MONTREAL PROTOCOL 

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE 

THE OZONE LAYER 

UNEP 

Chemicals Technical Options Committee 

(CTOC) 

2010 Assessment Report 

2010 CTOC Progress Report iii

UNEP 

REPORT OF THE

CHEMICALS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE

2010 ASSESSMENT REPORT
iv 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

Montreal Protocol 

On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Report of the 

UNEP Chemicals Technical Options Committee 

2010 Assessment 

ASSESSMENT REPORT

The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman. 

Co-ordination: Chemicals Technical Options Committee

Reproduction: Ozone Secretariat, UNEP 

Date: March 2011 

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: 

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/CTOC/

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, 

with acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: 9966-7319-8-9 
2010 CTOC Progress Report v

Disclaimer 

The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) co-chairs and members, the Technical and 

Economics Options Committee, chairs, co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Force 

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 and Economic Options 

Committee, chairs, co-chairs and members, and the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel Task Forces co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing 

the information that follows, 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. 

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 expressed or implied by UNEP, the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) co-chairs and members, the Technical and 

Economics Options Committee, chairs, co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Force 

co-chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them. 

vii 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

UNEP 

REPORT OF THE

CHEMICALS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE

2010ASSESSMENT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................PAGE

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................1

1, Process Agents ............................................................................................................5

1.1 Revision of Table A and Table B.............................................................................5

1.2 Cooperation between TEAP/CTOC and MLF .....................................................5

2. Laboratory and Analytical Uses ...............................................................................9

2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................9

2.2 Status on Laboratory Uses......................................................................................9

2.3 Status on Analytical Uses.........................................................................................9

2.4 Importance of Standard Analysis.........................................................................10

3. Feedstocks................................................................................................................. 11

4. Solvents .....................................................................................................................13

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................13

4.2 Status in Article 5 Countries.................................................................................13

4.3 Regulatory Changes...............................................................................................14

4.3.1 European Regulation Changes......................................................................14

4.3.2 Japanese Regulation Changes.......................................................................15

4.4 n-Propyl bromide ...................................................................................................15

5. Destruction Technologies.........................................................................................17

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................17

5.2 Recent Progress......................................................................................................17

5.2.1 Environmentally Sound Management of Banks of ODS .............................17

5.2.2 Update of the screened-in destruction technologies of 2002 TF Report ......18

5.2.3 Article 5 countries.........................................................................................18

5.2.4 Evaluation of reported emerging technologies .............................................19

6. Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC) Emissions and Opportunities for Reduction.......20
2010 CTOC Progress Report 1

Executive Summary 

Process Agents 

In the last four years more than seventy process agent applications have been reviewed 

by the CTOC (see annex 1). Parties have approved 17 process agent uses which are 

added to Table A. Also, 12 uses have been deleted from Table A as processes were 

abandoned or modified, often (but not always) as a result of MLF projects (Decisions 

XIX/15 and XXI/3). 

As late as 2009, nominations for process agent status were still being received as 

Parties became aware of activities of their chemical industry sectors in which 

controlled substances were used. 

Reporting of emissions to Table B has been less than complete. 

A better standard of reporting of emissions needs to be achieved so that Table B gives a 

more reliable picture of emissions arising from process agent uses. When the CTOC 

and MLF will produce a joint report in 2011 according to the Decision XXI/3 (5), 

further deletions from Table A and a more complete update on phase-outs or 

suggestions for phase-outs could be possible. 

A list of Parties with approved process agent uses could be provided to the Ozone 

Secretariat, so that requests for information could be targeted and followed up, rather 

than including such requests in global communications. 

Laboratory and Analytical Uses 

There are very few identified uses of ODS in laboratory and analytical procedures in 

non-Article 5 countries. Some use continues in several Article 5 countries. 

Advice by experts is required, together with modest financial support for alternatives 

that have already been identified to be trialled in Article 5 countries, alongside current 

procedures that involve ODS. New standard methods need to be developed. 

Advice delivered by experts to practitioners at laboratory level is most valuable. It can 

be augmented by national or regional meetings, by provision of advice through 

electronic means, and via information transfer involving ozone officers. It would be 

helpful to the phaseout for the Ozone Secretariat and experts identified by the CTOC to 

work with national and international standards bodies to establish new standard 

methods of analysis that do not use ODS. TEAP and the CTOC will keep Parties 

informed of advances on these fronts. 
2 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

Feedstocks 

An extensive listing of known use of ODSs as feedstocks has been compiled. Using 

volumes suggested by members of the CTOC and following guidelines for emission 

calculations suggested by the IPCC for the UNFCCC, estimates of emissions from 

these feedstocks have been generated. 

The volumes used in the report have been built up from expert knowledge and cannot 

be verified directly. There is poor reporting of use of ODSs as feedstocks. Also, at the 

current time, the majority of the production from ODS feedstocks is for HFCs whose 

production is not reported to a public source of data. To improve the estimate of use 

and emissions, it will be necessary to identify more complete public sources or for all 

Parties to report feedstock usage. In addition, the IPCC guidelines to not well represent 

actual emissions during use of ODS as feedstock. Expert opinion suggests that the 

IPCC guidelines are maximal values and actual emissions may be lower at well 

managed facilities. Better emission mechanisms need to be considered. 

Developed countries report to UNFCCC emission data for HFCs in their inventory 

reporting. Thus, discussions with UNFCCC may assist in developing new estimated 

sources of data for HFC production (which may have utilized ODSs as feedstock in 

their preparation). The reporting of ODS volumes for each feedstock uses by Parties 

through the Ozone Secretariat may enable a more complete quantification of this 

activity. 

Solvents 

Over 90 % of ODS solvent uses based on the peak consumption of 1994-95 have been 

reduced by changing to not-in-kind technologies and conservation. The remaining less 

than 10% of the ODS market is shared by several in-kind solvent alternatives. 

The major challenge is the complete phase out of ODS solvents in Article 5 countries. 

Preferable alternatives have been identified and are generally available. Another hurdle 

to overcome is the economic impact on the small and medium size users who make up 

a major portion of the remaining ODS solvent market. 

Regulatory changes will continue to impact on the use of solvents. In some cases, this 

may require solvent and/or equipment change or a new cleaning process. New idea of 

the definition of low-GWP and high-GWP alternatives which TEAP proposed may 

cause a profound effect on the use of solvent. 

Destruction Technologies 

In 2009, CTOC identified 176 destruction facilities in 27 countries including new 

technologies not listed in the 2002 Task Force Report. 

Recently several emerging technologies have been requested for evaluation. Following 

Decision XXI/10, they will be reviewed when technical details are made available. 
2010 CTOC Progress Report 3

Periodic review of available destruction technologies will be necessary to provide 

updated technical guidelines for destruction of ozone depleting substances such as 

CFCs, halons and methyl bromide as well as for HFCs. 

Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC) Emissions and Opportunities for Reduction 

The TEAP/CTOC made a comprehensive review on CTC emissions, concluding that 

there is a significant discrepancy between reported emissions and the observed 

atmospheric concentrations under Decisions XVI/14 and XVIII/10. 

The studies have not yet been completed on the production and consumption of CTC 

with particular emphasis on feedstock uses with the goal to estimate emissions and try 

to reconcile them with values calculated by atmospheric scientists. 

No new information on CTC emission was obtained in the course of the CTOC 

activities by 2010. Further studies will be needed to improve and reconcile bottom-up 

and top-down calculations, to search for other unreported CTC emission sources, to 

revise the UNEP inventory data and to further revise the atmospheric lifetime of CTC. 

2010 CTOC Progress Report 5

1. Process Agents 

1.1 Revision of Table A and Table B

Nominations for process agent uses have been reviewed by two Process Agent Task 

Forces (2001 and 2004) and since then by the CTOC as part of TEAP’s annual progress 

reports. In the last four years, more than seventy process agent applications have been 

reviewed by the CTOC (see Annex 1). The Parties approved and added 17 process 

agent uses to Table A in Decision X/14. At the same time, 12 uses were deleted from 

the Table A as the processes were abandoned or modified, often (but not always) as a 

result of MLF projects (Decisions XIX/15 and XXI/3). As late as 2009, nominations for 

process agent status were received as Parties became aware of old or new activities of 

their chemical industry sectors in which controlled substances were used. 

Information of ODS emissions from process agent uses in Table B has been less than 

complete. A better standard of reporting of emissions needs to be achieved so that table 

B gives a reliable picture of emissions arising from process agent uses. 

1.2 Cooperation between TEAP/CTOC and MLF 

Based on the further information from reports of the MLF projects, the 

following seven process agent applications, No. 4, 9, 17, 21, 23, 25 and 26 in the 

column of Decision XXI/3 in Annex 1, could be removed because Parties no longer 

operate facilities requiring these processes.. When the CTOC and MLF produce a joint 

report in 2011 (Decision XXI/3), a more complete update on phase-out or suggestions 

for phase-out will be achieved. 

A list of Parties with approved process agent uses could be provided to the Ozone 

Secretariat, so that requests for necessary information could be targeted. 

Parties and the MLF should prioritise efforts on eliminating those process agent uses 

that have the highest emissions. 
6 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

Annex 1: Table of the reviewed list of uses of controlled substances as process agents (status 

through 2010 decisions) 

Process Agent 

Application 

Substance Decision

XVII/7 

Decision

XVII/8 

Decision 

XIX/15 

Decision 

XXI/3 

Decision 

XXII/-*** 

Elimination of NCl3

in chlor-alkali production CTC 1 1 1 1 

Chlorine gas recovery by tail gas 

absorption in chlor-alkali production 

CTC 2 2 2 2 

Production of chlorinated rubber CTC 3 3 3 3 

Production of Endosulfan CTC 4 4 4 4 

Production of Ibuprofen CTC 5 5 5 ** 

Production of Dicofol CTC 6 6 ** 

Production of chlorosulfonated 

polyolefin (CSM) CTC 7 7 6 5 

Production Aramid polymer (PPTA) CTC 8 8 7 6 

Production of fluoropolymer resins CFC-113 9 ** 

Production of synthetic fibre sheet CFC-11 10 9 8 7 

Production of styrene butadiene 

rubber CTC 11 ** 

Production of chlorinated paraffin CTC 12 10 9 8 

Photochemical synthesis of 

perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide 

precursors of Z-perfluoropolyethers 

and difunctional derivatives

CFC-12 13 11 10 9 

Reduction of 

perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide 

intermediate for production of 

perfluoropolyether diesters

CFC-113 14 12 11 ** 

Preparation of perfluoropolyether 

diols with high functionality CFC-113 15 13 12 10 

Production of Bromohexine 

hydrochloride CTC 16 ** 

Production of Diclofenac sodium CTC 17 ** 

Production of phenyl glycine CTC 18 ** 

Production of Cyclodime CTC 19 14 13 11 

Production of chlorinated 

polypropene CTC 20 15 14 12 

Production of chlorinated ethylene 

vinyl acetate (CEVA)

CTC 21 16 15 13 

Production of methyl isocyanate 

derivatives CTC 22 17 16 14 

Production of 3-phenoxy 

benzaldehyde CTC 23 18 17 15 

Production of 

2-chloro-5-methylpyridine CTC 24 19 18 16 
2010 CTOC Progress Report 7

Process Agent 

Application 

Substance Decision

XVII/7 

Decision

XVII/8 

Decision 

XIX/15 

Decision 

XXI/3 

Decision 

XXII/-*** 

Production of Imidacloprid CTC 25 20 19 17 

Production of Buprofenzin CTC 26 21 20 18 

Production of Oxadiazon CTC 27 22 21 19 

Production of chloradized 

N-methylaniline CTC 28 23 22 20 

Production of Mefenacet CTC 29 ** 

Production of 1,3- 

dichlorobenzothiazole CTC 30 24 23 21 

Bromination of a styrenic polymer BCM 31 25 24 22 

Synthesis of ascorbic acid CTC 32 ** 

Synthesis of Ciprofloxacin CTC 33 ** 

Synthesis of Norfloxacin CTC 34 ** 

Synthesis of 

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 

(2,4-D)

CTC 35 26 25 23 

Synthesis of diperoxydicarbonate CTC 36 ** 

Production of sodium 

dichloroisocyanurate CTC 37 ** 

Synthesis of 

di(-2-ethylhexyl)peroxidedicarbonate 

(DEHPC)

CTC 27 26 24 

Production of radio-labelled 

cyanocobalamin CTC 38 28 27 ** 

Production of high modulus 

polyethylene fibre CFC-113 39 29 28 25 

Production of vinyl chloride 

monomer 

CTC 30 29 26 

Production of p-bromobenzaldehyde CTC 40 * 

Production of fenvalerate CTC 41 * 

Manufacture of Losartan Potassium BCM 42 * 

Production of 

1,2-chloro-1,4-naphthoquinone CTC 43 * 

Production of Prallethrin CTC 44 32 31 28 

Production of 

2-methoxybenzoylchloride CTC 45 * 

Production of o-nitrobenzaldehyde CTC 46 33 32 29 

Production of Salimusk CTC 47 * 

Production of Epoxiconazole CTC 48 * 

Production of benzophenone CTC 49 * 

Production of Picloram; Lontrel CTC 50 * 

Production of 

3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC 51 34 33 30 

Production of Difenoconazole CTC 52 * 
8 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

Process Agent 

Application 

Substance Decision

XVII/7 

Decision

XVII/8 

Decision 

XIX/15 

Decision 

XXI/3 

Decision 

XXII/-*** 

Production of 

2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC 53 35 34 31 

Production of 2-thiophene ethanol CTC 54 36 35 32 

Production of 

5-amino-1,2,3-thiadiazol CTC 55 * 

Production of Levofloxacin CTC 56 * 

Production of cinnamic acid CTC 57 * 

Production of Ertaczo CTC 58 * 

Production of 3,5-dinitrobenzoyl 

chloride (3,5-DNBC) CTC 59 37 36 33 

Production of Fipronil (pesticide) CTC 60 * 

Processing of Aluminium, Uranium CTC, CFC 61 * 

Production of furfural CTC 62 * 

Production of 3,3,3-trifluoropropene CTC 63 * 

Production of 

triphenylmethylchloride CTC 64 * 

Production of 

tetrachlorodimethylmethane CTC 65 * 

Production of 

4,4`-difluorodiphenylketone CTC 66 * 

Production of 

4-trifluoromethoxybenzenamine CTC 67 * 

Production of 

1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone CTC 68 38 37 34 

Production of Sultamicillin BCM 31 30 27 

Production of m-nitrobenzaldehyde CTC 39 38 35 

Production of Tichlopidine CTC 40 39 36 

Production of p-nitro benzyl alcohol CTC 41 40 37 

Production of Tolclofos methyl CTC 42 41 38 

Production of polyvinylidene 

fluoride (PVdF) CTC 42 39 

Production of 

tetrafluorobenzoylethyl acetate CTC 43 40 

Production of 4-bromophenol CTC 44 41 

* Do not meet criteria X/14, 

** Phased out 

*** Three applications was deleted from Table A (Decision XXI/3, #5, 11 and 

27) in the 22nd MOP in Bangkok, Thailand 

.
2010 CTOC Progress Report 9

2. Laboratory and Analytical Uses 

2.1 Introduction 

Parties continued to show interest in the use of ODS for laboratory and analytical 

purposes. In 2007, Decision XIX/8 extended the global exemption to 31 December 

2011, and then in 2009 the global exemption for all Parties was extended to 31 

December 2014, with the exception of a few procedures for which it was agreed that 

suitable alternatives were available. 

On several occasions the CTOC was asked to describe the uses and to provide lists of 

suitable alternatives, and much information of this type was made available in the 

annual TEAP reports. The 2009 TEAP Progress Report contained information about 

case studies in Australia, European Union, Japan and the United States, showing the 

way that Parties managed such uses and, in some cases, had eliminated them. 

2.2 Status on Laboratory Uses 

There are laboratory uses of some ODS – notably methyl bromide (MB) and carbon 

tetrachloride (CTC) – for which it is difficult to find alternatives because portions of 

the ODS molecules are incorporated in the products of the chemical reactions. Since 

the ODS are destroyed, through conversion to non-ODS products, and laboratory 

procedures are in any case conducted on a much smaller scale than those in industry, 

the likely emissions from such uses are small. 

Despite some trials by interested laboratories, there is one laboratory solvent use of 

CTC for which does not yet have an alternative (bromination reactions using N-bromosuccinimide). 

Other laboratory uses of ODS, as common solvent or cleaning agent, for example, have 

largely been phased out in developed countries and are disappearing from laboratories 

in developing countries, by alternatives with similar polarity and solvent properties 

2.3 Status on Analytical Uses 

The most common analytical procedures using ODS is use of CTC (and in some cases 

CFC-113) as a solvent for infrared analyses of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons in 

question are those involved in contamination of water, soil or air by petroleum-derived 

oils. The best alternative to CTC is tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) which has 

been shown to perform satisfactorily in such analyses and is widely available in global 

markets. This alternative was suggested by the CTOC and the trials were successfully 

conducted in an Article 5 country. A new commercial product (S-316) that can also 

substitute for CTC is also available on world markets, but it is expensive and many 

users of CTC, especially in Article 5 countries, have not switched to the new analytical 

medium. Alternatives have also been identified for other analyses using CTC or 

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), and introduced into practice in a number of countries. 
10 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

CTOC members, supported by implementing agencies as UNDP and UNIDO, have 

provided advice and guidance to laboratory personnel and ozone officers, directly or 

advising through regional networks meetings. 

2.4 Importance of Standard Analysis 

The reluctance of analytical laboratories to replace CTC in hydrocarbon analysis, while 

there may be a cost factor, arises from the fact that CTC is specified in standard 

analytical methods that have great value in quality assurance and quality control 

(QA&QC). Assurance that an analysis has been done properly and the result is 

repeatable and may be compared with other results obtained by standard analysis is an 

important tenet of analytical chemistry. Such assurance is sought by company 

management, who are aware that customers who purchase a company’s products, and 

regulators who monitor environmental performance, will insist that results be reported 

on the basis of standard methods. 

There is a need, therefore, for the development of new standard methods, ones that do 

not involve the use of ODS. By the other hand, some standard methods present one or 

more alternative solvents to ODS, but there is need of awareness activities, in order to 

make trials and validate those methods with the alternatives. The Ozone Secretariat, in 

conjunction with the CTOC, is engaged with national and international standards 

associations in the development of new methods of analysis. 
2010 CTOC Progress Report 11

3. Feedstocks 

An extensive listing of known use of ODSs as feedstocks has been compiled. These are 

for products as diverse as other fluorochemicals, polymers and films, pharmaceuticals, 

fine chemicals, etc. The CTOC has estimated emissions from feedstock use based on 

expert knowledge and utilizing guidelines for emission calculations suggested by the 

IPCC for the UNFCCC. 

The volumes estimated in the report have been built up from expert knowledge and 

cannot be verified directly. There is poor reporting of use of ODSs in feedstocks. Also, 

at the current time, the majority of the feedstock use is for the production of HFCs 

which have no publicly reported data on the amount of production. To improve the 

estimate of use and emissions it will be necessary to identify more complete public 

sources or for all Parties to report feedstock usage. In addition, it is felt that the IPCC 

guidelines to not well represent actual emissions during use of ODS as feedstock. 

Expert opinion suggests that the IPCC guidelines are maximal values and actual 

emissions from well managed plants are lower. Better emission mechanisms need to be 

considered. 

Developed country Parties to UNFCCC report emission data for HFCs in their 

inventory reporting, discussions with UNFCCC may assist in developing new sources 

of data for HFC production (which may have utilized ODSs as feedstock in their 

preparation). The reporting by Parties of ODS volumes used as feedstocks through the 

Ozone Secretariat may enable a more complete quantification of this activity. 

Alternatively, inquiries to select Parties might improve understanding of this activity. 

2010 CTOC Progress Report 13

4. Solvents 

4.1 Introduction 

As is reported in the IPCC/TEAP SROC, over 90% of the ODS solvent use had been 

reduced through conservation and substitution with not-in-kind technologies by 1999. 

The phaseout of the remaining less than 10% of the original solvent use are shared by 

several organic solvent alternatives, especially by the in-kind alternatives to CFC-113 

which include HCFCs, HFCs and HFEs (hydrofluoroethers) with minimal use of PFCs 

such as perfluorohexane in non-Article 5 countries. 

Not-in-kind alternatives options include no-clean mainly in electronics and aerospace, 

aqueous systems in degreasing and precision cleaning, hydrocarbon in precision 

mechanics and oxygenated solvents in diverse cleaning applications. The primary 

substitutes for 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and CTC cover chlorocarbon alternatives 

such as trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. Also, a 

brominated substance, n-propyl bromide, with similar solvent properties to those of the 

chlorinated solvents, has taken a significant market share in recent years for defluxing, 

general cleaning and adhesives applications in spite of its concerned toxicity. 

The in-kind substitutes for CFC-113 and CFC-11 are fluorinated alternatives such as 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC-141b and HCFC-225ca/cb), perfluorocarbons 

(primarily C6F14), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-43-10mee, HFC-365mfc and HFC-245fa, 

HFC-c447ef) and hydrofluoroethers (HFE-449s1, HFE-569sf2). HFCs are available in 

all regions but their uses have been primarily in non-Article 5 countries due to 

relatively high cost and importance of high tech industries. Their growth is expected to 

be minimal due to the increasing concern about their high GWP. In Article 5 countries, 

use of HCFC-141b has been increasing especially in China, India, and Brazil and its 

consumption exceeded 5,000t. 

4.2 Status in Article 5 Countries 

As shown in UNEP database, consumption and production amount of ODSs in Annex 

A and Annex B have been decreasing steadily in Article 5 countries. 

Although the complete phase out of those substances has not come yet, progress in 

achieving the phase-out in Article 5 countries has been good, given the widespread use 

of ozone-depleting solvents and the variety and complexity of their applications. Of the 

various uses, the large-scale electronics industry has progressed furthest towards a 

complete phase-out, although this is not the case with small- and medium-sized 

enterprises (SMEs). Full phase-out for metal cleaning applications is hampered by the 

large number of small users, many of whom are undercapitalised. In precision cleaning 

applications, users have been aggressively implementing alternatives. Some enterprises 

are still searching for solutions for cleaning precision parts that are especially 

vulnerable to residues or reactions, or that have unusually stringent cleanliness criteria. 

The challenges that are facing the world are complete phase out of ozone depleting 

substances in Article 5 countries. Preferable alternatives have been identified 
14 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

throughout the world and are generally readily available, so to keep providing 

information and knowledge about what are the acceptable alternatives is quite 

important. A second major hurdle to be overcome is the economic considerations. 

However, the biggest problem is being able to identify the SMEs that, collectively, 

make up a major portion of the solvent market. 

The remained issue to note is promotion of the replacement process of essential uses in 

non Article 5 countries. 

The selection of the alternative technologies to ODS solvents for Article 5 countries 

should be: 

• "No-clean", keep-clean 

• Aqueous/hydrocarbon-surfactant cleaning 

• Organic solvent cleaning (with solvents less toxic than non-ozone-depleting 

halogenated solvents) 

• Non-ozone-depleting halogenated solvents (HFC, HFEs, TCE, PCE) 

• Organic solvent cleaning (with solvents more toxic than non-ozone-depleting 

halogenated solvents 

• HCFC-225, and some PFCs 

All applications to the Multilateral Fund that propose the use of aqueous or 

hydrocarbon surfactant cleaning require funding for pollution prevention, recycling, 

waste water treatment, shower and eye-wash facilities and drying equipment, as 

appropriate. Applications that involve the use of organic and hydrogenated solvents 

require containment equipment, adequate ventilation control, and/or low emission 

equipment. The guidelines for all processes should include requirements for personnel 

safety, for example, the use of eye guards and other personal protection equipment by 

workers who perform the cleaning operation and means for the measurement of 

operator exposure. 

4.3 Regulatory Changes 

The regulatory changes continue to impact use of solvents as well as containment, 

emission, safety, health and recycling requirements. In some cases, they may require 

solvent and/or equipment change or a new cleaning process. The new definition of 

low-GWP and high-GWP alternatives which TEAP proposed this year may cause a 

profound effect on the remaining use of ODS and HFC solvents. 

4.3.1 European Regulation Changes 

Regulation on F-gases came into effect in 2006 in EU, covering refrigerants in 

automobiles. The new European chemical policy called REACH (Registration 

Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) came into effect as a new regulation in 

mid 2007. It could impact substances availability for certain uses (including solvents) 

in cases where low sales volumes cannot support the testing regime required by 

REACH or where the re-assessed properties of the substance militate against its use. 

New regulation on CLP (Classification, Labelling and Packaging) will come in this 

December, where ODSs, such as CFCs, halons, CTC, Methylchloroform, HFBCs and 

HCFCs, are classified as hazardous to the ozone layer 
2010 CTOC Progress Report 15

4.3.2 Japanese Regulation Changes 

The PRTR (Pollutant Release and Transfer Register) regulation which came into effect 

in 2002 requires reporting of release and transfer of 354 substances including all ODSs 

and chlorinated solvents. The other regulation which has a major effect in controlling 

cleaning operation is the VOC (volatile organic compound) regulation. It came into 

effect from April 2006. The quantity of VOCs emitted in industrial cleaning in 2007 

was 124,000 tons. Of those VOCs emitted, 35% was chlorinated solvents such as 

methylene chloride (17%), trichloroethylene (10%) and perchloroethylene (4%). In 

order to achieve reduction in emission, various combinations of cleaning equipments, 

operating manuals and peripherals to suit the processes are needed and efforts are made 

to develop such systems. 

4.4 n-Propyl bromide 

Concerns have been expressed during the current assessment period about the 

increasing use of n-propyl bromide (1-bromopropane, CH3CH2CH2Br, n-PB, CAS No. 

106 94 5) as a solvent in a range of applications. Its boiling point, 71oC, is 

comparable to that of CFC-113 (48o

C), hexane (69o), methyl chloroform (TCA, 74oC) 

and trichloroethylene (87oC). Its solvent properties are typical of those of lower 

molecular weight hydrocarbons and organohalogen compounds. 

Because of the presence of bromine in the molecule there is the potential for ozone 

depletion arising from transfer of n-PB to the stratosphere, and decomposition there 

with release of bromine atoms. Analogies are drawn with methyl bromide, a lower 

homologue of n-PB which finds extensive use as a fumigant and has ozone depleting 

potential (ODS) of 0.6. The intermediate homologue, ethyl bromide, has few 

commercial uses. 

Complete and accurate data on production and uses of n-PB have been difficult to 

obtain. The global production level was estimated to be 20,000-30,000 metric tonnes 

in 2007, with production taking place in several A(5) and non-A(5) countries. n-PB is 

not classified or registered as a controlled chemical substance like CFCs, and HCFCs 

(ODS class I and II) nor designated as a hazardous air pollutant in the Clean Air Act in 

the USA or reportable compound for pollution release (emission) and transfer (PRTR) 

in Europe and Japan no information is available about n-PB emissions. 

Because emitted n-PB is rapidly destroyed in the lower atmosphere, and therefore does 

not give rise to significant stratospheric bromine concentrations, its ODP is calculated 

to be in the range of 0.02-0.1, similar to those of HCFCs. 

Proposals to restrict the use of n-PB are based on both ozone-depletion and toxicity 

concerns. The American Council of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and 

Israel have set an exposure guideline of 10ppm, with Europe setting the lowest 8-hour 

occupational exposure limit (OEL) value in humans and enforcing the tightest labelling 

classification. The US EPA is proposing to allow n-PB in some, but not all, end uses as 

a solvent, with a TLV (Threshold Limit Value) of 10ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted 
16 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

average of exposure (TWA) through its SNAP (Significant New Alternatives Policy) 

Program, although OSHA has not yet issued a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for 

n-PB. 
2010 CTOC Progress Report 17

5. Destruction Technologies

5.1 Introduction 

Following the discovery of the ozone hole and establishment of the Montreal Protocol, 

the first report of the “Ad-Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on ODS Destruction 

Technologies” was published in May, 1992. 

TEAP was requested to establish two task forces; a task force on collection, recovery 

and storage and a task force on destruction technologies. Their reports were published 

in April, 2002. The task force on collection, recovery and storage reported (1) technical 

feasibility of collection, recovery and storage, (2) inventories and collection potential, 

(3) economic implication, and (4) barrier to collection, recovery and storage. The task 

force on destruction technologies reported in May, 2002 that the criteria of the 

destruction were (1) destruction and removal efficiency (DRE), (2) emissions of 

PCDDs/PCDFs, (3) emissions of acid gases, particulate matter and carbon monoxide, 

and (4) technical capability (scale of destruction). The task force concluded that sixteen 

ODS destruction technologies met the screening criteria among 45 technologies. 

TEAP was requested by Decision XVII/10 to establish the task force on foam 

end-of-life issues, focusing on handling and destruction of insulation foams and 

technical and economic aspects of recovery and destruction of blowing agents from 

appliance and building insulation foams. The report of the task force of collection, 

recovery and storage in May, 2005, concluded (1) a new practically-valuable parameter, 

recovery and destruction efficiency (RDE), (2) anaerobic degradation of ODS in 

landfilling, and (3) economic factors affected by segregation of foams from other 

materials and infrastructure of transport, and (4) estimated banks of CFCs (1.5 million 

tonnes) and HCFCs (0.75 million tonnes). 

The IPCC/TEAP special report in 2005 described emission scenarios and 

recovery/destruction of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 as well as CFCs and HCFCs. A1 scenario 

of SRES (Special Report on Emission Scenarios for IPCC Third Assessment Report in 

2001) indicated that while global emissions of ODS, HFCs-total and PFCs-total are 

842 kt, 93 kt and 14 kt in 2000, respectively, those in 2010 are projected to be 786 kt, 

298 kt and 17 kt, respectively. Particularly, the emissions of HFC-23 were 12.6 kt in 

2000 and were projected to be 14.8 kt in 2010, and those of HFC-134a were 80.0 kt in 

2000 and were to be 175.7 kt in 2010. The special report explained recovery, recycling 

and reclamation of ODS and HFCs. The report also described the destruction of a 

by-product of HFC-23, which is produced in HCFC-22 manufacturing by 1.4% to 4% 

and has a GWP of 14,310. 

5.2 Recent Progress 

5.2.1 Environmentally Sound Management of Banks of ODS 

By Decision XX/7 TEAP was requested to establish the Task Force on 

“Environmentally Sound Management of Banks of Ozone-depleting Substances.” The 

Interim report in June, 2009 and Phase 2 report in October, 2009 drew main 
18 2010 CTOC Progress Report 

conclusions. (1) The evaluation of ODS flow reaching to the waste streams indicated 

that while opportunity for end-of-life management of ODS, for example, in refrigerant 

will be over by 2025 in developed countries, the management of CFCs in refrigerant 

will be over the next 10-15 years and that of HCFC-22 will be prevalent up to 2030 in 

developing countries. (2) Synergy of ODS with other waste issues indicated importance 

of integrating ODS into wider waste management strategies, based on cost analyses of 

the recovery and destruction which were composed of segregation/collection 

equipment containing ODS, transport of recovered equipment, recovery of ODS from 

equipment, transport of recovered ODS to destruction, and destruction of ODS. The 

synergy of ODS with other waste issues was supported by three sub-regional examples 

in EU, Brazil and Japan. (3) A further collaboration of the ozone, climate and other 

environmental benefit indicated annual benefits in excess of 400 Mtonnes of CO2-eq 

were available from management of low and medium effort banks reaching to the 

waste stream. 

5.2.2 Update of the screened-in destruction technologies of 2002 TF Report 

As described in the 2002 TEAP Task Force on Destruction Technologies, only sixteen 

destruction technologies were screened-in. However, from the documents distributed 

by the Ozone Secretariat until October 2009, the CTOC identified at least 176 

destruction facilities in 27 countries which are being operated. Present destruction 

facilities are operated by a variety of technologies far wider than the 2002 Task Force 

technologies. The technologies applied are classified into four categories, i.e. high 

temperature incineration, furnaces dedicated to manufacturing, plasma, and other 

non-incineration. 

Furnaces dedicated to manufacturing include cement kilns, lime rotary kilns, electric 

furnace, sulphuric acid recovery furnace and lightweight aggregate kilns. Other 

non-incineration technologies include catalytic destruction, chemical treatment and 

solid-phase alkaline reactor. As indicated in the 2002 Task Force report, the suggested 

minimum standards of technical performance are guidelines for selecting the 

destruction technologies. 

Current destruction technologies other than the sixteen TEAP recommended 

technologies were evaluated against the performance criteria of their own countries, as 

well as by those of the 2002 Task Force report. The United States of America, for 

instance, has established their domestic technologies permitted by the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act requirements and ODS has been destroyed under 

MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards for destruction 

efficiency (DE) and atmospheric emissions. In European countries, ODS is destroyed 

by the technologies recommended by the 2002 Task Force report and by a variety of 

incinerators that are used for PCB/POPs destruction. Japan has permitted the 

destruction technologies based on the Law of Fluorocarbon Recovery and Destruction. 

5.2.3 Article 5 countries 

CTOC is aware that technology transfer to Article 5 countries has begun take place. 

The ODS destruction project in Indonesia using cement kiln project was supported by 
2010 CTOC Progress Report 19

the Japanese government and a private company. Such assistance to A-5 countries is 

likely to increase since ODS destruction can be expected to be more emphasized in 

such countries. 

Since 1993 EU and USA have destroyed 114,603 and 38,278 tonnes of ODS, 

respectively. Japan has destroyed 25,925 tonnes of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs. Recently, 

Korea, China, Brazil and some A-5 countries have started destruction of ODS. 

The CTOC is also aware that movement of waste ODS from countries where they have 

been withdrawn from service, but in which no destruction facilities exist, to other 

countries (sometimes neighbouring countries) where destruction facilities are available, 

can prove difficult. The Basel Convention applies but there is also reluctance on the 

part of many countries to accept waste from other countries for destruction. 

5.2.4 Evaluation of reported emerging technologies 

CTOC has received three kinds of emerging destruction technologies for evaluation 

and recommendation. Although some information about these technologies are 

confidential, CTOC expects to be able to advise Parties on their technical performance. 

Appropriate advice has been sent to the inventers regarding technical performance of 

these technologies and suitable substances to be destroyed under destruction conditions. 

When detailed technical information is made available, these technologies will be 

evaluated as requested in Decision XXII/10. 

A fourth technical proposal concerns the applicability of current destruction 

technologies to methyl bromide (MB). Although MB among ODS is the most difficult 

to destroy by incineration, annual amounts of MB destruction ranging from year of 

1991 to 2003 were reported by USA (May 2009). The amount destroyed in 2002 was 

4,713 metric tones. Commercial recapture systems for MB have been developed based 

on adsorption of MB from treatment containers and chambers on activated carbon. An 

emerging destruction technology was attempted by contacting MB released from 

activated carbon with liquid scrubber containing thiosulfate solution. Another 

technology for MB destruction was attempted by a plasma technology in Australia. 

Revision of the Montreal Protocol assessments of destruction technologies is 

necessary: Firstly, technical guidelines for methyl bromide might be required, since the 

2002 Task Force report was limited to CFCs (concentrated and dilute sources) and 

halons. Secondly, there is a proposed opinion to specify authorised methods for 

destruction because of current technologies far wider than those in the 2002 Task Force 

report. Thirdly, current fluorocarbons to be recovered and destroyed are not limited to 

ODS, since the mobile and stationary air-conditioners, for example, contain HFC-134a 

and other HFC and HFC blends as well as CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, and other 

ODSs. Finally, comprehensive disposal technologies including recovery and 

destruction are established for products and equipment containing ODS. Such a view 

point may also be helpful for Article 5 countries where ODS recovery/destruction 

facilities are expected to increase in future. Furthermore, technical, economic and legal 

mechanisms are desired for ODS recovery and destruction in Article 5 countries. 

2010 CTOC Progress Report 21

6. Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC) Emissions and Opportunities for 

Reduction 

Following Decision XVI/14, in 2006 CTOC reported estimates of releases of CTC by 

chemical industry. For confidentiality reasons, exact usage volumes were not available, 

and in addition it was necessary to estimate releases on the basis of anticipated small 

percentage losses. Bottom-up estimated emissions were in the range 12,000-17,000 

tonnes/year. Working from the measured atmospheric concentration of CTC and 

estimates of its tropospheric lifetime, however, top-down annual emissions are 

estimated to be closer to70,000 tonnes/year. Just how this discrepancy could be 

reconciled is not obvious, but CTOC drew attention to possible under-reporting of CTC 

use and to uncertainties in the atmospheric lifetime (with a longer lifetime, lower 

emissions would suffice to maintain the observed atmospheric 

concentrations). Decision XVIII/10 requested reconsideration of the matter but in 2007 

CTOC reported that their investigations were incomplete. They were able, however, to 

dismiss the role that landfill emission might play in CTC emissions, and to report that 

the Science Assessment Panel had confirmed the CTC lifetime (26 years) and 

suggested regions where unaccounted CTC emissions might be occurring. In 2008 the 

TEAP/CTOC reported to the OEWG in Bangkok that SAP emission estimates of 

70,000 tonnes/year are inconsistent with reliable estimates of CTC production (200,000 

tonnes, including 161,000 tonnes used as feedstock). There the matter rests although 

there is growing support for the view that, while emissions may be underestimated, the 

gap is too large to closed unless there is reconsideration of the atmospheric lifetime of 

CTC.