intermediates become =CCl2 groups in pyrethroids.
The CTOC has received a listing of more than 50 examples of feedstock uses just in the EU. Many are small in nature for very specific niche manufacture in addition to the major uses cited above. Based on this list, the EU estimated in 2011 annual use of between 100,000 and 200,000 tonnes of ODSs as feedstocks in that region. The estimated annual use in China is about 200,000 tonnes, with quantities HCFC-22 > CTC > other ODS.
2.3.4Estimated emissions of ODS
Data have been received from the Ozone Secretariat reporting production, import and export of ODS used as feedstocks for the year 2012. Table 2-2 summarizes the volume of ODSs used as feedstocks in 2012 These also include volumes used as process agents as Parties are directed to report such consumption in a manner consistent to what is done for feedstocks. Detailed information can be found in the spreadsheet provided by UNEP as an attachment. Total production for feedstock uses was 1,136,807 tonnes and represents a total of 461,314 ODP tonnes. Compared with production for feedstock uses in 2011, this represents a 4% increase (ca. 42.9K tonnes). The biggest increase was for CFC-113 which increased by 28K tonnes or 23%. CFC-113 is commonly used as a feedstock in HFC-134a production.
Estimation of emissions is an inexact science. Sophistication of the operating entity can heavily influence emission amounts. Highly automated, tight and well instrumented facilities with proper procedures closely observed can have emission levels as low as 0.1% of the amount used as feedstock. On the other extreme would be batch processes of limited scale with less tight and less concern for operational excellence, which can have emission levels up to 5%. The largest volumes of feedstock use are at the lower end of the scale as large capacity plants have the most investment and are able to control emission levels well. In order to generate some guidance values, the IPCC guideline for emissions of HFC plants of 0.5% of feedstock use, was used to estimate feedstock emissions. Based on using this guidance figure, the total emissions associated with feedstock and process agent use in 2012 was approximately 5,684 tonnes or 2,307 ODP tonnes.
In a recently published paper in Nature Geosciences, “Newly Detected Ozone Depleting Substances in the Atmosphere”, by Laube et al, the presence of CFC-113a, CFC-112, CFC-112a and HCFC-133a were reported. Sources of these compounds as pollutants were not defined. The use of CFC-113a and HCFC-133a has been included previously in reports of the CTOC and, as such, these are not new compounds. Their use is growing as they are feedstocks used in HFC production. HFC production, initially limited to non Article 5Parties, is leveling in these regions. Their production in Article 5 Parties is now growing rapidly. The atmospheric concentration of CFC-112 and CFC-112a is declining. If one were to hypothesize that all the atmospherically measured 113a and 133a were sourced from feedstock use (worst case scenario) and the accumulated production to date of associated HFCs- 134a, 125 and 143a were considered, the worst emission rate calculated would be on the order of 1.6%. This could be considered a realistic upper limit of feedstock and production emissions given these real life measurements.
The CTOC has also reviewed in detail the EU-sponsored study, the “Information Paper on Feedstock Uses of Ozone-Depleting Substances" conducted by Touchdown Consulting, December, 2012 provided by the European Union. As well as providing excellent background data including a full analysis of all previous CTOC and TEAP reports, it details best-case and worst-case (assuming all production is “small batch” with emissions of 5% of feedstock) emissions scenarios for the TEAP emissions factors when applied to feedstock production.
For 2011, analysis of the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR: shows that the EU emissions of HCFCs were 245.9 metric tonnes of which 198.4 tonnes can be attributed to production and feedstock uses. EU Production of HCFCs in 2012 was reported (European Environment Agency) as 117,702.787 metric tonnes. In addition, the E-PRTR reportsCTC emissions in the EU to be 167.7 tonnes (of which 110 tonnes is from a process agent use) from a production of 34,020 tonnes.This means that emission levels of approximately. 0.2% were achieved in this technologically advanced region where use of waste destruction capability is installed on vents.This level is much lower than the IPCC guidelines of 0.5% used in our estimate of emissions.This also serves to illustrate the effectiveness of local regulation and oversight, and industrial diligence in managing and control of ODS emissions in feedstock use.
Table 2-2 Amounts of ODSs used as feedstocks in 2012
2012 Feedstock production by compoundSubstance / ODP / (tonnes) / (ODP tonnes)
CFC-12 / 1 / 0 / 0
CFC-113 / 0.8 / 151673 / 121338
CFC-114 / 1 / 67601 / 67601
Halon-1301 / 10 / 1471 / 14710
Halon-2402 / 6 / 0 / 0
CFC-112 / 1 / 0 / 0
CFC-217 / 1 / 0 / 0
CTC / 1.1 / 191969 / 211166
Methyl / 0.1 / 101521 / 10152
chloroform
HCFC-22 / 0.055 / 459116 / 25251
HCFC-122 / 0.08 / 0 / 0
HCFC-123 / 0.02 / 5787 / 116
HCFC-124 / 0.022 / 37707 / 830
HCFC-133 / 0.06 / 1279 / 77
HCFC-141b / 0.11 / 12748 / 1402
HCFC-142 / 0.07
HCFC-142b / 0.065 / 102174 / 6641
HCFC-235 / 0.52 / 0 / 0
HBCFC-22 / 0.74 / 77 / 57
HBCFC-31 / 0.73 / 0 / 0
Halon-1011 / 0.12 / 496 / 60
Methyl / 0.6 / 3188 / 1913
Bromide
Total / 1136807 / 461314
2.5n-PB update
For some years the CTOC has been reporting, on the one hand, the lack of data on production and consumption of nPB and, on the other hand, the growing concern over workplace toxicity of this substance. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) proposed a reduction of the TLV® for n-propyl bromide from 10 ppm to 0.1 ppm in 2012, and finally released 2014 editions of TLVs® and BELs book that shows 0.1ppm of TWA for nPB. Also, Japan Society for Occupational Health proposed to set the TLV of nPB to 0.5ppm in 2013.