UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME 0 1 A V. ADmHOC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ODS DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Ni : May 1992 At n UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME AD-HOC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ODS DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES I . May 1992 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank all members of the Committee, the observers from governments, industry, and the research institutions, and all of the others who participated. Their contributions and cooperation were essential to our success in carrying out our mandate. Mr. Abe Finkeistein Chairman United Nations Environment Programme Ad-Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on ODS Destruction Technologies CONTENTS Fxecutive Sununary .................... .................5 Technical Advisory Committee on ODS Destruction Technologies .......7 Introduction ......................................... 9 1.1 Background .....................................9 1.2 Committee Composition .............................10 1.3 Mandate .......................................11 1.4 Function of the Committee ............................11 1.5 Definitions .....................................12 Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) ...........................15 2.1 Introduction .....................................15 2.2 List of Ozone-Depleting Substances ...................... 15 2.3 Global Consumption ...............................16 2.4 Banked ODS ....................................24 2.5 Global ODS Destruction Capacity .......................25 . Technologies . ........................................29 3.1 Introduction .....................................29 3.2 Commercial or Public Incineration Versus Captive Incineration .....29 3.3 Existing Technologies ...............................30 3.4 Categories of Destruction Technologies ....................32 3.5 Recommended Technologies ...........................32 3.5.1 Liquid Injection Incinerators .....................32 3.5.2 Reactor Cracking ............................37 3.5.3 Gaseous/Fume Oxidation .......................38 3.5.4 Rotary Kiln Incinerator ........................38 3.5.5 Cement Kilns ..............................42 3.5.6 Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators (Foams Only) ........43 3.6 Emerging Technologies .............................. 45 3.7 Economic Considerations .............................45 4. Technology Approval Mechanism ............................ 47 4.1 Approval Criteria ..................................47 4.2 Submission Procedures for Technology Approval ..............47 4.2.1 Existing Technologies .........................49 4.2.2 Emerging Technologies ........................49 4.3 Reporting Requirements .............................49 4.4 Technology Approval Applications .......................49 5. Standards, Codes, and Monitoring . 51 5.1 Introduction ..................................... 51 5.2 Suggested Minimum Standards ......................... 51 5.3 Environmental Issues ............................... 52 5.3.1 Air Emissions .............................. 52 5.3.2 Liquid Effluents ............................ 53 5.3.3 Residue Disposal ............................ 54 5.4 Environmental Trade-Offs ............................ 54 5.5 Code of Good Housekeeping .......................... 54 5.5.1 Predelivery ............................... 54 5.5.2 Arrival at Facility ........................... 55 5.5.3 Unloading from Delivery Vehicle .................. 55 5.5.4 Testing and Verification ....................... 55 5.5.5 Storage and Stock Control ...................... 55 5.5.6 Measuring Quantities Destroyed ................... 55 5.5.7 Facility Design ............................. 56 5.5.8 Maintenance ............................... 56 5.5.9 Quality Control and Quality Assurance .............. 56 5.5.10 Training ................................ 57 5.6 Code of Transportation .............................. 57 5.7 Monitoring ..................................... 57 5.7.1 Measurement of OAS ......................... 58 5.7.2 Control Systems ............................ 58 5.7.3 Performance Measurements ..................... 59 6. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Proposals ................... 61 6.1 Conclusions .....................................61 6.1.1 Environmental implications ......................61 6.1.2 Technologies ..............................61 6.1.3 OAS Global Destruction Capacity ..................61 6.1.4 Environmental Issues .........................61 6.1.5 Approval Procedures for Emerging Technologies ........61 6.2 Recommendations .................................62 6.3 Proposals to the Montreal Protocol .......................62 Appendices Commercial/Public Hazardous Waste Incinerators ..............65 Captive Hazardous Waste Incinerators .....................71 Potential Destruction Technologies .......................77 Feedstock Processes ................................83 Trial Burn Test Data ................................85 Emerging Technologies .............................127 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Submissions ...........139 Members of Technical Advisory Committee ................145 References .....................................149 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AD-HOC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ODS DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES At the second meeting of the Parties to the projected low recovery rates of ODS prior to Montreal Protocol, held in London in June delivery to a destruction facility, this trade- 1990, it was decided to establish an ad-hoc off is considered quite insignificant. technical advisory committee (TAC) on de- struction technologies for ozone-depleting • Recommended Destruction Tech- substances (ODS). The TAC was requested nologies: The only destruction processes to carry out a review of such technologies; currently recommended for approval by the make recommendations as to their approval TAC are within the thermal oxidation cat- criteria; consider related environmental egory. Six processes are recommended, issues; and examine other pertinent aspects. however, not all may be appropriate for all The most significant findings of the TAC, classes of ODS. The recommended based on data provided in large part by its processes are: members and observers, are as follows. • Liquid Injection Incinerators; • ODS Destruction Program: Fur- • Reactor Cracking; ther acceleration in the phase-out of produc- • Gaseous/Fume Oxidation; tion and consumption of ODS is likely to • Rotary Kiln Incinerators; accentuate the need for a global destruction • Cement Kilns; and program. A higher profile and priority for • Municipal Solid Waste the endorsement of destruction technologies Incinerators (foams only). under the Montreal Protocol seems advis- able. • Environmental Impact: Assess- ment of environmental issues indicates that • Global Destruction Capacity: A use of efficient, well-operated destruction preliminary conclusion was reached that facilities, that are equipped with modern worldwide destruction capacity by approved pollution control systems and operated to technologies appears to be inadequate to achieve the "suggested minimum standards" meet demand. Because of uncertainties with developed by the TAC, should negate dam- available data, it is recommended that peri- age to the environment from ODS destruc- odic reassessments of this capacity be tion. It is important that these "suggested carried out. minimum standards" be adopted in countries that do not have, as yet, appropriate stan- Destruction Efficiency (DE): The dards to apply. S DE standard proposal of 99.99% is read- ~!t ily achievable in well-designed and operated • Compliance: Destruction facilities destruction facilities. This DE strikes a that use approved technologies should submit balance between very high efficiency appropriate test data, which demonstrate ( : 99.9999%) destruction facilities available achievement of the DE standard, to their ~ to a limited market, and high efficiency national regulatory agency. National regula- ( t 99.99%) facilities available to a majority tory agencies should submit to the Ozone ~ of the potential world market. Given the Secretariat a list of approved destruction 5 facilities, along with annual reports of ODS establish an Advisory Panel to meet on a quantities destroyed in accordance with periodic basis to: Article 7.3 of the ammended Montreal Pro- • tocol. Parties to the Montreal Protocol who reassess ODS destruction capacities; operate, or plan to establish, ODS destruc- • tion facilities in their countries should com- evaluate emerging technology sub- mit themselves to enforce compliance with missions; the destruction efficiency and environmental standards defined in this report. • review report submissions; and • prepare recommendations for the annual • New Technologies: Emerging review of the Parties. technologies may have economic and regional benefits, and their development should be actively encouraged. • Fugitive Losses of ODS: To mini- mize the largest potential source of ODS • UNEP Advisory Committee: emissions from destruction facilities, the Because of the many uncertainties associated TAC recommends that efforts be made to with the calculation of global ODS produc- achieve "zero" losses through the adoption tion and destruction capacities, it is recom- of the "good housekeeping practices" pres- mended that the UNEP Ozone Secretariat ented in this report. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ODS DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Country Name/Position/Affiliation CANADA Mr. Abe Finkeistein (Chairman) Chief, Clean Air Technologies, Environment Canada AUSTRALIA Dr. Peter Wailes (Rapporteur 2nd. Mtg.) Deputy Chief, CSIRO, Division of Chemicals and Polymers CHINA Prof. Feng Yun Gong Deputy Chief Engineer, Shanghai Institute of Organo-Fluorine Materials GERMANY Dr. Holger Brackemann, Federal Environment Agency JAPAN Dr. Koichi Mizuno Head, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Institute for Resources and Environment RUSSIA Dr. Victor G. Temchenko Deputy Director, State Institute of Applied Chemistry SINGAPORE Dr. Steve M.F. Lai (Rapporteur 3rd. Mtg.) Director, Materials Technology Division, Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research SWEDEN Mr. Jan Bergstrom (Monitoring Sub-Chair) President, Milokonsulterna I Studsvik Ab UNITED KINGDOM Mr. Les Baker (Regulatory Sub-Chair) Director, Rechem Environmental Services UNITED STATES Mr. Robert E. Hall (Technologies Sub-Chair) Branch Chief, Air and Energy •Engineering Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency ZAIRE Mr. Kabeya Mukenyi Directeur de Ia protection de l'environnement - OBSERVERS Country NamefPosition/Affiliation CANADA Mr. Tony Kosteltz (Rapporteur 1st. Mtg.) Head, Air Pollution Control, Environment Canada CONGO Mr. Nkaya-Loubaki, Direction gnërale de I 'environnement FRANCE Mr. Michel J. Perrot Manager, Incineration Department, John Zink Sari GERMANY Mr. Siegfried Unger Project Manager, DOW Deutschland Inc. INDIA Dr. A.V. Rama Rao Director, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology MALAYSIA Mr. Azman Zainal Abdin Lecturer, Department of Environmental Sciences, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia The NETHERLANDS Mr. Antony Beekwilder Senior Process Engineer AKZO Engineering The NETHERLANDS Mr. Wim J.M. Sprong Air Directorate, Ministry of Housing Planning and Environment RUSSIA Mr. Evgueni F. Outkine Interagency Ozone Commission, The CIS Hydrometeorlogical Committee UNITED STATES Mr. Keith J. Herbert Director, Allied-Signal Inc. UNITED STATES Mr. Kirk E. Hummel (Technologies Contractor) Project Engineer, Radian Corporation UNITED STATES Mr. Gene H. Irrgang Manager Market and Product Development, T-Thermal Europe Ltd. UNITED STATES Mr. Maurice Oubre Technical Manager, DOW Chemical Louisiana UNEP Ozone Secretariat Mr. K. M. Sarma, Coordinator Dr. P. S. Low, Scientist CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Montreal Protocol, combined with the in- creasing desire to better protect the ozone The worldwide goal of complete elimination layer, will be a driving force for the devel- of the consumption of chlorofluorocarbons opment of environmentally acceptable dis- (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachioride, methyl posal or destruction practices and chloroform, and certain transitional sub- techniques. Thus, the Panel recommended stances was established as a result of con- the establishment of a dedicated Working stantly expanding international scientific Group under UNEP to develop a manage- knowledge about the phenomenon of ozone ment system that could provide invaluable layer depletion and its impacts on human information and guidance on assignment of health and the environment. There has been responsibility and liability for collecting and a continuing acceleration of the pace of disposing of banked CFCs and halons. As technological progress necessary to phase well, the Panel could establish criteria for out the use of these substances through siting and approving the various destruction combined international efforts by govern- technologies. The Panel suggested that such ments and the industries concerned. criteria could include: The Montreal Protocol on Substances that • performance standards for incinerators or Deplete the Ozone Layer, which came into other destruction techniques; force on 1 January 1989, provided for the • tracking procedures; establishment of four international panels to • sampling and analytical methods; carry out a comprehensive review process. • process, environmental, and emission The four assessment/review panels were: monitoring requirements; Environmental; Scientific; Economic; and • air emission standards; Technical. • ash residue disposal requirements; • wastewater disposal requirements; A review of the status of the technology for • operating procedures; destroying CFCs and halons was included in • methods for handling and storage of the mandate of the Technical Review Panel. waste inventory; In its report of 30 June 1989, the Panel • emergency shut down procedures; and described the status of the technology for the • contingency plans. destruction of CFCs and halons but did not attempt to elaborate criteria for approving Under Decision 12F(b) of the first meeting, destruction techniques. The Panel concluded the Parties agreed to return to this subject at that there were many techniques currently their second and subsequent meetings to available, and many more under develop- determine whether it would be necessary to ment, but that the establishment of approval have a Standing Technical Committee to criteria required detailed technical consider- review, and recommend for approval by the ation of each individual technique. The Parties, methods for transformation or de- Panel also noted that the incentive of a composition, and to determine the amount of production credit for CFCs and halons that controlled substances that are transformed or are destroyed, as provided for in the decomposed by each method.