ozone.unep.org › sites › default › files › 2020-06 › teap... · 2020-06-03 · may 2020...

MONTREAL PROTOCOLON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETETHE OZONE LAYER

REPORT OF THETECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

PANEL

MAY 2020

VOLUME 1: PROGRESS REPORT

May 2020 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1 iii

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

May 2020

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: Bella Maranion, Marta Pizano, Ashley Woodcock Layout and formatting: Marta Pizano (UNEP TEAP) Date: May 2020 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:

https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with acknowledgement of the source of the material. ISBN: 978-9966-076-83-0 

May 2020 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1 iv

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 TEAP Task Force Co-chairs and members acknowledges with thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals and organisations that provided support to Panel, Committees and TEAP Task Force Co-chairs and members. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel, the Committees and TEAP Task Forces and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.

May 2020 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1 v

Foreword

The May 2020 TEAP Report

The 2020 TEAP Report consists of four volumes:

Volume 1: TEAP 2020 Progress Report TOC Progress Reports

TEAP Response to Decision XXXI/8 TEAP administrative issues and lists of TEAP and TOC members at May 2020 Matrix of expertise

Volume 2: MBTOC Interim CUN Assessment Report – May 2020

Volume 3: Task Force Report on Decision XXXI/1: Terms of reference for the study on the 2021–2023 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol

This is Volume 1

The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP):

Bella Maranion, co-chair US Roberto Peixoto BRA Marta Pizano, co-chair COL Fabio Polonara IT Ashley Woodcock, co-chair UK Ian Porter AUS Omar Abdelaziz EGY Rajendra Shende IN Paulo Altoe BRA Sidi Menad Si-Ahmed ALG Suely Machado Carvalho BRA Helen Tope AUS Adam Chattaway UK Dan Verdonik US Marco Gonzalez CR Helen Walter-Terrinoni US Sergey Kopylov RF Shiqiu Zhang PRC Kei-ichi Ohnishi J Jianjun Zhang PRC

May 2020 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER .................................................................................................................................................... IV

FOREWORD ....................................................................................................................................................... V

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Key messages ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 FTOC ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1.2 HTOC ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.3 MBTOC ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.4 MCTOC ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.5 RTOC ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2 FLEXIBLE AND RIGID FOAMS TOC (FTOC) PROGRESS REPORT ................................................. 4

2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2. Global foams market .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Major issues influencing the global foams market ........................................................................... 5 2.4. Factors affecting blowing agent choice ............................................................................................. 6 2.5. Low-pressure spray foam ................................................................................................................... 7 2.6. Additional blowing agents in current use ......................................................................................... 8

2.6.1. Extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam blowing agents ............................................................................ 8 3 HALONS TOC (HTOC) PROGRESS REPORT ..................................................................................... 11

3.1. Key issues ........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.1. Availability and quality of recycled halon ................................................................................... 11 3.1.2. Knowledge and training ............................................................................................................... 12 3.1.3. New developments in aviation fire protection ............................................................................. 12

3.2. New fire extinguishing agents .......................................................................................................... 13 4 METHYL BROMIDE TOC (MBTOC) PROGRESS REPORT ............................................................. 15

4.1. Global MB production and consumption ....................................................................................... 15 4.1.1. Production and consumption of methyl bromide for controlled uses .......................................... 15 4.1.2. Methyl bromide production and consumption for QPS (exempted) uses .................................... 16

4.2. Update on alternatives for remaining critical uses ........................................................................ 17 4.2.1. In the soil sector ........................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.1.1. Strawberry runner production – Australia and Canada ................................................... 17 4.2.1.2. Strawberry fruit production in Argentina ......................................................................... 17 4.2.1.3. Greenhouse tomatoes in Argentina ................................................................................... 18 4.2.1.4. Structures and commodities sector – mills and houses in South Africa ............................ 19

4.3. QPS uses of methyl bromide ............................................................................................................ 20 4.3.1. Chemical alternatives .................................................................................................................. 20

4.3.1.1. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) ................................................................................................. 20 4.3.1.2. Ethyl formate (EF) ............................................................................................................ 20 4.3.1.3. Phosphine (PH3) ............................................................................................................... 21 4.3.1.4. Nitric oxide (NO) .............................................................................................................. 21 4.3.1.5. Ethanedinitrile (EDN) ....................................................................................................... 21 4.3.1.6. Sulfuryl fluoride (SF) ........................................................................................................ 21

4.3.2. Non-chemical alternatives ........................................................................................................... 22 4.3.2.1. Irradiation ......................................................................................................................... 22 4.3.2.2. Controlled atmospheres and temperature treatments ....................................................... 22

4.4. Methyl bromide emissions and recapture ....................................................................................... 23 4.5. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) ....................................................................... 23 4.6. Other issues ....................................................................................................................................... 24

May 2020 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1 viii

4.6.1. Pre-plant soil fumigation and post-harvest use of MB in US ...................................................... 24 4.6.2. Post-harvest use for cured hams .................................................................................................. 24 4.6.3. Study on emergency uses of MB in the US ................................................................................. 25 4.6.4. Sulfuryl fluoride and its GWP ..................................................................................................... 25 4.6.5. Reporting of methyl bromide stocks and their uses ..................................................................... 25 4.6.3. Fumigation of waste material under QPS .................................................................................... 26

4.7. Economic issues ................................................................................................................................. 27 4.8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 27

5 MEDICAL AND CHEMICALS TOC (MCTOC) PROGRESS REPORT ............................................ 37 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 37 5.2 Metered dose inhalers ....................................................................................................................... 37 5.3 Use of controlled substances for chemical feedstock ..................................................................... 39

5.3.1. The difference between a reportable feedstock and an intermediate ........................................... 39 5.3.2. Common feedstock applications of ODS ..................................................................................... 39 5.3.3 Recent and historical trends in ODS feedstock uses .................................................................... 42 5.3.4 CFC-113 and CFC-113a feedstock and intermediate use and emissions..................................... 44 5.3.5 HFCs used as feedstock ............................................................................................................... 47 5.3.6 Estimated emissions from feedstock use ..................................................................................... 47

5.4 HFC-23 by-production and emissions ............................................................................................. 50 5.5 Destruction Technologies ................................................................................................................. 51

5.5.1 Destruction technologies approved by parties ............................................................................. 52 5.5.2 Background to TEAP assessment of destruction technologies .................................................... 52 5.5.3 Suggested information requirements for TEAP assessment under decision XXX/6 ................... 55 5.5.4 Preliminary information submitted by Guyana on a destruction technology ............................... 56

5.6 Process Agents ................................................................................................................................... 57 5.7 Laboratory and Analytical uses ....................................................................................................... 57

6 REFRIGERATION, AIR CONDITIONING AND HEAT PUMPS TOC (RTOC) PROGRESS REPORT ...................................................................................................................................................... 59

6.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 59 6.2. Refrigerants ....................................................................................................................................... 61 6.3. Commercial, domestic and ultra-low temperature refrigeration ................................................. 62 6.4. Industrial refrigeration .................................................................................................................... 63 6.5. Transport refrigeration .................................................................................................................... 64 6.6. Air-to-air air conditioners (AC) and heat pumps (HP) ................................................................. 64 6.7. Water heating heat pumps ............................................................................................................... 65 6.8. Chillers ............................................................................................................................................... 65 6.9. Mobile air conditioning (MAC) ....................................................................................................... 66 6.10. Energy efficiency and sustainability applied to refrigeration systems ......................................... 66 6.11. Not-in-kind technologies................................................................................................................... 67

6.11.1. Emerging technologies ................................................................................................................ 68 6.12. High ambient temperature (HAT) .................................................................................................. 68 6.13. Modelling of RACHP systems ......................................................................................................... 68

7 RESPONSE TO DECISION XXX/7: FUTURE AVAILABILITY OF HALONS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 75

7.1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 75 7.2. Mandate and scope of the report ..................................................................................................... 75 7.3. Engagement with the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil

Aviation Organization ...................................................................................................................... 76 7.3.1. IMO Engagement ........................................................................................................................ 76

May 2020 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1 ix

7.3.2. ICAO Engagement ...................................................................................................................... 77 7.4. Identify ways to enhance the recovery of halons from the breaking of ships .............................. 77 7.5. Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Civil Aviation........................................................................... 78 7.6. Future work ....................................................................................................................................... 80

7.6.1. Future Engagement with ICAO ................................................................................................... 80 7.6.2. Model changes in halon emissions as a consequence of COVID-19 ........................................... 80 7.6.3. Decommissioning of older aircraft ............................................................................................. 81 7.6.4. Effect of COVID-19 on shipbreaking .......................................................................................... 81

7.7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 82 8 DECISION XXXI/8 AND OTHER TEAP MATTERS ............................................................................ 83

8.1. Response to Decision XXXI/8 .......................................................................................................... 83 8.1.1. Nomination processes, taking into account the matrix of needed expertise and already available

expertise ...................................................................................................................................... 83 8.1.2. Proposed nominations and appointment decisions ...................................................................... 84 8.1.3. Termination of appointments ....................................................................................................... 85 8.1.4. Replacements ............................................................................................................................... 85

8.2. TEAP and TOCs organisational and other matters ...................................................................... 85 8.2.1. FTOC ........................................................................................................................................... 86 8.2.2. HTOC .......................................................................................................................................... 86 8.2.3. MBTOC ....................................................................................................................................... 87 8.2.4. MCTOC ....................................................................................................................................... 87 8.2.5. RTOC .......................................................................................................................................... 87

8.3 Continuing challenges ...................................................................................................................... 88 ANNEX 1: TEAP AND TOC MEMBERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION.................................................. 89

1. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 2020 ......................................................... 89 2. TEAP Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC) ................................... 90 3. TEAP Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) .................................................................. 91 4. TEAP Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) .............................................. 92 5. TEAP Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee (MCTOC) .................................. 93 6. TEAP Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee

(RTOC) .............................................................................................................................................. 95 ANNEX 2: MATRIX OF NEEDED EXPERTISE........................................................................................... 97

ANNEX 3: NOMINATION FORM ................................................................................................................. 99

May 2020 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1 1

1 Introduction

This is volume 1 of 3 of the May 2020 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Report and contains Progress Reports from the five Technical Options Committees (TOCs) that compose the TEAP: Flexible and Rigid Foams TOC (FTOC), Halons TOC (HTOC), Methyl Bromide TOC (MBTOC), Medical and Chemicals TOC (MCTOC) and Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps TOC (RTOC).

This report also contains TEAP’s response to decision XXXI/8 “Terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies – procedures relevant to nominations,” taken by the parties at their 31st Meeting of the Parties (MOP). Information relevant to this decision includes the TEAP and TOC membership lists, as at 31st May 2020, including each member and their term of appointment; the expertise brought together by each TOC; and the matrix of needed expertise for the TEAP and its TOCs.

TEAP would like to express its sincere gratitude for the voluntary service and contributions of members of the TOC and Task Force members and their contributions to date on the 2020 TEAP reports. This has been a particularly challenging task in view of the COVID-19 pandemic which imposed necessary restrictions to global travel, and changes to scheduled meetings and typical modes of working. To meet these challenges in delivering its reports to parties and ensuring the safety of its members, TEAP and some of its TOCs and Task Forces have held their meetings virtually, and will continue to do so until the global situation changes. We want to express our sincere appreciation to the Ozone Secretariat for its assistance in providing the TEAP with access to its virtual meeting platform and for providing support during the meetings in order to continue our work for parties.

1.1 Key messages

TEAP presents the main findings of the 2020 Progress Report, as key messages from each of the TOC specifically relating to their sectors of work as follows:

1.1.1 FTOC

Although the cost of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) was approximately 20-30% of the cost of high- global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), HCFC price is increasing as they are phased out globally. The low price of some high-GWP HFCs, particularly HFC-365mfc which is banned in some non-Artilce 5 (non-A5) parties, is leading to an increase in market share, which is slowing the conversion to low-GWP blowing agents.

Hydrocarbon is reportedly being tested as a blowing agent for spray foam by at least one company. FTOC is seeking additional details on the safety measures being taken to address potential fire and explosion risk.

The import of ozone depleting foam blowing agents is controlled or under license, and more parties are controlling the import of polyols containing HCFC-141b or other ozone depleting substances (ODS).

1.1.2 HTOC

HTOC has identified several issues affecting the availability and quality of recovered halon from the civil aviation sector. To address these issues parties may wish to consider:

• Re-emphasising the need to allow for open trade of recovered, recycled and/or reclaimed halons in bulk containers or in prefilled fire protection components needed to support legacy


halon uses, including civil aviation components required to allow aircraft to operate under international airworthiness requirements; and

• Emphasising the importance of effective and complete recovery of halons to those parties with ship-breaking activities to minimise halon losses,

Many personnel who are responsible for managing fire protection agents controlled by the Montreal Protocol, are not experienced with the issues surrounding the use, recovery, recycling, reclamation and banking of these agents. To address these issues parties may wish to consider:

• Supporting programmes to mitigate the loss in institutional memory of fire protection agents controlled under the Montreal Protocol; and

• Supporting awareness programmes to address recovery, recycling, reclamation and banking of HCFCs and also HFC fire protection agents, under the Kigali Amendment.

Although research and development (R&D) continues, especially in regard to civil aviation applications, the certification timescales are long and it will still be several years before any of the fire extinguishing agent currently being evaluated will be in service on aircraft.

1.1.3 MBTOC

Data reported under Article 7 show that since 2005, about 2,950 tonnes of the methyl bromide (MB) production for controlled uses has not been accounted for as consumption for controlled uses. Quantities of MB sought by parties for controlled uses under the critical use exemption are declining and small (89 t), however substantial stocks (approximately 1,500 t) appear to be in use for controlled uses; the exact amount is unknown. MB consumption in both Article 5 (A5) and non-A5 parties has increased, despite some parties no longer using MB for quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS), and QPS uses are now the major anthropogenic contributor of methyl bromide to the stratosphere. MBTOC continues to be concerned in this continuing upward trend and its implications on emissions and continues to consider opportunities to reduce emissions (e.g., recapture/recycle of MB). From 2015 to the end of 2018, QPS consumption increased globally by 25% to 11,090 tonnes. The consumption in both A5 and non-A5 parties has increased, despite some parties no longer using MB for QPS. This increase in QPS consumption coincided with an increase of MB concentration in the atmosphere from 2015-2017, although more recent MB concentrations in the atmosphere (2019-2020) appear to be in decline. MBTOC considers accurate reporting and correct determination of QPS categories of use will be important to assist future development and adoption of alternatives globally. Consideration of further implementation/feasibility/economics of re-capture/ recycling of MB used for QPS in different sectors and regions as a way to reduce emissions whilst still using MB would contribute to ozone layer protection.

1.1.4 MCTOC

Two pharmaceutical companies have announced they are developing new metered-dose inhaler (MDI) formulations containing propellants, hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)-1234ze(E) and HFC-152a. Recent scientific papers conclude atmospheric-derived emissions and emissions trends of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-113 and CFC-113a are higher than expected based on reported production for feedstock uses. A comprehensive understanding of the production and use of CFC-113 and CFC-113a as a feedstock or as an intermediate would contribute to a better understanding of global and regional emissions. Parties may wish to consider reviewing their CFC-113/113a production to manufacture chemicals to ensure that feedstock production of CFC-113/113a is being fully captured


in Article 7 data reporting, noting that in situ production of intermediates is not required to be reported as production for feedstock uses. To develop a better understanding of CFC-113/113a emissions, the activity of in situ production of controlled substances as intermediates to manufacture chemicals may need to be accounted. Parties may wish to consider how best to account for production of controlled substances as intermediates in the absence of reported data. HFC-23 is a by-product from the production of HCFC-22. According to a recent scientific paper, global HFC-23 emissions derived from atmospheric measurements were historically at their highest level in 2018, in contrast to expected emissions of HFC-23 by-product, primarily from reported HCFC-22 production, that were much lower. The paper concludes that the discrepancy makes it possible that planned reductions in HFC-23 emissions may not have been fully realised or there may be substantial unreported production of HCFC-22, both or either of which would result in unaccounted for HFC-23 by-product emissions.

1.1.5 RTOC

Since the publication of the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report, only one new single-component refrigerant and eight new refrigerant blends have been classified following the the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34. The new single-component refrigerant is trifluoro-iodomethane, IFC-13I1, which has been assigned safety class A1 in ASHRAE Standard 34 (class A1 refers to fluids that do not propagate the flame and have low chronic toxicity). However, concerns about its chemical stability and (low) chronic toxicity remain. IFC-13I1 can be applied in blends to make them non-flammable (such as R-466A).

The use of refrigerants with lower GWP, namely ammonia (R-717), carbon dioxide (R-744), hydrocarbons (HCs) and HFOs continues to steadily increase in the various refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump (RACHP) sectors.

There has been significant progress with the development of safety standards to support the transition towards lower GWP alternative refrigerants, that are mostly flammable. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60335-2-89 standard (commercial refrigeration) was revised to include larger charges for flammable refrigerants (up to 500 g given certain boundary conditions) and is currently being transferred to national standards. IEC 60335-2-40 standard (air conditioning – heat pumps) is the subject of substantial work, particularly in relation to increasing the equipment’s charge for refrigerants with varying degrees of flammability (A3, A2 and A2L).

Improving energy efficiency during the transition to lower GWP refrigerants for the HFC phase-down is a major opportunity for A 5 parties to reduce energy demand while minimising the long-term need to service and maintain equipment that contains high-GWP HFCs. Not in Kind (NIK) technologies continue to represent a niche market, and this will probably remain the same in the near future. Furthermore, many NIK technologies are still in the R&D stage. Nevertheless, some interesting developments are ongoing. For high-ambient temperature (HAT) regions, the October 2019 PRAHA-II report on prototype optimization and risk assessment “at HAT working practices” concluded that alternative lower GWP refrigerants are viable and can be competitive to currently used refrigerants.


2 Flexible and Rigid Foams TOC (FTOC) Progress Report

2.1. Introduction

• In foam production in non-A 5 parties, regulations are driving transitions from high GWP HFCs, whereas in A5 parties, HCFC Phaseout Management Plans (HPMPs) continue to drive transitions.

• Although the cost of HCFCs was approximately 20-30 % of the cost of high-GWP HFCs, HCFC price is increasing as they are phased out globally. The low price of some high-GWP HFCs, particularly HFC-365mfc which is banned in some non-A 5 parties, is leading to an increase in market share, which is slowing the conversion to low-GWP blowing agents.

• HFO / hydrochlorofluoro-olefin (HCFO) blown foams remain more expensive than HFC foams due to the total cost of blowing agent and required additives.

• HC is reportedly being tested as a blowing agent for spray foam by at least one company. FTOC is seeking additional details on the safety measures being taken to address potential fire and explosion risk.

• The importation of ozone-depleting foam blowing agents is controlled or under license, and more parties are controlling the import of polyols containing HCFC-141b or other ODSs

• The transition away from ODS foam blowing agents in some regions and market segments (e.g. spray foam and extruded polystyrene [XPS]) may be delayed because of cost, especially where local codes require higher thermal performance.

• It is possible that consolidation among foam manufacturing companies may occur during the phase-out of HCFC blowing agents in A5 parties, as it did in non-A5 parties1.

• There continue to be some fires related to ignition of foams in both A5 and some non-A5 parties including foams containing HCFC-141b

• There is new manufacturing capacity of HCFO-1224yd(Z) in Japan and significant quantities of HCFO-1233zd(E) in China. HFO-1336mzz(E), with a boiling point of approximately 9ºC, is also reportedly available in small quantities.

2.2. Global foams market

The production of polymer foam grew by an estimated 3.5% between 2018 and 2019 as shown in Table 2.1. However, production forecasts for the period to 2024 are impossible to make owing to the effect of current COVID-19 pandemic and its economic after-effects. It has therefore been assumed that global production may not recover to 2019 levels until 2022.

1 There may be some extra capacity that will be resolved at this time especially where local demand has changed due to building codes or other changes in construction design and overall demand.


Table: 2.1 Estimated global foam production

Estimated Global Polymeric Foam Production 2018 2019

Average Annual Growth

Rate

2024 Forecast

Compound Annual Growth

Rate (Kt) (Kt) 2018/19 (Kt) 2019/24 (%) (%)

Polyurethane Foams (PU) Flexible (moulded & slabstock) 6,901 7,150 3.6% 7,600 1.2% Rigid 6,421 6,745 5.0% 7,300 1.6% Total PU Foam Production 13,322 13,895 4.3% 15,055 1.6% Polystyrene Foams (PS) EPS 8,775 9,000 2.6% 9,450 1.0% XPS 1,785 1,810 1.4% 1,850 0.4% Total PS Foam Production 10,560 10,810 2.4% 11,740 1.7% Phenolics and other foams 1,702 1,787 5.0% 2,000 2.3% Total Polymeric Foams 25,584 26,492 3.5% 28,795 1.7% Source: Labyrinth Market Research Ltd

Overall, the global production of XPS remained stable. This material is typically used for its low moisture permeability and high compression strength in applications including refrigerated transport, perimeter insulation and cold stores. Polyurethane rigid foam is not used as widely as other thermal insulation materials in building insulation due to the relatively higher cost. However, the low thermal conductivity at wide operating temperatures dominates the insulation demand from the cold chain and district cooling and heating systems.

Developments in polymeric foams include vacuum-insulated panels and aerogels that offer ultra- high insulation performance and are used in specialist applications in refrigeration and construction. In addition, there is a small but growing demand for renewable and recyclable materials to replace polymeric foams in a range of applications including construction, furniture and bedding and automotive products.

2.3. Major issues influencing the global foams market

More than 28 countries, covering more than 830 million people, have declared a state of emergency regarding climate change2. Response plans vary, but the need to reduce greenhouse gases will necessitate the need for greater energy efficiency, which will likely include the increased use of polymeric foams as thermal insulation.

Global growth in population influences the demand for polymeric foams used in the main end-use industries, including: building and construction, the cold chain, furniture and bedding, packaging and transportation industries (e.g. automotive industries (cars, buses, motorcycles), trains, ships etc.). Polyurethane, polystyrene and phenolic foams contribute to the energy efficiency of heating and cooling systems in buildings, while flexible polyurethane foams provide acoustic insulation, energy absorption and comfort.

The main factors influencing thermal insulation are national and regional legislation and building standards to reduce heating and cooling losses in commercial and residential buildings. The European Union (EU) and North America are currently the leading proponents of building codes to improve

2 https://www.cedamia.org/global/


energy efficiency in the construction industry, while the global appliance industry continues to develop new energy efficient models.

Investment in infrastructure in China during 2020, will include several end-uses for polymeric foams. The investment programme includes a range of opportunities for polymeric foams in the cold chain, district cooling and heating, high-speed rail and the construction of temperature-controlled data server centres. Simplification of building codes may also allow greater use of polymeric foams for insulation materials in residential and commercial buildings.

An estimated one-third of global food production requires refrigeration. Cold chain solutions have now become an integral part of supply chain management for processing, transportation and storage of temperature-sensitive products. Increasing trade of perishable products is anticipated to drive the demand for these solutions over the coming years. North America was the largest cold chain market in 2018, followed by Europe, Asia Pacific, South America, and Middle East and Africa respectively. Asia Pacific is expected to grow the fastest due to the presence of major food and healthcare providers.

In Europe, the volume of XPS foam insulation is increasing in line with GDP growth with variation in individual countries. There is some increased demand for thick (>200mm) XPS panels to meet certain construction requirements3.

In North America, use of all insulation continues to grow, however the use of XPS appears to be growing at a lower rate especially where other products (e.g. EPS for construction below ground) may be replacing XPS as building insulation requirements change and builders seek the most cost-effective insulation. As oil prices decline, polymer prices may reduce costs of XPS which may impact preferences again. In Asia, both Korea and Japan have experienced strong growth in demand for XPS, due to construction associated with the winter and summer Olympics.

2.4. Factors affecting blowing agent choice

In A5 parties, a number of factors are affecting choice of foam blowing agents in A5 parties. It has been estimated that 80-84% of HCFC-141b in A5 parties will be replaced with non-fluorocarbon alternatives including water-blown foams. However, this may be affecrted by the low price offering of high-GWP HFCs banned in non-A5 parties especially for use in spray foam. Evolving HCFC and HFC phase-out plans will have a large impact on the choices of non-ODs options. In A5 parties, a growing number of foam producers are required by regulation to transition to zero ODP blowing agents. In some parties, use of HCFCs is now limited to applications where HCs are nearly universally considered to be unsuitable, such as spray foam. Many parties are limiting the import of CFC-11 and HCFC 141b pre-blended polyols to prevent manufacture of foam using ODS.

3 Thicker XPS is used decoratively and for roofs where they can be cut around protruding features. They also do not allow for moisture intrusion between layers which reduces thermal performance and provide more weight for ballast to prevent wind uplift and may have implications for building structure. Multiple layer XPS foam manufacturing techniques usually require the use of bonding chemicals which may increase thermal conductivity or water transfer. Additionally, those chemicals are likely to make the recycling process of XPS either much more complicated or impossible which is economically undesirable. There are very few manufacturers that can produce this as a monolithic board, leading to the use of multiple layers, which has some disadvantages, or the need by producers to invest in new thermal bonding technology.


There is a growing trend for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) consuming 1000 tonnes or more to self-formulate blends for their own systems especially in Asia.

As the HCFC phaseout progresses, the limited availability and increasing price of HCFCs will drive the selection of foam blowing agents. The availability and low price of high-GWP HFCs, particularly HFC-365mfc (which is banned in developed economies), is preventing the transition to low GWP substances.

China’s Ministry of Housing, Urban, and Rural Development is streamlining the existing 3,000 standards into 300. It is likely to modify GB50016 allowing for additional use of spray foam, which presents a significant challenge to SMEs on choice of blowing agents.

In Latin America, imports of HCFC-141b and HCFC-141b containing polyols will likely be banned in the largest PU foam markets between 2020 and 2022. During the last decade, major enterprises, mainly in the domestic/commercial refrigeration and continuous panels have been successfully converted to HCs. HPMP projects continue to focus on implementation at SMEs, examining a wide range of non-HC neat and blended blowing agents (e.g., low volumes of HFOs, CO2 (water), methyl formate, methylal and blends). The use of HCs pre-blended in foams continues to be of concern, as their use requires safety measures and plant modifications for blending facilities and for SMEs.

In non-A5 parties, in the EU and other non-A5 parties, high-GWP fluorinated gases are being phased down under F-Gas Regulations. In 2015, all HFCs with GWP greater than 150 were banned for foam manufacturing for use in domestic appliances. By January 2023, all HFCs with GWP greater than 150 will cease being used in all foam manufacturing. Foams and polyol-blends containing HFC should be labelled, and the presence of any HFC has to be mentioned in the technical documentation and marketing brochures. The F-Gas Regulation operates on the supply-side through a quota system, which means that supply of HFC blowing agents to the foam sector is being constrained well before the phase-out dates and sees a major shift from HFC systems towards HFO. Product standards are being reviewed to incorporate the new blowing agents to support “CE” marking and the Declaration of Performance required when placing construction products on the EU market. The regulation of unsaturated HCFCs and HFCs are different between parties. In some EU countries, unsaturated HCFCs and HFCs are defined as volatile organic compounds (VOC) and require environmental permits for use. Other EU countries exempt them from VOC regulations based on their Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) in comparison to ethane. Denmark which used to regulate unsaturated HCFCs and HFCs by the same laws as high GWP HFCs has lifted the restriction when the GWP value is below 5 though a dedicated ordinance. In Switzerland, under the Swiss ODS Ordinance, HCFO-1233zd which has an ODP of 0.00034 is considered an ODS. However, the law provides a mechanism for obtaining exemption based on the low-GWP value and its energy efficiency.

2.5. Low-pressure spray foam

Two-component polyurethane spray foam products processed by low-pressure mixing is often used to seal gaps in the building envelope and insulate cavities in the building. Polyol blends are stored in pre-pressurized tanks at low pressure and often contain a liquid and a gaseous blowing agent (to propel the blend into the cavity) The pressurized foam system can create challenges in maintaining stability of low GWP blowing agents and catalysts.4 Continued research is underway to address the stability of polyol blends.

4Recent papers focus on catalysts for the trimerization reaction.


2.6. Additional blowing agents in current use

HFOs/HCFOs provide an alternative to HCs which can eliminate or reduce the flammability or use of flame retardant for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, phenolic, and extruded thermoplastic foam production, eliminating the capital investment required to address safety when using HCs as a blowing agent. In addition, HFOs/HCFOs can result in improved foam insulating values compared to HC blown foams.

There have been significant improvements in the development and availability of additives, co-blowing agents, equipment and formulations enabling the successful commercialization of foams containing low-GWP blowing agents.

The transition by SMEs to HFOs/HCFOs is currently slowed by both their greater expense, and limited but improving, supply in A5 parties. HFO/HCFOs are sometimes blended with other blowing agents to reduce costs in both A5 and non-A5 parties. Manufacturers of HFO/HCFOs have increased capacity of some of the HFOs/HCFOs to meet the demand for low-GWP blowing agents that is expected to result from the implementation of low GWP regulations. Continued coordination could be helpful to ensure that there is adequate supply as regulations are implemented. In Japan, the consumption of HFO/HCFO in increased by 50% between 2018 and 2019. In 2020 HCFO-1224yd(Z) commercialisation will begin in Japan5. The boiling point of HCFO-1224yd(Z) is the same at that of HFC-245fa.

The Multilateral Fund has published the outcomes from a demonstration project at foam system houses6 to formulate pre-blended polyols for spray polyurethane foam applications using a low-GWP blowing agent HFOs with proper choice of catalyst package could yield foam properties with comparable to HCFC-141b but at an increased cost (22-46%). Methyl formate used as a sole blowing agent continues to increase around the world in rigid foam applications and integral skin foam applications. It is also being used in A5 parties as a co-blowing agent with HFC’s for various rigid foam applications. Methyl formate blends with HFC’s are also being used in the United States for manufacturing XPS boards, and blends with HFC’s and HCFO’s for rigid polyurethane foams.

2.6.1. Extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam blowing agents

Some XPS manufacturers note that there continue to be challenges for the conversion of XPS for some products and regions depending on specific product needs noting that new foam blowing agents cannot directly replace current products and that the need to maintain density does not necessarily allow for reduced loading of higher cost blowing agents. They further note that preparation for conversion to flammable7 blowing agents requires approximately18 to 36 months for capital investment and product qualification based on the specific end use (e.g. walls, roofs, structural support, transportation, cold storage). In China, there are equipment vendors offering both CO2-based and HFC solutions for medium to large enterprises. It is expected that CO2-based systems will predominate for the phaseout of HCFCs.

5 Its boiling point is 15oC and its molecular weight is 149

6 http://www.multilateralfund.org/Our%20Work/DemonProject/Document%20Library/8311ax5_Thailand.pdf

7 A new paper on flammability hazards of HFO-1234ze during processing. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Flammability and Ignitability of HFO-1234ze; R.J. Bellair, L.S. Hood, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, In Press (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/user/error/ATP-2?pii=S0957582019313734

http://www.multilateralfund.org/Our%20Work/DemonProject/Document%20Library/8311ax5_Thailand.pdf

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sciencedirect.com_user_error_ATP-2D2-3Fpii-3DS0957582019313734&d=DwMGaQ&c=zRqMG_fghhK--2M6Q5UUdA&r=-jzvY25JnuGjKSSLAE4r2ZqHTqxARpG4WmGvKAM8BFE&m=AeAEdbON1t2cBHHKI2pqMZLNJzuitjhp2vwSKAwkcxA&s=FtZNz0eZcm7hkdA1ZLkGaePVSZJ_f6eMRbYkxYELKxk&e=


Other blowing agents and co-blowing agents continue to be used in small quantities. Isopropyl chloride (2-Chloropropane) is blended with isopentane generally for phenolic foam. FA188 and PF-5056 were used and viewed technically as nucleating agents. However, based on the European Norm (EN13165), this material can be found in the cell gas after 6 months at 70°C in polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam, then it is also classified as a blowing agent.A patented chemical blowing agent (trade named CFA8) is being promoted to the polyurethane market by China’s Butian New Materials and Technology Company. It is expected that other innovative chemical and physical blowing agent technologies may be introduced over the coming years.


3 Halons TOC (HTOC) Progress Report

3.1. Key issues

3.1.1. Availability and quality of recycled halon

The HTOC has identified several issues affecting the availability and quality of recovered halon from the civil aviation sector.

• Methanol can be introduced as an additive to halon 1301 to prevent the freezing of water from condensation during the low rate discharge in cargo compartment fire protection systems. The methanol is proving challenging for halon reclaimers to remove, which is compromising the recycling of halon 1301.

• Contaminants such as HCFC-22, which are not usually found in aviation fire protection systems, are being found in halon recovered from civil aviation fire protection systems. It is suspected that this contamination is the result of inadequate handling and processing practices. It is proving very difficult to remove these contaminants, both from a technical and economic standpoint, thereby reducing the amount of halon available to continue to support long-term uses of halon in all legacy sectors.

• Some countries have placed regulatory barriers that restrict the import of aviation fire components containing halons that are required for emergency replenishment after a halon discharge or a fault with the fire protection system. In civil aviation, fire protection systems used in engine and cargo bays must be fully operable before the aircraft can fly under international air worthiness requirements. This has placed administrative obstacles and delays in the issuing of import licences or permits, which has led to the grounding of aircraft, significant disruption to flying customers and consequential reputational damage. Some countries have refused exemptions of waivers requested by Airlines. As a result, some airlines are being forced to consider purchasing multiple halon fire protection components for their fleets at significant cost and pre-positioning the parts in these countries to avoid having to ground aircraft over non-functioning halon systems.

• One company in Africa has reported that they cannot obtain halon 1301 that is required to support their country’s civilian aviation needs. This represents the first verifiable case of a regional imbalance affecting availability of halon 1301 to support enduring uses.

• Several halon recycling/reclamation companies are reporting difficulties in shipping bulk recovered halon 1301 across national boundaries as some authorities appear to be classifying recovered halon as hazardous waste under the Basel Convention, thus preventing shipment. This problem may be contributing to the airline difficulties in shipping their pre-filled components into certain countries.

Parties may wish to consider:

• re-emphasising the need to allow for open trade of recovered, recycled and/or reclaimed halons in bulk containers or in prefilled fire protection components needed to support legacy halon uses, including civil aviation components required to allow aircraft to operate under international airworthiness requirements;

• emphasising the importance of effective and complete recovery of halons to those countries with ship-breaking activities to minimise halon losses;

• fostering international trade of recycled/reclaimed high-GWP hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-227ea and HFC-125 used in legacy fire protection systems and specifically in civil aviation lavatory fire protection systems as the implementation of the Kigali Amendment proceeds;


• that the only options for new oil and gas projects in low temperature applications are halon 1301 or HFC-23, both very high-GWP agents, and consider this unique fire protection issue during implementation of the Kigali Amendment.

3.1.2. Knowledge and training

The HTOC has a continuing concern regarding the historical knowledge that has been lost due to the length of time over which the Montreal Protocol activities have been implemented. Many personnel who are responsible for managing fire protection agents covered by the Montreal Protocol, are not experienced with the issues surrounding the use, recovery, recycling, reclamation and banking of these agents. The HTOC is finding that this is becoming an increasing challenge, as it works with various parties and organizations on issues related to acquiring halons to meet their continuing needs. For example, many national ozone unit (NOU) staff members indicated to HTOC that they are looking for information that is already available from HTOC reports, but they seem unaware that the information is available and/or where to find it.

Parties may wish to consider:

• supporting programmes to mitigate the loss in institutional memory of fire protection agents under the Montreal Protocol;

• supporting awareness programmes to address recovery, recycling, reclamation and banking of HCFCs and HFC fire protection agents under the Kigali Amendment.

3.1.3. New developments in aviation fire protection

In the past, a significant amount of halon 1301 had been emitted from cargo compartment fire protection systems following false alarms. New “discriminating” smoke detectors use more than one criterion to detect a fire, and have a false alarm rate that is up to ten times lower. This substantially reduces waste halon 1301 emissions from newer aircraft when these more modern detectors are used. Legacy aircraft continue to use the older smoke detectors with the higher rate of false alarm. Replacing these older smoke detectors would reduce emissions of halon 1301 and extend the longevity of existing supplies.

Handheld fire extinguishers containing halon 1211 on aircraft registered in the EU will be banned after 2025 according to EU legislation. They will be replaced on civil passenger aircraft by the only certified replacement for handheld extinguishers 2-BTP ( 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene). Alternatives to halon 1211 have yet to be developed for other sizes of extinguishers that are installed onboard military aircraft and helicopters, and on smaller civil aircraft. The process of replacing an extinguisher is costly and is delaying the development of the smaller unit (used in cockpits) and the larger one used in baggage compartments in these aircraft. The HTOC expects difficulties in replacing these other extinguishers as there are currently no standardized test methods, classifications or certification procedures for these other-sized extinguishers.

Testing fire extinguisher cylinder integrity usually involves visual inspection and hydrostatic testing, which require that the halon be removed from the container, leading to emissions (e.g., losses in the transfer process) and the potential for introducing contamination. It has recently been reported that a new ultrasonic method has been introduced to test fire extinguisher cylinder integrity has been developed. If this method is approved, it could reduce emissions in the future and thus further extend the longevity of existing supplies (i.e., global bank) of halon 1301.

In civil aviation, a blend of 2-BTP and CO2 has passed the US Federal Aviation Administration Minimum Performance Standard (FAA MPS) Test for cargo compartment fire protection. Whilst an encouraging result, this is only the first stage in the certification process, and it will be several years before the agent could be certified for civil aviation use. Currently, this blend is not approved for this use under the US Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program.


Trifluoroiodomethane (CF3I) has also been considered by one aviation airframe manufacturer as a replacement for halon 1301 in cargo compartments (cargo compartments are considered non-occupied spaces). However, when tested to the cargo compartment FAA MPS, CF3I failed. It is believed that its short atmospheric lifetime means CF3I is also less thermally stable than halon 1301. Thus, it decomposes en-route to the fire zone and cannot suppress this particular fire threat. Although R&D continues, especially in regard to civil aviation applications, the certification timescales are long and it will still be several years before any of the fire extinguishing agent currently being evaluated will be in service on aircraft.

3.2. New fire extinguishing agents

A new total flooding agent (to potentially replace halon 1301, HCFC blends, high GWP HFC-227ea and HFC-125), has been introduced to the US National Fire Protection Association and International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) fire protection committees. It is a 50-50% blend by mass of the hydrochlorofluoroolefin HCFO-1233zdE and the fluoroketone FK5-1-12. Both components have short atmospheric lifetimes (i.e., they decompose in the troposphere) so they have low GWPs and negligible or zero ODPs.

Development of new fire protection agents reported previously in the Russian Federation continues. At least one of the four agents tested showed good results in fire suppression, physical properties and environmental characteristics (e.g., zero ODP, atmospheric lifetime approximately 18 days, GWP<1). Toxicity testing is continuing with the final results expected in 2021. Preliminary tests predict a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (commonly referred to as the NOAEL) three times higher than the minimum extinguishing concentration for n-heptane, meaning that it is a potential candidate for total flooding applications in normally occupied areas (and therefore a potential replacement for halon 1301 and high-GWP HFC-227ea and HFC-125).


4 Methyl Bromide TOC (MBTOC) Progress Report

The May 2020 MBTOC Progress Report provides an overview on the production and consumption of MB for both controlled and exempted (QPS) uses, and on recent developments of MB alternatives in sectors for which critical uses have been nominated this year for use in 2021 or 2022. Recent research on alternatives to QPS uses of MB and the trend in atmospheric emissions of MB is also presented. An update on the collaboration between the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and MBTOC, plus some remaining challenges associated to MB use and phase-out are discussed.

4.1. Global MB production and consumption

4.1.1. Production and consumption of methyl bromide for controlled uses

Production of MB for controlled uses presently takes place in only three countries: China, Israel and the United States. In 2018, production was reported by China and Israel only. The United States reported a negative amount of -7.6tonnes (i.e. zero production; exports taken from stockpiles). In 2018 the total production of MB amounted to 780.2 tonnes, which is almost four times the 209.2 (27%) tonnes used for controlled uses (as described below). Review of data reported by parties under Article 7 shows that since 2005, about 2,950 tonnes of the MB production has not been shown as consumption, i.e., used for unknown uses (see Figure 2).

In 2018, the MB consumption for controlled uses in 2018 was 243.95 tonnes. This matches with amounts granted under the Critical Use Exemption (CUE) by the MOP (A5 parties 209.2 tonnes; non-A5 parties 34.8 tonnes). The consumption of MB for controlled uses reported under Article 7 of the Protocol was 73.95 tonnes. In addition, significant volumes of MB were used from stockpiles and exported to A5 parties by EU (9.5 tonnes) and United States (160.5 tonnes). This is less than 1% of the global baseline of about 56,000 tonnes for non-A5 and 16,000 tonnes for A5 parties.

By the end of 2018 (the most recent date for which officially reported data is available) controlled uses (in addition to any stocks used) in A5 parties amounted to 209.2 tonnes and in non-A5 parties to 34.8 tonnes, which matches the amounts approved under the CUE by the MOP.

Fig 1. Controlled consumption vs controlled production of MB 2005-2018

Source: Ozone Secretariat Data Access Centre (reports as per Article 7). Accessed April 2020

0.00

5,000.00

10,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

25,000.00

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Met

hyl B

rom

ide

(mt)

Consumption

Production


Phase-out of remaining controlled uses of MB has continued under the CUE, in both A5 and non-A5 parties, reflecting successful adoption of alternatives in the vast majority of sectors where MB was once used, both as a soil fumigant and as a postharvest or structural treatment (or re-categorisation to QPS by one party). However, challenges remain, particularly in certain critical use sectors.

In some A5 parties, it is possible that continuing controlled critical uses may be being supplied from an estimated 1,500 tonnes of stocks (presumably pre-2015), instead of making a CUE application.

4.1.2. Methyl bromide production and consumption for QPS (exempted) uses

QPS uses, which are exempted from the Montreal Protocol controls now far exceed the use of MB for controlled uses, which are now nearing complete phase-out. QPS treatments are highly emissive of MB, although some countries are implementing emission reduction technologies where possible.

The increasing uncontrolled use of MB for QPS has the potential to offset the benefits gained by phasing out MB for controlled uses. QPS uses are now the major anthropogenic contributor of methyl bromide to the stratosphere. QPS emissions can be minimised by recapturing MB. Recapture of MB is increasing in some countries where regulations are driving its adoption (e.g. New Zealand).

Over the last decade, overall global consumption of MB for QPS has remained steady at around 10,000 tonnes/year in spite of some parties completely phasing out QPS use of MB (e.g. EU). QPS MB consumption in non-A5 parties has generally trended downwards, whilst consumption in A5 parties has increased. This indicated that some A5 parties must have increased QPS MB consumption substantially.

However, between 2017 and 2018, there was a substantial increase in reported global consumption of MB for QPS purposes to 11,100 metric tonnes (as per Ozone Secretariat Data Access Centre). This has consolidated a substantial upward trend in overall QPS MB consumption, with global consumption increasing by around 40% between 2016 and 2018 (Fig 2). Over this period, QPS MB consumption has been increasing in both A5 and non-A5 parties.

Fig. 2. Consumption of MB for QPS (exempted) uses 1999 – 2018

Source: Ozone Secretariat Data Access Centre, accessed April 2020

Reported world production of MB for QPS amounted to 11,697 metric tonnes in 2018. Five parties, two A5s (China and India) and three non-A5 parties (United States, Israel and Japan) currently produce MB for QPS.

0.00

2,000.00

4,000.00

6,000.00

8,000.00

10,000.00

12,000.00

14,000.00

Met

hyl B

rom

ide

(met

ric to

nnes

)

Global A5 Non-A5


Even though MB for QPS uses are exempt uses from a phase-out schedule under the Montreal Protocol, parties are encouraged to minimize and replace MB for these uses whenever possible. Considering that MBTOC has identified opportunity for replacing between 30 and 40% of QPS uses with immediately available alternatives, parties may wish to consider controlling QPS uses to avoid these emissions. Section 4.3 of this report provides updates on relevant research on alternatives to various MB uses for QPS.

4.2. Update on alternatives for remaining critical uses

Technically and economically feasible chemical and non-chemical alternatives to MB have been found for virtually all soils, structure and commodity applications for which MB was used in the past including nearly all critical uses applied for since 2005. Comprehensive information is available on the adoption of key alternatives in the MBTOC 2018 Assessment Report (MBTOC, 2019) past MBTOC CUN reports (MBTOC, 2019) and the MBTOC progress report (TEAP, 2019).

This May 2020 progress report provides updated information on recent research related to alternatives to controlled uses of MB for which critical uses are still being requested, including tomatoes (mainly for control of Nacobbus aberrans, the false root-knot nematode), strawberry runners and fruit (soil-borne pathogens and weeds), mills, and houses (post-harvest and wood pests).

4.2.1. In the soil sector

4.2.1.1. Strawberry runner production – Australia and Canada

Australia continues to prioritise the registration of Methyl Iodide (MI) as the most efficient alternative to MB for treating soil grown with strawberry nurseries in the State of Victoria. According to the Party’s nomination, this fumigant may become registered in May 2021, leading to conversion of 100% of the area currently treated with MB during 2022. This will achieve total MB phase-out for this sector after 18 years of exemptions.

The Australian research program continues with encouraging results for trials with higher rates of ethane dinitrile (EDN), application timing of TF-80®, longer treatment times and wavelengths of microwaves, and different rates and formulations of MI/Pic for control of Macrophomina phaseolina (causal agent of charcoal rot of strawberry) (McFarlane et al., 2019ab; Stevens and Freeman, 2019). Canada. Many countries producing strawberry runners find soilless culture systems technically and economically suitable, at least for a portion of certified nursery production operations as well as for stock plants; such systems allow for producing pest and disease-free nursery material that meets the required plant health standards (López-Galarza et al., 2010; Rodríguez-Delfín, 2012; Xu, 2019). Canada continues to conduct research aimed at perfecting a soilless production system that will avert the need for soil fumigants, as no chemical alternatives to MB are allowed on Prince Edward Island, where the need for a CUE arises. Other methods, such as biofumigants (Baggio et. al., 2018) and soil solarization, do not provide the consistent and appropriate pest-free status needed to meet the certification requirements of the United States, a major market for this grower.

4.2.1.2. Strawberry fruit production in Argentina

Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) is a biofumigant that has been registered in the United States to control fungal soil-borne pathogens such as M. phaseolina (charcoal rot). Investigating AITC under Argentinean conditions for management of this strawberry disease has been demonstrated (Baggio et. al. 2018). Other recent research on strawberry fruit relevant to Argentina includes, treatment with dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) combined with metam potassium or chloropicrin in Florida, which improved pest and weed control as compared with DMDS alone (Boyd et al., 2017; Yu et. al., 2019). In Argentina,


Del Huerto (2013) found no difference between MB and 1,3-D/Pic, which makes the latter a good alternative option. Jaldo et al. (2007) showed that 1,3-D/Pic injected in the soil gave better yields than methyl bromide in Lules/Tucumán. Aldercreutz and Szczesny (2008, 2010), showed that yields obtained in Mar del Plata with metam sodium and metam ammonium were comparable to those produced with MB. Bórquez and Agüero (2007) found that weed control achieved with metam ammonium, metam sodium and metam potassium in Lules, was comparable to that obtained with MB 70:30, and that yields obtained with these treatments there were not significantly different. Other studies have confirmed these results (Bórquez and Mollinedo, 2009, 2010; Aldercreutz and Szczesny, 2008; Bórquez and Agüero, 2007). Since 2017, substantial progress has been made in testing and commercially implementing soil-less culture in strawberry fruit production. This technique expanded in 2018 and 2019 in new projects in Santa Fe, Buenos Aires and Tucuman provinces of Argentina, using inert substrates, under macro tunnels where plants are fertigated via a drip system (INTA, 2018; La Capital, Mar del Plata, 2019; La Gaceta de Tucumán, 2019).

4.2.1.3. Greenhouse tomatoes in Argentina

Many chemical and non-chemical alternatives to control the false root nematode Nacobbus aberrans – the key pest associated with this CUE - have been developed and are currently commercially used in countries where this nematode occurs. Following is a brief description of these options.

Non-chemical alternatives. Although N. aberrans has a wide host range, rotating tomatoes with other non-susceptible crops has proven important for its control (Manzanilla‐Lopez et al., 2002; EFSA 2018; Vasquez-Sanchez et al., 2018).

On the other hand, and despite the high number of compatible and efficient rootstocks available for tomato production, there is no indication of any that might be resistant to N. aberrans. It has been demonstrated that Mi genes are not effective against N. aberrans and no reliable sources of resistance against this nematode in tomato have been found (Chale et al., 2013; Gutiérrez et al., 2013, 2014; Martinez et al., 2013; Miltidieri et al 2013; Andreau et al 2014).

At INTA San Pedro, many biosolarisation experiments have been conducted since 2003. Organic amendments tested in these experiments include chicken manure, broccoli, tomato and pepper crop debris, brassicas such as rapeseed, broccoli, mustard and other materials (Mitidieri et al., 2015, 2017ab; Pagliaricci et al., 2015; Lafi et al., 2017). The fungal pathogens controlled in these experiments were Pyrenochaeta lycopersici, Fusarium solani, Sclerotium rolfsii and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, as well as nematodes like Nacobbus aberrans, Helycotylenchus spp. and Criconemella spp. In La Plata, biosolarisation using broccoli as organic matter has been evaluated with good results to control tomato soilborne pathogens, including N. aberrans (Martinez et al., 2013).

Further, interest in soilless culture (substrate cultivation and hydroponic systems) is increasing. Different organic and non-organic materials, often combined, have been tested. Commercial substrates and soluble fertilizers for use with irrigation systems are available (Osvaldo, 2016, 2017; Osvaldo and Czepulis, 2017).

Finally, biocontrol agents including Paecilomyces lilacinus, Arthrobotrys conoides and Pochonia chlamydosporia have been found to reduce N. aberrans populations (Franco‐Navarro et al., 2016; Sosa et al., 2018; Caccia et al. 2018; Marro et al., 2018; Gortari and Hours 2019; Cortez Hernandez et al., 2019). Chemical alternatives are available for controlling of N. aberrans. For example, Fluensulfone (Nimitz®) is a contact nematicide with low human and environmental impact that targets nematodes including Nacobbus (Hidalgo et al.,2015). Ioannis et al., (2019) reported significant reductions in population density, reproduction rate, and root galling of N. aberrans with fluensulfone applications on tomato and consider this a good alternative to MB in tomato and cucumber crops affected by N.


aberrans. In other studies, mixtures of 1,3-D/Pic (e.g. 40:60) and fluensulfone showed lower galling index compared to the fumigant alone (Castillo et al., 2016).

Successful research on combined chemical and non-chemical (biofumigation, solarisation, grafting, and biological control) alternatives has been conducted, yielding promising results for controlling Nacobbus spp. (Garbi et al., 2013; Mezquíriz et al., 2013; Quiroga et al., 2014; Franco‐Navarro et al., 2016 ; EFSA 2018 ; Garbi et al., 2018a, 2018b; Garita et al., 2019).

4.2.1.4. Structures and commodities sector – mills and houses in South Africa

Mills. In most countries, disinfestation of mills is achieved with either heat (Binker and Binker, 2001; Hofmeier, 1996; Suma et al., 2019; Teich, 1996) or sulfuryl fluoride (SF) (MBTOC, 2019; Reichmuth et al., 2003). These options are further discussed in ensuing sections.

In the management of stored products, insect pheromones and other semiochemicals can be used to suppress and control pest populations by means of mass trapping, attractants and mating disruption methods; they also act as repellents, specific behavioral stimulants or deterrents (Cox, 2004; Phillips and Throne, 2010).

Introduction of heated air from an outside source or heating the inside air with electrical heaters is efficient for mills of up to 40,000 m³ in size (Binker and Binker, 2001; Hofmeier, 1996; MBTOC, 2019). In many cases, millers will implement an integrated pest management approach (sanitation, biological control plus pheromone traps, contact insecticides, spot treatments, etc.) (Cox, 2004; Phillips and Throne 2010). If being considered, microwave heating should be used in conjunction with chemical treatments in order to reduce human, animal and environmental hazards associated with biocide use (Riminesi and Olmi, 2016).

Sulfuryl Fluoride (SF) is another key alternative, especially for large mills or structures. When using SF, the mill must be emptied from any residual flour or packages to prevent exceeding residues in the product. Gas tightness should be checked prior to fumigation and leaks sealed to meet the required standards. This is to ensure efficiency of treatment and for the protection of bystanders (Reichmuth, 1993; Wohlgemuth, 1990).

In Europe and New Zealand, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) has been registered and is available as a biocide for control pests in empty structures (Aulicky et al., 2015; Stejskal et al., 2016). MBTOC is not clear on whether HCN is registered and available for the CUN applied for by RSA and whether it can be used for pest control in mills and other infested structures.

Disinfestation of houses. As with mills, disinfestations of wooden structures in dwellings is achieved with either heat (Hofmeier, 1996; Reichmuth et al., 2002; 2007; Teich, 1996) or SF (Reichmuth et al., 2003, Ducom et al., 2003 (in many countries around the world. Williams and Sprenkel (1990) have demonstrated the efficacy of these treatments against eggs of key pests of wood like anobiid and lyctid beetles. La Fage et al. (1982) showed that SF was effective against the Formosan termite Cryptotermes formosanus. Osbrink et al. (1987) described decades ago the effect of SF on termite species (Isoptera: Hodotermitidae, Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae).

Ethane-dinitrile (EDN) is an ozone-friendly alternative to MB. Its advantages are good penetration characteristics, high efficacy and short application time (Ryan et al., 2006). EDN® applications limit the risks of pests and diseases spreading within the agricultural and timber industry. It is efficient for fumigation of harvested timber and logs (Stejskal et al., 2018). BLUEFUME™ (HCN) is a promising treatment for controlling wood infesting pests in packages and structures and was registered in the EU in 2017. Pest resistance is currently not an issue for either HCN or EDN and their wide range of action for controlling timber pests (insects, mites, rodents, nematodes, fungi, etc.) makes them good potential alternatives to MB for treating wooden structures (Hnatek et al., 2018).


4.3. QPS uses of methyl bromide

As stated in the previous sections of this report, QPS is by far the current main use of MB. The off gassing/venting of MB from QPS uses to the atmosphere is now the key contributor to the global anthropogenic concentrations of MB in the atmosphere, and MBTOC has identified opportunity for replacing between 30 and 40% of QPS uses with immediately available alternatives. An update on recent research on such alternatives is presented in this section.

4.3.1. Chemical alternatives

4.3.1.1. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

HCN shows a promising level of biocidal activity on package and structural wood infesting pests such as Hylotrupes bajulus, Anopolophora glabripennis and pine wood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Stejskal et al., 2014; Douda et al., 2015). This compound is registered in Japan for phytosanitary treatment aimed at controlling scales, mealy bugs, aphids, thrips or whiteflies intercepted on imported commodities e.g. seedlings or fresh fruit. The fumigation schedule is prescribed by the related Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (MAFF) at a dosage rate of 1.8 g/m3 for 30 minutes (MAFF, 1978; MAFF, 1987). Residue patterns of HCN were investigated in South Korea and found safe; average residue levels on orange, banana and pineapple 3 days after a double dose fumigation treatment (HCN 6 g/m3, 2h, 15-20°C) were lower than the accepted MRLs of 5 mg/kg (Park et al., 2011). Stem and bulb nematodes (Ditylenchus dipsaci) infesting garlic cloves are efficiently controlled with HCN (Zouhar, et al., 2016). HCN is also in use in New Zealand for the disinfestation of surface pests on bananas and pineapples such as scale and mealybug (Table 1). The HCN fumigation schedule is prescribed in the Approved Biosecurity Treatments Standard treatment schedule at a dosage rate of 3g/m³ for two hours (plus 20 minutes for gas release from the HCN impregnated cardboard discs) carried out in chambers that are also used for the ripening process with ethylene (ACVM, 2020). Table 1: Use of HCN for phytosanitary treatment in New Zealand

Application schedule Recommended dosage/m3

Exposure time Temperature

Storage pests in mills warehouse and food factories 5-12 g 6-48 h 15o C or above

Rodents in empty warehouses, ships holds 2-4 g 2-4 h 4o C or above

Nursery stock in dormant stage 5-10 g 30-60 min 15o C or above

Storage pests in empty ships holds 10 g 10-12 h 5-9o C or above

Bananas 3 g 2 h 13.5-15o C Source : HCN Label NZ , ACVM 2020

4.3.1.2. Ethyl formate (EF)

South Korea requires treating sweet persimmon and sweet pumpkin before export to control Tetranychus urticae and these requirements are currently met successfully with ET and 1-methylcyclopropene or EF alone. Lee B. et al. (2018) and Lee J. et al. (2018) demonstrated that the fruit fumigations completely control T. urticae on sweet persimmon and adults and eggs of T. urticae on sweet pumpkin. In Sri Lanka, 100% mortality of mealybugs (Dysmicoccus brevipes) , maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais), rice weevil (S. oryzae), red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum), confused flour beetle (T.


confusum) and rice moth (Corcyra cephalonica) was achieved with Vapormate (EF 16.3% + CO2 83.7%, w/w) at the recommended fumigation standard of the fumigant for stored grains (24 h exposure of 420g/m3) ( (Warshamana et al., 2016).

4.3.1.3. Phosphine (PH3)

Fumigation with PH3 at low temperatures completely killed the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis), which is a quarantine pest of Chinese loquat (Eriobotrya japonica) with no adverse effects on fruit quality (Liu et al., 2018). The same fumigant at a dose of 2.5 mg/L for 6 hours at 25 ºC was found to successfully disinfest harvested export celery against Purple Scum Springtails in Australia (Ahmed, 2018). In addition, mealy bugs where successfully treated on nursery stock after treating with 2 g/m3

of PH3 for 24 h at 16°C (Khang et al.,2019).

MBTOC notes as in previous reports that resistance to phosphine (PH3) has been recorded for several populations of storage pests from various parts of the world (Opit et al., 2012; Jagadeesan et al., 2012).

4.3.1.4. Nitric oxide (NO)

NO is considered as an alternative to MB for postharvest pest control on lettuce, particularly the aphid Nasonovia ribisnigri and western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Yang and Liu, 2019).

4.3.1.5. Ethanedinitrile (EDN)

EDN is currently being assessed for registration in New Zealand. The workplace safety department intends to allow fumigation using EDN under the following circumstances:

• To be used for log fumigation only • Fumigation may only take place under sheets meeting minimum established criteria • A minimum buffer zone of 50m should be observed for each fumigation • Ventilation must not begin until the concentration of EDN in the enclosed space is 500ppm or

less. Not before 8am and must be completed no later than 3pm. This is to reduce possible dispersion of any EDN released during fumigation.

• Logs must not be moved until three hours after ventilation has been completed.

4.3.1.6. Sulfuryl fluoride (SF)

SF has been shown to penetrate wood as effectively as MB (Ren et al., 2011); its efficacy was demonstrated against Anopolophora glabripennis in Populus logs (Barak et al., 2006); against Hylotrupes bajalus in the timber parts of a historic building in Istanbul (Yildirim et al., 2012); and against the cerambycid-vectored pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, in boards of Pinus pinaster (Bonifacio et al., 2014).

SF is known to have a great potential for controlling forest pest insects (Mizobuchi et al., 1996; Soma et al., 1996; 1997) and is considered suitable for fumigation of exported logs (Zhang, 2006). As such it has been implemented into the recommendations for a range of phytosanitary treatments in quarantine (ISPM 15, 2018; ISPM 28, 2017) against the pinewood nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Bonifacio et al., 2013; Dwinell et al., 2005; Soma et al., 2001; Sousa et al., 2010; 2011). Also it is recommended for control of the Asian longhorn beetle Anoplophora glabripennis, (Barak et al., 2006), and the emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis (Barak et al., 2010).


4.3.2. Non-chemical alternatives

4.3.2.1. Irradiation

Irradiation is increasingly being used for postharvest fumigation of fresh commodities from insect pests of quarantine concern. However, many commodities are stored in controlled or modified atmospheres to preserve commodity quality and extend shelf life, and low-oxygen environments have been shown to affect radiotolerance in some insects, e.g. the cabbage looper, Trichoplus iani (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Lopez-Martinez et al., 2016).

This is not the case of Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae), an invasive drosophilid species native to Eastern and South eastern Asia that is now found in other countries in Asia, as well as Europe and North America where it has become an important agricultural pest. Low-oxygen modified atmospheres did not enhance survival of D. suzukii pupae irradiated at 60 Gy in sweet cherry and thus does not inadvertently compromise treatment efficacy against this pest (Follett et al., 2018).

Irradiation is used in Thailand as an alternative to cold treatment for control of oriental fruit flies, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae), and other pests of mango fruits. Recently, Srimartpirom et al. (2018) found that low-O2/ high-CO2 Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) did not reduce the efficacy of the approved 150 Gy quarantine irradiation treatment for B. dorsalis. Further, modified atmospheres (carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ozone) proved to be effective in disinfesting cut lotus flowers after 9 h fumigation (Bumroongsook and Kilaso, 2018) for controlling common blossom thrip (Frankliniella schultzei) a major problem hindering exports of cut lotus flowers.

Recent research to develop, irradiation as MB alternative for quarantine control of coffee berry borer (CBB), Hypothenemus hampei in green coffee shipped to Hawaii from the US mainland is in progress (Follett, 2018).

4.3.2.2. Controlled atmospheres and temperature treatments

Controlled atmospheres (low-oxygen, CO2, nitrogen) combined with low temperature are increasingly used and accepted as quarantine treatments, often with good potential to replace methyl bromide. Some recent research shows promising results as discussed below.

Control of mango quarantine pests is based mainly on cold treatments, with a possible deterioration of fruit quality. Recently Patil et al. (2019) reported a novel cold-quarantine treatment combining cold storage at 2ºC with artificial ripening with 150 ppm ethylene and modified atmosphere (fruit enclosed in perforated bags), resulting in significantly reduced chilling injury and ensuring consumer acceptance (taste, aroma and texture).

Tuta absoluta, an invasive and increasingly troublesome pest species affecting tomatoes, other solanaceous species and many other crops, which limits exports in various countries, is effectively controlled with modified atmospheres and cold treatments. Exposure of T. absoluta to modified atmospheres with 40% CO2 at 25ºC for 72 h was effective for controlling all life stages. In addition, a cold storage treatment at 1ºC for 10 days also proved effective for egg control (Riudavets et al., 2016). These two treatments showed no negative effects on the quality of the tomatoes.

Hot water treatment combined with high-pressure controls taro mite (Rhixoglyphus sp.) and root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) (Jamieson, 2018). Joule heating (60°C, 60 min.) is a potential alternative phytosanitary treatment for exports of Pinus radiate (Pinaceae) logs and is is consistent with the ISPM 15 standard (Pawson et al., 2019).


Vacuum steaming to eradicate Bretziella fagacearum in oak logs (Quercus rubra) is a promising alternative to MB (Juzwik et al., 2019).

4.4. Methyl bromide emissions and recapture

Fig. 3. Trend in Atmospheric concentration of methyl bromide (ppt) from 1930 - 2020.

After a period of increase in MB concentration in the atmosphere from 2015-2017, the MB concentration appears to be in decline over the last few years (Fig 3.). This also suggests that the size of any unknown sources has decreased within the fluctuations of change in atmospheric concentrations. As indicated earlier in this report, future gains in reduction of atmospheric concentrations will rely on reduction in emissions from QPS use of MB, by either reducing use of MB for QPS or by reducing emissions of MB from QPS applications by recapture, recycling and/or reuse.

As noted in previous MBTOC reports, in 2010 the New Zealand Environmental Protection Agency (NZEPA) ruled that all QPS MB emissions were to be recaptured as of October 2020.

In response, a range of new technologies for recycling and recapture systems have been developed (personal communication; Mark Self, Genera Systems, NZ). However, due to the lack of available technology to achieve the required targets the NZEPA is currently reassessing this ruling. The majority of current emissions from container and undercover log QPS fumigations at four major ports are being controlled with available recapture equipment, but emissions arising from fumigation of ship holds remain a challenge.

In Australia, a specific regulationon damage of emissions of MB to the ozone layer in addition to concerns on MB emissions on public health have led to adoption of recapture systems into several major fresh vegetable and fruit markets. Regulations also exist in other sectors of the world (e.g. US timber exports) to implement systems to reduce emissions. Limitations to date have been the added cost for the user of equipment required to recapture and destroy or landfill compared to venting directly to the atmosphere. In addition, in most areas local policies are generally not in place to encourage or mandate their use or are difficult to implement.

4.5. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)

As per the MOU signed between the Montreal Protocol and the IPPC, MBTOC continues to monitor developments arising from the work conducted by the convention with potential to impact MB use

Fraser, Porter, Derek (Aus)


and replacement. Eight draft phytosanitary treatments, some with potential to replace MB were submitted for preliminary consultation of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) during its 15th session scheduled in Rome, 30 March - 3 April 2020 (tentatively postponed to 29 June – 3 July, 2020).

1) Draft phytosanitary treatment: irradiation treatment for Bactrocera dorsalis (2017-015) 2) Draft phytosanitary treatment: cold treatment for Ceratitis capitata on Prunus avium, Prunus

domestica and Prunus persica (2017-022A) 3) Draft phytosanitary treatment: cold treatment for Bactrocera tryoni on Prunus avium, Prunus

domestica and Prunus persica (2017-022B) 4) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Cold treatment for Ceratitis capitata on Vitis vinifera (2017-023A) 5) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Cold treatment for Bactrocera tryoni on Vitis vinifera (2017-023B) 6) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Irradiation treatment for Bactrocera tau (2017-025) 7) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Irradiation treatment for Carposina sasakii (2017-026) 8) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Irradiation treatment for the genus Anastrepha (2017-031) 9) Draft ISPM: Requirements for the use of modified atmosphere treatments as phytosanitary

measures (2014-006). Additionally, the following International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) that will contribute to reducing the need to treat with MB were approved in 2020:

1) ISPM 35: Systems approach for pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae) 2) ISPM 36: Integrated measures for plants for planting 3) ISPM 37: Determination of host status of fruit to fruit flies (Tephritidae) 4) ISPM 38: International movement of seeds 5) ISPM 39: International movement of wood 6) ISPM 40: International movement of growing media in association with plants for planting 7) ISPM 41: International movement of used vehicles, machinery and equipment 8) ISPM 42: Requirements for the use of temperature treatments as phytosanitary measures 9) ISPM 43: Requirements for the use of fumigation as phytosanitary measure

4.6. Other issues

4.6.1. Pre-plant soil fumigation and post-harvest use of MB in US

The last CUE granted to the United States was for strawberry fruit production in for use in 2016 (Holmes et al., 2020). However, MB continues to be used in strawberry nurseries under a QPS exemption to prevent the spread of soilborne nematodes and pathogens on nursery stock. Research on alternatives to MB continues for diseases such as angular leaf spot caused by Xanthomonas fragariae in search of pre- and postharvest treatments that help overcome trade barriers for California strawberries. Heat treatment (Turechek and Peres, 2009), bactericides and propylene oxide fumigation (Haack et al., 2019) all showed positive results in reducing populations of X. fragariae.

For forest nurseries, soilborne diseases and weed control have been achieved primarily through preplant soil fumigation with MB/ Pic at 392 kg/ha under a QPS exemption (Weiland et al., 2016). Weiland et al. (2016) demonstrated that reduced rates of MB, metham sodium, and 1,3-D (all in combination with chloropicrin) under TIF was effective in reducing soil populations of Pythium spp. and Fusarium spp., however, tested biocontrol treatments were not effective. Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC), a biofumigant newly registered in the United States to control fungal soil borne pathogens in strawberries (Baggio et. al. 2018), may eventually provide an alternative for seedling production.

4.6.2. Post-harvest use for cured hams

Methyl bromide is still used on stored ham in the United States, although no CUE has been applied for or granted since 2016; the use is small and drawn from limited stock. The entire amount of use by the dry, cured pork-industry in the United States is less than 2,000 kg per year, which is down from

https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/635/








the 3,500-4,000 kg granted five to seven years ago under a CUE. The concentration and exposure time are based on the label rate (16-32 g/m3 for 12-24 hours), and the frequency of use depends on how often mites are found in the aging rooms, typically 1 to 6 times per year. An alternative method is to use protective netting treated with polypropylene glycol (Zettler et. al. 2001), which is awaiting approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The industry cannot use SF because control of mite eggs is only achieved by increasing the exposure amount to levels which affect ham quality and which leave unsafe residues (Zhang et. al. 2017).

4.6.3. Study on emergency uses of MB in the US

The U.S. Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill 2018) requires a study by USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on whether any “emergency use,” as defined by the Farm Bill, could have occurred since September 1997. This report is only concerned with scoping out emergency events and not with implementation. The study will be completed by Dec. 11, 2020, for the Congress of the United States. The emergency event, as defined by the Farm Bill is a situation:

(A) that occurs at a location on which a plant or commodity is grown or produced or facility providing for the storage of, or other services with respect to, a plant or commodity;

(B) for which the lack of availability of methyl bromide for a particular use would result in significant economic loss to the owner, lessee, or operator of the location or facility or the owner, grower, or purchaser of the plant or commodity; and

(C) that in light of the specific agricultural, meteorological, or other conditions presented, requires the use of methyl bromide to control a pest or disease in the location of facility because there are no technically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide easily accessible by an entity referred to in subparagraph (B) at the time and location of the event that –

(i) are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7U.S.C. 136 et seq.) for the intended use or pest to be so controlled; and

(ii) would adequately control the pest or disease presented at the location or facility.

4.6.4. Sulfuryl fluoride and its GWP

SF is widely adopted around the world as an alternative to MB for disinfestation of structures. Its registration and commercial adoption occurred in the 1990s and continued for many years until it was made available in many countries. SF is a key alternative to MB for treatment of empty structures such as flour mills and food and feed processing premises that need to be disinfested against pests, particularly buildings larger than 40,000 m³, where heat treatment is not an option due to logistic reasons. Its use around the world is extensive. For example, Germany alone uses about 200 t of SF which replaces controlled as well as QPS uses of MB, including QPS treatment of logs in containers.

In recent years, however, there is growing concern about SF use due to its high GWP (Miller et al., 2017; Reimann et al., 2015, Dillon et al., 2008), which puts the continuity of its registration at risk. In the EU, a possible extension of SF registration will be considered in 2021, and there are preliminary indications that this may be complicated due to GWP issues. Due to its wide adoption as an alternative to MB for disinfestation of structures, deregistration of SF would create significant disruption in pest control strategies. Recapture and other technologies to reduce emissions could be considered to reduce its GWP.

There is some indication that hydrogen cyanide could fill this gap given that it is already registered in Europe, Japan and other countries, and does not have adverse effects on the ozone layer or global warming. It is nevertheless very toxic to vertebrates.

4.6.5. Reporting of methyl bromide stocks and their uses

MBTOC is concerned that confusion can exist over how stocks of methyl bromide are reported by countries for production and consumption for controlled non-QPS uses and QPS uses. Although there


are only three countries that produce MB, recent reporting information received under Article 7 data has been difficult to interpret against known uses. Information reported under consumption under Article 7 is even more confusing for sorting out how stockpiles are being used. Below is the QPS consumption data for two A5 parties seeking MB for controlled non-QPS uses where the reduction in consumption data is reported in MBTOC’s critical use report (Fig 4). MBTOC is not provided with information on what the MB is used for in each country under QPS, but also whether imported quantities of MB imported for QPS use are being stockpiled or could be used later for non-QPS purposes. Improvement in definitions and more detail being reported under Article 7 (i.e. sector use, which includes a category for stocks) would greatly assist clarity on consumption and use of MB for QPS.

Fig 4. Trends in consumption for QPS applications in Argentina and South Africa from 1991 to 2018.

Source: Ozone Secretariat Data Access Centre. Accessed April, 2020

4.6.3. Fumigation of waste material under QPS

MBTOC considered information that amounts of MB may possibly be used for fumigation of plastic and paper waste imported by China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan and other Asian countries. Various reports provide estimates of waste volumes traded (Sai et. al., 2012; Meng and Yoshida, 2012; Bami et. al., 2018; Warren, 2019). MBTOC is assessing whether this may be coincident with increasing amounts of QPS MB consumption reported by these Parties in the last 10 years (Ozone Secretariat Data Centre, 2020)

Although accurate information is currently not available, this potential situation raises doubts about whether these uses could be considered as quarantine or not (since target pests are not known), and that several alternatives would be available for these kind of uses. It would appear that the QPS definitions may not be descriptive enough to address some recent developments in global trade. For this reason among others, MBTOC reiterates the importance of parties clarifying the definition of QPS uses which could significantly contribute to the use of alternatives and reduce emissions, without any disruption on international trade.


4.7. Economic issues

There have been five peer reviewed publications that address the issue of economic feasibility of the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for soils since the beginning of 2018 (Biswas et al., 2018; Cao, et al., 2019; Holmes, et al., 2020; Li, et al., 2019; and Shi et al., 2019). These all use variants of partial budgeting as the means of comparison between the use of methyl bromide and its next best alternative. In addition, Suma, et al. (2019) represents one of the very few peer reviewed publications that address the economic feasibility of heat treatment for structures, in this case flour mills in Sicily.

4.8. References

ACVM register (2020). HCN label: https://eatsafe.nzfsa.govt.nz.

Aldercreutz, E. G. A., y Szczesny, A. (2008). Tratamientos de suelos alternativos al Bromuro de Metilo en el cultivo de frutilla (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) realizadas por el proyecto Tierra Sana en el cinturón hortícola de Mar delPlata. XXXI Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 30 de septiembre al 3 de octubre de 2008. Horticultura Argentina 27, 62-64.

Aldercreutz, E. G. A., y Szczesny, A. (2010). Evaluación de tratamientos alternativos al bromuro de metilo realizados en el mismo período productive en el cultivo de frutilla (Fragaria x ananassaDuch.) por el Proyecto Tierra Sana en el Cinturón Hortícola de Mar del Plata. XXXIII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 28 sep- 1 oct 2010. Horticultura Argentina 29 (70), Sep.-Dic. 2010.

Andreau, R., Etchevers, P., Chale, W., Etcheverry, M., Calvo, M.Y., Génova, L. (2014). Injerto de tomate en La Plata: dos años de ensayos con pie Maxifort-copa Elpida conducidos bajo cubierta, bajo distintas condiciones de riego y drenaje. No. 019 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 33 (82), Sep.-Dic 2014.

Andreuccetti, D., Bini, M., Gambetta, A., Ignesti, A., Olmi, R., Priori, S., Vanni, R. (1995). A microwave device for woodworm disinfestation. Proceeding of the International Conference on Microwave and High Frequency Heating, 17-21 September 1995, Cambridge, 1995.

Andreuccetti, D., Bini, M., Ignesti, A., Gambetta, A., Olani, R. (1994). Microwave destruction of woodworms. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy 29 (3), 153-160.

Aulicky, R., Stejskal, V., Dlouhy, M., Liskova, J. (2014). Potential of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) fumigant for control of mill and wood infesting pests. International Pest Control 56, 214-217.

Aulicky, R., Stejskal, V., Dlouhy, M., Liskova, J. (2015). Validation of hydrogen cyanide fumigation in flourmills to control the confused flour beetle. Czech J. Food Sci. 33, 174–179.

Baggio, J. S., Chamorro, M., Cordova, L. G., Vallad, G. E., Peres, N. A. (2018). Effect of formulations of allyl isothicyanate on survival of Macrophomina phaseolina from strawberry. Pl. Disease 102, 2212-2219.

Bamy L. Brooks, S., Jenna R. Jambeck, R (2018); The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade; ; Sci. Adv. 20 Jun 2018: EAAT0131.https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131

Barak, A., Messenger, M., Neese, P., Thoms, E., Fraser, I. (2010). Sulfuryl fluoride treatment as a quarantine treatment for emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in ash logs. J. Econ. Ent. 103(3), 603–611.

Barak, A., Wang, Y., Zhan, G., Wu, Y., Xu, L., Huang, Q. (2006). Sulfuryl fluoride as a quarantine treatment for Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in regulated wood packing material. Journal of Economic Entomology 99 (5), 1628–1635.

Binker, G., Binker, J. (2001). Thermal Pest Control. US Patent, US 6,279,261 B1, Aug. 28, 2001, 7 pp.

https://eatsafe.nzfsa.govt.nz/

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131


Biswas, T., Wu, F., Guan, Z., Vallad, G. (2018). Economic evaluation of fumigants in Florida bell pepper production: a multi-season perspective. 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida, DOI 266708, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, 1 p.

Bonifacio, L. F., Sousa, E., Naves, P. (2014). Efficacy of sulfuryl fluoride against the pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Nematoda: Aphelenchidae) in Pinus pinaster boards. Pest Management Science 70, 6-13.

Bonifacio, L., Inácio, M. L., Sousa, E., Buckley, S., Thoms, E. M. (2013). Complementary studies to validate the proposed fumigation schedules of sulfuryl fluoride for inclusion in ISPM No. 15 for the eradication of pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) from wood packaging material. Report. Lisbon, Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária (ex-INRB), 60 pp.

Bórquez, A. M., y Aguero, J. J. (2007). Evaluación del 1,3 diclorporopeno + cloropicrina y de la utilización del polietileno VIF con dosis reducida de bromuro de metilo 70:30 en la desinfección de suelo para el cultivo de frutilla, en Lules, Tucumán. XXX Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 25 al 28 de septiembre de 2007; Horticultura Argentina 26(61), Jul.-Dic. 2007.

Bórquez, A. M., y Mollinedo, V. A. (2009). Evaluación del uso del ioduro de metilo, metam sodio y metam amonioco mo alternativas al bromuro de metilo para la desinfección de suelo en frutilla. XXXII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 23- 26 sep 2009. Horticultura Argentina 28 (67), Sep.-Dic. 2009.

Bórquez, A. M., y Mollinedo, V. A. (2010). Evaluación de alternativas al bromuro de metilo como desinfectante de suelo en el cultivo de frutilla en Lules (Tucumán). XXXIII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 28 de septiembre al 1 de octubre de 2010. Horticultura Argentina 29 (70), Sep.-Dic. 2010.

Boyd, N. S. (2017). Placement of metam potassium in combination with dimethyl disulfide, chloropicrin, and 1,3-dichloropropene for Cyperus rotundus L. and broad leaf weed control in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Crop Protection 100, 45-50.

Brigham, R. J. (1998). Corrosive Effects of Phosphine, Carbon Dioxide, Heat and Humidity on Electronic Equipment. Environment Bureau Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Bonanza Printing & Copying Centre Inc., Ottawa, ON, 42 pp.

Brooks, B. L., Wang, S., Jambeck, J. R. (2018). The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade; SCIENCE ADVANCES 20 JUN 2018: EAAT0131. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131 China has increasingly implemented more rigid waste import policies, starting prior to 2010.

Bumroongsook, S., Kilaso, M. (2018). Modified atmosphere for thrip disinfection on cut lotus flowers. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 16 (4), 5237-5247.

Caccia, M., Marro, N. Rondan, D. J. (2018). Effect of the entomopathogenic nematode-bacterial symbiont complex on Meloidogyne hapla and Nacobbus aberrans in short-term greenhouse trials. Crop Protection 114, 162-166.

Castillo, G., Ozores-Hampton, M., Navia, P. (2016). Efficacy of drip injected fluensulfone in combination with 1,3-dichloropropene/chloropicrinto manage root-knot nematodes on fresh-market tomatoes. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, (MBAO), 8-10 November 2016 in Maitland, FL, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 4-1 – 4-4.

Chale, W., Etcheverry, M., Génova, L., Etchevers, P., Calvo, I., Andreau, R. (2013). Ensayo comparativo de rendimiento de cinco injertos de tomate con copa Elpida en suelos con nemátodos conducidos bajo cubierta plástica en La Plata. No. 019 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 32 (79), Sep.-Dic. 2013.

Cortez-Hernández, M. A., Rojas-Martínez R. I., Pérez-Moreno J., Ayala-Escobar V., Silva-Valenzuela, M., Zavaleta-Mejía, E. (2019). Control biológico de Nacobbus aberrans mediante hongos antagonistas. Nematropica 49, 140-151.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131

https://mbao.org/static/docs/confs/2016-orlando/papers/4castillog.pdf

https://mbao.org/static/docs/confs/2016-orlando/papers/4castillog.pdf


Cox, P. D. (2004). Potential for using semiochemicals to protect stored products from insect infestation. Journal of Stored Products Research 40, 1-25.

Del HuertoSordo, A. (2013). Se cultivaron 414 ha de frutilla en la Provincia de Santa Fé. Bol INTA, 3 pp.

Dillon, T. J., Horowitz Dillon, A., Crowley, J. N. (2008) The atmospheric chemistry of sulphuryl fluoride, SO2F2. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8, 1547–1557.

Douda, O., Zouhar, M., Manasova, M., Dlouhy, M., Lıskova, J., Rysanek, P. (2015). Hydrogen cyanide for treating wood against pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus), results of a model study. Journal of Wood Science 61, 204-210.

Ducom, P., Roussel, C., Stefanini, V. (2003). Efficacy of sulfuryl fluoride on European house borer eggs, Hylotrupes bajulus (L.) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), contract research project. Laboratoire National de la Protection des Végétaux, Station d`Etude des Techniques de fumigation et de Protection des Denrées Stockées, Chemin d`Artigues - 33150 Cenon, France. In: Inclusion of active substances in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC: Assessment report: Sulfuryl fluoride, PT8, Appendix IV (List of studies), p. 31, September 2006.

Dwinell, L. D., Thoms, E., Prabhakaran, S. (2005). Sulfuryl fluoride as a quarantine treatment for the pinewood nematode in unseasoned pine. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction, (MBAO), San Diego, CA, 31 October - 3 November 2005, http://www.mbao.org, 68-1 – 68-6.

EFSA (2018). Panel on Plant Health (PLH). Pest categorisation of Nacobbus aberrans, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5249.

Farm Bill (2018). Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018. United States Public Law 115-334. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/115/public/334?link-type=pdf.

Fields, P. G., White, N. D. G. (2002). Alternatives to methyl bromide treatments for stored-product and quarantine insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 331-359.

Follett, P. A. (2018). Irradiation for quarantine control of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curdulionidae: Scolytinae) in coffee and a proposed generic dose for snout beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Journal of Economic Entomology 111, 1633-1637.

Follett, P. A., Swedman, A., Mackey, B. (2018). Effect of low-oxygen conditions created by modified atmosphere packaging on radiation tolerance in Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in sweet cherries. Journal of Economic Entomology 111 (1), 141-145.

Franco‐Navarro, F, Velasco‐Azorsa, R., Cid del Prado‐Vera, I. (2016). Pochonia chlamydosporia vs Nacobbus aberrans: experiences in the control of the false root‐knot nematode in Mexico. J. Nematol. 48, 322.

Garbi, M., Carbone, A., Martínez, S., Oyarzun, M. (2018a). Productividad de dos híbridos de tomate injertados, conducidos a dos y cuatro ramas. 40º Congreso Argentino de Horticultura. 2nd to 5th October 2018. Córdoba. Libro de resúmenes, 306.

Garbi, M., Carbone. A., Martinez, S., Puig, L. (2018b). Fenología, tiempo térmico e intercepción de radiación fotosintéticamente activa en tomate injertado conducido a dos y cuatro ramas. XVII Reunión Argentina de Agrometeorología. 19th to 21st Septiember 2018. Merlo, San Luis.

Garbi, M., Morelli, G., Dietz, N., Rossomano, G., Martinez, S. (2013). Respuesta de tres híbridos de tomate injertados sobre Maxifort cultivados en suelo biofumigado. Horticultura Argentina 32, 79.

Garita, S. A, Bernardo, V. F, Guimarãe M. D. A., Cecilia, M., Arango, M. C, Ruscitti, M. F. (2019). Mycorrhization and grafting improve growth in the tomato and reduce the population of Nacobbus aberrans. Revista Ciência Agronômica 50 (4), 609-615.

Gherdan, K., Weiszburg, T. G., Bendo, Z., Kristaly, F. (2014). Phosphine fumigation damage: Corrosion of metal and metal-textile composite museum objects. 11th International Conference on non-destructive

http://www.mbao.org/

https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/115/public/334?link-type=pdf


investigations and microanalysis for the diagnostics and conservation of cultural and environmental heritage “art’14”, MADRID Museo Arqueológico Nacional.

Giannakou, I. O., Panopoulou, S. (2019). The use of fluensulfone for the control of root-knot nematodes in greenhouse cultivated crops: Efficacy and phytotoxicity effects. Cogent Food & Agriculture 5 (1), 1643819.

Gilma, X. C., Ozores-Hampton, M., Navia Gine, P. A. (2017). Effects of fluensulfone combined with soil fumigation on root-knot nematodes and fruit yield of drip-irrigated fresh-market tomatoes, Crop Protection 98, 166-171.

Gortari, M. C., Hours. R. A. (2019). In vitro antagonistic activity of Argentinean isolates of Purpureocillium lilacinum (Paecilomyces lilacinus) on Nacobbus aberrans eggs. Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology (Journal of Fungal Biology) 9 (1), 164–174.

Gutiérrez, M. T., Peralta, I. E., Conte, M. E., Hidalgo, A. A. (2013). Respuesta de porta injertos comerciales de tomate frente al falso nematodo del nudo, Nacobbus aberrans (Thorne, 1935) Thorne & Allen, 1944. No. 229 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 32 (79), Sep.-Dic. 2014.

Gutiérrez, M. T., Peralta, I. E., Conte, M. E., Hidalgo, A. A. (2014). Respuesta de cuatro porta injertos comerciales de tomate para consumo en fresco frente al falso nematodo del nudo Nacobbusaberrans. No. 005 Horticultura. In: Horticultura Argentina 33 (82), Sep.-Dic. 2014.

Hidalgo, C., Valadez Moctezuma, A. J. E., Marbán Mendoza, N. (2015). Effect of fluensulfone on the mobility in vitro, and reproduction and root galling of Nacobbus aberrans in microplots. Nematropica 45, 59-71.

Hnatek, J., Stejskal, V., Jonas, A., Malkova, J., Aulıcky, R., Weıss V. (2018). Two new fumigation preparations (EDN® and BLUEFUME™) to control soil, wood, timber, structural and stored product pest arthropods - an overview. The Kharkov Entomological Society Gazette XXVI (1), 115-118.

Hofmeier, H. (1996). Schädlingsbekämpfung durch Wärme in der Mühle, In Bäckereien und Gaststätten [Pest control with heat in mills, bakeries and restaurants]. Die Mühle + Mischfuttertechnik 133, 842-849.

Holmes, G. J., Mansouripour, S. M., Hewavitharana, S. S. (2020). Strawberries at the crossroads: management of soil borne diseases in California without methyl bromide. Phytopathology (In Press).

INTA (2018). Frutillas en altura; https://inta.gob.ar/noticias/frutillas-en-altura.

ISPM 15 (2018). Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant Protection Convention, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy, www.fao.org/publications, 15-1 – 15-21.

ISPM 28 (2017). Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests, PT 23: Sulphuryl fluoride fumigation treatment for nematodes and insects in debarked wood. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant Protection Convention, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy, www.fao.org/publications, 23-1 – 23-4.

Jagadeesan, R., Collins, P. J., Daglish, G. J., Ebert, P. R., Schlipalius, D. I. (2012). Phosphine resistance in the rust red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Inheritance, gene interactions and fitness costs. PLoS ONE 7, e31582.

Jaldo, H. E, Foros, A. C., Ale, J. (2007). Ensayo de alternativas quimicas al bromuro de metilo. Lules, Tucumán. Valdez, EEA; Obispo Colombres; Tucumán, Argentina; XXX Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 25 al 28 de septiembre de 2007. Horticultura Argentina 26(61), Jul.-Dic. 2007.

Jamieson, L. E., Page-Weir, N. E. M., Wikinson, R. T., Redpath, S. P., Hawthorne, A. J., Brown, S. D. J., Aalders, L. T., Tunupopo, F., Tugaga, A., To’omata, T., Shah, F., Armstrong, J. W., Woolf A. B. (2018). Developing risk management treatments for taro from the Pacific islands. New Zealand Plant Protection 71, 81-92.

https://inta.gob.ar/noticias/frutillas-en-altura

http://www.fao.org/publications

http://www.fao.org/publications


Juzwik, J., Yang, A., Chen Z., White, M. S., Shugrue, S., Mack, R. (2019). Vacuum steam treatment eradicates viable Bretziella fagacearum from logs cut from wilted Quercus rubra. Plant Disease 103 (2), 276-283.

La Capital, Mar del Plata. (2019). Lanzan un proyecto para producir frutillas por hidroponía; https://www.lacapitalmdp.com/lanzan-un-proyecto-para-producir-frutillas-por-hidroponia.

La Fage, J. P., Jones, M., Lawrence, T. (1982). A laboratory evaluation of the fumigant, sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane), against the Formosan termite Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki. International Research Group on Wood Protection (IRGWP), Thirteenth Annual Meeting. Stockholm, May, 1982. Stockholm, IRGWP Secretariat.

La Gaceta de Tucumán (2019). Ensayan hidroponía con tomate y frutilla; https://www.lagaceta.com.ar/nota/827240/actualidad/ensayan-hidroponia-tomate-frutilla.html.

Lafi, J. G., Tarquini, A. M., Sanz Pérez, M., Puglia, M. C. (2017). Susceptibilidad in vitro de Fusarium spp. patógenas en tomate, a biofumigación con brasicáceas. 4to Congreso Argentino de Fitopatología. Mendoza, 19th to 21st April 2017. Libro de Resúmenes. p. 363.

Lee, B., Park, C., Yang J., Kim, K., Lee, S. (2018). Concurrent application of ethyl formate and 1-methyl cyclopropene to control Tetranychus urticae on exported sweet persimmons (Diospyros kaki Thunb. ‘Fuyu’). Entomological Research 48 (3), 198-203.

Lee, J., Kim, H., Kyung, Y., Park, G., Lee, B., Yang J., Koo, H., Kim, G. (2018). Fumigation activity of ethyl formate and phosphine against Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) on imported sweet pumpkin. Journal of Economic Entomology 111 (4), 1625-1632.

Li, Z. (2019). Consumer behaviour and grower preference analysis for agricultural economics. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Washington State University. How accessible if not published?? Useless ref?

Liang, S., Zhang, T., Xu, Y. (2012). Comparisons of four categories of waste recycling in China’s paper industry based on physical input–output life-cycle assessment model. Waste Management 32, 603-612.

Lijia, S., Wang, J., Gao, Z., Zhao, X., Di Gioia, F., Guo, H., Hong, J., Ozores-Hampton, M., Rosskopf, E. (2019). Economic analysis of anaerobic soil disinfestation for open-field fresh market tomato production in Southwest and North Florida. Hort Technology 2 (6), 777-787.

Liu, T., Li, L., Li, B., Zhan, G., Wang, Y. (2018). Evaluation of low-temperature phosphine fumigation for control of oriental fruit fly in loquat fruit. Journal of Economic Entomology 111 (3), 1165-1170.

López-Galarza, S., San Bautista, A., Martínez, A., Pascual, B., Maroto, J. V. (2010). Influence of substrate on strawberry plug plant production. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 85, 415-420.

Lopez-Martinez, G., Meagher, R. L., Jeffers, L. A., Bailey, W. D., Hahn, D. A. (2016). Low oxygen atmosphere enhances post-irradiation survival of Trichoplusiani (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Fl. Entomol 99 (2), 24-33.

MAFF (1978). Outline of plant quarantine for imported seeds and nurseries. Notification of the director general 53-No. 6963, 30 Sep. 1978 [Last updated: 29 Mar. 2019].

MAFF (1987). Outline of plant quarantine for imported flesh fruits and vegetables. Notification of the director general 62-No. 2006, 15 Apr. 1987 [Last updated: 29 Mar. 2019].

Manzanilla‐Lopez, R. H., Costilla, M. A., Doucet, M., Inserra, R. N., Lehman, P. S., del Prado‐Vera, I. C., Souza, R. M., Evans, K. (2002). The genus Nacobbus Thorne & Allen, 1944 (Nematoda: Pratylenchidae): Systematics, distribution, biology and management. Nematropica, 32, 149–227.

Marro, N., Caccia, M., Doucet, M. (2018). Mycorrhizas reduce tomato root penetration by false root-knot nematode Nacobbus aberrans. Applied Soil Ecology 124, 262-265.

Martínez, S., Morelli, G., Garbi, M., Barrenechea, M., Notar, S., Ludueña, M. (2013). Evaluación del efecto de diferentes porta injertos de tomate sobre la respuesta de un híbrido comercial. No. 024. Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 32 (79), Sep. -Dic. 2013.

https://www.lacapitalmdp.com/lanzan-un-proyecto-para-producir-frutillas-por-hidroponia.

http://apps.webofknowledge.com/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=D1Q1haj68hFMvM93kPB&author_name=Marro,%20Nicolas&dais_id=6062322&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=D1Q1haj68hFMvM93kPB&author_name=Caccia,%20Milena&dais_id=6519167&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=D1Q1haj68hFMvM93kPB&author_name=Doucet,%20Marcelo%20E.&dais_id=497579&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=D1Q1haj68hFMvM93kPB&page=1&doc=6

http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=D1Q1haj68hFMvM93kPB&page=1&doc=6


MBTOC (2019), Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, 2018 assessment, https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap, 150 pp.

McFarlane, D., Mattner, S., Gomez, A., Oag, D. (2019a). Improved management of charcoal rot of strawberry in Australia with soil fumigants. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Fumigation, Storage and Trade, (MBAO), November 11-13, San Diego, California, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 22-1 – 22-4.

McFarlane, D., Zon, C., Mattner, S. (2019b). Masterclasses facilitate the adoption of farm biosecurity for soil-borne pathogens of strawberry. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Fumigation, Storage and Trade, (MBAO), November 11-13, San Diego, California, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 14-1 – 14-4.

Meng, X., Yoshida, T. (2012). The Impact Analysis of Waste Plastic Trade between China and Japan—From Policy View. In: Matsumoto M., Umeda Y., Masui K., Fukushige S. (eds.), Design for Innovative Value Towards a Sustainable Society. Springer, Dordrech. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-3010-6_46#citeas.

Mezquíriz, N., Polack, L.A., Amoia, P. R., Villagra, J., Busse, G. (2013). Evaluación de alternativas para controlar patógenos de suelo y nematodos en tomate bajo invernadero. No. 144 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina.

Miller, B. R., Hall, B. D., O‘Donnel, C., Crotwell, M., Sislo, C., Montzka, S. A., Andrews, A., Sweeneley, C., Tans, P. (2017). Sulfuryl fluoride atmospheric abundance and trend from the GGGRN North American Tower and Aircraft Networks and the HATS Global Flask Network. NOAA/ESRL/GMD Global Monitoring Annual Conference, Poster.

Mitidieri, M., Valverde, J., Benitez, D., Carrasco, M., Coll, S. (2017a). Biofumigación en el establecimiento de un productor de Escobar, Buenos Aires. Argentina. Available on-line:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvz9XRJhBVQ.

Mitidieri, M. S., Brambilla, M. V., Barbieri, M. O., Piris, E., Celié, R., Paunero, I., Arpía, E. (2017b). Tratamientos combinados de biosolarización y cianamida cálcica en un invernadero hortícola. http://inta.gob.ar/documentos/tratamientos-combinados-de-biosolarizacion-y-cianamida-calcica-en-un-invernadero-horticola.

Mitidieri, M. S., Piris, E., Brambilla, V., Barbieri, M., Cap, G., González, J., Del Prado, K., Ciapone, M., Paunero, I., Schiavone, E., Celié, R., Arpía, E., Peralta, R., Verón, R., Sánchez, F. (2013). Evaluación de Solanum sisymbriifolium (Lam) como pie de injerto en cultivo de tomate bajo cubierta. No. 026 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 32 (79), Sep-Dic. 2013.

Mitidieri, M., Brambilla, V., Barbieri, M., Piris, E., Arpía, E., Celié, R., Peralta, R., Ferrari, M. (2015). Efecto de la biosolarización y fertilización con cianamida cálcica en la producción bajo cubierta de tomate (Solanumesculentum) en San Pedro, Buenos Aires. XXXVIII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura, 5 al 8 Octubre 2015. Horticultura Argentina 34(85), Sep.-Dic. 2015.

Mizobuchi, M., Matsuoka, I., Soma, Y., Kishino, H., Yabuta, S., Imamura, M., Mizuno, T., Hirose, Y., Kawakami, F. (1996). Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. 2. Ambrosia beetles. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 32, 77–82.

Opit, G. P., Phillips, T. W., Aikins, M. J., Hasan, M. M. (2012). Phosphine resistance in Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica from stored wheat in Oklahoma. J. Econ. Entomol. 105 (1), 107- 114.

Osbrink, W. L. A., Scheffrahn, R. H., Su, N.-Y., Rust, M. K. (1987). Laboratory comparisons of sulfuryl fluoride toxicity and mean time of mortality among ten termite species (Isoptera: Hodotermitidae, Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 80, 1044 – 1047.

Osvaldo V., Czepulis, J. (2017). Cultivos hidropónicos. Proyecto Específico PE1106082. Módulo suelo, agua y sustrato. Cartilla técnica “Cultivo sin suelo. Una alternativa innovadora para las producciones”. Intensivas. 2019. Proyecto “Tierra Sana”. INTA-ONUDI.

Osvaldo, V. (2016). Las 5 llaves del mundo de los sustratos para plantas. INTA San Pedro. 2016.


https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-3010-6_46#citeas

http://inta.gob.ar/documentos/tratamientos-combinados-de-biosolarizacion-y-cianamida-calcica-en-un-invernadero-horticola

http://inta.gob.ar/documentos/tratamientos-combinados-de-biosolarizacion-y-cianamida-calcica-en-un-invernadero-horticola


Osvaldo, V. (2017). El Cultivo sin suelo y la sustentabilidad de las producciones intensivas. Boletin de divulgación Técnica INTA San Pedro. 2017. N°24.

Pagliaricci, L. O., Delprino, M. R., Paganini, A. H., Barcelo, W., Peña, L. C., Bernardez, A., Constantino, A. R., Del Pardo, C. K., Ciaponi, M. M., Brambilla, M. V., Barbieri, M. O., Piris, E. B., Frank, F. C., Paolinelli, N., D'Angelcola, M. E., Mitidieri, M. S. (2015). Impacto económico y ambiental de la sustitución del bromuro de metilo en la producción de tomate bajo cubierta. estudio de caso de una empresa frutihortícola del partido de Zarate, Buenos Aires. 38 Argentinean Horticultural Congress, 5 - 8 October 2015. Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires. AR.Pérez-Rodríguez, I., Franco-Navarro, F., Cid del.

Park, M., Sung, B., Cho, J. (2011) Residual characteristics of methyl bromide and hydrogen cyanide in Banana, Orange, and Pineapple. Journal of Applied Biology and Chemistry 54 (3), 214-217.

Patil, A.S., Maurer, D., Feygenberg, O., Alkan, N. (2019). Exploring cold quarantine to mango fruit against fruit fly using artificial ripening. Scientific Reports 9, 1948, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38521-x.

Pawson, S. M., Bader, M. K. F., Brockerhoff, E. G., Heffernan, W. J. B., Kerr, J. L., O’Connor, B. (2019) Quantifying the thermal tolerance of wood borers and bark beetles for the development of Joule heating as a novel phytosanitary treatment of pine logs. Journal of Pest Science 92 (1), 157-171.

Phillips, T.W., Throne, J. E. (2010). Biorational approaches to managing stored-product insects. Annual Review of Entomology 55, 375–397.

Quiroga, R. J., Meneguzzi, N. G., Borquez, A. M., Kirschbaum, D. S. (2014). Dinámica de la temperatura a diferentes profundidades durante la solarización de un suelo franco-limoso en Tucumán. No. 115 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 33(82), Sep.-Dic. 2014.

Reichmuth, Ch. (1993). Drucktest zur Bestimmung der Begasungsfähigkeit von Gebäuden, Kammern oder abgeplanten Gütern bei der Schädlingsbekämpfung [Pressure test for the determination of suitability for fumigation of premises, chambers or stacked stored products under tarpaulin for pest control]. Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Merkblatt 71, https://vorratsschutz.julius-kuehn.de/dokumente/upload/BBA-Merkblatt_71.pdf, 22 pp.

Reichmuth, Ch. (2002). Alternatives to methyl bromide for the treatment of wood, timber and artefacts in the European Community. In: Batchelor, T. A., Bolivar, J. M. (eds.), The remaining Challenges, Proceedings of an InternationalConference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 5-8 March 2002 in Sevilla, Spain, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 432 pp., 93-97, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/docs/0039/conference_proceedings_en.pdf.

Reichmuth, Ch. (2007). Fumigants for pest control in wood protection. In: Noldt, U., Michels, H. (eds.), Wood–destroying Organisms in Focus – Alternative Measures for Preservation of Historical Buildings, Proceedings of the International Conference at the LWL-Open Air Museum, Detmold, Westphalian Museum of Rural History and Culture, 28-30 June 2006 in Detmold, Germany, 265 pp., 137-162.

Reichmuth, Ch., Rassmann, W., Binker, G., Fröba, G., Drinkall, M. J. (2003). Disinfestation of rust-red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum), saw-toothed grain beetle (Oryzaephilus surinamensis), yellow meal worm (Tenebrio molitor), Mediterranean flour moth (Ephestia kuehniella), and Indian meal moth (Plodia interpunctella) with sulfuryl fluoride in flour mills. In: Credland, P. F., Armitage, D. M., Bell, C. H., Cogan P. M., Highley, E. (eds.), Advances in Stored Product Protection, Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, 22-26 July in York, UK, CAB International, London, 736-738.

Reimann, S., Vollmer, M. K., Brunner, D., Steinbacher, M., Hill, M., Wyss, S. A., Henne, S., Hörger, C., Emmenegger, L. (2015). Kontinuierliche Messung von Nicht-CO2-Treibhausgasen auf dem Jungfraujoch (Halclim-5). Empa Projekt-Nr.: 201‘203, Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt, (EMPA), CH-8600 Dübendorf, EMPA, 82 pp.

Ren, L. J., Lee, B., Padovan, B. (2011). Penetration of methyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride, ethane dinitrile and phosphine into timber blocks and the sorption rate of the fumigants. Journal of Stored Products Research 47 (2), 63-68.

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/docs/0039/conference_proceedings_en.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0022-474X_Journal_of_Stored_Products_Research

https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0022-474X_Journal_of_Stored_Products_Research


Riminesi, C., Olmi, R. (2016). Localized microwave heating for controlling biodeteriogens on cultural heritage assets. INT J CONSERV SCI 7, SI1, 281-294.

Riudavets, J., Alonso, M., Gabarra, R., Arno, J., Jaques, J. A., Palou, L. (2016). The effects of postharvest carbon dioxide and a cold storage treatment on Tutaabsoluta mortality and tomato fruit quality. Postharvest Biology and Technology 120, 213-221.

Robbiola, L., Queixalos, I., Zwick, A., Baslé, K., Daniel, F., Drieux-Daguerre, M. J. F., Ducom, P. J. F., Fritsch, J. (2015). Disinfestation of historical buildings – corrosion evaluation of four fumigants on standard metals. Journal of Cultural Heritage 16, 15–25.

Rodríguez-Delfín, A. (2012). Advances of hydroponics in Latin America. Acta Horticulturae 947, 23-32.

Ryan, R., Martin, P., Haines, N., Reddi, R., Beven, D., Harvey, A. (2006). Sterigas™ & Cosmic™: update on proposed new fumigants. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, (MBAO), 6-9 November 2006 in Orlando, Florida, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 138-1 – 138-2.

Sai Liang a, Tianzhu Zhang a,Yijian Xu a; 2012; Comparisons of four categories of waste recycling in China’s paper industry based on physical input–output life-cycle assessment model":https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1100479X

Soma, Y., Mizobuchi, M., Oogita, T., Misumi, T., Kishono, H., Akagawa, T., Kawakami, F. (1997). Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. 3. Susceptibility to sulfuryl fluoride at 25 °C. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 33, 25–30.

Soma, Y., Naito, H., Misumi, T., Mizobuchi, M., Tsuchiya, Y., Matsuoka, I., Kawakami, F., Hirata, K., Komatsu, H. (2001). Effects of some fumigants on pine wood nematode, PT 23 Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests, PT 23-4 International Plant Protection Convention Bursaphelenchus xylophilus infecting wooden packages. 1. Susceptibility of pine wood nematode to methyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride and methyl isothiocyanate. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 37, 19–26.

Soma, Y., Yabuta, S., Mizoguti, M., Kishino, H., Matsuoka, I., Goto, M., Akagawa, T., Ikeda, T., Kawakami, F. (1996). Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. 1. Wood borers and bark beetles. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 32, 69–76.

Sosa, A. L., Rosso, L. C., Salusso, F. A, Etcheverry, M. G., Passone, M. A. (2018). Screening and identification of horticultural soil fungi for their evaluation against the plant parasitic nematode Nacobbus aberrans. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 34, 63.

Sousa, E., Bonifácio, L., Naves, P., Lurdes Silva Inácio, M., Henriques, J., Mota, M., Barbosa, P., Espada, M., Wontner-Smith, T., Cardew, S., Drinkall, M. J., Buckley, S., Thoms, M. E. (2010). Studies to validate the proposed fumigation schedules of sulfuryl fluoride for inclusion in ISPM No. 15 for the eradication of pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) from wood packaging material. Report. Lisbon, Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária (ex-INRB), 20 pp.

Sousa, E., Naves, P., Bonifácio, L., Henriques, J., Inácio, M. L., Evans, H. (2011). Assessing risks of pine wood nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus transfer between wood packaging by simulating assembled pallets in service. EPPO Bulletin 41, 423–431.

Srimartpirom, M., Burikam, I., Limohpasmanee, W., Kongratarporn, T., Thannarin, T., Bunsiri, A., Follett, P. A. (2018). Low-dose irradiation with modified atmosphere packaging for mango against the oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 111 (1), 135-140.

Stejskal, V., Aulický, R., Jonáš, A., Hnatek, J., Málková, J. (2018). Bluefume (HCN) and EDN® as fumigation alternatives to methyl bromide for control of primary stored product pests. In: Adler, C. S., Opit, G., Fürstenau, B., Müller-Blenkle, C., Kern, P., Arthur, F. H., Athanassiou, C. G., Bartosik, R., Campbell, J., Cavalho, M. O., Chayaprasert, W., Fields, P., Li, Z., Maier, D., Nayak, M., Nukenine, E., Obeng-Ofori, D., Phillips, T., Riudavets, J., Throne, J., Schöller, M., Stejskal, V., Talwana, H., Timlick, B.,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1100479X


Trematerra, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection (IWCSPP), in Berlin, Germany, October 7-11, 2018, Julius-Kühn-Archiv 463, https://www.julius-kuehn.de, 1213 pp, 604-608.

Stejskal, V., Dlouhý, M., Malkova, J., Hampl, J., Aulicky, R. (2016). Flour-mill fumigation using hydrogen cyanide insecticide gas. In: Navarro, S., Jayas, D. S., Alagusundaram, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products, (CAF2016), New Delhi, India, November 6-11, 2016, 173-177.

Stejskal, V., Douda, O. Zouhar M. (2014). Wood penetration ability of hydrogen cyanide and its efficacy for fumigation of Anoplophora glabripennis, Hylotrupes bajulus (Coleoptera), and Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Nematoda). International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 86 (1), 189-195.

Stevens, M. C., Freeman, J. H. (2019). Deposition of nitrogen by ethane dinitrile and subsequent transformation. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Fumigation, Storage and Trade, (MBAO), November 11-13, San Diego, California, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 16-1 - 16-4.

Suma, P., Chinnici, G., La Pergola, A., Russo, A., Bella, S., Pecorino, B., Pappalardo, G. (2019). Assessing the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of pest management through structural heat treatment: an economic analysis of four mills in Sicily (Italy). Journal of Economic Entomology 112 (2), 957-962.

TEAP (2019). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Evaluation of 2019 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide, Final Report, https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap, ISBN: 978-9966-076-76-2, 70 pp.

Turechek, W. W., Peres, N. A. (2009). Heat treatment effects on strawberry plant survival and angular leaf spot, caused by Xanthomonas fragariae, in nursery production. Plant Disease 93, 299-308.

Vazquez-Sanchez, M., Medina-Medrano, J. R., Cortez-Madrigal, H. (2018). Nematicidal activity of wild plant extracts against second-stage juveniles of Nacobbus aberrans. Nematropica 48 (2), 136-144.

Warren, S. (2019). Asia Stands up to ‘Waste Colonialism’; The Diplomat; June 2019. https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/asia-stands-up-to-waste-colonialism.

Warshamana, I. K., Jayalatharachchi, D. B., Wijestinghe, P. R. A., Perera, G. T. S., Fernando, T. N. P., Senarathne, S. M. A. C. U., Weligamage, S. S., Bandora, H. M. R., Sawaminathan, T., Nugaliyadde, L. (2016). Vapormate as a fumigant for the control of mealybugs in pineapple and pests of stored rice and maize. Tropical Agricultural Research and Extension 19 (3/4), 274-280.

Weiland, J. E., Littke, W. R., Browning, J. E., Edmonds, R. L., Davis, A., Beck, R., Miller, T.W. (2016). Efficacy of reduced rate fumigant alternatives and methyl bromide against soilborne pathogens and weeds in western forest nurseries. Crop Protection 85, 57-64.

Williams, L. H., Sprenkel, R. J. (1990). Ovicidal activity of sulfuryl fluoride to anobiid and lyctid beetle eggs of various ages. Journal of Entomological Science 25 (3), 366–375.

Wohlgemuth, R. (1990). Abdichtung von Lagerhallen, lebensmittelverarbeitenden Betrieben und Lagerpartien bei Begasungen gegen Vorratsschädlinge [Sealing of storehouses, food processing factories and stored products prior to fumigations against stored product pests]. Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Merkblatt 66, 2. Auflage, https://vorratsschutz.julius-kuehn.de/dokumente/upload/BBA-Merkblatt_66-2._Aufl.pdf, 18 pp.

Xiang, C., Guan, Z., Vallad, G. E., Wu, F. (2019). Economics of fumigation in tomato production: the impact of methyl bromide phase-out on the Florida tomato industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 22 (4), 588-599.

Yang, X., Liu, Y. (2019). Nitric oxide fumigation for postharvest pest control on lettuce. Pest Management Science 75 (2), 390-395.

Yildirim, N., Taşkin, H., Karaman, R. (2012). A fumigation treatment applied in Istanbul-Beylerbeyi Palace by using sulfuryl fluoride against Coleoptera species. Journal of Faculty of Forestry 62, 47-52.

https://www.julius-kuehn.de/

http://www.mbao.org/


https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/asia-stands-up-to-waste-colonialism.


Yu, J., Land, C. J., Vallad, G. E., Boyd, N. S. (2019). Tomato tolerance and pest control following fumigation with different ratios of dimethyl disulfide and chloropicrin. Pest Management Science 75, 1416-1424.

Zettler, J. L., Leesch, J. G., Gill, R. F. (2001). Chemical treatment alternatives for postharvest pests. 24th Annual Meeting Workshop on Phytosanitary Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. San Diego, CA, October 19, 2000. NAPPO Bulletin 16, 32-35.

Zhang, X., Campbell, Y. L., Phillips, T. W., Abbar, S., Goddard, J., Schilling, M. W. (2017). Application of food-grade ingredients to nets for dry cured hams to control mite infestations. Meat and Muscle Biology 1, 53-60. Doi:10.22175/mmb2017.02.0014.

Zhang, Z. (2006). Use of sulfuryl fluoride as an alternative fumigant to methyl bromide in export log fumigation. New Zealand Plant Protection 59, 223–227.

Zouhar, M., Douda, O., Dlouhy, M., Liskova, J., Manasova, M., Stejskal, V. (2016) Using of hydrogen cyanide against Ditylenchus dipsaci nematode present on garlic. Plant, Soil and Environment 62 (4), 184-188


5 Medical and Chemicals TOC (MCTOC) Progress Report

5.1 Introduction

This report of the Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee provides an update on new developments for MDIs, use of controlled substances for chemical feedstock, HFC-23 by-production and emissions, and recent media reports claiming chlorocarbon contamination of crude oil. It also includes preliminary information submitted by Guyana for possible TEAP assessment of a destruction technology and background to TEAP’s assessment in 2021of destruction technologies under decision XXX/6. Aerosols (other than MDIs), laboratory and analytical uses, process agent uses, and n-propyl bromide were reviewed, however, no new information relevant to these topics is reported in 2020.

5.2 Metered dose inhalers

Inhaled medications are the mainstay of treatment for almost all patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other airway diseases. MDIs, dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and other delivery systems all play an important role in the treatment of asthma and COPD. No single delivery system is considered universally acceptable for all patients. Not all active ingredients are universally available as either an MDI or DPI. Costs also vary. Healthcare professionals continue to consider that a range of therapeutic options is important, which is also necessary for ensuring patient choice.

Reliever medication to treat acute asthma symptoms represents the majority of global inhaler use and is predominantly salbutamol MDI.8 Recently adopted global GINA guidelines9 recommend the increasing use of combination inhalers for asthma management, in preference to the use of salbutamol alone. During an acute asthma exacerbation, however, GINA guidelines still recommend the use of repeat doses of salbutamol, usually administered via an MDI with spacer.

COPD management relies increasingly on combination inhalers. Short-acting beta-2-agonists, with or without short-acting anticholinergics, are recommended by GOLD guidelines10 to treat an acute COPD exacerbation. There is also an increasing recognition that non-pharmacological treatments (i.e. smoking cessation, exercise) are essential. More recently, the application of simple biomarkers has led to a reduction in the use of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD.11

8 Inhaled treatment comprises drugs to relax smooth airway muscle (bronchodilators) and those to reduce underlying inflammation (corticosteroids). Bronchodilators, which can either be a beta-2-agonist or a muscarinic antagonist (also known as anticholinergic), can be short- or long-acting. Short-acting drugs treat acute airway muscle contraction and are often known as relievers. Long-acting drugs, including the corticosteroids, are used prophylactically and are termed preventers. Each type can be used alone, but are frequently administered as combinations, with either both types of bronchodilator, a beta-2-agonist with a corticosteroid, or all three together.

9 Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, 2020 Report. https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports/. Accessed May 2020.

10 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: Global Strategy for Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2020 Report. https://goldcopd.org/gold-reports/. Accessed May 2020.

11 Vogelmeier CF, Criner GJ, Martinez FJ, Anzueto A, Barnes PJ, Bourbeau J, Celli BR, Chen R, Decramer M, Fabbri LM, Frith P, Halpin DM, López Varela MV, Nishimura M, Roche N, Rodriguez-Roisin R, Sin DD, Singh D, Stockley R, Vestbo J, Wedzicha JA, Agusti A., Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2017 Report: GOLD Executive Summary, Eur. Respir. J., 2017, 49, 1700214.

Singh D, Agusti A, Anzueto A, Barnes PJ, Bourbeau J, Celli BR, Criner GJ, Frith P, Halpin DMG, Han M, López Varela MV, Martinez F, Montes de Oca M, Papi A, Pavord ID, Roche N, Sin DD, Stockley R, Vestbo J, Wedzicha JA, Vogelmeier C., Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: The GOLD

https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports/

https://goldcopd.org/gold-reports/


The current manufacturing, use, and disposal of inhaler devices have an adverse impact on the environment due to the plastics and other components in these disposable devices and from the propellant gases used in pressurised MDIs, HFC-134a and less often HFC-227ea, with 100-year GWPs of 1,430 and 3,220, respectively. In 2014, HFC emissions from MDIs represented an estimated 0.03 per cent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.12 Following the entry into force of the Kigali Amendment, data reporting of production and consumption of HFCs, including for MDI manufacturing, is required for all parties that have ratified the amendment. There are a range of inhalers that offer lower carbon footprints. These currently include DPIs, MDIs with lower fill volumes of HFCs, and aqueous mist inhalers.

In an example of a recent program, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) is working to reduce the carbon impact of inhalers by at least 50% by 202813. The United Kingdom has a high proportion of inhaled medicines as MDIs (70%), which contribute an estimated 3.9% of the carbon footprint of the NHS (the NHS carbon footprint accounts for 3-6% of the United Kingdom total)14. The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued a Patient Decision Aid15 that provides information to help people with asthma and their healthcare professionals to discuss options for inhaler devices, with comparative information on inhaler use including the relative carbon footprint of inhalers. The 2020 General Practitioner contract also includes an incentive to encourage inhalers with lower carbon footprints (by reducing prescriptions for non-salbutamol MDIs as a proportion of all non-salbutamol inhalers by 10% during 2020/21), saving up to 20,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent/year.16

However, each country has its own unique and complex makeup in terms of availability of medicines, overarching health care systems, and patient preferences. Complex considerations are necessary when patients and healthcare professionals make an informed choice about a patient’s inhaled therapy. They have to take into account the local availability and affordability of therapeutic options, patient preference, and clinical effectiveness (influenced by patient dexterity, inspiratory flow, simplicity of regimen, adherence to therapy, etc.), as well as environmental implications, with the overall goal of ensuring patient health.

Two new propellants HFO-1234ze(E) and HFC-152a17 with 100-year GWPs of less than 1 and 124, respectively, are in development for use in MDIs. Both are subject to extensive ongoing technical, safety and toxicity programs that are necessary before entering into clinical use. Development investigations, including further toxicology studies, are being conducted and no significant safety findings have been observed to date. Two pharmaceutical companies (AstraZeneca, Chiesi) have

Science Committee Report 2019, Eur. Respir. J., 2019, 53, 1900164.

12 United Nations Environment Programme, Report of the UNEP Medical Technical Options Committee, 2014 Assessment, page 36.

13 Sustainable Development Unit, National Health Service, United Kingdom, https://www.sduhealth.org.uk/nhs%20long%20term%20plan/carbon-reduction/anaesthetics-and-inhalers.aspx. Accessed May 2020.

14 NHS Sustainable Development Unit, Reducing the use of natural resources in health and social care, 2018 Report, 2018, 1–31.

15 Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng80/resources/inhalers-for-asthma-patient-decision-aid-pdf-6727144573 Accessed April 2019.

16British Medical Association (BMA) General Practitioners Committee England (GPC) and NHS England and NHS Improvement, Update to the GP contract agreement 2020/21-2023/24, 6 February 2020, https://www.bma.org.uk/media/2024/gp-contract-agreement-feb-2020.pdf. Accessed May 2020.

17 Pritchard, J.N., Drug Delivery to the Lungs, 30, 2019: 10-13, The Aerosol Society, Bristol, United Kingdom

https://www.sduhealth.org.uk/nhs%20long%20term%20plan/carbon-reduction/anaesthetics-and-inhalers.aspx

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng80/resources/inhalers-for-asthma-patient-decision-aid-pdf-6727144573

https://www.bma.org.uk/media/2024/gp-contract-agreement-feb-2020.pdf


announced that they are developing new MDI formulations containing these propellants, which would result in these MDIs having a carbon footprint comparable to DPIs.18,19 First launches by both companies are targeted for 2025. The possible timing and impact to the market of these MDIs is unclear at this early stage of their development. HFC-152a is a controlled substance under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and subject to its phase-down control measures.

5.3 Use of controlled substances for chemical feedstock

Feedstocks are chemical building blocks that allow the cost-effective commercial synthesis of other chemicals. Controlled substances (ODS and HFCs) can be produced and/or imported for use as feedstocks. As raw materials, feedstocks are converted to other products, except for de minimis residues and emissions of unconverted raw material. Emissions from the use of feedstock consist of residual levels in the ultimate products, and fugitive leaks in the production, storage and/or transport processes. Significant investments and effort are spent to handle ODS and HFC feedstocks in a responsible, environmentally sensitive manner and, in most countries, are regulated through national pollution control measures. The definition of production under the Montreal Protocol excludes the amount of controlled substances entirely used as feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. Similarly, the definition of consumption excludes controlled substances entirely used as feedstock.

5.3.1. The difference between a reportable feedstock and an intermediate

Some manufacturing processes produce chemical intermediates in situ that are either non-isolated or used on the same plant complex20. The intermediates are then converted to another chemical product. The production and then consumption of intermediates in situ or on the same plant complex are typically not reported as production for feedstock use. If intermediates that are controlled substances are transported off-site and then used as a feedstock21, their production should be reported as feedstock use under the Montreal Protocol. Emissions of intermediates can occur during their production and use. Like feedstocks, emissions of intermediates, in most countries, are regulated through national pollution control measures.

5.3.2. Common feedstock applications of ODS

Table 5.1 shows common feedstock applications for ODS, although the list is not exhaustive. Parties report amounts of ODS used as feedstock to the Ozone Secretariat, but they do not report how they are used. Processes are proprietary and there is no official source to define the manufacturing routes followed and their efficacy. The table provides some examples and is the product of the collective experience and knowledge of MCTOC members. Products included are both intermediates as well as final products, including fluoropolymers.

18 Chiesi outlines €350 million investment and announces first carbon minimal pressurised Metered Dose Inhaler (pMDI) for Asthma and COPD, 4 December 2019, https://www.chiesi.com/en/chiesi-outlines-350-million-investment-and-announces-first-carbon-minimal-pressurised-metered-dose-inhaler-pmdi-for-asthma-and-copd/ (accessed April 2020). 19 AstraZeneca’s ‘Ambition Zero Carbon’ strategy to eliminate emissions by 2025 and be carbon negative across the entire value chain by 2030, 22 January 2020, https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazenecas-ambition-zero-carbon-strategy-to-eliminate-emissions-by-2025-and-be-carbon-negative-across-the-entire-value-chain-by-2030-22012020.html (accessed April 2020). 20 For example, the production of HCFC-22 using chloroform goes through the HCFC-21 intermediate however the HCFC-21 production is not reported as the reaction from chloroform to HCFC-21 to HCFC-22 occurs within the same reactor. Similarly, the production of HFC 134a from trichloroethylene typically uses 2 reactor loops, with the HCFC 133a produced in the first reaction loop reacted to HFC 134a in the second reactor loop, again the transient HCFC 133a production is not reported. 21 For example, CFC-113a is an intermediate in the production of HFC-134a from CFC-113, but some may be separated, transported off-site and used as a feedstock. See Table 5.2 and section 5.3.4.

https://www.chiesi.com/en/chiesi-outlines-350-million-investment-and-announces-first-carbon-minimal-pressurised-metered-dose-inhaler-pmdi-for-asthma-and-copd/

https://www.chiesi.com/en/chiesi-outlines-350-million-investment-and-announces-first-carbon-minimal-pressurised-metered-dose-inhaler-pmdi-for-asthma-and-copd/

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazenecas-ambition-zero-carbon-strategy-to-eliminate-emissions-by-2025-and-be-carbon-negative-across-the-entire-value-chain-by-2030-22012020.html




Table 5.1: Common feedstock applications of ozone-depleting substances (this list is not exhaustive)

Feedstock ODS Products Further conversion products Comments CFC-113 Chlorotrifluoroethylene Chlorotrifluoroethylene based polymers Polymers include poly-chlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE),

and poly-fluoroethylenevinyl ether (PFEVE). CFC-113 CFC-113a CFC-113a may be an intermediate and may be transported

off-site for use as a feedstock. CFC-113 or CFC-113a

Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and pesticides (including cyhalothrin)

Starting with CFC-113, CFC-113a is as an intermediate. Alternatively, CFC-113a may be the starting feedstock. TFA is a pesticide and medical intermediate.

CFC-113, CFC-114a HFC-134a The sequence for production of HFC-134a may begin with CFC-113, which is converted to CFC-113a and then to CFC-114a.

CFC-113a HFO-1336mzz isomers CTC CFC-11 and CFC-12 Production and consumption of these CFCs has fallen to

zero based on reported data. However, until 2017 a small quantity of CFC-12 (<100 tonnes) was intermittently reported for feedstock use. It is not known what the CFC-12 was used for.

CTC With water to make CO2 and HCl: the HCl is subsequently reacted with methanol to make methyl chloride and water

Methyl chloride in CMs plant converted to DCM and CFM

A method of recycling CTC into useful products rather than destruction operated in CMs plant complex.

CTC Perchloroethylene High volume use. CTC With hydrogen to make chloroform

with methane and HCl as by-products Chloroform is used to make HCFC-22 A method of recycling CTC into useful products rather than

destruction operated in CMs plant complex CTC Chlorocarbons including

chloropropanes and chloropropenes Feedstocks for production of HFC-245fa and some HFOs and HCFOs: HFO-1234yf, HCFO-1233zd, and HFO-1234ze.

HFOs and HCFOs are ultra-low GWP fluorocarbons used in refrigeration, air conditioning and insulation and production is increasing.

CTC With acrylonitrile, intermediates Pyrethroid pesticides. CCl3 groups in molecules of intermediates become =CCl2 groups in pyrethroids.

CTC With 2-chloropropene - Intermediates Production of HFC-365mfc CTC With vinylidene chloride -

Intermediates Production of HFC-236fa

CTC With benzene to make triphenylchloromethane (trityl chloride)

Intermediate for dyes and pharmaceuticals such as antiviral drugs

Trityl chloride is an efficient tritylation agent.


CTC With 1,3-dichloro-4-fluorobenzene to make 2,4-dichloro-5-fluorobenzoyl chloride (DCFBC)

Intermediate for example in the synthesis of highly active antibacterial agent ciprofloxacin

CTC With methyl 3,3-dimethyl-4-pentenoate to produce methyl 4,6,6,6-tetrachloro-3,3-dimethylhexanoate

1,1,1-trichloroethane HCFC-141b, -142b, and HFC-143a Note that an alternative feedstock is 1,1-dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride), which is not an ODS.

HCFC-21 HCFC-225 isomers Reaction of TFE with HCFC-21 to give HCFC-225 isomers. Product used as a solvent or intermediate

HCFC-225ca HFO-1234yf HCFC-225 (produced from TFE and HCFC-21) can be further reacted to produce HFO-1234yf

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, without success.

HCFC-123 HCFC-124, HFC-125 HCFC-124 HFC-125 HCFC-123 Production of TFA

HCFC-113a HCFC_123, CFC-113a HCFC-133a can be transformed to HCFC-123 by chlorination and further to CFC-113a

HCFC-133a Production of trifluoroethanol Halon-1301 Production of the pesticide fipronil HCFC-124 HFC-125 HCFC-141b HFC-143a

HCFC-142b Vinylidene fluoride Polymerized to poly-vinylidene fluoride or co-polymers.

Products are fluorinated elastomers and a fluororesin. Vinylidene fluoride HFO-1132a very low temperature refrigerant

Bromochloromethane 2-(Thiocyanomethyl)-thiobenzothiazole (TCMTB)

TCMTB is a biocide used in the leather industry


5.3.3 Recent and historical trends in ODS feedstock uses

Data reported by parties to the Ozone Secretariat on production and import of ODS used as feedstock for the year 2018 was provided to the MCTOC. These also include quantities used as process agents because parties are required to report such consumption in a manner consistent to that for feedstock. In 2018, a total of 14 parties22 reported feedstock use of ODS, while 11 of these parties also produced ODS for feedstock uses. In 2017, 16 parties had reported use of ODS as feedstock.

In 2018, total ODS production and import for feedstock uses was 1,364,998 metric tonnes, almost identical to 2017 (2017: 1,370,315 tonnes23). Although the total metric tonnes are very similar, there are differences between the major Annex categories of ODS from 2017 to 2018. The 2018 reported total production and import of ODS for feedstock use in metric tonnes represents 535,383 ODP tonnes.24 Production and import for feedstock use in 2017 was the largest (in metric tonnes) since 1990. The overall increase in ODS feedstock uses through the last decade has been mostly due to the increase in feedstock uses of Annex C1 HCFCs.

Figure 5.1 Annual reported production (metric tonnes) of ODS for feedstock and process agent uses, categorised by Montreal Protocol Group, for the years 2002-201825

22 Parties that imported less than 0.01 tonne are excluded from the total number.

23 The 2017 feedstock production was stated as 1,341,844 tonnes in the MCTOC 2019 progress report. Any data changes result from data revisions that can occur for historical years. The data revision for 2017 is for an Annex A1 substance.

24 While ODP tonnes are included, it should be noted that presenting production for feedstock use in ODP tonnes does not equate to emissions. From the total amount of ODS produced for feedstock use, only a relatively minor to insignificant quantity will be emitted depending on the abatement technologies and containment measures utilised.

25 Annex AI CFCs -11, -12, -113, -114, -115; Annex BII carbon tetrachloride; Annex BIII 1,1,1 trichloroethane; Annex CI HCFCs. Annex AII Halons -1211, -1301, -2402; Annex BI CFCs -13, -111, -112, -211, -212, -213, -214, -215, -216, -217; Annex CII HBFCs; Annex CIII bromochloromethane; and Annex EI methyl bromide.


Table 5.2: Amount of ODS used as feedstock in 2018

Substance ODP Metric Tonnes HCFC-22 0.055 620,806 CTC 1.1 281,163 HCFC-142b 0.065 135,522 CFC-113 and CFC-113a 0.8 122,766 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) 0.1 >100,000 CFC-114 1 >50,000 HCFC-124 0.022 >20,000 HCFC-141b 0.11 12,300

HCFC-123, Methyl bromide, Halon 1301, Bromochloromethane

1000-5000

Other HCFC-123 isomers, HCFC-133, HCFC-225 isomers

10-1000

Other substances <10 Total metric tonnes 1,364,998 (Total ODP tonnes*) (535,383)

Explanatory notes: For some substances, due to the limited number of parties reporting production for feedstock use or imports for feedstock use, quantities have been approximated. For those substances used in relatively small quantities, a quantity range is indicated. *While the corresponding ODP tonnes are shown, it should be noted that this does not equate to emissions. From the total amount of ODS used as feedstock, a relatively minor to insignificant quantity will be emitted depending on the abatement technologies and containment measures utilised.

The largest feedstock uses in 2018 are HCFC-22 (45% of the total mass quantity), CTC (21%), and HCFC-142b (10%). The quantities for each of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b used as feedstocks are lower in 2018 than in 2017. HCFC-22 is mainly used to produce tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), which can be both homo- and co-polymerized to make stable, chemically resistant fluoropolymers with many applications. TFE may also be used to produce HFC-125, although alternative processes may be lower cost. Polyvinylidene fluoride is made from HCFC-142b. The feedstock use of CTC continues to grow, due to growing demand for lower GWP HFOs and perchloroethylene. Figure 5.2 shows the trends for HCFC-22 and CTC feedstock uses26.

26 More information on CTC production and its uses as feedstock can be found in the TEAP Task Force Report on Unexpected Emissions of Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) September 2019.


Figure 5.2 Trends in annual use of HCFC-22 and CTC for feedstock for the years 2002-2018 (metric tonnes)

5.3.4 CFC-113 and CFC-113a feedstock and intermediate use and emissions

A recent paper27 concluded that the emissions trends for CFC-113 since 2010 require further analysis. The paper notes that “CFC-113 is used as a feedstock for production of other chemicals, an allowed continuing use under the Montreal Protocol. According to the agreement, Parties are urged to keep feedstock leakage to a technically feasible minimum, which is thought to be of the order of 0.5%. Global production of CFC-113 for feedstock use was reported to be about 131 Gg [131 tonnes] in 2014, implying emission of about 0.7 Gg yr−1 [0.7 tonnes] at 0.5%, or about ten times less than our estimate. [The Emission estimate] therefore suggests the need for further analysis of CFC-113 feedstock leakage as well as any potential for unreported non-feedstock production and use.”

Another recent paper28 published emission trends for CFC-113 and CFC-113a. The paper reported that “The continued presence of northern hemispheric emissions of CFC-113a is confirmed by our measurements of a persistent interhemispheric gradient in its mixing ratios, with higher mixing ratios in the Northern Hemisphere. The sources of CFC-113a are still unclear, but we present evidence that indicates large emissions in East Asia, most likely due

27 Megan Lickley, Susan Solomon, Sarah Fletcher, Guus J.M. Velders, John Daniel, Matthew Rigby, Stephen A. Montzka, Lambert J.M. Kuijpers & Kane Stone, Quantifying contributions of chlorofluorocarbon banks to emissions and impacts on the ozone layer and climate, Nature Communications, 2020, 11, 1380, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15162-7..

28 Karina E. Adcock, Claire E. Reeves, Lauren J. Gooch, Emma C. Leedham Elvidge, Matthew J. Ashfold, Carl A. M. Brenninkmeijer, Charles Chou, Paul J. Fraser, Ray L. Langenfelds, Norfazrin Mohd Hanif, Simon O’Doherty, David E. Oram, Chang-Feng Ou-Yang, Siew Moi Phang, Azizan Abu Samah, Thomas Röckmann, William T. Sturges, and Johannes C. Laube, Continued increase of CFC-113a (CCl3CF3/ mixing ratios in the global atmosphere: emissions, occurrence and potential sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2018, 18, 4737–4751. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-4737-2018.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15162-7

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-4737-2018


to its use as a chemical involved in the production of hydrofluorocarbons29. Our aircraft data confirm the interhemispheric gradient as well as showing mixing ratios consistent with ground-based observations and the relatively long atmospheric lifetime of CFC-113a. CFC-113a is the only known CFC for which abundances are still increasing substantially in the atmosphere.”

The trend in the reported production of CFC-113 for feedstock use from 2002 is shown in Figure 5.3. For each year, it is understood that CFC-113a has been reported as CFC-113. However, in 2018, some CFC-113a was reported separately and is included in the total CFC-113/113a quantity shown in the figure.

Figure 5.3 Trends in annual use of CFC-113/113a for feedstock for the years 2002-2018 (metric tonnes)

CFC-113 can be produced from perchloroethylene (PCE) using liquid phase fluorination technology with antimony pentachloride catalyst, a similar process to the production of CFC-11/12 and HCFC-22. CFC-113a is commonly made by isomerisation from CFC-113 in a vapour phase process over a catalyst. CFC-113a can also be prepared by the fluorination of trichloroethylene to HCFC-133a, which is then chlorinated to produce a mixture of CFC-113a and HCFC-123 and distilled into different streams. CFC-113 is a common feedstock or intermediate that can be used in the production of a range of chemicals including CFC-113a, chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), HFC-134a, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and HFO-1336mzz. The main feedstock or intermediate uses of CFC-113 and CFC-113a are shown in Figure 5.4.

29 The paper correctly states that the source of emissions is unclear.


Figure 5.4 Main Feedstock and Intermediate Uses of CFC-113 and CFC-113a

In non-A 5 parties, the main reported feedstock use of CFC-113 is for the production of HFCs, mainly HFC-134a. Reducing consumption of HFC-134a in non-A 5 parties, as well as market conditions, have led to a downward trend in CFC-113 production, mitigated to some extent by apparent increasing demand for CTFE and HFO-1336mzz. During the period 2002 to 2018, non-A 5 parties accounted for over 99.9% of the total CFC-113/113a reported for feedstock use. According to publicly available information, the production of CFC-113 and CFC-113a also occurs in some A 5 parties30. As A 5 parties have not reported CFC-113 or CFC-113a as feedstock use since 2008, then their production must be as intermediates for use on the same plant complex. Even when used as an intermediate, emissions can occur during intermediate production and use onsite. A comprehensive understanding of the production and use of CFC-113 and CFC-113a as feedstock or intermediate would contribute to a better understanding of global and regional emissions.

Parties may wish to consider reviewing their CFC-113/113a production to manufacture chemicals, including HFC-134a, TFA, CTFE, and HFO-1336mzz isomers, to ensure that feedstock production of CFC-113/113a is being fully captured in Article 7 data reporting, noting that in situ production of intermediates is not required to be reported as production for feedstock uses.

To develop a better understanding of CFC-113/113a emissions, the activity of in situ production of controlled substances as intermediates to manufacture chemicals may need to be accounted. Parties may wish to consider how best to account for production of controlled substances as intermediates in the absence of reported data.

30 Technical publications relating to the fluorocarbon industry have continued to report on planning permission applications and environmental inspection authorisations for a small number of enterprises wishing to produce CFC-113 and CFC-113a. These were mostly about their use as intermediate for producing chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE) or for manufacturing trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and its derivatives. Most recently, it was reported that new production of both CFC-113 and CFC-113a was installed to produce the intermediate chemical for HFO-1336mzz. It is not certain to what extent final planning permission, or factory construction, went ahead.


5.3.5 HFCs used as feedstock

Following the entry into force of the Kigali Amendment, reporting of HFCs, including production and import for feedstock uses is required for all parties that have ratified the amendment. In addition to feedstock data reported as part of HFC baseline submissions, obligatory annual HFC data reporting will start with data for 2019 for countries that became party to the Kigali amendment before the end of 2019, and that 2019 Article 7 data will be reported during the course of this year (2020). The feedstock data reported as part of the baseline submissions (2011- 2013 for non-A 5 Parties) and publicly available data from other sources provide some initial information on the use of HFCs as feedstock. From the reported data available and knowledge of feedstock applications, the quantities of ODS used as feedstock is far greater than that of HFCs.31

Feedstock data has been reported as part of the baseline submissions for/under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol (2011-2013 for non-A5 parties). From the data available, the two main HFCs used as feedstock are HFC-23 and HFC-152a.

Historically, some of the HFC-23 generated as a by-product during the manufacture of HCFC-22 was recovered and used as a feedstock to produce halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane). When production of halon 1301 ceased in non-A 5 parties in 1994, in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, this demand for HFC-23 also largely ceased. However, HFC-23 is still used as a feedstock to produce halon 1301, which is still used as a feedstock for the manufacture of the pesticide fipronil.32

According to a recent paper33, the dehydrofluorination of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) is the most broadly used chemical process for the production of vinyl fluoride (used to produce polyvinylfluoride, a polymer used mainly in low flammability coatings). HFC-152a can be used as a feedstock to produce vinylidene fluoride (CH2CF2) via defluorination.

In the EU, according to a 2019 report34, HFC feedstock use currently consists almost exclusively of the use of HFC-23, thought to be for the manufacture of fipronil via halon 1301. Very small amounts are occasionally reported for other HFCs. The total HFCs reported as feedstock have remained almost constant since 2015. Small quantities of other HFCs used as feedstock might be for small-scale evaluation of processes.

5.3.6 Estimated emissions from feedstock use

There are numerous factors to be considered when estimating emissions associated with feedstock use, such as how the feedstock is produced, stored, distributed and consumed, and

31 The total metric tonnes of ODS reported for feedstock use in 2018 is over 1.3 million tonnes (see table 5.2). HFCs reported for feedstock use for the baseline period (2011-2013) is less than 10,000 tonnes annually. Even though this is an incomplete data set due to the reporting requirements, the feedstock uses of HFCs have more limited application than ODS.

32 TEAP Report, September 2019, Volume 1 Decision XXX/3 TEAP Task Force Report on Unexpected Emissions of CFC-11 page 69.

33 Haodong Tang, Mingming Dang, Yuzhen Li, Lichun Li, Wenfeng Han, Zongjian Liu, Ying Li and Xiaonian Li, Rational design of MgF2 catalysts with long-term stability for the dehydrofluorination of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a), RSC Advances, 2019, 9, 23744-23751. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA04250D

34 From EEA Report No 20/2019 Fluorinated greenhouse gases 2019, Data reported by companies on the production, import, export, destruction and feedstock use of fluorinated greenhouse gases in the European Union, 2007-2018

https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA04250D


the impact of local environmental regulations35. Emissions can, therefore, vary significantly, both from one feedstock to another, and from one production facility to another.

Emissions of controlled substances are not reported under the Montreal Protocol, but where available, actual emissions data for HFCs is reported by developed countries in their submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Previously, MCTOC has used the emission factor of 0.5% for HFC production from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories as a surrogate to estimate indicative emissions associated with the production of ODS for feedstock use.

The 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019 Refinement) provides, in volume 3, chapter 336, methods for estimating chemical industry emissions. Section 3.10.2 outlines “Emissions from production of fluorinated compounds (other than HFC-23 emissions from HCFC-22 production)”. Typically, fluorochemicals can be released from chemical processes involving a broad range of technologies and processes, including the reactions of feedstocks.

In the, so-called, Tier 1 methodology, a default emission factor, can be used to estimate national production-related emissions of individual HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and other fluorinated greenhouse gases. The Tier 1 default emission factors applicable to the production and transformation processes for fluorochemicals, including the production of HFCs and HFOs, are based on an analysis of data reported to the USEPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program37. The Tier 1 emission factor in Table 5.3 covers “emissions of the intentionally manufactured chemical as well as reactant and by-product emissions” and assumes there is no use of abatement38 and includes intentional emissions from process vents and unintentional or fugitive emissions, such as leaks from plant equipment and when evacuating returned containers. In practice, by-product emissions can be a significant proportion of the overall emission and many facilities use routine maintenance to locate and fix leaks from plant equipment, emission control technologies to control emissions from process vents, and recover heels from containers used for transportation.

As stated in the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the Tier 1 factors are highly uncertain. Therefore, if emission factors specific to the facility and the produced fluorochemical are available, these are recommended to be used.

35 In some countries and regions emission mitigation and abatement controls are mandatory and low emission rates are achieved.

36 https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/vol3.html

37 Potential sources of fluorinated GHG emissions at fluorochemical production facilities include the following: process vents, equipment leaks, and evacuating returned containers. Production-related emissions of fluorinated GHGs occur from both process vents and equipment leaks. Process vent emissions occur from manufacturing equipment such as reactors, distillation columns, and packaging equipment. Equipment leak emissions, or fugitive emissions, occur from valves, flanges, pump seals, compressor seals, pressure relief valves, connectors, open-ended lines, and sampling connections. In addition, users of fluorinated GHGs may return empty containers (e.g., cylinders) to the production facility for reuse; prior to reuse, the residual fluorinated GHGs (often termed “heels”) may be evacuated from the container and are a potential emission source. In many cases, these "heels" are contaminated and are exhausted to a treatment device for destruction. In other cases, however, they are released into the atmosphere. The Tier 1 default emission factor is intended to cover emissions for process vents, equipment leaks, and container venting.

38 Abatement techniques for fluorocarbon processes include such techniques as incineration and adsorption and subsequent disposal of adsorbent.

https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/vol3.html


Table 5.3: IPCC 2019 Refinement Tier 1 emission factor applicable to HFCs.

TABLE 3.28A (NEW) TIER 1 DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR FLUOROCHEMICAL PRODUCTION

Fluorochemical Produced Emission Factor for each Emitted GHG (kg fluorinated

GHG emissions/kg fluorochemical produced)

Uncertainty for default emission factor for

fluorochemical production

All other fluorochemicals (excluding SF6 and NF3) applicable to HFCs

0.04 -98% to +470% (0.001 to 0.2)

The 2019 TEAP Task Force on Unexpected Emissions of CFC-11 estimated an emission rate for CFC-11 production and distribution of around 4 wt.%, for the lower end emissions scenario.39 This CFC-11 emissions rate was based on an assumed combination of modern, well-designed, operated and maintained facilities with low emission rates together with older facilities and some small micro scale plants with considerably higher emission rates, and to take into account the long range of years of production for which the modelling extended.

Emissions may also occur during the use of feedstock. Data compiled by the European Environment Agency (EEA)40, from reports by companies under the European ODS Regulation, show that 173,367 metric tonnes of ODS were consumed for feedstock use within the EU in 2018. Reported emissions of ODS from their usage as feedstock was 56 metric tonnes in 2018. This resulted in an average emission rate of 0.03% (calculated as the ratio of the total ODS emissions to the quantities used). The EEA noted that the overall decrease in the relative emission rate in recent years suggests that improvements have been made in the control of emissions in industry. In addition, the emissions reported in the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register41 from chemicals manufacture, which totalled 180 metric tonnes in 2015 (20 carbon tetrachloride, 0 methyl chloroform, 39 CFCs and 121 HCFCs) but these include all emissions from all chemical manufacturers. Nevertheless, the relatively low rate of emissions achieved illustrates the effectiveness of local controls, and industrial diligence, in the management and control of ODS emissions in feedstock use within the EU.

In summary, there is a wide range of emission rates, for the production, storage, distribution and use of ODS and HFC feedstock, so selecting an appropriate emission factor for the quantity of ODS or HFC emitted during the production of feedstock is not straightforward. Emissions during feedstock production are likely to dominate overall total emissions, with storage and distribution emissions being significantly lower, as feedstocks are predominantly stored and distributed in bulk quantities with low emission rates. Similarly, bulk feedstocks are typically consumed early in the subsequent chemical process, likely resulting in minimal rates of emissions as demonstrated by the emission rates for feedstock use in the European Union (0.03% in 2018).

39 TEAP Report, September 2019, Volume 1 Decision XXX/3 TEAP Task Force Report on Unexpected Emissions of CFC-11, page 128.

40 Ozone-depleting substances 2019, Aggregated data reported by companies on the import, export, production, destruction, and feedstock and process agent use of ozone-depleting substances in the European Union, 2006-2018, European Environment Agency Report No 12/2019. doi:10.2800/630584

41 From MCTOC 2018 Assessment Report, page 66.


For large scale, well designed, well operated and maintained feedstock processes, production, storage, distribution and use emissions well below 0.5% are achievable. For small-scale and/or poorly operated and maintained feedstock processes, emissions above 4% are possible. From a commercial perspective, higher emissions equate with lower profits.

Applying an emissions factor range of between 0.5% to 4% by weight of the quantity of ODS or HFC produced for feedstock use provides an indicative estimate of the total emissions of the ODS or HFC feedstock from its global production. Using this emissions factor range, emissions associated with production of ODS for feedstock uses for 2018 can be estimated as 6,825 tonnes at the lower end to 54,600 tonnes at the higher end (or 2,697 to 21,416 ODP tonnes). Noting the modern design of many global production units, including emissions mitigation and abatement controls (e.g., like the EU 0.03% emission rate), and that the distribution losses for feedstock uses are expected to be lower than for the average fluorochemical production and associated distribution (i.e., as included in the IPCC 4% wt. default emission factor for fluorochemical production), MCTOC considers that emissions arising from global ODS production for feedstock uses are probably more likely to be less than 4%.

5.4 HFC-23 by-production and emissions

HFC-23 is a by-product from the production of HCFC-22. Destruction technologies for HFC-23 have been evaluated by TEAP42 and approved by parties under decision XXX/6, and the ExCom have published several reports43 on aspects of HFC-23 by-product control technologies. According to a recent paper44, global HFC-23 emissions derived from atmospheric measurements were historically at their highest level in 2018, in contrast to expected emissions of HFC-23 by-product, primarily from reported HCFC-22 production, that were much lower. The paper concludes that the discrepancy between expected and observation-inferred emissions makes it possible that planned reductions in HFC-23 emissions may not have been fully realised or there may be substantial unreported production of HCFC-22, both or either of which would result in unaccounted for HFC-23 by-product emissions. Another paper45 had previously concluded that between 2009 and 2016 atmospheric abundance of HFC-23 had increased faster than the atmospheric abundance of HCFC-22, with the divergence in annual average growth rates consistent with increasing HFC-23 emissions as a consequence of incomplete mitigation of HCFC-22 production. However the paper also notes that this slowing atmospheric growth of HCFC-22 is consistent with HCFC-22 moving from dispersive (high fractional emissions) to feedstock (low fractional emissions) uses.

42 2018 TEAP Report, Supplement to the April 2018 Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force Report on Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances.

43 See for example UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/83/44, 11 May 2019, Key aspects related to HFC-23 by-product control technologies (Decision 82/85).

44 K. M. Stanley, D. Say, J. Mühle, C. M. Harth, P. B. Krummel, D. Young, S. J. O’Doherty, P. K. Salameh, P. G. Simmonds, R. F. Weiss, R. G. Prinn, P. J. Fraser, M. Rigby, Increase in global emissions of HFC-23 despite near-total expected reductions, Nature Communications, 11, Article number: 397 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13899-4.

45 Simmonds, P. G. et al., Recent increases in the atmospheric growth rate and emissions of HFC-23 (CHF3) and the link to HCFC-22 (CHClF3) production, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2018, 18, 4153–4169. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/4153/2018/.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13899-4


It is only from this year (1 January 2020) that the Montreal Protocol Article 2J (the Kigali Amendment) requires HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production to be destroyed to the extent practicable.

5.5 Destruction Technologies

Decision XXX/6 on destruction technologies for controlled substances requests TEAP to assess destruction technologies listed (in annex II to the report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties) as not approved or not determined, as well as any other technologies, and to report to the Open-ended Working Group prior to the Thirty-Third Meeting of the Parties. The text of the decision is below.

Decision XXX/6: Destruction technologies for controlled substances:

Noting with appreciation the report of the task force established by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in response to decision XXIX/4 on destruction technologies for controlled substances,

Noting that destruction and removal efficiency is the criterion considered in approving destruction technologies,

Noting with appreciation the Panel’s advice on emissions of substances other than controlled substances, and suggesting that parties consider this information in the development and implementation of their domestic regulations,

Noting that the Code of Good Housekeeping Procedures set out in annex III to the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties in accordance with paragraph 6 of decision XV/9 provides useful guidance for local management in respect of appropriate handling, transportation, monitoring and measurement in destruction facilities, where similar or stricter procedures do not exist domestically, but does not provide a framework that can be used for comprehensive verification,

1. To approve the following destruction technologies, for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol, and, with respect to Annex F, group II, substances, also for the purposes of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 2J, as additions to the technologies listed in annex VI to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and modified by decisions V/26, VII/35 and XIV/6, as reflected in annex II to the report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties:46

(a) For Annex F, group I, substances: cement kilns; gaseous/fume oxidation; liquid injection incineration; porous thermal reactor; reactor cracking; rotary kiln incineration; argon plasma arc; nitrogen plasma arc; portable plasma arc; chemical reaction with H2 and CO2; gas phase catalytic dehalogenation; superheated steam reactor;

(b) For Annex F, group II, substances: gaseous/fume oxidation; liquid injection incineration; reactor cracking; rotary kiln incineration; argon plasma arc; nitrogen plasma arc; chemical reaction with H2 and CO2; superheated steam reactor;

(c) For Annex E substances: thermal decay of methyl bromide;

46 UNEP/OzL.Pro.30/11.


(d) For diluted sources of Annex F, group I, substances: municipal solid waste incineration; and rotary kiln incineration;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess those destruction technologies listed in annex II to the report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties as not approved or not determined, as well as any other technologies, and to report to the Open-ended Working Group prior to the Thirty-Third Meeting of the Parties, with the understanding that if further information is provided by parties in due time, in particular regarding the destruction of Annex F, group II, substances by cement kilns, the Panel should report to an earlier meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group;

3. To invite parties to submit to the Secretariat information relevant to paragraph 2 of the present decision;

TEAP is preparing for this assessment and taking this advance opportunity to outline its recommended approach and to provide suggested guidance on the type of relevant information that parties are invited to submit under decision XXX/6(3).

5.5.1 Destruction technologies approved by parties

Environmentally sound destruction of surplus or contaminated ODS and HFCs avoids unnecessary emissions and helps protect the stratospheric ozone layer and/or the climate.

While encouraging parties to undertake environmentally sound destruction of surplus or contaminated end-of-life ODS/HFCs, the Montreal Protocol, does not mandate the destruction of ODS or Annex F Group I HFCs. The exception is HFC-23 (Annex F, Group II) generated in manufacturing facilities, from which emissions must be destroyed to the extent practicable using technologies approved by parties.

The Protocol’s definition of ‘production’ of controlled substances subtracts the amounts destroyed from the amounts produced. The use of destruction technologies approved by parties applies to destroyed amounts of controlled substances accounted for within the Protocol’s definition of ‘production’. The Protocol also allows Parties to manufacture an amount of controlled substance almost equivalent to the quantity destroyed with technology listed as approved, within the same year as destruction, and within the same group of substances.

Parties have taken a number of decisions to approve destruction technologies for the purposes of Montreal Protocol production data reporting requirements. Over time, the list of destruction technologies approved by parties has been updated, with the most recent list of approved destruction processes contained in Annex II to the 30th Meeting of the Parties under decision XXX/6.

Adoption of destruction technologies varies by parties, depending on the need for destruction, the requirements of national regulations and related standards, national and local air quality guidelines, availability of the technology, and viability of the market for destruction.

5.5.2 Background to TEAP assessment of destruction technologies

In the preamble to decision XXX/6, parties noted that destruction and removal efficiency is the criterion considered in their approval of destruction technologies and suggested that parties also consider TEAP’s other technical advice on emissions of substances other than controlled substances in the development and implementation of their domestic regulations.


For its assessment under decision XXX/6, TEAP will assess destruction technologies for their destruction efficiency and make recommendations to parties for potential approval for inclusion on the list of approved technologies. TEAP will also provide advice about emissions of other pollutants and about the technical capability of destruction technologies as part of its assessment. In addition to providing parties with technical guidance, this will also ensure internal consistency with previous assessments that lead to the existing list of approved destruction technologies.

The TEAP assessment will consider the following parameters:

1. Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE)47, which is a minimum of 95% for dilute sources (e.g. foams) and 99.99% for concentrated sources

2. Emissions of halogenated dioxins and furans48

3. Emissions of other pollutants: acid gases (HCl, HF, HBr/Br2), particulate matter (total suspended particles, TSP), and carbon monoxide (CO)

4. Technical capability, where the technology has demonstrated destruction on at least a pilot scale or demonstration scale, and for which the processing capacity is no less than 1.0 kg/hr of the substance to be destroyed, whether ODS or a suitable surrogate.

The DRE is a measure of the efficiency of destruction, and the 99.99% efficiency minimum is considered protective for minimising ozone depletion and climate impact and will be the primary basis of TEAP’s recommendations to parties.

The technical performance advisory criteria for other pollutant emissions are measures of potential impacts of the technology on human health and the environment. The destruction technologies will be screened to meet advisory criteria that are consistent with previous assessments.

The technical capability advisory criterion considers the extent to which the technology has been demonstrated to destroy ODS/HFCs (or a comparable recalcitrant halogenated organic substance such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)) effectively, to ensure the technology is technically capable of commercial-scale destruction.

To undertake its assessment and provide its technical advice, and in order to be confident that the technology has the minimum level of technical capability to destroy ODS/HFCs efficiently and safely, TEAP will seek information for all of these parameters.

The following technical performance criteria represent the minimum DRE for destroying ODS/HFCs and the maximum advisory levels of emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere that would be considered as an acceptable minimum level of technical capability.

47 Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) is determined by subtracting from the mass of a chemical fed into a destruction system during a specific period of time the mass of that chemical alone that is released in stack gases and expressing that difference as a percentage of the mass of that chemical fed into the system. If interconversion to other controlled species is possible, it is recommended that analysis is used to measure emissions and that any controlled species is taken into account when determining DRE.

48 Depending on the waste stream, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), polybrominated dibenzodioxins (PBDDs), polybrominated dibenzofurans (PBDFs), polyfluorinated dibenzodioxins (PFDDs), polyfluorinated dibenzofurans (PFDFs). For mixed substance destruction, mixed halogenated dioxins and furans can be formed.


Table 5.4: Summary of Technical Performance Criteria

Performance Qualification Units Concentrated

Sources Diluted Sources

(e.g. foams) DRE % 99.99 95 Dioxins/furans ng-ITEQ/Nm3 0.2 0.5 HCl/Cl2 mg/Nm3 100 100 HF mg/Nm3 5 5 HBr/Br2 mg/Nm3 5 5 Particulates (TSP) mg/Nm3 50 50 CO mg/Nm3 100 100

Notes to the table: All concentrations of pollutants in stack gases and stack gas flow rates are expressed on the basis of dry gas at normal conditions of 0oC and 101.3 kPa, and with the stack gas corrected to 11% O2 (as referred to by normal cubic metre, Nm3). ITEQ: International Toxic Equivalents49. TSP – total suspended particles

The technical performance advisory criteria for pollutants other than controlled substances will serve as a benchmark used by TEAP for comparison purposes only. They do not constitute standards, nor do they necessarily meet internationally accepted emissions guidance for pollutants, such as those adopted by the Basel Convention50. They were developed only for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol for screening and recommending generic technologies that might be considered technically capable of meeting basic acceptable limits of pollutant emissions.

Operators of destruction technologies are required to meet local pollutant emissions controls. In addition, the performance of technologies are plant and operation specific. Emissions management is a matter for operators and government agencies within national regulatory frameworks. A recommendation by TEAP or an approval by parties of a destruction technology under the Montreal Protocol does not guarantee that local emissions requirements can or will be met on a specific facility employing an approved technology. There may be other concerns or emissions of interest to governments at their national or local levels.

Waste ODS/HFCs may be classified as hazardous wastes, with additional requirements imposed through relevant legislation, nationally, or regionally (European Union). Waste ODS/HFCs may also be subject to international reference guidance (such as adopted by the Basel Convention) in terms of emissions performance, including more comprehensive measures of destruction efficiency, other potential emissions, and sources of emissions and monitoring.

49 The International Toxic Equivalents (ITEQ) scheme was established by NATO in 1988. More recently the TEFs were re-evaluated by the World Health Organisation and the revised TEQ scheme is generally universally accepted, with the updated TEFs used in the TEQ calculation. Some of the data reviewed by the 2018 TFDT quotes TEQ values. A detailed discussion of ITEQ and TEQ is on page 13 of 2018 TEAP Report, Volume 2: Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force Report on Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances

50 General technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic pollutants, UNEP/CHW.14/7/Add.1/Rev.1, Para 161, May 2019, http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalMatters/DevelopmentofTechnicalGuidelines/TechnicalGuidelines/tabid/8025/Default.aspx (accessed April 2020).

http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalMatters/DevelopmentofTechnicalGuidelines/TechnicalGuidelines/tabid/8025/Default.aspx

http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalMatters/DevelopmentofTechnicalGuidelines/TechnicalGuidelines/tabid/8025/Default.aspx


Below is a suggested list of information requirements for TEAP assessment. Parties are invited to provide this type of information within a feasible timeframe for TEAP’s assessment, which is planned to commence no later than January 2021.

5.5.3 Suggested information requirements for TEAP assessment under decision XXX/6

1. Please provide a description of the process, including whether the destruction technology would be considered thermal oxidation, plasma arc, or chemical conversion51 technology, and associated scrubbing systems. Please include a schematic of the process, with information on the analysis points.

2. At the current stage of development, would you describe the technology as being a demonstration system with all of the characteristics of a commercial system, or a commercially ready system? Note that a demonstration system should achieve >1kg/hour throughput to qualify for assessment.52

3. Which ODS or HFC wastes are being destroyed by the technology (CFCs, HFCs, methyl bromide, halons, CTC, and specify Annex and Group relevant to controlled substance)? Does destruction include mixed waste streams and, if so, is the DRE measured for individual substances or mixtures (either is acceptable)?

4. What other non-ODS or non-HFC waste streams have been destroyed using the technology? If these are a comparable recalcitrant halogenated organic substance such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)), what is the DRE for these waste streams?

5. For the destruction technology, provide the operating conditions and associated results of analyses of pollutant emissions in the table below, specifying to which controlled substance the data is relevant.53 Unless advised otherwise, data may be published in a TEAP report; please let us know if this is acceptable or not.

51 Conversion technologies transform halocarbons under a range of operating conditions, often at lower temperature than incineration, using specific reactants to achieve the conversion of ODS or HFCs (including conversion to saleable products like acids, vinyl monomer etc.).

52 The technology must demonstrate destruction on at least a pilot scale or demonstration scale, where the processing capacity is no less than 1.0 kg/hr of the substance to be destroyed, whether ODS/HFC or a suitable surrogate.

53 For high temperature destruction technologies, provide details of the quench conditions and flue gas treatment facilities as these are important in controlling dioxin/furan formation and emissions.


Operating Conditions and Destruction Efficiency

Atmospheric Emissions

ODS/HFC Feed Rate54 kg/hr Dioxins/Furans55 ng ITEQ/Nm3 Temperature54 C HCl/Cl2 mg/Nm3 Residence Time54 Sec. HF mg/Nm3 DRE56 % HBr mg/Nm3 Particulates mg/Nm3 CO mg/Nm3 Gas Volume Nm3

6. Describe how the DRE has been measured and calculated.

7. If a conversion technology, provide a mass balance57, also called a material balance, of the process.

8. Describe what methods have been used for sampling and analysis, including details on the number/sampling rate of analyses carried out and whether this is automated.

9. Describe any procedures during start up or shut down to avoid emissions of the controlled substances.

10. Provide information about other environmental pollutant emissions of concern resulting from the process (e.g., fluorocarbons with high GWP, such as CF4, corrosive salts in effluent, Persistent Organic Pollutants controlled under Annex C (Unintentional Production) of the Stockholm Convention, etc.) and measures in place to control those pollutant emissions.

5.5.4 Preliminary information submitted by Guyana on a destruction technology

On 25th July 2019, preliminary information was submitted by Guyana, indicating interest in possible TEAP assessment of the use of a local bauxite mining facility as a potential destruction technology for waste ODS/HFCs. During subsequent discussions in November 2019, TEAP experts provided initial guidance on the technical assessment process. Guyana indicated that it would seek to provide additional technical information based on the guidance provided.

54 A range is acceptable.

55 The specific dioxins/furans to be tested should be relevant to the halogenated species in the waste feed, e.g., chlorinated PCDD/PCDF for CFCs; fluorinated PFDD/PFDF for HFCs; brominated PBDD/PBDF for halons and methyl bromide; mixed halogenated species for mixed waste feeds. The analytical methods for chlorinated dioxins and furans are well established and widely available. Analytical capability for brominated species is also available. If brominated species analysis is not available, it is recommended that a chlorinated ODS or chlorinated recalcitrant organic substance is used to measure the dioxin/furan emissions. Under the same conditions, fluorinated dioxins/furans are less readily formed, allowing a chlorinated species to be used to establish dioxin furan emissions if fluorinated species analysis is not available.

56 The 2002 Task Force on Destruction Technologies Report Appendix F: Sampling and Analytical Methods states ‘Note that in determining DREs, it is necessary to test both the input to a destruction technology and the exhaust gas stream.’

57 A mass balance is an application of the conservation of mass to the analysis of physical systems associated with the process, by accounting for material entering and leaving the system and by which mass flows can be identified. This will also help identify if there are any leakages or losses in the system.


5.6 Process Agents

MCTOC has reviewed the information reported to the Ozone Secretariat under decisions X/14(4) and XXI/3(1) by China, EU, Israel and the USA. Taking into account decision XXXI/6(3), the review by the MCTOC does not identify any new compelling information to report to parties in this annual progress report and will continue to monitor the information submitted by parties in subsequent years.

5.7 Laboratory and Analytical uses

MCTOC has reviewed the information reported to the Ozone Secretariat on production and import of controlled substances used for laboratory and analytical uses. Taking into account decision XXXI/5(7), the review by the MCTOC does not identify any new compelling information to report to parties in this annual progress report and will continue to monitor the information reported by parties in subsequent years.


6 Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps TOC (RTOC) Progress Report

6.1. Introduction

The May 2020 RTOC Progress Report provides an overview and updates of the ongoing transition in this important sector. An International Institute of Refrigeration (IIR, Paris) publication on “The role of refrigeration in global economy”, released in 2019, states that “the total number of refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump systems in operation worldwide is roughly 5 billion, including 2.6 billion air-conditioning units (stationary and mobile) and 2 billion domestic refrigerators and freezers. Global annual sales of refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump equipment amount to roughly 500 billion USD which, by way of comparison, represents roughly three quarters of global supermarket sales”. Moreover: “The refrigeration sector - including air conditioning - consumes about 20% of the overall electricity used worldwide. This IIR estimation is based on an analysis of fragmentary data about the sectorial electricity consumptions by various areas of the world.”

The use of lower GWP refrigerants continues to steadily increase in the various RACHP sectors. This is occurring in parallel with a phase-down of high GWP HFCs in many countries through the use of lower GWP alternatives in various applications. However, it is important to note that high GWP HFCs have been introduced in many A5 parties for room air conditioning applications, in order to comply with the accelerated phaseout of HCFCs, and due to adoption of Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) without considering integrated regulations for energy efficiency and refrigerant GWP.

Since the publication of the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report, only one new single component refrigerant and eight refrigerant blends have been classified following ASHRAE Standard 34.The single-component refrigerant is trifluoro-iodomethane, IFC-13I1, which has been given safety class A1 in ASHRAE Standard 34 (class A1 refers to fluids that do not propagate the flame and have low chronic toxicity). Some concerns remain about its chemical stability and (low) chronic toxicity. IFC-13I1 is applied in blends to make them non-flammable (such as R-466A). There has been significant progress with the development of safety standards to accommodate lower GWP alternatives that are mostly flammable. IEC 60335-2-89 (commercial refrigeration) was revised to include larger charges of flammable refrigerants (up to 500g given certain conditions) and is currently being transferred to national standards. Substantial work is in progress on IEC 60335-2-40 (air conditioning – heat pumps), particularly for increasing equipment charge sizes for A3, A2 and A2L refrigerants.

Improving energy efficiency during the transition to lower GWP alternatives in the HFC phase-down is a major opportunity for A5 parties to reduce energy demand while minimising the need to service and maintain equipment that contains high-GWP HFCs. Technical Progress of RACHP sectors in relation to the 2018 RTOC Assessment Report: In larger commercial refrigeration applications, refrigerants such as R-744 and HC-290 are gaining increased acceptance. A1/A2L type HFC-HFO refrigerant blends are being applied in smaller charge commercial systems. In refrigerated road transport, a shift to R-452A has taken place. R-452A is a non-flammable refrigerant with a GWP of 2100 that is compatible with existing equipment. Lower GWP technologies are currently under development. Cargo and passenger ships use a variety of refrigerants, with increasing use of HFO-1234ze(E) With the adoption of higher efficiency and/or inverter technology to meet MEPS, less than 50% of the air conditioners manufactured in A 5 countries contains HCFC-22, and this proportion is declining rapidly. Widespread introduction of HFC-32 in residential split AC units continues in many countries worldwide, and also in commercial units in several


countries. In A 5 countries, many companies are applying HFCs and HFOs blends with GWP below 750 in AC equipment, whilst others are converting production lines to HC-290.

Chillers using R-717, R-718 (water) and HC-290 are available on a regional basis. In new centrifugal chillers, HCFC-123 is replaced by HCFO-1233zd(E) and R-514A; in screws, HFC-134a is mainly replaced by R-513A, HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E). Replacement of R-410A in scrolls consists of HFC-32 and various HFC-HFO blends.

HFC-32 and R-744 are increasingly being used in water heating heat pumps, with the introduction of R-454C as a recent innovation. HC-290 is increasingly used in both heat pump water heaters and monobloc space heating heat pumps with a low refrigerant charge. HFOs, HCs and water (R-718) are being investigated for heating applications in the industrial sub-sector for delivery temperatures higher than 100°C, with two refrigerants (HCFO-1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E)) reaching the market. Other applications use hydrocarbons (n-butane (HC-600), pentane) with n-butane predominating because of the wide availability of compressor technologies available from different suppliers. In mobile air conditioning (MAC), the global use of HFO-1234yf and other lower GWP options will be impacted by additional aspects including safety, regulations, system reliability, heat pump capability and servicing. In A 5 countries, the cost of lower GWP refrigerants (e.g. HFO-1234yf) remains the main barrier to wider adoption. It is still unclear if other mobile AC applications, such as buses and heavy-duty trucks, will move to lower GWP options. The increasing use of heat pumps in electric vehicles will lead to “further optimization” of HFO-1234yf systems, to alternative refrigerants such as R-744, and to dual-loop systems NIK technologies continue to represent a niche market, and this will continue in the near future. Also, many NIK technologies are still in the R&D stage. Nevertheless, some interesting developments are worth reporting:

• Indirect evaporative cooling units are currently widely available with improved performance (e.g. COP);

• LiBr/H2O absorption chillers with improved energy efficiency, can provide chilled water slightly below 5.5°C;

• Adsorption chillers have improved energy efficiency and extended capacity;

• Magnetocaloric systems, which use magnets to induce cooling in suitable materials, move forward under a new licensing program established in France, and the licensed company plans for small scale production in 2022-2023.

For HAT regions, the October 2019 PRAHA-II report on prototype optimization and risk assessment “at HAT working practices” concluded that alternative lower GWP refrigerants are viable and can be competitive to currently used refrigerants. Whereas the direct emission values for refrigerants are getting lower and lower, the emphasis in modelling - to be used for emission estimates - is now far more on the annual CO2 emissions from power generation to drive RACHP equipment. It is also worth mentioning that multi-step approaches for gradually reducing the carbon footprint (i.e., energy consumption) from RACHP equipment have been published by many sources in 2018-2019 (including the TEAP XXIX/10 report, the EPEE approach and the Economist Intelligence Unit report).

In recent years there has been much more focus on energy efficiency for refrigeration systems in relation to “sustainability”; this is particularly due to the broad public discussions on the various aspects of climate change. For refrigeration technology, sustainable design and operation, in combination with questions about the short- and long-term effects of emissions, are becoming increasingly important.


In this report, the progress in the different RACHP sub-sectors is documented with emphasis on updating technical developments in relation to what was reported in the 2018 RTOC Assessment Report.

6.2. Refrigerants

Since the publication of the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report, one new single-component refrigerant and eight new refrigerant blends have received a designation/classification from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34 and/or from the International Standards Organisation (ISO) 817. These nine refrigerants are listed in tables 1, 2 and 3 below. Their GWP and ODP values are based on referenced consensus data, primarily from WMO and IPCC, with mass-weighted values for blends calculated in the same way as the ones given in the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report.

One of the nine refrigerants is a single-component refrigerant, trifluoro-iodomethane – IFC-13I1. IFC-13I1 had already been mentioned in the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report and is now classified in safety class A1 (it does not propagate the flame and has (low) chronic toxicity) in ASHRAE 34, while it is not listed in ISO 817. The boiling point is -21.9°C, and IFC-13I1 has the potential, when used as a component in refrigerant blends to produce low flammability refrigerant blends with a lower GWP (such as R-466A with a GWP of 740), There are concerns about the chemical stability and the (low) chronic toxicity of IFC-13I1, and there is ongoing research on this topic. The ODP of IFC-13I1 is less than 0.09, but the impact on the ozone layer varies significantly with the geographical location of the release, due to its short atmospheric lifetime (<5 days). More details on the ODP of IFC-13I1 can be found in the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report.

R-427B and R-467A are blends of mainly “traditional” GWP fluids, and R-427B is only listed in ISO 817. R-466A is a blend containing IFC-13I1 and R-468A is a blend containing HFO-1132a and HFO-1234yf. R-469A, R-470A, and R-470B all contain CO2, which composition lowers the GWP, lowers the boiling point and results in relatively large temperature glides. R-515B is very similar to the existing R-515A and is also an azeotropic blend of HFO-1234ze(E) and HFC-227ea.

Table 1: Data summary for new single component refrigerants

Refrigerant

Designation

Chem

ical Formula

Chem

ical Nam

e

Molecular W

eight

Boiling Point (°C

)

Safety Class

Atm

ospheric L

ifetime (Y

ears)

Radiative E

fficiency (W

/m/ ppm

)

GW

P 100 Year

GW

P 20 Year

OD

P

IFC-13I1 CF3I trifluoro-iodomethane 195.9 –21.9 A1 <5 days 0.23 0.4 1 <0.09


Table 2: Data summary for new zeotropic refrigerant blends

Refrigerant

Designation

Refrigerant

Com

position (M

ass %)

Molecular

Weight

Bubble Point/

Dew

Point (°C)

Safety Class

GW

P 100 Year

GW

P 20 Year

OD

P

R-427B HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-143a/HFC-134a (20.6/25.6/19.0/34.8) 85.0 –46,2/–40,1 A1 2,500 4,800

R-466A HFC-32/HFC-125/13I1 (49.0/11.5/39.5) 80.7 –51,7/–51,0 A1 740 2,000 <0.04

R-467A HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a/HC-600a (22.0/5.0/72.4/0.6) 84.4 –40.5/–33.3 A1 1,300 3,600

R-468A R-1132a/HFC-32/HFO-1234yf (3.5/21.5/75.0) 88.8 –51.3/–39.0 A2L 150 540

R-469A R-744/HFC- 32/HFC-125 (35.0/32.5/32.5) 59.1 –78.5/–61.5 A1 1,400 2,900

R-470A R-744/32/HFC-125/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E)/HFC-227ea (10.0/17.0/19.0/7.0/44.0/3.0) 84.4 –62.7/–35.6 A1 970 2,000

R-470B R-744/HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E)/HFC- 227ea (10.0/11.5/11.5/3.0/57.0/7.0) 89.7 –61.7/–31.4 A1 740 1,500

Table 3: Data summary for new azeotropic refrigerant blends

Refrigerant

Designation

Refrigerant

Com

position (M

ass % )

Molecular

Weight

Bubble Point/

Dew

Point (°C)

Safety Class

GW

P 100 Year

GW

P 20 Year

R-515B HFO-1234ze(E)/HFC-227ea (91,1/8,9) 117.5 –19.0/–19.0 A1 280 470

Tables reporting the same information for all the other refrigerants cited in the present document are shown in Annex I. The tables are an excerpt of RTOC 2018 Assessment Report.

6.3. Commercial, domestic and ultra-low temperature refrigeration

The implementation of the F-Gas regulation 517/2014 in Europe is underway, with refrigerants like R-744 and HC-290 (and to a lesser extent R-717) are gaining increased acceptance in commercial applications. As of January 2020, new hermetically sealed refrigerators and freezers for commercial use that contain HFCs with a GWP of 2500 or more can no longer be placed on the market. This step sets the stage for January 2022 when new products in this category containing HFCs with a GWP of 150 or more can no longer be placed on the market.

Lower GWP HFO blends (A1/A2L classified) are being also applied in smaller charge commercial systems. In several countries and regions, commercial refrigeration installations are evolving to low charge and low leak designs (e.g., in plug-in units) as alternatives to larger central systems.

In the United States, California has announced the next round of regulations aimed at reducing the GWP of refrigerants allowed in different applications. This includes a proposal to reduce the GWP impact of existing systems in supermarkets through a combination of retrofit and remodelling. Combined with the requirements for new systems, this proposal is driving the exploration of lower charge systems containing refrigerants such as R-513A, R-516A and a blend with a proposed designation of R-471A (all comparable in properties to HFC-134a) for larger direct expansion systems.


In the domestic appliance sector, most of the developments have already been reported in the 2018 RTOC Assessment Report. However, an R&D cooperation between two companies recently reported an interesting experimental result. It was observed that, due to its lower volumetric refrigeration effect, the application of n-butane (HC-600) is beneficial (up to 14% energy consumption improvement compared to iso-butane, HC-600a) for low thermal load systems such as small household refrigerators.

Ultra-Low Temperature (ULT) refrigeration commonly uses very high GWP refrigerants such as HFC-23 (GWP 12,690) and R-508B (a blend of HFC-23 and PFC-116; GWP 12,000). There is usually a two-stage cascade cycle, with HFC-23 as the best refrigerant for the low stage, with R-717 (ammonia) for the high stage, or HC-290, if highly flammable refrigerants are allowed. Since the replacement of HFC-23 will be necessary, development is focusing on next generation low GWP refrigerants for closed loop ULT refrigeration, such as HFC-41, HFO-1132a, HC-170 (ethane) and HC-1150 (ethylene). For some applications, the open loop air (R-729) cycle has been developed and commercialized. Some development is also taking place with a mixture of CO2 (R-744) and N2O (R-744A) as well as using pure CO2 below the triple point, by sublimation of dry ice. The transition to lower GWP refrigerants for ULT systems will depend on whether it is possible to apply refrigerants with some degree of flammability.

6.4. Industrial refrigeration

During the last two years, the number of large industrial heat pumps marketed has increased dramatically, mainly in Europe and China. There are several different drivers for this trend including the increasing price of oil and gas in some European countries, and the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy. Heat Pumps are applied to produce heat from boilers and district heating systems, but also to provide heat for industrial drying processes in the paper and food industry. The heat pump can deliver temperatures in the range of 60°C to over 150°C.

For temperatures greater than 100°C, R&D is underway on HFOs, HCs and water (R-718) as refrigerants. Some products have reached the market using HCFO-1233zd(E) and HFO-1234ze(E), where HFO-1234ze(E) is being used for transcritical applications. Some applications are moving to hydrocarbons such as pentane, and especially n-butane (HC-600) with compressor technologies already available from different suppliers. Iso-butane (HC-600a) has also been considered for high temperature heat pumps, but n-butane yields better COPs at high temperatures. Pentane provides theoretically better COPs but requires more compressor swept volume than n-butane which may be challenging.

A variety of heat pumps are already marketed for the temperature range 60-80°C, using several different refrigerants. Heat pumps for district heating with supply temperatures between 60 and 120°C are available on the market. The high delivery temperature in these heat pumps didn’t show any impact on the system’s lifetime. New district heating systems use lower temperatures, where older systems tend to be running at higher temperatures to serve more clients with the available networks. A new district heating network is normally not an economically feasible solution in the latter case. The main drivers for an uptake of these systems include near-term benefits i.e. a feasible installation of the heat pump at reasonable cost, and the potential to fulfil a zero CO2 emission target before 2050.

There is a major challenge worldwide to reduce the refrigerant charge size. For fluorocarbons systems, this would reduce the cost of the refrigerant charge, and cost of servicing. For systems operating with flammable natural refrigerants, larger charges provide greater risk, which needs to be met by design features to reduce leaks, and improved technician training. Charge reduction solutions are increasingly being implemented through the application of cascade systems (e.g., R-717/R-744 or HC-290/R-744 combinations).


6.5. Transport refrigeration

During the last two years, the road transport industry has largely migrated to the use of R-452A (GWP of 2140) in new equipment, because it is non-flammable, and it has a GWP about half that of R-404A (GWP of 3922). However, its GWP is still relatively high, and this is driving R&D to evaluate new blends with much lower GWP. However, these will likely be flammable.

There is progress in sensing technology. and in standards and codes. For instance, in the EU, CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) has been requested to develop new safety standards. What can be expected as a result is an A2L or A3 next generation of refrigerants for truck, trailer and light commercial vehicles.

R-744 based solutions so far remain a minor fraction of the systems sold but are increasing from a low baseline. ISO has completed and published a standard addressing the requirements for design and operation of refrigerated thermal containers using flammable refrigerants (ISO 20854, 2019). However, these container units are not yet available.

For cargo and passenger ships, there is increasing use of a wider range of new refrigerants. R-744 is used for refrigeration of food and beverages. The overall trend is not clear at present, although HFO-1234ze(E) seems to be increasingly applied in passenger ships.

In gas carriers, there are proposals to use blends with up to five components.

For fishing vessels, new blends such as R-469A are being developed, in one or two stage systems, including a cascade solution for warmer waters, particularly for tuna freezing.

The railway industry is still dependent on systems with HFC-134a and R-407C. There remain two issues: (1) a high concern over passenger safety, and (2) concerns related to long-term public contracts during the conversion process. This is also the case for high speed trains where air cycles and other options including R-744, A2L and A3 refrigerants are being tested.

6.6. Air-to-air air conditioners (AC) and heat pumps (HP)

The types of AC, including reversible air heating HPs considered here range in size from 1 kW to 750 kW, although the majority are less than 70 kW (2018 RTOC Assessment Report, chapter 7).

Non-ducted single splits units are produced in the greatest number (100 million units per year). Globally, the present situation remains as reported in the 2018 Assessment Report, with over half of all units produced globally now using non-ODS refrigerants.

In A5 countries, many locally produced ACs are relatively inefficient, and still use HCFC-22. However, due to the limited supply of high performance and/or inverter driven HCFC-22 compressors, A5 countries are adopting HCFC-22 alternatives including high-GWP HFCs in order to comply with more stringent Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards (MEPS).

In addition, the widespread introduction of HFC-32 in residential split units --and in some countries, in commercial air conditioners-- continues in many countries around the world. Efficiency is part of the selection criteria for lower GWP refrigerants, as an important follow-up of the Kigali Amendment.

After evaluation, many companies are progressing to apply various blends of HFCs, HFOs, HCFOs in AC products; in some cases, an iodo-fluoro-carbon (IFC) is used. Further conversion of production lines to HC-290 in China, South East Asia and South America is


underway, and (except for small and portable units) there is limited market introduction, which is due to restrictive requirements of safety standards. In India, the adoption of HC-290 split air conditioners continues to increase, primarily by one national manufacturer. Other local manufacturers in A5 parties are still adopting HFC-32 and R-410A.

Almost all lower GWP alternatives are flammable. There has been significant progress with the development of new requirements for some safety standards, primarily IEC 60335-2-40 (particularly for increasing the equipment refrigerant charge size), with one working group now addressing class A3, A2 and A2L refrigerants. Presently, numerous research activities are investigating the safe application of flammable refrigerants in air conditioning equipment. The results of these research activities will be important for the safety standards reviewing process, and the long- term impact on the environment.

6.7. Water heating heat pumps

The heat pump water heating sector is making major progress in Europe, Japan, and China where this market is rapidly changing. The RTOC Assessment Report 2018 mentions “Due to the quota limitations in the EU, based on CO2 equivalent units, the price and availability of high GWP refrigerants become important criteria for alternatives selection”. This now forms the main driving force in Europe towards the use of lower GWP refrigerants.

HC-290 is increasingly being applied in some heat pump water heaters and monobloc space heating heat pumps. Commercial information from European manufacturers indicates that HC-290 is likely to be more widely applied for these types of heat pump. The limited refrigerant charge for these heat pumps has enabled the application of HC-290. As these products are monobloc, one compact unit systems, there are limited risks with A3 flammable refrigerants during installation and servicing.

In Europe, HFC-32 is increasingly used in newly built space heating heat pumps as well as combined water and space heating heat pumps.

In Japan, R-744 has been used in both heat pump water heaters and combined water and space heating systems. There is one difference: in Japan manufacturers in both the residential and commercial sector use R-744, in Europe its use is only related to the commercial sector.

A European manufacturer has recently announced that it will apply R-454C for heat pumps without clarification of the exact type of heat pump. R-454C (with a GWP of 146) is an A2L alternative to R-404A and HCFC-22, is a suitable alternative for certain heat pump applications, however, it has a certain temperature glide.

The use of lower GWP alternatives for water heating heat pumps is mainly driven by the availability of suitable compressors for them. Currently, the market of heat pumps is still relatively small, compared to the market of R/AC equipment, and the compressor selection is limited to those available for R/AC applications.

6.8. Chillers

No major technology advances have occurred in chillers since the 2018 RTOC Assessment Report although the market is evolving. The major changes to lower GWP refrigerants used in chillers are as follows:

• HCFC-123 (in centrifugal chillers) is being replaced by HCFO-1233zd(E), R-514A.

• HFC-134a (in centrifugal and screw compressor chillers) is being replaced by R-513A, HCFO-1233zd(E), HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E).


• R-410A (in scroll compressor chillers) is being replaced by HFC-32, R-466A, R-452B, R-454B.

Chillers using R-717, R-718 (water) and HC-290 are also available on regional basis (as the building safety codes differ from region to region). Products using these refrigerants have been available in the market for some time.

Product development, marketing forces and governmental regulations often governs the pace of penetration for new products.

6.9. Mobile air conditioning (MAC)

There are two refrigerants used in new car and light truck air conditioning systems.

• HFC-134a remains widely accepted world-wide (it is used in almost 900 million vehicles worldwide).

• HFO-1234yf is gaining a market share in Europe, the US and Japan as a low GWP alternative, and used in approximately 100 million vehicles.

The global use of HFO-1234yf and other lower GWP options will be impacted by factors such as safety, regulations, system reliability, heat pump capability and servicing. The market evolution is hard to predict. It is also unclear if buses and heavy-duty trucks, will follow the current trends of cars and light-duty vehicles. While refrigerant choices for these applications are currently not “regulated”, they will be influenced by the EU F-Gas regulation. This long-term uncertainty may cause manufacturers to convert earlier to lower GWP refrigerant options such as HFO-1234yf or R-744.

For existing vehicles using HFC-134a, R-513A is already being used for servicing “retrofits” where virgin HFC-134a supplies are expected to be constrained. For retrofitting, use of HC in MACs has occurred for many years, mainly in Australia and the USA. However, this is not a practice endorsed by OEMs and most workshops.

Europe, US, Japan and China is progressing to “decarbonised mobility” and the announced EU “Green Deal” will accelerate the electrification of all road transport in Europe. MAC systems will have to be adapted to the requirements of battery electric vehicles. It is likely that the wider use of heat pumps will lead to optimization of HFO-1234yf systems and enable the use of alternative refrigerants such as R-744 and to dual-loop systems (indirect expansion and condensation).

In A5 parties, the cost of lower GWP refrigerants (e.g. HFO-1234yf) is currently the main barrier for use in MAC. Options based on the use of dual loop systems combined with HFC-152a or hydrocarbons are still under evaluation (e.g. in India).

6.10. Energy efficiency and sustainability applied to refrigeration systems

In recent years, the energy efficiency of RACHP, together with the GWP of refrigerants during HFC phasedown have been of increasing importance in the context of climate change.

Sustainable management and forward-looking actions are sought worldwide. One of the noteworthy examples is the new “Green Deal” approach adopted by the EU commission together with the EU member countries towards the UN's 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

In October 2019, the EU published its first Ecodesign and Energy Label regulation for commercial refrigeration. In combination with the F-Gas regulation, the regulation aims to


reduce the overall direct and indirect emissions of these products. In the same year, the EU published a reviewed Ecodesign and Energy Label regulation for domestic refrigeration. The regulation calls for the availability of specific spare parts (such as gaskets) that are key in maintaining the product’s energy efficiency over its lifetime. It requires that the product is designed in a way to allow the replacement of the gaskets by the users.

In RACHP, sustainable design and operation, in combination with the short and long-term effects of emissions, are becoming of increased importance. Criteria for the sustainable refrigerant selection process have already been developed and described in the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report. The refrigerant selection criteria are likely to be re-evaluated following new aspects that will be brought in.

Interested readers might want to consult the recent Energy Efficiency Task Force reports prepared by TEAP in 201858 and 201959.

6.11. Not-in-kind technologies

Not-in-Kind (NIK) technologies continue to represent a niche market, and this will probably continue in the near future. Also, many NIK technologies are still in the early R&D stage. Nevertheless, some interesting developments are worth reporting. Since the 2018 RTOC Assessment Report, the following technologies have made advances.

Indirect evaporative cooling

Many direct/indirect evaporate cooling units are becoming available, with improved performance (i.e., coefficient of performance (COP)). The system is better established and widely commercially available. The technology is being commercialised by at least five companies worldwide, including also in HAT countries.

Absorption refrigeration

Improvement in two important issues for LiBr/H2O units: • Double effect chillers improved in energy efficiency: COP improved from 1.25 to 1.35

(+8%), making them more competitive to the more expensive triple effect units that have higher efficiency.

• A drawback of absorption units was their inability to provide coolth below 5.5°C. New developments have shown units that can operate safely at slightly lower temperatures than 5.5°C. This is an important improvement for district cooling projects, since reducing chilled water temperatures reduces cost of the chilled water network and improves the economic performance of the system.

Adsorption refrigeration

Improved heat ratio (efficiency) and extended capacity, now from 11 kW to 1180 kW (3.1 TR to 335 TR). This important NIK technology is effective because it can be regenerated with “hot” temperatures lower than 100°C, which makes it suitable for use with waste heat

58 Decision XXIX/10 Task Force Report on Issues Related to Energy Efficiency While Phasing Down Hydrofluorocarbons, May 2018

59 Decision XXX/5 Task Force Report on Cost and Availability of Low-GWP Technologies/Equipment that Maintain/Enhance Energy Efficiency, May 2019


recovered from industrial processes and solar plants. This technology is now being used by several companies worldwide.

One good example of how NIK technologies can improve the quality of specific RACHP applications is given by a new truck AC system developed by a German company and based on adsorption refrigeration. The new system is gas-driven, makes the truck AC engine-independent and therefore is very quiet during truck’ standstill.

Magnetocaloric systems

Magnetocaloric systems use magnets to induce cooling in suitable materials, move forward under a new licensing program established in France. A licensed company plans for small scale production in 2022-2023.

6.11.1. Emerging technologies

Molecular sieve cells

A small capacity molecular sieve chiller (11 kW at peak with 6 kW at continuous operation) is expected to be on the market in 2021 with four air handling units. The AC uses a small amount of electricity to run the condenser fan, and uses propane or a natural gas fired burner to regenerate its molecular sieve.

6.12. High ambient temperature (HAT)

The October 2019 PRAHA-II reported on prototype optimization and risk assessment “at HAT working practices”. It concluded that alternative lower GWP refrigerants are viable and can be competitive to presently used refrigerants in air conditioning applications. This would require proper component design and selection, especially for the compressor and the expansion device. Another finding was that for refrigerants with high temperature glide, fractionation does not appear to be of major concern since less than 2% change in cooling capacity was observed after system recharging.

The PRAHA-II report also assessed the risk of using flammable refrigerants in the context of the different usage and servicing practices in HAT countries. The initial findings from other sources about the negligible effect of HAT on the risk of ignition were confirmed. The focus remains on the safe practices and training of AC personnel.

6.13. Modelling of RACHP systems

In the 2018 RTOC Assessment Report, four types of models or methods were listed for RACHP applications:

(1) Thermodynamics (refrigerant) based models that calculate the energy efficiency and energy consumption under well-determined temperature conditions,

(2) Combined thermodynamic, flow and heat transfer models, (3) Models that focus on total (climate relevant) emission reductions (4) Inventory models that, via using the amounts of refrigerant charged into (and leaking

from) RACHP equipment, calculate the banks of various refrigerants. While all models continuously evolve, updates for two types (i.e., (3) and (4)) of models are given below:

1. The demand of the various refrigerants in manufacturing and servicing as well as the ongoing developments in various equipment designs in relation to the energy


consumption (energy efficiency) are two important issues for emissions calculations. Whereas the direct emission values for refrigerants are getting lower and lower, it is the annual emissions from power generation to drive RACHP that are important. It is also worth mentioning that multi-step approaches for reducing the carbon footprint have been published by many sources in 2018-2019 (e.g., the XXIX/10 TEAP Task Force report available at ozone.unep.org), the European Partnership for Energy and Environment (EPEE) “Count on Cooling” approach and the K-CEP commissioned “The Cooling Imperative” report by the Economist Intelligence Unit).

2. If and when HFC production and consumption data are available for (all) countries, this availability of HFC data and related parameters on equipment “behaviour” (i.e., leakage etc.) will enable the development of “bottom-up” scenarios for the refrigerant demand and the related, important banks and emissions. This work is ongoing. Extrapolations can also be done for the next 4-year period, i.e., towards the freeze year for HFCs for Group I A 5 countries under the Kigali Amendment. Within this framework, the check of “bottom-up” demand data for the RACHP sector with reliable chemical manufacturing data for HFCs (and HCFCs) both worldwide and on a regional basis is also ongoing.


ANNEX I to RTOC 2020 Progress Report

Data summary

This Annex (excerpt from RTOC 2018 Assessment Report) summarizes physical, safety, and environmental data for refrigerants with a safety classification in ISO 817 (ISO 817:2014) or ASHRAE 34 (ASHRAE 34-2016).

Table A.I-1 covers single component refrigerants; Table A.I-2 is the summary for zeotropic refrigerant blends, while Table A.I-3 covers azeotropic refrigerant blends.

Table A.I-1: Data summary for single component refrigerants

Ref

rige

rant

D

esig

natio

n

Che

mic

al F

orm

ula

Che

mic

al N

ame

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t (k

g/km

ol)

Boi

ling

Poin

t (°C

)

AT

EL

/OD

L (k

g/m

3 )

LFL

(kg/

m3 )

Safe

ty C

lass

Atm

osph

eric

L

ifetim

e (Y

ears

)

Rad

iativ

e E

ffic

ienc

y (W

/m/ p

pm)

GW

P 10

0 Y

ear

GW

P 20

Yea

r

OD

P

Methane series

CFC-11 CCl3F trichlorofluoromethane 137.4 24 0.006 2 NF A1 52 0.26 5 160 7 090 1

CFC-12 CCl2F2 dichlorodifluoromethane 120.9 –30 0.088 NF A1 102 0.32 10 300 10 800 0.73 CFC-13 CClF3 chlorotrifluoromethane 104.5 –81 ND NF A1 640 0.25 13 900 10 900 1 BFC-13B1 CBrF3 bromotrifluoromethane 148.9 –58 ND NF A1 72 0.30 6 670 7 930 15.2

PFC-14 CF4 tetrafluoromethane (carbon tetrafluoride) 88.0 –128 0.40 NF A1 50000 0.09 6 630 4 880

HCFC-22 CHClF2 chlorodifluoromethane 86.5 –41 0.21 NF A1 12 0.21 1 780 5 310 0.034 HFC-23 CHF3 trifluoromethane 70.0 –82 0.15 NF A1 228 0.18 12 690 11 085

HCC-30 CH2Cl2 dichloromethane (methylene chloride) 84.9 40 ND NF B1 0.4 0.03 9 33

HFC-32 CH2F2 difluoromethane (methylene fluoride) 52.0 –52 0.30 0.307 A2L 5.4 0.11 704 2 530

HC-50 CH4 methane 16.0 –161 ND 0.032 A3 12.4 3.63e-4 30 b 85 b

Ethane series

CFC-113 CCl2FCClF2 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 187.4 48 0.02 NF A1 93 0.30 6 080 6 560 0.81

CFC-114 CClF2CClF2 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 170.9 4 0.14 NF A1 189 0.31 8 580 7 710 0.5

CFC-115 CClF2CF3 chloropentafluoroethane 154.5 –39 0.76 NF A1 540 0.20 7 310 5 780 0.26 PFC-116 CF3CF3 hexafluoroethane 138.0 –78 0.68 NF A1 10000 0.25 11 100 8 210

HCFC-123 CHCl2CF3 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane 152.9 27 0.057 NF B1 1.3 0.15 79 292 0.01

HCFC-124 CHClFCF3 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane 136.5 –12 0.056 NF A1 5.9 0.20 527 1 870 0.02

HFC-125 CHF2CF3 pentafluoroethane 120.0 –49 0.37 NF A1 31 0.23 3 450 6 280 HFC-134a CH2FCF3 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane 102.0 –26 0.21 NF A1 14 0.16 1 360 3 810

HCFC-142b CH3CClF2 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane 100.5 –10 0.10 0.329 A2 18 0.19 2 070 5 140 0.057

HFC-143a CH3CF3 1,1,1-trifluoroethane 84.0 –47 0.48 0.282 A2L 51 0.16 5 080 7 050 HFC-152a CH3CHF2 1,1-difluoroethane 66.1 –25 0.14 0.130 A2 1.6 0.10 148 545

HC-170 CH3CH3 ethane 30.1 –89 0.008 6 0.038 A3 1.4 5.2

Ethers

HE-E170 CH3OCH3 methoxymethane (dimethyl ether) 46.1 –25 0.079 0.064 A3 0.015 0.02 1 1


Propane series PFC-218 CF3CF2CF3 octafluoropropane 188.0 –37 0.34 NF A1 2600 0.28 8 900 6 640

HFC-227ea CF3CHFCF3 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane 170.0 –16 0.19 NF A1 36 0.26 3 140 5 250

HFC-236fa CF3CH2CF3 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluroropropane 152.0 –1 0.34 NF A1 242 0.24 8 060 6 940

HFC-245fa CHF2CH2CF3 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane 134.0 15 0.19 NF B1 7.9 0.24 882 2 980

HC-290 CH3CH2CH3 propane 44.1 –42 0.09 0.038 A3 12.5 days <1 <1

Cyclic organic compounds PFC-C318 -(CF2)4- octafluorocyclobutane 200.0 –6 0.65 NF A1 3200 0.32 9 540 7 110

Hydrocarbons

HC-600 CH3CH2CH2CH3 butane 58.1 0 0.002 4 0.038 A3 <1 <1

HC-600a CH(CH3)2CH3 2-methylpropane (isobutane) 58.1 –12 0.059 0.043 A3 6.0

days <1 <1

HC-601 CH3CH2CH2-CH2CH3

Pentane 72.2 36 0.0029 0.035 A3 3.4 days <1 1.4

HC-601a CH(CH3)2CH2-CH3

2-methylbutane (isopentane) 72.2 27 0.0029 0.038 A3 3.4

days <1 1.4

Inorganic compounds R-702 H2 Hydrogen 2.0 –253 A3 R-704 He Helium 4.0 –269 NF A1

R-717 NH3 Ammonia 17.0 –33 0.000 22 0.116 B2L

R-718 H2O Water 18.0 100 NF A1 R-720 Ne Neon 20.2 –246 NF A1 R-728 N2 Nitrogen 28.0 –196 NF A1 R-740 Ar Argon 39.9 –186 NF A1

R-744 CO2 carbon dioxide 44.0 –78a 0.072 NF A1 1.37e-5 1 1

Unsaturated organic compounds HCC-1130(E) CHCl=CHCl trans-1,2-dichloroethene 96.9 47.7 B2 12,7

days 0,000 24

HFO-1132a CF2=CH2 1,1-difluoroethylene 64.0 –86.7 A2 4.0 days 0.004 <1 <1

HC-1150 CH2=CH2 ethene (ethylene) 28.1 –104 ND 0.036 A3 3.7 14 HCFO-1224yd(Z) CF3CF=CHCl (Z)-1-chloro-2,3,3,3-

tetrafluoropropene 148.5 14.5 A1

HCFO-1233zd(E) CF3CH=CHCl trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoro-1-propene 130.5 18.1 0 NF A1 26.0 days 0.04 1 5 0.000

34 HFO-1234yf CF3CF=CH2

2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propene 114.0 –29.4 0.47 0.289 A2L 10.5

days 0.02 <1 1

HFO-1234ze(E) CF3CH=CHF trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-

1-propene 114.0 –19.0 0.28 0.303 A2L 16.4 days 0.04 <1 4

HC-1270 CH3CH=CH2 propene (propylene) 42.1 –48 0.001 7 0.046 A3 0.35

days <1 <1

HFO-1336mzz(E) CF3CH=CHCF3

trans-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene 164.1 7.4 A1

HFO-1336mzz(Z) CF3CH=CHCF3

cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene 164.1 33.4 A1 22.0

days 0.07 2 6

a Sublimes


Table A.I-2: Data summary for zeotropic refrigerant blends

Ref

rige

rant

D

esig

natio

n

Ref

rige

rant

C

ompo

sitio

n

(Mas

s %)

Mol

ecul

ar

Wei

ght

(kg/

kmol

)

Bub

ble

Poin

t/ D

ew P

oint

(°C

)

AT

EL

/OD

L

(kg/

m3 )

LFL

(kg/

m3 )

Safe

ty C

lass

GW

P 10

0 Y

ear

GW

P 20

Yea

r

OD

P

R-401A R-22/152a/124 (53.0/13.0/34.0) 94.4 –34.4/–28.8 0.10 NF A1 1 100 3 500 0.02 R-401B R-22/152a/124 (61.0/11.0/28.0) 92.8 –35.7/–30.8 0.11 NF A1 1 200 3 800 0.03 R-401C R-22/152a/124 (33.0/15.0/52.0) 101 –30.5/–23.8 0.083 NF A1 880 2 800 0.02 R-402A R-125/290/22 (60.0/2.0/38.0) 101.5 –49.2/–47.0 0.27 NF A1 2 700 5 800 0.01 R-402B R-125/290/22 (38.0/2.0/60.0) 94.7 –47.2/–44.9 0.24 NF A1 2 400 5 600 0.02 R-403A R-290/22/218 (5.0/75.0/20.0) 92 –44.0/–42.3 0.24 0.480 A2 3 100 5 300 0.03 R-403B R-290/22/218 (5.0/56.0/39.0) 103.3 –43.8/–42.3 0.29 NF A1 4 500 5 600 0.02 R-404A R-125/143a/134a (44.0/52.0/4.0) 97.6 –46.6/–45.8 0.52 NF A1 4 200 6 600 R-406A R-22/600a/142b (55.0/4.0/41.0) 89.9 –32.7/–23.5 0.14 0.302 A2 1 800 5 000 0.04 R-407A R-32/125/134a (20.0/40.0/40.0) 90.1 –45.2/–38.7 0.31 NF A1 2 100 4 500 R-407B R-32/125/134a (10.0/70.0/20.0) 102.9 –46.8/–42.4 0.33 NF A1 2 800 5 400 R-407C R-32/125/134a (23.0/25.0/52.0) 86.2 –43.8/–36.7 0.29 NF A1 1 700 4 100 R-407D R-32/125/134a (15.0/15.0/70.0) 91 –39.4/–32.7 0.25 NF A1 1 600 4 000 R-407E R-32/125/134a (25.0/15.0/60.0) 83.8 –42.8/–35.6 0.27 NF A1 1 500 3 900 R-407F R-32/125/134a (30.0/30.0/40.0) 82.1 –46.1/–39.7 0.32 NF A1 1 800 4 200 R-407G R-32/125/134a (2.5/2.5/95.0) 100.0 –29.2/–27.2 NF A1 1 400 3 800 R-407H R-32/125/134a (32.5/15.0/52.5) 79.1 –44.7/–37.6 NF A1 1 500 3 800 R-407I R-32/125/134a (19.5/8.5/72.0) 86.9 –39.8/–33.0 NF A1 1 400 3 800 R-408A R-125/143a/22 (7.0/46.0/47.0) 87 –45.5/–45.0 0.33 NF A1 3 400 6 200 0.02 R-409A R-22/124/142b (60.0/25.0/15.0) 97.4 –35.4/–27.5 0.12 NF A1 1 500 4 400 0.03 R-409B R-22/124/142b (65.0/25.0/10.0) 96.7 –36.5/–29.7 0.12 NF A1 1 500 4 400 0.03 R-410A R-32/125 (50.0/50.0) 72.6 –51.6/–51.5 0.42 NF A1 2 100 4 400 R-410B R-32/125 (45.0/55.0) 75.6 –51.5/–51.4 0.43 NF A1 2 200 4 600 R-411A R-1270/22/152a) (1.5/87.5/11.0) 82.4 –39.7/–37.2 0.074 0.186 A2 1 600 4 700 0.03 R-411B R-1270/22/152a (3.0/94.0/3.0) 83.1 –41.6/–41.3 0.044 0.239 A2 1 700 5 000 0.03 R-412A R-22/218/142b (70.0/5.0/25.0) 92.2 –36.4/–28.8 0.17 0.329 A2 2 200 5 300 0.04 R-413A R-218/134a/600a (9.0/88.0/3.0) 104 –29.3/–27.6 0.21 0.375 A2 2 000 4 000

R-414A R-22/124/600a/142b (51.0/28.5/4.0/16.5) 96.9 –34.0/–25.8 0.10 NF A1 1 400 4 100 0.03

R-414B R-22/124/600a/142b (50.0/39.0/1.5/9.5) 101.6 –34.4/–26.1 0.096 NF A1 1 300 3 900 0.03 R-415A R-22/152a (82.0/18.0) 81.9 –37.5/–34.7 0.19 0.188 A2 1 500 4 500 0.03 R-415B R-22/152a (25.0/75.0) 70.2 –23.4/–21.8 0.15 0.13 A2 560 1 700 0.009 R-416A R-134a/124/600 (59.0/39.5/1.5) 111.9 –23.4/–21.8 0.064 NF A1 1 000 3 000 0.008 R-417A R-125/134a/600 (46.6/50.0/3.4) 106.7 –38.0/–32.9 0.057 NF A1 2 300 4 800 R-417B R-125/134a/600 (79.0/18.3/2.7) 113.1 –44.9/–41.5 0.069 NF A1 3 000 5 700 R-417C R-125/134a/600 (19.5/78.8/1.7) 103.7 –32.7/–29.2 NF A1 1 700 4 200 R-418A R-290/22/152a (1.5/96.0/2.5) 84.6 –41.2/–40.1 0.20 0.31 A2 1 700 5 100 0.03 R-419A R-125/134a/E170 (77.0/19.0/4.0) 109.3 –42.6/–36.0 0.31 0.25 A2 2 900 5 600 R-419B R-125/134a/E170 (48.5/48.0/3.5) 105.2 –37.4/–31.5 A2 2 300 4 900 R-420A R-134a/142b (88.0/12.0) 101.8 –25.0/–24.2 0.18 NF A1 1 400 4 000 0.007 R-421A R-125/134a (58.0/42.0) 111.7 –40.8/–35.5 0.28 NF A1 2 600 5 200 R-421B R-125/134a (85.0/15.0) 116.9 –45.7/–42.6 0.33 NF A1 3 100 5 900 R-422A R-125/134a/600a (85.1/11.5/3.4) 113.6 –46.5/–44.1 0.29 NF A1 3 100 5 800 R-422B R-125/134a/600a (55.0/42.0/3.0) 108.5 –40.5/–35.6 0.25 NF A1 2 500 5 100 R-422C R-125/134a/600a (82.0/15.0/3.0) 113.4 –45.3/–42.3 0.29 NF A1 3 000 5 700 R-422D R-125/134a/600a (65.1/31.5/3.4) 109.9 –43.2/–38.4 0.26 NF A1 2 700 5 300 R-422E R-125/134a/600a (58.0/39.3/2.7) 109.3 –41.8/–36.4 NF A1 2 500 5 100


R-423A 134a/227ea (52.5/47.5) 126 –24.2/–23.5 0.30 NF A1 2 200 4 500

R-424A R-125/134a/600a/600/601a (50.5/47.0/0.9/1.0/0.6) 108.4 –39.1/–33.3 0.10 NF A1 2 400 5 000

R-425A R-32/134a/227ea (18.5/69.5/12) 90.3 –38.1/–31.3 0.27 NF A1 1 500 3 700 R-426A R-125/134a/600/601a (5.1/93.0/1.3/0.6) 101.6 –28.5/–26.7 0.083 NF A1 1 400 3 900

R-427A R-32/125/143a/134a (15.0/25.0/10.0/50.0) 90.4 –43.0/–36.3 0.29 NF A1 2 200 4 600

R-428A R-125/143a/290/600a (77.5/20.0/0.6/1.9) 107.5 –48.3/–47.5 0.37 NF A1 3 700 6 300

R-429A R-E170/152a/600a (60.0/10.0/30.0) 50.8 –26.0/–25.6 0.098 0.052 A3 16 55 R-430A R-152a/600a (76.0/24.0) 64 –27.6/–27.4 0.10 0.084 A3 110 410 R-431A R-290/152a (71.0/29.0) 48.8 –43.1/–43.1 0.10 0.044 A3 44 160 R-432A R-1270/E170 (80.0/20.0) 42.8 –46.6/–45.6 0.002 1 0.039 A3 1 1 R-433A R-1270/290 (30.0/70.0) 43.5 –44.6/–44.2 0.005 5 0.036 A3 1 1 R-433B R-1270/290 (5.0/95.0) 44 –42.7/–42.5 0.025 0.025 A3 1 1 R-433C R-1270/290 (25.0/75.0) 43.6 –44.3/–43.9 0.006 6 0.032 A3 1 1

R-434A R-125/143a/134a/600a (63.2/18.0/16.0/2.8) 105.7 –45.0/–42.3 0.32 NF A1 3 300 5 800

R-435A R-E170/152a (80.0/20.0) 49 –26.1/–25.9 0.09 0.069 A3 30 110 R-436A R-290/600a (56.0/44.0) 49.3 –34.3/–26.2 0.073 0.032 A3 1 1 R-436B R-290/600a (52.0/48.0) 49.9 –33.4/–25.0 0.071 0.033 A3 1 1 R-436C R-290/600a (95.0/5.0) 44.6 –41.5/–39.5 A3 1 1 R-437A R-125/134a/600/601 (19.5/78.5/1.4/0.6) 103.7 –32.9/–29.2 0.081 NF A1 1 700 4 200

R-438A R-32/125/134a/600/601a (8.5/45.0/44.2/1.7/0.6) 99.1 –43.0/–36.4 0.079 NF A1 2 200 4 700

R-439A R-32/125/600a (50.0/47.0/3.0) 71.2 –52.0/–51.8 0.34 0.304 A2 2 000 4 200 R-440A R-290/134a/152a (0.6/1.6/97.8) 66.2 –25.5/–24.3 0.14 0.124 A2 170 590 R-441A R-170/290/600a/600 (3.1/54.8/6.0/36.1) 48.3 –41.9/–20.4 0.006 3 0.032 A3 1 1.1

R-442A R-32/125/134a/152a/227ea (31.0/31.0/30.0/3.0/5.0) 81.8 –46.5/–39.9 0.33 NF A1 1 900 4 200

R-443A R-1270/290/600a (55.0/40.0/5.0) 43.5 –44.8/–41.2 A3 1 1 R-444A R-32/152a/1234ze(E) (12.0/5.0/83.0) 96.7 –34.3/–24.3 A2L 93 330 R-444B R-32/1234ze(E)/152a (41.5/48.5/10) 72.8 –44.6/–34.9 A2L 310 1 100 R-445A R-744/134a/1234ze(E) (6.0/9.0/85.0) 103.1 –50.3/–23.5 A2L 120 350 R-446A R-32/1234ze(E)/600 (68.0/29.0/3.0) 62 –49.4/–44.0 A2L 480 1 700 R-447A R-32/125/1234ze(E) (68.0/3.5/28.5) 63 –49.3/–44.2 A2L 600 1 900 R-447B R-32/125/1234ze(E) (68.0/8.0/24.0) 63.1 –50.1/–46.0 A2L 750 2 200

R-448A R-32/125/1234yf/134a /1234ze(E) (26/26/20/21/7) 86.4 –45.9/–39.8 NF A1 1 400 3 100

R-449A R-32/125/1234yf/134a (24.3/24.7/25.3/25.7) 87.2 –46.0/–39.9 NF A1 1 400 3 100

R-449B R-32/125/1234yf/134a (25.2/24.3/23.2/27.3) 86.4 –46.1/–40.2 NF A1 1 400 3 200

R-449C R-32/125/1234yf/134a (20.0/20.0/31.0/29.0) 90.3 –44.6/–38.1 NF A1 1 200 2 900

R-450A R-1234ze(E)/134a (58/42) 108.7 –23.4/–22.8 NF A1 570 1 600 R-451A R-1234yf/134a (89.8/10.2) 112.7 –30.8/–30.5 A2L 140 390 R-451B R-1234yf/134a (88.8/11.2) 112.6 –31.0/–30.6 A2L 150 430 R-452A R-1234yf/32/125 (30/11/59) 103.5 –47.0/–43.2 NF A1 2 100 4 000 R-452B R-32/125/1234yf (67.0/7.0/26.0) 63.5 –51.0/–50.3 A2L 710 2 100 R-452C R-32/125/1234yf (12.5/61.0/26.5) 101.9 –47.5/–44.2 NF A1 2 200 4 100

R-453A R-32/125/134a/227ea/600/601a (20.0/20.0/53.8/5.0/0.6/0.6) 88.8 –42.2/–35.0 NF A1 1 700 4 100

R-454A R-32/1234yf (35.0/65.0) 80.5 –48.4/–41.6 A2L 250 890 R-454B R-32/1234yf (68.9/31.1) 62.6 –50.9/–50.0 A2L 490 1 700 R-454C R-32/1234yf (21.5/78.5) 90.8 –46.0/–37.8 A2L 150 540 R-455A R-744/32/1234yf (3.0/21.5/75.5) 87.5 –51.6/–39.1 A2L 150 540 R-456A R-32/134a/1234ze(E) (6.0/45.0/49.0) 101.4 –30.4/–25.6 NF A1 650 1 900 R-457A R-32/1234yf/152a (18.0/70.0/12.0) 87.6 –42.7/–35.5 A2L 150 520

R-458A R-32/125/134a/227ea/236fa (20.5/4.0/61.4/13.5/0.6) 89.9 –39.8/–32.4 NF A1 1 600 3 900


R-459A R-32/1234yf/1234ze(E) (68.0/26.0/6.0) 63.0 –50.3/–48.6 A2L 480 1 700 R-459B R-32/1234yf/1234ze(E) (21.0/69.0/10.0) 91.2 –44.0/–36.1 A2L 150 530

R-460A R-32/125/134a/1234ze(E) (12.0/52.0/14.0/22.0) 100.6 –44.6/–37.2 NF A1 2 100 4 100

R-460B R-32/125/134a/1234ze(E) (28.0/25.0/20.0/27.0) 84.8 –45.2/–37.1 NF A1 1 300 3 000

R-460C R-32/125/134a/1234ze(E) (2.5/2.5/ 46.0/49.0) 105.3 –29.2/–26.0 NF A1 730 2 000

R-461A R-125/143a/134a/227ea/600a (55.0/5.0/32.0/5.0/3.0) 109.6 –42.0/–37.0 NF A1 2 700 5 300

R-462A R-32/125/143a/134a/600 (9.0/42.0/2.0/44.0/3.0) 97.1 –42.6/–36.6 A2 2 200 4 700

R-464A R-32/125/1234ze(E)/227ea (27.0/ 27.0/40.0/6.0) 88.5 –46.5/–36.9 NF A1 1 300 2 700

R-465A R-32/290/1234yf (21.0/7.9/71.1) 82.9 –51.8/–40.0 A2 150 530

Table A.I-3: Data summary for azeotropic refrigerant blends

Ref

rige

rant

D

esig

natio

n

Ref

rige

rant

C

ompo

sitio

n (M

ass %

)

Mol

ecul

ar

Wei

ght

(kg/

kmol

)

Bub

ble

Poin

t/ D

ew P

oint

(°C

)

AT

EL

/OD

L

(kg/

m3 )

LFL

(kg/

m3 )

Safe

ty C

lass

GW

P 10

0 Y

ear

GW

P 20

Yea

r

OD

P

R-500 R-12/152a (73.8/26.2) 99.3 –33.6/–33.6 0.12 NF A1 7 600 8 100 0.5 R-501 R-22/12 (75.0/25.0) 93.1 –40.5/–40.3 0.21 NF A1 3 900 6 700 0.2 R-502 R-22/115 (48.8/51.2) 111.6 –45.3/–45.0 0.33 NF A1 4 600 5 600 0.1 R-503 R-23/13 (40.1/59.9) 87.2 –88 ND NF A1 13 000 11 000 0.6 R-504 R-32/115 (48.2/51.8) 79.2 –57 0.45 NF A1 4 100 4 200 0.1 R-507A R-125/143a (50.0/50.0) 98.9 –47.1/–47.1 0.53 NF A1 4 300 6 700 R-508A R-23/116 (39.0/61.0) 100.1 –87.4/–87.4 0.23 NF A1 12 000 9 300 R-508B R-23/116 (46.0/54.0) 95.4 –87.4/–87.0 0.2 NF A1 12 000 9 500 R-509A R-22/218 (44.0/56.0) 124 –40.4/–40.4 0.38 NF A1 5 800 6 100 0.01 R-510A R-E170/600a (88.0/12.0) 47.2 –25.2/–25.2 0.087 0.056 A3 1 1 R-511A R-290/E170 (95.0/5.0) 44.2 –42.18/–42.1 0.092 0.038 A3 1 1 R-512A R-134a/152a (5.0/95.0) 67.2 –24.0/–24.0 0.14 0.124 A2 210 710 R-513A R-1234yf/134a (56/44) 108.4 –29.2 NF A1 600 1 700 R-513B R-1234yf/134a (58.5/41.5) 108.7 –29.2/–29.1 NF A1 560 1 600 R-514A R-1336mzz(Z)/1130(E) (74.7/25.3) 139.6 29.0/29.0 NF B1 R-515A R-1234ze(E)/227ea (88.0/12.0) 118.7 –18.9/–18.9 NF A1 380 630 R-516A R-1234yf/134a/152a (77.5/8.5/14.0) 102.6 –29.4 A2L 140 400


7 Response to Decision XXX/7: Future availability of halons and their alternatives

7.1. Executive Summary

The economic downturn caused by the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic is projected to have a lasting impact on the halon 1301 sector. It is now widely reported and accepted that civil aviation activities will be negatively impacted for the next few years. Airframe manufacturers have lowered their production rates and lowered their forecasts for aircraft sales for the next several years. Their internal predictions are that growth rates will not return to pre-COVID-19 levels for five years or potentially more. Additionally, airlines appear to have accelerated decommissioning their older, less efficient aircraft and it is not known at this time if this is permanent, i.e., will be broken and the halon recovered and reclaimed for re-use, or if these older aircraft will be eventually returned to service.

Other continuing halon 1301 users may also have impacts but it is not nearly as likely that they will be as far reaching or long-lived as those in civil aviation. For example, there may some temporary reductions in merchant shipping, which could resume as economies improve. On the other hand, it is possible that there will be an increase of decommissioning and breaking of older ships that were fitted with halon 1301 for fire protection. Other sectors such as oil and gas, military and telecommunications may also have short-term impacts but are not expected to have long-term impacts to halon 1301 uses and/or emissions.

The key message is that all the previous projections on halon 1301 reported by HTOC to parties on annual global emissions, installed amounts in civil aviation, amounts recoverable from decommissioned civil aircraft or quantities expected from shipbreaking is now open to considerable doubt. The data and predictions that HTOC would have been provided to the parties in response to Decision XXX/7 are no longer valid. The economic downturn caused by COVID-19 has had, and will continue to have, a huge impact on the halon 1301 sector.

However, the economic impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may also offer a new opportunity to understand the installed amounts and emissions (i.e., needs) of halon 1301 from the ongoing enduring uses that was never possible before. The HTOC plans to work cooperatively with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), civil aviation non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), maritime / merchant shipping NGOs, other halon 1301 sector experts and the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) (and potentially the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP)) to gather the new data and information to re-build the modelling and estimates for current and projected halon 1301 market in terms of uses, installed base and annual emissions. This is a significant task and will take time. The HTOC plans to perform this work and report it to the parties as part of its upcoming 2022 Quadrennial Assessment.

7.2. Mandate and scope of the report

Decision XXX/7 on the future availability of halons and their alternatives requested that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, through its Halons Technical Options Committee:

(a) Continue engaging with the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization, consistent with paragraph 4 of decision XXVI/7 and paragraph 1 of decision XXIX/8, to better assess future amounts of halons available to support civil aviation and to identify relevant alternatives already available or in development;


(b) Identify ways to enhance the recovery of halons from the breaking of ships;

(c) Identify specific needs for halon, other sources of recoverable halon, and opportunities for recycling halon in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and parties not so operating; and

(d) Submit a report on halon availability, based on the above-mentioned assessment and identification activities, to the parties in advance of the forty-second meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;

In response to the Decision XXX/7, the co-chairs of the Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) assigned the effort to a working group amongst its members, with the addition of a co-chair of Technology and Economic Panel (TEAP) who previously served as a member of the HTOC.

7.3. Engagement with the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization

7.3.1. IMO Engagement

In light of this and past similar Decisions, the HTOC has been communicating with the IMO both telephonically and via face-to-face meetings over the past several years to increase the cooperation between the two organizations in order to try to get a better understanding on the amount of halon 1301 contained on maritime ships, which could become available to support civil aviation and other enduring uses, and to also increase understanding of the latest state of implementation of halon 1301 alternatives for existing and new maritime ship designs. To that end, in May 2019, an HTOC Consulting Expert in the local London, UK area attended the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting at IMO headquarters to address Decision XXX/7 and to request assistance of members of the MEPC. Unfortunately, the meeting was not able to follow the timelines in its agenda and the discussion on halons was not held during its scheduled time, when the HTOC representative was present. As a result, the discussion occurred without HTOC input and unfortunately, little progress with IMO ensued for the remainder of 2019.

In 2020, two HTOC co-chairs met with IMO staff at its London headquarters on March 9th following the HTOC annual meeting in Vienna, Austria, to discuss further the requests in this Decision and to make specific plans on how to make timely progress to meet the timelines of the Decision. At that meeting, it was agreed that while IMO itself does not keep track of this kind of information, they understood how important it is for the international community and the Montreal Protocol parties to have it. As such, they are willing to assist the HTOC in finding ways to be able to collect this information. For example, the IMO has agreed to publish an article, to be authored by the HTOC co-chairs, that lays out the need for halon 1301 and explains why it is a very valuable commodity that needs to be recovered carefully during shipbreaking activities. IMO will disseminate and target this article to those entities performing or otherwise knowledgeable of shipbreaking activities, processes, and procedures. The HTOC will also provide written advice to the IMO regarding the safe handling practices of halons and other pressurized fire protection cylinders to ensure that they are removed, stored, and recovered safely, with minimal emissions to the atmosphere. IMO has agreed to disseminate and target this information to IMO Member States and other appropriate organizations to raise awareness of the need to carefully handle halon 1301 (and other gaseous, halogenated fire protection agents) during shipbreaking activities.

A third area of increased cooperation between IMO and the HTOC is on the status of alternative fire protection agents used in merchant shipping. The HTOC has been under the impression that designs that used halons continued to use halons until the ship is decommissioned and undergoes shipbreaking. However, most recently, the HTOC is hearing


that retrofit of halon is occurring and alternatives such as high-GWP HFCs and the low-GWP fluoroketone are both being used in these retrofits. The issue of retrofit of halons is important as it can affect, potentially significantly, the date when halon 1301 is no longer coming to the market from shipbreaking activities and hence, the date when halons are no longer available to support civil aviation and other ongoing, enduring uses. It is also important to understand the extent, if any, that high-GWP HFCs are being used in both retrofit and new designs for future assessment and efforts under the Kigali amendment. The HTOC plans to continue to work with IMO on updating its understanding of the current state of use or retrofit of halons, high GWP-HFC and alternative gaseous, halogenated fire protection alternatives for both existing (retrofit applications) and new ship builds. The HTOC has specifically asked for the assistance of IMO staff in identifying experts in shipbreaking activities and fire protection alternatives that could support the work of HTOC as a member.

7.3.2. ICAO Engagement

HTOC continues to coordinate with ICAO to advance the understanding of halon emissions from the civil aviation sector. Although changes to their preparatory cycle precluded getting Decision XXX/7 issues onto the agenda for their 2019 General Assembly, ICAO has agreed to continue to work with the HTOC on gathering the information requested in Decision XXX/7. ICAO reconvened their informal industry working group and held a teleconference to discuss how to collect better information on halon 1301 emissions from the civil aviation sector. Following the poor results from the questionnaire, as reported previously, the working group agreed that a detailed study would need to be performed and that they would need to fund a consultant to perform this study, as it was beyond what the working group could perform on its own. The working group agreed to develop the work statement and evaluate the proposals received. Even though industry has now placed these plans on hold owing to COVID-19, ICAO has agreed to continue to work with the HTOC on getting these issues onto the agenda for their 2022 General Assembly meeting.

7.4. Identify ways to enhance the recovery of halons from the breaking of ships

The HTOC had a concern that in the early days of breaking ships that contained halon 1301 in the fire protection systems, that the monetary value of the halon was not known to the ship breakers and it was being vented to the atmosphere. Whether this was the case, and if so to what extent, will never be known but HTOC members from the recycling/reclamation industry report that members of the shipbreaking community are now well aware of the value of halon. It is now being recovered and stored for sale. There is also a report that in some circumstances, the storage arrangements are not ideal. For example, the cylinders are stored outside, not protected from weather, so corrosion can lead to leaking cylinders. Educating the members of the shipbreaking community on best practices for handling and storage, as is now being proposed by HTOC and IMO, would be one means to reduce emissions and hence enhance recovery of halons and other halogenated gaseous fire extinguishing agents.

(a) In an attempt to better quantify the amounts of halons coming from shipbreaking, the HTOC co-chairs appointed a new member from the shipbreaking industry in 2020. Although the member was not able to attend the 2020 HTOC meeting, we are communicating via email. It is hoped that the new HTOC member can refine / improve the assumptions made in the XXVI/7 report, specifically:

(b) When did halon 1301 start to be recovered in significant quantities?

(c) How much halon 1301 has been recovered on a year-by year basis? This will give both the total amount of halon recovered and may also allow a trend to be determined (i.e., is


the supply still steady, or is it diminishing, implying that the stocks on ships are becoming depleted).

(d) Which sizes and classes of ships were fitted with halon?

If any of these assumptions can be verified or improved, the HTOC will be able to better quantify the amount of halon 1301 coming from the shipbreaking activities, and thus be able to better estimate the likely run-out date.

Unfortunately, this activity had only just started in February 2020, and just as the HTOC started to receive very preliminary data, the COVID-19 pandemic closed the shipyard. Once the situation eases, this effort will recommence.

In addition to the above-mentioned activities, the HTOC has begun liaising with an NGO specializing in recording shipbreaking activity around the world. This NGO has provided the HTOC information on the numbers and types of ships being broken annually at each location. It is anticipated that, in the future, it will be possible to correlate this information with that provided from the shipbreaking industry to extrapolate the amount of halon 1301 coming from the shipbreaking industry globally. In addition, the HTOC will provide advice to this NGO on the safe handling practices of halon cylinders, and other pressurized cylinders.

7.5. Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Civil Aviation

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the civil aviation industry in several ways. Firstly, there is a direct impact to the operational tempo or daily number of flights now being operated as compared to before the pandemic. Commercial flights in April 2020 were 73.7% lower than April 2019.60 It is believed it will be a long time before the industry will return to the pre-COVID-19 flight schedules. Figure 7.1 below shows this dramatic decline in air traffic as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also shows the relentless increase year-on-year up to March 2020, which is a direct cause of increasing aviation emissions, as explained below.

60 Data from Flightradar24.com, https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/scraping-along-the-bottom-april-air-traffic-statistics/


Figure 7.1: Drop in number of flights daily following COVID-19 pandemic. Data from Flightradar24.com

The reduction in flights means a reduction in revenue with at least one airline already filing for bankruptcy protection. As stated previously, the HTOC had tentative agreement with colleagues in the civil aviation sector (the informal working group) to fund a study to better understand when and where halon 1301 emissions were occurring in both operations and in maintenance. That has now been put on hold as funding for such a study needs to be re-evaluated in light of their current fiscal environment. Currently, there is not even a view within the civil aviation sector as to when this activity can recommence.

The reduction in flights is expected to have a second impact, that is, on emissions of halon 1301. It is believed that there will be a direct correlation of flight reductions to emissions reductions. This is because it is believed that the largest civil aviation emission of halon 1301 is from cargo bay fire protection systems. The system is discharged automatically or manually in flight by the Captain if a fire warning is received from the smoke detectors in a cargo compartment. The system employs a rapid discharge of halon 1301 that totally floods the space at a high enough concentration to knock down any fire that might be present. Cargo bays are not perfectly airtight and the halon 1301 gradually leaks out of the cargo bay and thus is emitted to the atmosphere. To counteract this loss, the fire protection system then employs a low rate discharge of halon 1301 to keep the concentration high enough to control any fire still present until the aircraft can safely land. With the advent of more efficient engines, the distance between safe landing sites has increased so the time required for the low rate halon 1301 discharge and the amount of halon needed has also increased. These durations can be up to 330 minutes and a total mass of halon 1301 discharged could be as high as 300 kg.

Another impact of the reduction in flights from COVID-19 is that the former on-going rise in civil aviation activities around the world has been put on-hold. The major airframe manufacturers have reduced their production rates significantly. For example, Boeing and Airbus delivered 20 and 36 commercial jets in March 2020, compared to 54 and 74 deliveries, respectively, in the same month last year.61 Aircraft are now and will be for some time

61 Data from Defence & Security Monitor, Ma8 18, 2020.


entering into service at a lower rate, meaning that the global fleet size is growing at a lower rate. It is reported that this is coupled with removing older, less efficient aircraft from operations. This means that there are, and will continue to be, fewer aircraft flying over the next few years. In addition to lower emissions from fewer flights, a smaller global aviation fleet means that the amount of halon 1301 installed will be less, which makes more halon available to replace emissions within civil aviation but also in the other enduring sectors, including military, and oil and gas.

The amount of halon 1301 installed on civil aircraft and the emissions from civil aviation are key input parameters into the modelling of when halon 1301 could stop being available to support civil aviation and other enduring users, the so-called run-out-date, initially developed in response to Decision XXVI/7, and updated in Decision XXIX/8. We know that there is at least an immediate impact owing to COVID-19. Another important parameter is the amount of halon coming from shipbreaking, which we know has been temporarily halted in at least one case. It is not clear how widespread this is or what overall impacts to shipbreaking will occur from COVID-19. For example, with the economic downturn in the global economy, will older ships be removed from service sooner than previously anticipated such as is being done with older aircraft? These kinds of questions will need to be answered and the run-out-date modelling will need to be repeated once the situation has settled down after the COVID-19 pandemic, and affected industries have returned to whatever the “new normal” state of affairs will be.

7.6. Future work

7.6.1. Future Engagement with ICAO

Following last year’s change to the ICAO preparatory cycle for their triennial General Assembly meetings such that safety issues (such as halon replacement) must now be ready to be addressed at a separate safety meeting one full year before the General Assembly, halon issues cannot be addressed again until the 2022 General Assembly. The HTOC plans to continue to engage with ICAO to better understand how to present its findings at the next safety meeting, anticipated to be later this year, and at the 2022 General Assembly.

7.6.2. Model changes in halon emissions as a consequence of COVID-19

The global economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may offer a unique opportunity to better understand the sources of annual halon 1301 emissions. As stated previously, it is being hypothesized that we would expect a direct correlation between reductions in civil aviation flight operations and halon 1301 emissions, i.e., we would expect both to go down.

To better characterize halon 1301 emissions, the HTOC is seeking to work with ICAO and the civil aviation community previously identified in the ICAO-sponsored informal halon 1301 working group formed in response to Decision XXIX/8, to obtain data on specific flight operations reductions categorized by the type of flight segments, such as long-haul / international (multi-aisle / wide body) versus shorter / domestic flights (single aisle / narrow bodies), etc.

https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2020/04/17/airbus-and-boeing-report-march-2020-commercial-aircraft-orders-and-deliveries/




In addition, the HTOC is also aware that at least one ship breaking yard where halon 1301 is recovered has temporarily closed. We do not know the extent yet to which other shipbreaking yards are impacted, nor do we understand if there are significant emissions at these yards. For example, one could presume that if safe handling procedures were employed, there would be no halon 1301 emissions from the process of removing halon 1301 system cylinders unless they were accidentally discharged and/or damaged but this is not known. Specific changes in these operations might offer insight into their emissions. The HTOC is also trying to determine the extent, if any, other known halon 1301 sectors have been impacted by COVID-19 such as oil and gas, and military and if those impacts are likely to cause changes in halon 1301 emissions.

The HTOC is proposing to work with IMO and the previously mentioned NGO to determine the operational impacts to shipbreaking activities. On the emissions side, the HTOC is seeking to work jointly with the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) to obtain detailed halon 1301 atmospheric concentration data since January 2020 and over the coming months. The HTOC would expect something of a “V-shape” curve with halon 1301 emissions initially dropping but then increasing as affected industries begin to ramp back up. Depending on the level of detail that can be obtained, the HTOC proposes to correlate the anticipated downturn and upturn in halon 1301 atmospheric concentrations derived emissions to global and potentially regional reductions in civil aviation flight operations, changes in ship breaking activities and any other sectoral changes (e.g. oil and gas, and military) that can be estimated.

If it is possible to correlate emissions to specific halon 1301 sectors and/or to specific operations, it will provide the HTOC with additional data in its modeling efforts to determine the potential run-out-date for halon 1301 and will offer developing specific scenarios for extending that date for consideration by the parties. It would also offer industry insight into cost-effective opportunities to address reducing emissions over the long-term, greatly assisting ongoing efforts to extend the timeline for availability of halon 1301 to support ongoing enduring uses. This could avoid a potential Essential Use Nomination for halon 1301. It will also offer additional time for civil aviation to develop alternatives for both new designs and potentially for retrofit of existing designs, such as is currently mandated by European Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, subsequently amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 744/2010 and for other enduring users to plan on a timeframe when halon 1301 will no longer be available to support their operations. It can also offer specific country and/or regional regulators with more insight into specific actions already proposed and/or that can be taken to reduce emissions and the potential cost-effectiveness of these options.

7.6.3. Decommissioning of older aircraft

The HTOC is aware that several airlines are decommissioning or breaking older aircraft. This is as a result of over-capacity owing to the COVID-19 pandemic as described above. In some instances, an entire type of aircraft is taken out of service, e.g., Boeing 757. This simplifies maintenance, repair, overhaul and training operations, and will help airlines as they recommence flights. What is not known is the fate of these aircraft; are they scrapped, mothballed, or sold to other airlines / operators? If they are scrapped, care needs to be taken to ensure that the halons fitted to these aircraft are recovered properly and not vented. The HTOC is seeking to work with ICAO and industry associations to answer these questions.

7.6.4. Effect of COVID-19 on shipbreaking

The HTOC plans to continue to liaise with the shipbreaking NGO to better understand the following questions:

(a) Did the numbers of ships being broken increase, decrease or stay the same as result of COVID-19? Are there any changes anticipated in the immediate future?


(b) Are there any changes to the types of ships being broken as a result of COVID-19? Does this affect the amount of halon 1301 that is coming from shipbreaking in the short- or long-term?

(c) Are there any global changes to the locations where ships are being or will be broken, in particular northern vs. southern hemispheres? This information might help better understand the data and trends that the HTOC is planning to acquire with the SAP in obtaining geographically specific emissions of halon 1301.

Being able to tie these emissions to a decrease, or subsequent increase, in civil aviation and/or ship breaking activities in certain regions of the world would help clarify our understanding of the specific sources of global emissions of halon 1301. This will provide better input to the HTOC model and a more accurate run-out date.

7.7. Conclusion

In conclusion, all the previous projections on halon 1301 reported by HTOC to parties on annual global emissions, installed amounts in civil aviation, amounts recoverable from decommissioned civil aircraft or quantities expected from shipbreaking is now open to considerable doubt. The data and predictions that HTOC would have been provided to the parties prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in response to Decision XXX/7 are no longer valid. The economic downturn caused by COVID-19 will have a huge impact on the halon 1301 sector.

Therefore, the HTOC plans to work cooperatively with the ICAO, civil aviation NGOs, IMO, maritime / merchant shipping NGOs, other halon 1301 sector experts and the SAP (and potentially the EEAP) to gather the new data and information to re-build the modelling and estimates for current and projected halon 1301 market in terms of uses, installed base and annual emissions. This is a significant task and will take time. The HTOC plans to perform this work and report it to the parties as part of its upcoming 2022 Quadrennial Assessment.


8 Decision XXXI/8 and other TEAP matters

8.1. Response to Decision XXXI/8

At the 31st MOP, decision XXXI/8, “Terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies – procedures relevant to nominations,” states the following:

“…To request the Panel to provide, as part of its annual progress report, a summary outlining the procedures that the Panel and its technical options committees have undertaken to ensure adherence to the Panel’s terms of reference through clear and transparent procedures, including full consultations with the focal points, in line with the terms of reference, regarding:

a) nomination processes, taking into account the matrix of needed expertise and already available expertise;

b) proposed nominations and appointment decisions; c) termination of appointments; and d) replacements;

The challenge to TEAP and TOC leadership remains to identify candidates with technical expertise and time as well as relevant experience, in order for TEAP to continue to meet the significant demands of delivering outputs to support the deliberations of parties, without loss of continuity. One useful approach taken by TEAP and its TOCs is to appoint new experts in the required technical areas into TEAP Task Forces, where these new appointees can demosntrate their experience, knowledge, ability to communicate and write, and their capacity to contribute and work to consensus. Some of these experts can become TOC or TEAP members should the parties request further studies on such new technical areas. In the previous decision XXX/15, “Review of the terms of reference, composition, balance, fields of expertise and workload of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel”, the parties requested the Ozone Secretariat to prepare a document, in consultation with the TEAP on the ongoing efforts made by the Panel to respond to changing circumstances of the Protocol, including the Kigali Amendment in relation to TEAP’s terms of reference under decision XXIV/8 (TOR), composition, geographgical and gender balance, representation of A5 parties and needed expertise. The Ozone Secretariat prepared a document62 in consultation with the TEAP, on the ongoing efforts made by the Panel to respond to changing circumstances of the Protocol, including the Kigali Amendment in relation to TOR, composition, geographical and gender balance, representation of A5 parties and needed expertise. The sections of that document, relevant to TEAP’s response to the current decisions XXXI/8 (i.e., related to nominations and appointments under TOR), are summarized below.

8.1.1. Nomination processes, taking into account the matrix of needed expertise and already available expertise

Under TEAP’s mandates from parties, TEAP continuously works to identifying appropriate expertise and finding qualified candidates who are interested and available to serve. TEAP takes into consideration of its current pool of experts, with the potential loss of expertise, through attrition or lack of support, and the need for specific and cross-cutting expertise within TOCs and the TEAP itself. TEAP communicates these needs to parties through its

62 Available at http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-31/presession/Background%20Documents/OEWG-41-4E.pdf


annual progress reports and the matrix of needed expertise.

To facilitate the submission of nominations by the parties, the terms of reference instructs the Panel and its TOCs to draw up guidelines for the nomination of experts. It is stipulated that “the TEAP/TOCs will publicize a matrix of expertise available and the expertise needed in the TEAP/TOCs so as to facilitate submission of appropriate nominations by the parties. The matrix must include the need for geographic and expertise balance and provide consistent information on expertise that is available and required. The matrix would include the name and affiliation and the specific expertise required including on different alternatives. The TEAP/TOCs, acting through their respective co-chairs, shall ensure that the matrix is updated at least once a year and shall publish the matrix on the Secretariat website and in the Panel’s annual progress reports. The TEAP/TOCs shall also ensure that the information in the matrix is clear, sufficient and consistent as far as is appropriate between the TEAP and TOCs and balanced to allow a full understanding of needed expertise” (TOR 2.9).

Annex 1 of this report provides updated TOC membership lists, including the current terms of appointment for all members. Each TOC describes the expertise that is currently available and the expertise that is needed.

The TOR specify that “nominations of members to the TEAP, including co-chairs of the TEAP and TOCs, must be made by individual parties to the Secretariat through their respective national focal points. Such nominations will be forwarded to the Meeting of the Parties for consideration. The TEAP co-chairs shall ensure that any potential nominee identified by TEAP for appointment to the Panel, including co-chairs of TEAP and the TOCs, is agreed to by the national focal points of the relevant party. A member of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs shall not be a current representative of a party to the Montreal Protocol” (TOR 2.2.1).

For TOCs or temporary subsidiary bodies (TSBs), the TOR require all nominations to be made in full consultation with the national focal point of the relevant party. The TOR further state that “all nominations to the TOCs and TSBs shall be made in full consultation with the national focal point of the relevant party. Nominations of members to a TOC (other than TOC co-chairs) may also be made by individual parties or TEAP and TOC co-chairs may suggest to individual parties experts to consider nominating. Nominations to a TSB (including TSB co-chairs) can be made by the TEAP co-chairs” (TOR 2.2.2).

8.1.2. Proposed nominations and appointment decisions

Ensuring relevant and sufficient technical expertise is the priority consideration for the Panel and its committees. The need to maintain a reasonable size and balance, to avoid the duplication of expertise and to ensure that particular gaps in expertise gap are filled, means that experts nominated by parties may sometimes be declined or that their consideration may be deferred by the committee co-chairs in consultation with the Panel co-chairs. Although the committee co-chairs take into account A5/non-A5, gender and geographical balance, relevant technical expertise can outweigh those other considerations.

Nominations are currently made through a standardised nomination form, that may include a curriculum vitae, and which is available on the Ozone Secretariat’s website63. If information is not already included in the curriculum vitae of the nominee, the standardised form requests

63 https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap


relevant information such as education and other qualifications, relevant employment history, publications, awards, memberships, and references.

It is helpful when there is consultation between the parties and the co-chairs of the Panel and/or the relevant committee on potential nominations for the positions of co-chairs of the Panel or the committees. In the case of nominations or nominations for reappointment for the position of members in a committee, the committee co-chairs consult with the Panel co-chairs and the relevant national focal points.

The TOCs committees also receive nominations for the position of members directly from parties. In determining whether to accept or decline a nomination, the committee co-chairs, in consultation with the Panel as appropriate, consider the expertise of the nominee taking into account the expertise needed by the relevant committee, and also the balance of A5/non-A5, geographical and gender. The gaps in the expertise within the committees are presented in the matrix of needed expertise and annual progress reports. It has been the practice that nominations for committee membership and appointments to the committee can be made at any time, which has worked well in promptly sourcing the needed expertise and flexibly responding to the constant and yet changing workloads of some committees.

As specified in section 2.3 of the TOR, upon nomination by the relevant party, parties appoint members of the panel upon nomination by the relevant party for periods of up to four years each. As specified in section 2.5 of the TOR, the “TOC members are appointed by the TOC co-chairs, in consultation with TEAP, for a period of no more than four years.”

8.1.3. Termination of appointments

Section 2.7 of the TOR specify that “[members] of TEAP, a TOC or a TSB may relinquish their position at any time by notifying in writing as appropriate the co-chairs of the TEAP, TOC or TSB and the relevant party.”

Furthermore, the “TEAP can dismiss a member of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs, including co-chairs of those bodies, by a two-thirds majority vote of TEAP…[and a] dismissed member has the right to appeal to the next Meeting of the Parties through the Secretariat.” The terms of reference require that the TEAP co-chairs inform the relevant party of dismissed members.

8.1.4. Replacements

Section 2.8 of the TOR specifies that “[if] a member of TEAP, including TOC co-chairs, relinquishes or is unable to function including if he or she was dismissed by TEAP, the Panel, after consultation with the nominating party, can temporarily appoint a replacement from among its bodies for the time up to the next Meeting of the Parties, if necessary to complete its work.” For the appointment of a temporary replacement TEAP member, the TOR procedure as described above is followed.

8.2. TEAP and TOCs organisational and other matters

TEAP currently includes 20 members including 3 co-chairs, 13 TOC co-chairs and 5 Senior Experts (one of the TEAP co-chairs is also a TOC co-chair). In addition, almost 150 experts serve on its five TOCs. Annex 1 of this report provides current TOC membership lists, which include the end dates for the current terms of appointment for all members. TOC co-chairs continue to assess the mix of skills required within the TOCs to meet the demands of its work under the continuing phase-out of ODS under the Montreal Protocol and the phase-down of HFCs under the Kigali Amendment. TEAP takes a broad and long-term view of its work for parties going forward under these


mandates, its current pool of experts, the potential loss of expertise through attrition or lack of support, and the need for specific and cross-cutting expertise. TEAP is working to identify relevant expertise and qualified candidates who are interested and available to serve in these positions. TEAP will communicate these needs to parties through its annual progress report and the matrix of needed expertise.. TEAP seeks to discuss with Parties how to engage experts in these areas, mindful of its need for geographical and gender balance and its annual workload. TEAP takes this opportunity to bring to parties’ attention information relevant to each TOC:

8.2.1. FTOC

FTOC members currently have expertise in: Producing and handling foam blowing agents; foam formulation; foam production, processing, machinery, (XPS, spray foam, appliance etc.) and life cycle analysis; emissions and banks modeling; certification testing for foams; regulations related to foams; global foam markets including forecasting future production; historical knowledge of foams, foam blowing agents, regulations, and the Montreal Protocol; the building envelope and reducing energy demand from buildings; appliance design and production energy efficiency. The FTOC was unable to meet as planned in 2020 due to the pandemic. However, discussions were held via teleconferences with considerable participation of members. The FTOC continues to face challenges with some member participation. FTOC is seeking additional experts to provide expertise in A5 extruded polystyrene production in India and China replacing experts that left the FTOC. FTOC also seeks polyurethane system house technical experts from southern Africa, the Middle East, or Mexico (especially from small and medium enterprises), which have experienced challenges in the transition from HCFC-141b. FTOC seeks additional foam chemistry experts globally and expertise in building science related to energy efficiency from A5 or non-A5 parties.

8.2.2. HTOC

The Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) met 4-6 March 2020 at the United Nations Industrial Development Organization in Vienna, Austria. Twelve members attended from the following countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, India, Japan, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Six members could not attend because of travel restrictions owing to the COVID-19 virus.

The HTOC is seeking to recruit additional members in the following five areas to broaden or expand expertise, while also being mindful of A5/non-A5, regional and gender balance: 1) fire protection applications in civil aviation, especially maintenance, repair and overhaul (called MRO) activities, in A5 and non-A5 parties, 2) general civil aviation fire protection applications in A5 parties, in particular South East Asia, 3) use of alternatives to halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their market penetration in A5 parties, particularly in Africa, South America and South Asia, 4) banking and supplies of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives in A5 parties, particularly in Africa and South America, and 5) in ship breaking activities from A5 or non-A5 parties with particular expertise in quantities of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives contained on ships, and amounts recovered by ship class during ship breaking operations.


8.2.3. MBTOC

MBTOC met in New Delhi, India in early March 2020. Membership continues to be at a historical low with 17 members (including one economist). The current expertise in soils, structures and commodities and QPS is adequate to complete the current tasks.

MBTOC is still seeking to recruit experts for the nursery industries, especially the issues affecting the strawberry runner industries globally, experts in emission reduction technologies and experts in QPS treatments for pests in commodities traded globally.

8.2.4. MCTOC

MCTOC (chemicals sub-group) initially planned to meet in Hangzhou, China in March 2020, then rescheduled to meet in London, United Kingdom in April 2020. MCTOC (medical/aerosols and MDIs sub-groups) initially planned to meet in London, United Kingdom in April 2020. All face-to-face meetings were subsequently cancelled due to COVID-19 and MCTOC’s progress report was developed entirely through electronic means. Discussions regarding preparations for the 2022 assessment report that had been planned for the face-to-face meetings have been deferred to an undetermined later date.

At MOP-31, parties appointed Keiichi Ohnishi and Jianjun Zhang as MCTOC co-chairs for additional terms of 4 years. At the end of 2019, MCTOC had 3 members whose 4-year terms of appointment ended, 2 of whom were reappointed for additional terms of up to 4 years. With sincere gratitude for her years of voluntary service to the Montreal Protocol, MCTOC commends and farewells one of those members, Paula Rytilä (Finland). Following nominations from parties (India and Rwanda), 2 new members (chemicals) have been appointed. Taking into account additional expertise needs, a further 3 new members (chemicals) have been appointed, following nominations and in consultation with national focal points of the relevant parties, in accordance with TEAP’s terms of reference.

MCTOC seeks new members to strengthen expertise in the following identified key knowledge areas: destruction technologies; metered dose inhalers (pharmaceutical industry and medical expertise); and aerosols. 8.2.5. RTOC

In January 2020, RTOC welcomed the appointment of a third RTOC co-chair (Omar Abdelaziz, Egypt) to join the RTOC co-chair team and to give his input to a transition process that will include further evolution of the RTOC co-chairmanship and membership after the 2019-2022 assessment cycle.

In 2019 the RTOC did not meet as a full committee and the co-chairs conducted a meeting for only the Chapter Lead Authors (CLAs) only at the International Maritime Organisation, London, September 2019.

The RTOC CLAs attending were from the following non-A 5 Parties: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, UK, United States, and from the following A 5 Parties: Brazil, Egypt, India and Lebanon. The purpose of the meeting was two-fold:

• to review RTOC planning taking into account the new challenges posed by the Kigali Amendment, and the TOR for TEAP and its TOCs as given in Decision XXIV/8;

• to plan for the RTOC 2022 Assessment Report (AR2022), aiming to elaborate a first proposal to be sent to the full RTOC Committee for comment.


Various proposals for RTOC reorganisation were considered and a “CLA consensus” was reached on a draft “modus operandi”, subsequently endorsed by all RTOC members via acceptance of the meeting outcomes. For the 2022 RTOC Assessment Report, a preliminary proposal was considered to be further discussed in the 2020 plenary RTOC meeting, planned for September 2020 in Egypt (but may be deferred to Q1 2021).

As of January 2020, RTOC membership stood at 42 members. However, this size is required to ensure adequate and sufficient expertise within this committee, which has to cover several inter-related sub-sectors. This enables the RTOC to have a sub-committee structure, considered to be the most efficient mode to deal with the several RACHP sub-sectors. It also provides a range of RTOC members to work on several of the TEAP Task Forces responding to recent and future decisions of parties related to this sector.

8.3 Continuing challenges

The role of TEAP and its TOCs continuosly evolves to meet current and future needs of the parties. TEAP co-chairs continue to work with each TOC’s co-chairs to ensure that the TOCs are structured in size and expertise to support future efforts of the parties and takes the opportunity in this report to outline ongoing challenges for the attention of the parties.

In 2020, TEAP had planned its annual face to face meeting to take place in London, UK from 27 April to 1st May. In view of the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic however, TEAP held on-line meetings over two weeks to complete its work. In general, these ran smoothly with gratitude for the support of the Ozone Secretariat, and contributions from TEAP members. Under the circumstances, TEAP faced additional and unusual hurdles to complete its work, however still managed to provide its outputs as close as possible to the usual deadlines.

TOCs continue to be challenged with attrition through the retirement of members and the loss of expertise. This is of growing concern to the consensus process of the committees where a range of independent expert opinions is necessary. The members of TEAP and its TOCs provide their expertise and work on a voluntary basis and the time commitment and overall workload remains challenging to manage in the context of a separate full-time occupation.

To ensure that the functioning of the TEAP and its TOCs continue to provide timely assessments to support the discussions of parties, it is helpful for both TEAP and the parties to continue to consider the overall annual workload, the deadlines for delivery and the support provided to TEAP, at the time of making decisions requesting this work. TEAP welcomes the opportunity to continue to engage with parties to address these on-going challenges to the functioning of TEAP and its TOCs and remains committed to providing parties with independent, technical consensus technical reports to support their work.


Annex 1: TEAP and TOC membership and administration

The disclosure of interest (DOI) of each member can be found on the Ozone Secretariat website at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap. The disclosures are normally updated at the time of TEAP’s annual meeting (normally in April/ May). TEAP’s Terms of Reference (TOR) (2.3) as approved by the Parties in Decision XXIV/8 specify that “… the Meeting of the Parties shall appoint the members of TEAP for a period of no more than four years…and may re-appoint Members of the Panel upon nomination by the relevant party for additional periods of up to four years each.”. TEAP member appointments end as of 31

December of the final year of appointment, as indicated in the following tables.

1. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 2020

TEAP is presently composed of three co-chairs, the co-chairs of the Technical Options Committees and five senior experts as indicated in Table 1 below. Needed expertise: The TEAP is seeking an expert in the analysis and assessment (including modeling) of factors, including energy efficiency and regional economics, for forecasting the market penetration and potential future disposition of HCFCs, HFCs, and alternatives. Table 1: TEAP Membership at May, 2020

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Appointed through Bella Maranion U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency US 2020*

Marta Pizano Independent Expert Colombia 2022 Ashley Woodcock Manchester University NHS

Foundation Trust UK 2022

Senior Experts Affiliation Country Appointed through Suely Machado Carvalho Independent Expert Brazil 2023 Marco Gonzalez Independent Expert Costa Rica 2020* Rajendra Shende Terre Policy Centre India 2020* Sidi Menad Si-Ahmed Independent Expert Algeria 2020* Shiqiu Zhang Centre of Env. Sciences, Peking

University China 2022

TOC Chairs Affiliation Country Appointed through Omar Abdelaziz Zewail City of Science and

Technology Egypt 2023

Paulo Altoé Independent Expert Brazil 2020* Adam Chattaway Collins Aerospace UK 2020* Sergey Kopylov Russian Res. Institute for Fire

Protection Russian Fed. 2021

Kei-ichi Ohnishi AGC, Inc. Japan 2023 Roberto. Peixoto Maua Institute (IMT), Sao Paulo Brazil 2021 Fabio Polonara Universitá Politecnica delle

Marche Italy 2022

Ian Porter La Trobe University Australia 2021 Helen Tope Energy International Australia Australia 2021 Daniel P. Verdonik Jensen Hughes Inc US 2020* Helen Walter-Terrinoni Air conditioning, Heating and

Refrigeration Institute US 2021

Jianjun Zhang Zhejiang Chemical Industry Research Institute

PRC 2023

* Indicates members whose terms expire at the end of the current year



TEAP’s TOR (2.5) specifies that “TOC members are appointed by the TOC co-chairs, in consultation with TEAP, for a period of no more than four years…[and] may be re-appointed following the procedure for nominations for additional periods of up to four years each.” New appointments to a TOC start from the date of appointment by TOC co-chairs and end as of 31st December of the final year of appointment, up to four years.

2. TEAP Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC)

FTOC members currently have expertise in: Producing and handling foam blowing agents; foam formulation; foam production (XPS, Spray Foam, appliance etc.) and life cycle analysis; emissions and banks modeling; certification testing for foams; regulations related to foams; global foam markets including forecasting future production; historical knowledge of foams, foam blowing agents, regulations, and the Montreal Protocol; the building envelope and reducing energy demand from buildings; appliance design and production energy efficiency.

Needed expertise: • FTOC is seeking additional experts to provide expertise in A5 extruded polystyrene

production in India and China replacing experts that left the FTOC. FTOC also seeks polyurethane system house technical experts from southern Africa, the Middle East, or Mexico (especially from small and medium enterprises) as they seem to continue to face challenges in the transition from HCFC-141b.

• FTOC seeks additional foam chemistry experts globally and expertise in building science related to energy efficiency from A5 or non A5 parties.

Table 2: FTOC Membership at May 2019

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Appointed through Helen Walter-Terrinoni Chemours US 2021 Paulo Altoé Independent Expert Brazil 2020 Members Affiliation Country Appointed through Samir Arora Industrial Foams India 2020 Paul Ashford Anthesis UK 2021 Angela Austin Independent Expert UK 2021 Kultida Charoensawad Covestro Thailand 2021 Roy Chowdhury Foam Supplies Australia 2020* Joseph Costa Arkema US 2020* Gwyn Davis Kingspan UK 2022 Gabrielle Dreyfus Climate Works US 2022 Rick Duncan Spray Polyurethane Association US 2020* Koichi Wada Japan Urethane Industry Institute Japan 2022 Ilhan Karaağaç Kingspan Turkey 2020* Shpresa Kotaji Huntsman Belgium 2022 Simon Lee Dow US 2020* Yehia Lotfi Technocom Egypt 2022 Miguel Quintero Independent Expert Colombia 2021 Sascha Rulhoff Haltermann Germany 2022 Enshan Sheng Huntsman China 2022 Dave Williams Honeywell US 2022 Guolian Wu Samsung US 2020* Consulting Experts Affiliation Country One-year renewable

terms Sally Rand Independent Expert US



3. TEAP Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC)

Following the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the role of the Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) has broadened to cover low/no-GWP alternatives to halons, HCFCs, and high-GWP HFCs. However, the Kigali amendment does not necessarily bring the need for any additional areas of expertise in fire protection because the uses remains unchanged, although additional expertise for regional or sub-regional considerations will be needed. From a fire safety standpoint, the HTOC remains concerned that the flammability of refrigerants, foam blowing agents and solvents requires fire protection expertise which almost exclusively resides in the HTOC within the TEAP. The HTOC remains available to assist in this area.

Generally speaking, the HTOC maintains expertise in the following five main areas:

1) a fundamental scientific understanding of fire chemistry and the process of combustion and fire extinguishment, and technical and economic expertise in fire protection needs, active and passive methods, system maintenance and personnel training.

2) the use of halons, HCFCs, high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives in fire protection, including emissions and installed amounts (bank estimates),

3) “banking” i.e., collection, recycling/reclamation, and re-deployment of fire extinguishants including their application standards, purity requirements, and destruction issues,

4) issues impacting current and future use, e.g., continued reliance on halons for existing uses in military, oil and gas, merchant shipping, etc., and for existing/new installations in civil aviation, and phase-down requirements of fire protections uses of high GWP HFCs. This includes modelling of remaining quantities and emissions of halons, and growth of HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs.

5) In addition, the HTOC maintains an understanding of the workings of the Montreal Protocol and how lessons learned in phasing out production and consumption of halons, for example, on some applications could be reapplied in phasing out the production and consumption of HCFCs and phasing down the high-GWP HFCs under the Kigali Amendment. Within the five main areas, the expertise is further divided into sectoral expertise and regional expertise. From a sectoral perspective, the HTOC has experts on fire protection requirements for on-going uses of halons, HCFCs, high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives within civil aviation, military, telecommunications, oil and gas, power generation, merchant shipping, explosion protection, etc. The HTOC also maintains expertise in banking and recycling of halons, HCFCs, high GWP HFCs and their alternatives. From a regional standpoint, the HTOC has expertise covering North America, Eastern and Western Europe, Australia and Japan, with some limited expertise in Anglophone North Africa (Egypt), the Middle East (Kuwait), South America (Brazil), Asia (India and World Bank expertise on halon production phase-out in China). As noted in the matrix of expertise needed, the HTOC is continuing to look for additional experts to promote A5/non-A5 and regional balance while also being mindful of gender balance. Needed expertise: The HTOC is seeking to recruit additional members in the following five areas to broaden or expand expertise, while also being mindful of A5/non-A5, regional and gender balance: 1) fire protection applications in civil aviation, especially maintenance, repair and overhaul (called MRO) activities, in A5 and non-A5 parties, 2) general civil aviation fire protection


applications in A5 parties, in particular South East Asia, 3) use of alternatives to halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their market penetration in A5 parties, particularly in Africa, South America and South Asia, 4) banking and supplies of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives in A5 parties, particularly in Africa and South America, and 5) in ship breaking activities from A5 or non-A5 parties with particular expertise in quantities of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives contained on ships, and amounts recovered by ship class during ship breaking operations.

Table 3: HTOC Membership at May 2020

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Appointed through

Adam Chattaway Collins Aerospace UK 2020* Sergey N. Kopylov Russian Res. Institute for Fire Protection Russian Fed. 2021 Daniel P. Verdonik Jensen Hughes, Inc. USA 2020* Members Affiliation Country Appointed

through Mohammed Abdur Rashid

South Asia Marine Supply Ltd Bangladesh 2021

Jamal Alfuzaie Independent Expert Kuwait 2022 Johan Åqvist FMV Sweden 2023 Youri Auroque European Aviation Safety Agency France 2023 Michelle M. Collins Independent Expert - EECO International USA 2022 Khaled Effat Modern Systems Engineering Egypt 2021 Carlos Grandi Embraer Brazil 2020* Laura Green Hilcorp Alaska, LLC USA 2020* Elvira Nigido A-Gas Australia Australia 2020* Emma Palumbo Safety Hi-tech srl Italy 2022 Erik Pedersen Independent Expert Denmark 2020* R.P. Singh CFEES, DRDO India 2020* Donald Thomson MOPIA Canada 2020* Mitsuru Yagi Nohmi Bosai Ltd & Fire and Environment

Prot. Network Japan 2020*

Consulting Experts Affiliation Country One-year renewable terms

Clare Bowens Meridian Technical Services UK Thomas Cortina Halon Alternatives Research Corporation USA Joshua R. Fritsch United States Army USA Matsuo Ishiyama Nohmi Bosai Ltd & Fire and Environment

Prot. Network Japan

Nikolai Kopylov Russian Res. Institute for Fire Protection Russian Fed. Steve McCormick United States Army (alternate) USA John G. Owens 3M Company USA John J. O’Sullivan Bureau Veriitas UK Mark L. Robin Chemours USA Joseph A. Senecal FireMetrics LLC USA


4. TEAP Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)

The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee brings together expertise on controlled and exempted (QPS) uses of methyl bromide and their technically and economically feasible alternatives. Members are experts on the control and management of soilborne pests and pathogens attacking various crops where methyl bromide is used (currently under the Critical Use exemption) or was used in the past; pest control in a variety of stored commodities and structures; and alternatives for controlling quarantine pests and pathogens. Members have research, regulatory and commercial experience.


Needed expertise: • MBTOC is seeking to recruit experts for the nursery industries, especially the issues

affecting the strawberry runner industries globally • Experts in emission reduction technologies for commodity treatments for quarantine

pests • Experts on QPS treatments for pests in exported and imported commodities traded

globally, particularly from A5 parties Table 4: MBTOC Membership at May 2020

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Appointed through

Marta Pizano Independent Expert Colombia 2021 Ian Porter La Trobe University Australia 2021 Members Affiliation Country Appointed

through Jonathan Banks Independent Expert Australia 2022 Mohamed Besri Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire

Hassan II Morocco 2021

Fred Bergwerff Oxylow BV Netherlands 2021 Aocheng Cao Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences China 2022 Ayze Ozdem Plant Protection Central Research Institute Turkey 2020* Ken Glassey MAFF – NZ New Zealand 2022 Eduardo Gonzalez Fumigator Philippines 2022 Rosalind James USDA US 2020* Takashi Misumi MAFF – Japan Japan 2022 Christoph Reichmuth

Honorary Professor – Humboldt University

Germany 2022

Jordi Riudavets IRTA – Department of Plant Protection Spain 2022 Akio Tateya Technical Adviser, Syngenta Japan 2022 Alejandro Valeiro Nat. Institute for Ag. Technology Argentina 2022 Nick Vink University of Stellenbosch South Africa 2022 Tim Widmer USDA US 2023


5. TEAP Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee (MCTOC)

The Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee brings together expertise on metered dose inhalers and their alternatives, aerosols, sterilants, feedstock uses of controlled substances, solvent and process agent applications, chemical substances of interest because of their ozone depletion or greenhouse warming potentials, laboratory and analytical uses, and destruction of controlled substances. Members are experts in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their treatment, pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing, aerosols manufacturing and markets, hospital and industrial sterilisation of medical equipment, chemicals manufacturing and markets, laboratory and analytical procedures, and destruction technologies. Members have research, academic, clinical, regulatory, laboratory, industrial, business and commercial experience.

Needed expertise: • destruction technologies, including knowledge of the variety of available

technologies; • MDIs, including pharmaceutical industry, especially R&D of new propellants, and

medical experts in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease • aerosols, including development of new propellants and new aerosol products and

components.


Table 5: MCTOC Membership as of May 2020 Co-chairs Affiliation Country Appointed

through Kei-ichi Ohnishi AGC Inc. Japan 2023 Helen Tope Planet Futures Australia 2021 Jianjun Zhang Zhejiang Chemical Industry Research Institute China 2023 Members Affiliation Country Appointed

through Emmanuel Addo-Yobo Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

Technology Ghana 2022

Fatima Al-Shatti Consultant to the International Ozone Committee of the Kuwait Environmental Protection Authority

Kuwait 2022

Paul Atkins Oriel Therapeutics Inc. (A Novartis Company) USA 2022 Bill Auriemma Diversified CPC International USA 2021 Olga Blinova Russian Scientific Center "Applied Chemistry" Russia 2022 Steve Burns AstraZeneca UK 2021 Nick Campbell Arkema France 2022 Nee Sun (Robert) Choong Kwet Yive

University of Mauritius Mauritius 2022

Rick Cooke Man-West Environmental Group Ltd. Canada 2021 Maureen George Columbia University School of Nursing USA 2021 Kathleen Hoffmann Sterigenics International Inc. USA 2020* Jianxin Hu College of Environmental Sciences & Engineering,

Peking University China 2022

Ryan Hulse Honeywell USA 2020* Rabinder Kaul SRF Limited India 2023 Javaid Khan The Aga Khan University Pakistan 2022 Andrew Lindley Independent consultant to Koura and European

Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC) UK 2020*

Gerald McDonnell DePuy Synthes, Johnson & Johnson Ireland 2022 Robert Meyer Greenleaf Health USA 2022 B. Narsaiah CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Technology

(Retired) India 2021

Timothy J. Noakes Koura UK 2022 John G. Owens 3M USA 2020* Jose Pons Spray Quimica Venezuela 2023 Hans Porre Teijin Aramid Netherlands 2021 John Pritchard Independent Consultant, Inspiring Strategies UK 2022 Rabbur Reza Beximco Pharmaceuticals Bangladesh 2022 Christian Sekomo University of Rwanda Rwanda 2023 Rajiev Sharma GSK UK 2021 David Sherry Nolan Sherry & Associates Ltd. UK 2023 Peter Sleigh Koura UK 2023 Jørgen Vestbo Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Denmark 2021 Kristine Whorlow Non-Executive Director Australia 2022 Ashley Woodcock Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust UK 2023 Yizhong You Journal of Aerosol Communication China 2020* Lifei Zhang National Research Center for Environmental

Analysis and Measurement China 2022

Consulting Experts Affiliation Country One-year renewable terms

Hideo Mori Tokushima Regional Energy Japan



6. TEAP Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC)

The RTOC brings together expertise on Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps (RACHP) sectors. Members are experts of: Refrigerants, Domestic refrigeration, Commercial refrigeration, Industrial refrigeration and heat pump systems, Transport refrigeration, Air-to-air conditioners and heat pumps, Water and space heating heat pumps, Chillers, Vehicle air conditioning, Energy efficiency and sustainability applied to refrigeration systems, Not-in-kind technologies, High-Ambient-Temperatures applications, Modelling of RACHP Systems. Members have research, industry activities regulatory and commercial experience.

Needed expertise: After the last appointment of members in 2019, RTOC co-chairs continue to assess current expertise, and to improving gender and geographical balance. RTOC co-chairs, together with the whole members group, are working to review the structure and function of RTOC, in order to manage the increasing workload across the different RACHP subsectors. At present the needed expertise is as follows:

• RACHP expert from Sub-Saharan Africa could contribute with the knowledge of the specific requirements of his/her geographical area.

• Expert on energy macro-economics aspects related to RAC equipment (from either A5 or non-A5 parties) could provide national, regional, and international analysis related to equipment energy efficiency, energy consumption, and market trends.


Table 6: RTOC Membership at January 2020

Co-chairs Affiliation Party Appointed through

1 Abdelaziz, Omar Zewail City of Science and Techn. Egypt 2023 2 Peixoto, Roberto de A. Maua Institute, IMT, Sao Paulo Brazil 2021 3 Polonara, Fabio Univ. Politecnica Marche, Ancona Italy 2022

Members Affiliation Party Appointed through

4 Maria C. Britto Bacellar Johnson Controls, JCI Brazil 2021 5 Bhambure, Jitendra Independent expert India 2022 6 Calm, James M. Engineering Consultant USA 2022 7 Cermák, Radim Ingersoll Rand Czech Rep. 2022 8 Chen, Guangming Zhejiang University, Hangzhou PR China 2022 9 Colbourne, Daniel Re-phridge Consultancy UK 2022 10 De Vos, Richard GE Appliances USA 2022 11 Devotta, Sukumar Independent Consultant India 2022 12 Dieryckx, Martin Daikin Europe N.V, Belgium 2022 13 Dorman, Dennis Trane Co. USA 2022 14 Elassaad, Bassam Independent Expert Lebanon 2022 15 Gluckman Ray Gluckman Consulting UK 2020** 16 Godwin, Dave U.S. EPA USA 2022 17 Grozdek, Marino University of Zagreb Croatia 2022 18 Hamed, Samir Petra Industries Jordan 2022 19 Herlianika Herlin PTAWH Indonesia 2021 20 Janssen, Martien Re/genT B.V. The Netherl. 2022 21 König, Holger ref-tech consultancy Germany 2022 22 Kauffeld, Michael Fachhochschule, Karlsruhe Germany 2022 23 Koban, Mary E. Chemours Co USA 2021 24 Köhler, Jürgen University of Braunschweig Germany 2022 25 Kuijpers, Lambert A/gent B.V. Consultancy The Netherl. 2020** 26 Lawton, Richard Cambridge Refr. Technology CRT UK 2022 27 Li, Tingxun Guangzhou San Yat Sen University PR China 2022 28 Malvicino, Carloandrea FCA (Fiat) Italy 2022 29 Mohan Lal D. Anna University, Chennai India 2019* 30 Mousa, Maher MHM Consultancy Saudi Arabia 2019* 31 Nekså, Petter SINTEF Energy Research Norway 2022 32 Nelson, Horace Independent expert Jamaica 2022 33 Okada, Tetsuji JRAIA Japan 2022 34 Olama, Alaa M. Consultancy Egypt 2022 35 Pachai, Alexander C. Johnson Controls, JCI Denmark 2022 36 Pedersen, Per Henrik DTI, Consultant Denmark 2022 37 Rajendran, Rajan Emerson USA 2022 38 Rochat, Helene TopTen Switzerland 2022 39 Rusignuolo, Giorgio UTC Carrier USA 2022 40 Vonsild, Asbjørn Vonsild Consulting Denmark 2022 41 Yana Motta, Samuel Honeywell (USA) Peru 2019* 42 Yamaguchi, Hiroichi Toshiba Carrier Co Japan 2020**

* Indicates members whose terms expired at the end of 2019, and whose re-appointment is in process

** Indicates members whose terms expire at the end of the current year


Annex 2: Matrix of needed expertise

As required by the TEAP TOR an update of the matrix of needed expertise on the TEAP and its TOCs is provided below valid as of May 2020. Ensuring appropriate and sufficient technical expertise is the priority consideration for the TEAP and its committees.

Body Required Expertise A5/ Non-A5

Foams TOC • Extruded polystyrene production in India and China

• Polyurethane system house technical experts from southern (especially from small and medium enterprises).

• Foam chemistry experts globally and expertise in building science related to energy efficiency

Africa, the Middle East, or Mexico A5 or non-A5

Halons TOC • Fire protection applications in civil aviation, especially maintenance, repair and overhaul activities.

• General civil aviation fire protection applications in A5 parties, in particular in South East Asia

• Knowledge of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP

HFC agent use, their alternatives, and their market penetration in A5 parties in Central and South America, South East Asia (including China), and Africa (particularly central and south Africa).

• Banking and supplies of halon and alternatives in A5 parties, particularly in Africa and South America

• Expanding its knowledge of ship breaking activities from A5 or non-A5 parties particularly on actual quantities of halons recovered from shipbreaking activities, quantities of use of high-GWP HFCs and better knowledge of the anticipated lifetimes of merchant ships.

A5 / non-A5

A5 A5 A5 A5 or non-A5

Methyl Bromide TOC

• Nursery industries, especially the issues affecting the strawberry runner industries globally.

• QPS uses of MB and their alternatives

A5 or non-A5

A5


Body Required Expertise A5/ Non-A5

Medical and Chemical TOC

• Destruction technologies, including knowledge of the variety of available technologies;

• Metered dose inhalers, including pharmaceutical industry, especially R&D of new propellants, and medical experts in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

• Aerosols, including development of new propellants and new aerosol products and components.

A5 and/or non-A5

A5 and/or non-A5 A5 and/or non-A5

Refrigeration TOC

• RACHP expert with knowledge of the specifc requirements of his/her geographical area.

• Expert on energy macro-economics aspects related to RAC equipment to provide national, regional, and international analysis related to equipment energy efficiency, energy consumption, and market trends.

A5, sub-Saharan Africa A5 or non-A5 A5 or non-A5

Senior Experts

• Expert in the analysis and assessment (including modeling) of factors, including energy efficiency and regional economics, for forecasting the market penetration and potential future disposition of HCFCs, HFCs, and alternatives.

A5 or non-A5


Annex 3: Nomination Form

This form is to be completed by:

Parties nominating experts to the TEAP, Technical Options Committees (TOCs), or Temporary Subsidiary Bodies (TSBs)

Please provide a CV detailing the candidate’s previous, relevant employment beginning with the most current one. Experience and expertise relevant to the Montreal Protocol are particularly important and a list of relevant publications is useful (do not provide copies of publications)

Position Nominated for:

Please provide full names rather than only acronyms or initials

Title: Ms.

Professor

Mr.

Dr

Other: _________

Name (underline family name):

Employer / Organization:

Job Title:

Address:

Telephone:

Skype:

Email:

Web Site:

Nationality/ies:

Country of residence:

TEAP: Nomination Form

Expert Information


To be filled by the nominated expert:

I hereby confirm that the above information is correct and agree for review by the TEAP. I have no objection to this information being made publicly available. I also confirm that, if appointed, I will review and agree to abide by TEAP’s terms of reference, its code of conduct, operational procedures, and relevant decisions of the Parties as per Decision XXIV/8: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-31/presession/Background%20Documents/Decision_XXIV-8_TEAP_TOR.pdf

Signature: __________________________________________ Date: ________________

Please provide a short summary of the applicants’ expertise and skills, as they relate to the position for which he/she is being nominated.

Main Countries or Regions Worked or Experience in (with relevance to Montreal Protocol)

Please give a list of relevant publications (do not attach)

(No need to fill this section if already provided with CV)

Employment History and/or Relevant Experience

Publications

English Proficiency and computer skills

All meetings, correspondence and report writing are conducted in English so good command of English is essential. If English is not your mother tongue [native language] please describe briefly your proficiency to speak, read, and write in English. Basic computer literacy (Word, Excel, Power Point) for

References

Please provide names of two persons who have worked with you on issues relevant to the Montreal P l

Confirmation and Agreement

Applicant profile

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-31/presession/Background%20Documents/Decision_XXIV-8_TEAP_TOR.pdf



This section must be completed by the national focal point of the relevant party.

Government: _______________________________________________________________

Name of Government Representative: ___________________________________________

Signature: __________________________________________ Date: ________________

To be completed by the national focal point in the case of nomination by the party:

Has the matrix of needed expertise of TEAP been consulted? https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required

Yes No

Has TEAP been consulted on this nomination?

Yes No

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: THE OZONE SECRETARIAT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - Expectations for members of TEAP, TOCs and TSBs

Work done for TEAP, its TOCs and TSBs is on a voluntary basis and does not receive any remuneration [funding for their time]. Members from A 5 countries may be funded for their travel (flight) and per diem (UN DSA) only to relevant meetings, based on needed participation and availability of funding. Members are expected to attend meetings, engage in discussions, and devote time to the preparation of reports including finding and reviewing information to respond to the tasks set out by the Parties, drafting and formatting reports or sections of reports, reviewing reports and preparing presentations. TOC members attend at least annual meetings of that TOC. TOC co-chairs also attend the annual TEAP meeting, and typically two meetings per year of the Montreal Protocol. TSB members attend meetings of the TSB and may be asked to attend up to two meetings of the Montreal Protocol, based on needed participation and availability of funding.

All meetings, correspondence and report writing are conducted in English so good ability to read English plus good command of spoken and written English are essential.

Confirmation by Nominating Government

https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required


Basic computer literacy (Word, Excel, Power Point) for drafting and editing products is required. Advanced computer/ document formatting skills are an asset.

All appointed members of TEAP, TOCs or TSBs should provide a “Declaration of Interest” prior to a meeting and at least once a year. The DOIs are posted at the Ozone Secretariat website.

In submitting a CV to support a nomination, Parties may wish to provide a short summary of the applicants’ expertise and skills, as they relate to the position for which he/she is being nominated, including the main countries or regions worked or experience in (with relevance to Montreal Protocol). Also please indicate if the nomination is in response to a specific category listed in the Matrix of Expertise published by TEAP https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required

Once appointed, members of TEAP, TOCs or TSBs provide a “Declaration of Interest” (DOI) at least once a year and prior to the group’s first meeting. Members provide updated DOIs within 30 days of any changes. The DOIs are posted on the Ozone Secretariat website.

Members review and agree to abide by TEAP’s terms of reference, its code of conduct, operational procedures, and relevant decisions of the Parties as per Decision XXIV/8: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-31/presession/Background%20Documents/Decision_XXIV-8_TEAP_TOR.pdf

https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required

