Appendix A Manual of Destruction Technologies for ... · Table 1. Classification and Outline of...

Appendix A

Manual of Destruction Technologies forChlorofluorocarbons

Dr. Koichi Mizuno

1

Manual of Destruction Technologiesfor

Chlorofluorocarbons

1. Background

In Japan, the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for domestic uses had been phased-out by the

end of 1995. From now on, it is important for all countries to promote the development and utilization of

technologies for the recovery and destruction of CFCs, which have been used until now, to prevent global

warming and protect the ozone layer.

As an international activity, the Technical Assessment Committee (TAC) was set up under the United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). TAC evaluated the technologies for the destruction of ozone

depleting substances (ODS). As a result, TAC set the criteria for ODS destruction, i.e. the destruction

efficiency (DE).

In Japan, more than 30 commercial facilities are currently destroying fluorocarbons, and number is

expected to increase with the further promotion of ozone layer protection and global warming prevention.

In view of the above international and domestic situation, it is important to establish a framework for

appropriate disposal of fluorocarbons in accordance with UNEP TAC DE and domestic laws.

Based on UNEP TAC DE and domestic laws, this manual quantitatively and qualitatively sets forth the

adequate management of fluorocarbon destruction in the facilities, and serves as a guide for existing and

newly constructed facilities in Japan.

2

2. Procedures in preparation of this manual

2.1 Explanation of Procedures

This manual outlines destruction technologies for fluorocarbons based on a survey of them. The survey

was conducted to analyze the technical factors governing a wide variety of destruction technologies, ranging

from those already commercialized to the fundamental types now under R&D.

Besides examining technologies, the survey also viewed existing successful destruction facilities that were

in operation in 1999. The term "successful destruction facility" refers to a facility that is capable of destroying

the fluorocarbons while taking appropriate measures in technology, structure and operational management for

emissions.

As a result, both [Technologies for Fluorocarbon Destruction] and [Facilities of Fluorocarbon Destruction]

were systematically classified.

[Technologies for Fluorocarbon Destruction]:

The technologies are classified on the basis of available technical reports and articles. The primary

classification of technologies is based on the technical method of the destruction. Technical method is

divided into seven categories: [destruction by thermal energy in incineration], [destruction by catalysis],

[destruction by supercritical water], [destruction by reactions with chemical substances], [destruction by

microbes], [destruction by photoreaction], and [destruction by ultrasonic irradiation]. These seven categories

are further classified from the viewpoint of practical uses.

[Facilities of Fluorocarbon Destruction]:

Based on the destruction technologies that were established as of August 1999, the facilities are

classified in two large categories: [multi-purpose equipment] and [exclusive equipment]. [Multi-purpose

equipment] is defined as the facilities that conduct the destruction of fluorocarbons while also performing

other purposes such as disposing waste and manufacturing products. On the other hand, [exclusive

equipment] is defined as the facilities that conduct only fluorocarbon destruction. [Multi-purpose equipment] is

further classified, based on the kind of waste or products mixed with fluorocarbons in the equipment.

Similarly, [exclusive equipment] is also classified from the technical viewpoint.

In this manual, the management indexes were made from technical point of view for the existing facilities of

fluorocarbon destruction. Therefore, different facilities with the same technical requisites are categorized into

the same group, as far as possible.

Accordingly, in this manual, the management indexes are made for respective groups, and the technical

requisites unable to be classified into the same group are indicated for each facility.

In addition, this manual also describes the management indexes of the equipment and processing of the

exhaust gases and wastewater, and the code of good practice (good house keeping) in the facilities.

3

2.2 Technologies for Fluorocarbon Destruction Table 1 presents a classification and outline of the technologies for fluorocarbon destruction.

Table 1. Classification and Outline of Technologies for Fluorocarbon Destruction(as of August 1999)

Type of Technology OutlineIncineration / Pyrolysis

Gas Detonation Destroy instantaneously at a high temperature and a highpressure induced by a shock wave of the gas detonation.

Reactor Cracking Destroy at a temperature of 2000~2200°C by oxygen-hydrogen flame

Superheated Vapor Reaction Destroy in a reaction with superheated vapor

Electric Furnace Destroy with industrial waste in a high-temperature electricfurnace

Rotary Kiln Incinerate in a rotating cylindrical kiln with waste

Rotary KilnCement Kiln

Incinerate in a rotating cylindrical kiln with clinker production.Acid gases produced are neutralized with alkalinecomponent in cement.

Lime Calcinations Furnace Destroy in a lime calcinations furnace. Acid gases producedare neutralized with lime.Static-

flooring Waste Tires Incineration PlantsTwo-staged Burning System

Destroy at high temperature in a secondary combustion kilnconnected behind gas incinerator.

SlaggingtypeIncinerator

Gasifying Melting SystemDestroy at a high temperature (more than 1,700°C) withwaste. The fluorocarbons in insulators are destroyed in asecondary combustion kiln

StokerFurnace Municipal Waste Incinerator Destroy in a stoker type incinerator with municipal waste

Liquid Injection Incinerator Destroy by injecting fluid waste, air, and fluorocarbons into afurnace with LPG.Submerged

Combustion Gaseous/Fume Oxidation(High-temperatureSteam Destruction)

Destroy by supplying steam, air, and fluorocarbons into afurnace with LPG. The amount of steam is larger than thenormal liquid injection incinerator.

Inductively-coupledRadio-frequency Plasma

Destroy at an ultra-high temperature in plasma induced byhigh-frequency current.

Arc discharge Destroy at an ultra-high temperature in plasma induced byarc discharge.Plasma

Microwave plasma Destroy at an ultra-high temperature in plasma induced bymicrowave discharge.

Catalytic DestructionTiO2-ZrO2

TiO2-WO3

AlPO4

ZealotsHydrolysis

H-type mordentAlcoholReduction FeF3-CuCl2/ Activated Carbon

Oxidation PO4-ZrO2

CatalyticCombustion WO3-Al2O3

Hydrogenation Pt/Activated Carbon

Destroy at 400∼500°C in a catalytic reactor

Supercritical Water Hydrolysis Destroy in exceeded critical water at a high temperature anda high pressure

Chemical Destruction

Pyrolysis using chemical substances Destroy in a reaction with silicon-compounds at a hightemperature by electric heating.

Na-naphthalenide Destroy in a reaction with Na-naphthalenide in liquid phase at alow temperature of 25-150°C.

Na-ammonia (SET) Destroy in a reaction with Na dissolved in ammonia. The NaNH2produced is reused by the reduction to ammonia.

Molten metal Destroy in molten sodium.Sodium oxalate Destroy in a reactor containing sodium oxalate at 270°C

Microbial Destruction Destroy using microbeUltra-violet Ray Destroy under ultra-violet irradiation

PhotoreactionNear ultra-violet Ray Destroy under 254-nm ultraviolet irradiation assisted by a

catalyst. It is effective for dilute fluorocarbons.

Ultrasonic Irradiation Destroy under ultrasonic irradiation, probably due to acavitation phenomenon.

$ The terms for destruction technology in this manual are based on those used by the manufacturer ofthe technology.

4

2.3 Facilities of Fluorocarbon Destruction

Table 2 presents practical facilities of fluorocarbon destruction and the name of organization that ownsthem.

Table 2. Fluorocarbon Destruction Facilities and Organizations(as of August 1999)

Type of Facility Organization Owning the Facility

Stoker Furnace Kyoto City, Department of Environment,South Clean Center

Incinerate withgeneral waste Gasifying Melting System

Kamaishi City, Cleansing office,Cleansing plantIbaraki City, Environmental HealthCenter

Rotary Kiln

Sanyuu Plant Service. Co., Ltd.,Yokohama and Sapporo PlantsDowa Clean Technical Service Co., Ltd.,Kureha environment. Co. Ltd.Nichizou metal chemistry. Ltd.,Aizu Plant, EcoPark-Izumozaki,Kiraku Mining Co., Ltd. Mie CentralDevelopment Co., Ltd., Mie PlantOkinawa Prefecture, Medical WasteCooperative Association

Incineratewith

wasteIncinerate with

industrialwaste

Waste Tires Incineration PlantsTwo-staged Burning System Hokkaido Ecosys

Cement KilnTaiheiyo Cement Corporation, ChichibuPlantAso Cement Co., Ltd., Kanda Plant

Multi-purpose

equipment

Destroy in aManufacturing Process

Lime Calcinations Furnace Ueda Lime Co., Ltd., Hirui Plant

Gaseous/Fume Oxidation ICI Teijin fluorochemicals, Mihara PlantIncinerate Assisted byFuels

(fuels; LPG, waste oils,etc.) Liquid Injection Incinerator

Nakadaya Co. Kazo PlantAbe Chemical Industry Co., Yaizu PlantAsahi Glass Company Chiba PlantDaikin Industries Ltd.

Inductively-coupledRadio-frequency Plasma

Ichikawa Environment Engineering, Co.,Ltd., Gyotoku Plant

Arc Plasma

Carsteel Co., Maebashi Souja PlantItoi Trading Co., Ltd., Tamamura PlantHarita Metal Co., Ltd.Toyotomi Sangyo Co., Ltd.Shinsei Co. Ltd.

Destroy Using Plasma

Microwave Plasma [Mitsubishi Heavy Industries , Ltd.]Destroy Using ChemicalSubstance under a High

Temperature

Pyrolysis Using ChemicalSubstances

Gunma Prefecture, fluorocarbonDisposal Center

Destroy bySuperheated Vapor Superheated Vapor Reaction

Create Chemical Co., Ltd.Asahikiki Engineering Co., Ltd.EGS Ltd.Fuji Sangyo Co., Ltd.Toguchi Co., Ltd.Term Co., Ltd.

TiO2 catalystsWakayama City, Living EnvironmentSectionIbara Jihan Recycling Center

Exclusiveequipment

Destroy by Catalysis

AlPO4 catalysts [OITA University]

$ Names in parentheses, indicates facility manufacturers, not facilities.$$ The terms for destruction technology in this manual are based on those used by the manufacturer of the

technology

2.4 Grouping of Destruction Facility of Fluorocarbons from the Technical Viewpoint

This manual presents management indexes for each group of facilities for fluorocarbon destruction. As

mentioned above, the reasons for the classification are; (1) there are cases in which the technologies are

similar even though they have different names, and (2) the performances of the different destruction

technologies can be compared in scale.

A variety of data in basic experiments and practical operations were collected from technical articles and

other such sources, to list up the management indexes quantitatively wherever possible. This grouping also

serves as a bridge between the type of technology and the type of facility.

Based on these considerations, the grouping system is shown in Table 3.

5

Table 3. Grouping of Destruction Facility of Fluorocarbons from the Technical Viewpoint

Type of Technology Group Type of Facility

Gas Detonation Gas DetonationReactor Cracking Reactor Cracking

Superheated Vapor Reaction �Superheated VaporReaction

Electric Furnace

Stoker Furnace Municipal WasteIncinerator

Slagging typeIncinerator

Gasifying MeltingSystem

Gasifying MeltingSystem

Incineratewith

municipalwaste

Rotary Kiln Rotary Kiln Rotary KilnWaste TiresIncinerationPlantsTwo-stagedBurning System

�Incinerationwith waste

Waste TiresIncineration PlantsTwo-staged BurningSystem

Incineratewith

industrialwaste

Incineratewith

industrialwaste

Static-flooring

LimeCalcinationsFurnace

Lime CalcinationsF0urnace

Rotary Kiln Cement Kiln

Incinerationwith waste

/inmanufacturing process

�Incineration inmanufacturing

process Cement Kiln

Destroy inmanufacturing

process

Multi-purpose

equipment

Gaseous/FumeOxidationLiquid Injection

IncineratorSubmergedCombustion(assisted byfuels) Gaseous/Fume

Oxidation

�Submerged Combustion Liquid InjectionIncinerator

Incinerate assistedby fuels

Inductively-coupled Radio-frequencyPlasma

Radio-frequencyInduced CoupledPlasma

Arc discharge Arc Plasma

Incineration /Pyrolysis

Plasma

Microwave

�Plasma

Microwave plasma

Destroy by plasma

TiO2-ZrO2

TiO2-WO3TiO2 Catalyst

AlPO4

�Catalytic Destruction(Hydrolysis)

AlPO4 CatalystDestroy in catalysis

Exclusiveequipment

ZeoliteHydrolysis

H-typemordenite

AlcoholReduction

FeF3-CuCl2/ ActivatedCarbon

Catalytic Destruction(Alcohol reduction)

Oxidation PO4-ZrO2Catalytic Destruction

(Oxidation)CatalyticCombustion WO3-Al2O3

Catalytic Destruction(Incineration)

CatalyticDestruction

Hydrogenation Pt/ActivatedCarbon

Catalytic Destruction(Hydrogenation)

Supercritical Water Hydrolysis Supercritical WaterPyrolysis usingchemical substancesNa-naphthalenideNa-ammoniaMolten metal


Sodium oxalate


Microbial Destruction Microbial DestructionUltraviolet ray

Photoreaction Near ultravioletray

Photoreaction

Ultrasonic Irradiation Ultrasonic Irradiation

$ The terms for destruction technology and facilities in this manual are based on those used by the

manufacturer of the technology and facility.

$$ The groups in shaded boxes , are the technologies that are covered in this manual.

In this manual, the groups indicated by circled numbers in the above shaded boxes are regarded as

[established technology], and the management indexes are considered for respective groups. The indexes are

based on datasheets for respective facilities.

6

Based on the above system, Table 4 outlines each group.

<Table 4. Group of facilities of fluorocarbon destruction using technologies that achieve "successful destruction"

Group of fluorocarbondestruction facilities Outline

�Incineration withWaste

The technologies in this group conduct thermal destruction with municipal wasteand industrial waste. Because the waste contains sufficient moistures, thefacilities do not necessarily require the additional supply of steam or water.

The facilities do not have fluorocarbon-exclusive equipment, and were originallyused for the incineration of waste. Therefore, they are always operated within thecriteria of concerning laws when the destruction of fluorocarbon is performed.

�Incineration inManufacturing

Process

The technologies in this group are based on manufacturing processes such ascement production and lime calcinations . Because the raw material containssufficient moistures, the facilities do not necessarily require the additional supplyof steam or water. Because acid gases in exhaust generated by the destructionare absorbed in the alkaline products, the facilities do not require a scrubber toclean up the acids .

The facilities do not have fluorocarbon-exclusive equipment, and were originallyused for the manufacture of products. Therefore, the facilities are carefullyoperated without degradation of the product quality when the destruction offluorocarbon is performed.

�SubmergedCombustion

The technology in this group is able to destroy fluorocarbons, which are thermallystable, at a high temperature. The acid gases generated in the combustion areneutralized in a neutralization tank.

�PlasmaThe technology in this group is based on plasmas induced by electric dischargewhich produce a high temperature to destroy fluorocarbons . It requires the supplyof steam as a hydrogen source in the destruction reaction.

�Catalytic DestructionThe technology in this group performs the destruction reaction under relativelymoderate conditions by using catalysts to offer an energy-saving process. Itrequires the supply of steam a hydrogen source in destruction reaction.

�Other SystemThe technology in this group uses methods other than those described above.The system in practice is the superheated vapor reaction, in which fluorocarbonsare destroyed at 850∼1,000°C.

7

3. Management of Facilities Concerning Fluorocarbon Destruction

3.1 Explanation

In this manual, the management indexes are made for each step (acceptance of fluorocarbon waste into the

facilities, the storage of fluorocarbons, the feed of fluorocarbons, the operation of the destruction equipment, and

the minimization of environmental emissions).

Regarding the acceptance of fluorocarbon waste into facilities and the storage of fluorocarbons, the

fluorocarbons are carefully handled under the High-pressure Gas Safety Law. The management indexes

showed that people deal with fluorocarbon in safety by obeying the law.

Regarding the equipment and facilities of fluorocarbon destruction, the management indexes are shown for

each group classified previously. The management indexes for the operation of equipment and facilities offer

numerical parameters, as far as possible, required for the complete destruction of fluorocarbons and the

minimization of environmental emissions irrespective of the tail-pipe processing. Although the equipment for

exhaust gas treatment depends on the scale of the destruction equipment and the kind of exhaust gases to be

reduced, efficient and effective equipment is desirable from economical viewpoint. This manual indicates,

therefore, the levels of atmospheric emissions and wastewater. There exist no laws or regulations directly

regulating the facilities operated for the destruction of fluorocarbons in Japan. Thus, this manual introduces only

laws and regulations which are enforced currently and related to exhaust gases and drainage from power plants

and factories, for reference.

Management of Technology / Facilities Concerning Fluorocarbon Destruction

1. Management of the acceptance of fluorocarbons into the facilities and the storage of fluorocarbons

→ 3.2.1 Management indexes for storage of fluorocarbon recovered

This section summarizes items for compliance upon the acceptance of fluorocarbon

waste into facilities and the storage of fluorocarbons. These items are common to all types

of facilities, because they are independent of the destruction technologies.

2. Management of Facilities of fluorocarbon destruction

→ 3.2.2 Management indexes are described for the facility of fluorocarbon destruction

This section summarizes items for compliance in each destruction facility group as

mentioned above.

3. Management of the emissions from the facilities of fluorocarbon destruction

→ 3.2.3 Management indexes are described for the treatment equipment of exhaust gases,

effluents, solid residue generated from the fluorocarbon destruction facility.

This section summarizes items for compliance of the emissions from whole facilities,

although the emissions depend on the type of facilities.

8

3.2 Management of Technology and Facilities for Fluorocarbon Destruction

3.2.1 Management of the Storage of Fluorocarbon Recovered

Under the High-pressure Gas Safety Law, at normal temperature, gases with a pressure more than 1

MPa gauge pressure are regulated as “the compressed (or pressurized) gases”, and gases (except for

compressed gases) with a pressure more than 0.2 MPa (2kgf/cm2 ≠2 atmospheric pressure) are regulated as

“the liquefied gases”, such as CFC-12, HCFC-22, HFC-134a, HFC-32, etc. Gases, which are regarded as

neither “compressed gases” nor “liquefied gases”, such as CFC-11, CFC-113 and HCFC-141b, are regarded

as “low-pressure gases,” and are not regulated under the High-pressure Gas Safety Law.

The manual summarizes the management method for all fluorocarbons used for refrigerants, with

reference to the High-pressure Gas Safety Law.

( 1 ) Cases Requiring Management

The management is needed in the following five cases.

� In case of the acceptance of a vessel

filled with recovered fluorocarbons

� In case of the recovery of refrigerant

fluorocarbons in the facility.

�In case of the transfer of fluorocarbons

from one vessel to another in the facility.

� In case of the feed of fluorocarbons intothe destruction equipment

� In case of the storage of fluorocarbons

9

( 2 ) Management in Respective Cases

�In Case of the Acceptance of a Vessel Filled with Recovered Fluorocarbons

Law to becomplied

with¡ None

Items to benoted

¡ Confirm damages of the vessel and valve by eye and pay attention to the vessel to prevent it from overturning or fallen when being accepted.

¡ Confirm items stated in the documents such as manifest submitted with the vessel.Especially, confirm an agreement of gas type between the description on the vesseland that on the papers, and confirm the capacity of the vessel described on thedocument. When confirming the capacity, measure the weight of vessels to checkthat it is within capacity without overfilling.

¡ In addition, confirm safety related to health and the environment(Occupational environment / Living environment)

17.8kgCFC-12

20kg-vessel◊ confirm about

overfilling byweightmeter

Manifest

Contents : CFC-12

Capacity : 20.0kg

Collector : Technical

Research Institute

CFC-12

volume: 20.0kg

Confirm an agreement ofgas type between thedescription on the vesseland that on thedocuments

10

� In Case of the Recovery of Refrigerant Fluorocarbons in the Facility

Law to becomplied

¡ In case of used of recovery equipment which satisfies both the requirements of theenforcement order of the High-pressure Gas Safety Law (the Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry, notification No.139 in 1997) and the orderamended partially (of April 1, 1998), the notification of propellant production is notrequired, because this act is not stipulated in the law. However, in case of used of avessel without model approval, or a vessel other than exclusive one, or of recoveryequipment that has not been checked on adjustment by self-certification, and also incase of used of a compressor that is not part of the equipment, then the act torecover fluorocarbon is controlled under the High-pressure Gas Safety Law, andnotification is required.

¡ Refer to the related laws and regulations

Items to benoted

¡ The places where recovery of fluorocarbon must be avoided are as follows.◊ Near dangerous objects which are flammable, such as LP gas◊ Stuffy place such as machine room, which have bad ventilation and are sealed.◊ Sloping ground such as floor that has irregular surface.◊ Places where temperature is above 40oC◊ Plants obligated to have explosion-proof structure in electrical equipment◊ Places exposed to rain and water◊ Places exposed to direct sunlight◊ Places having much vibration

¡ Items of compliance for the handling of propellant are as follows.◊ Do not recover oxygen or flammable gases◊ Make sure of the connection of hoses◊ Wear safety glasses and protective gloves◊ Do not leave the working places while recovering

¡ Items of compliance for the pollution control of refrigerants recovered are as follows◊ Pay attention in handling if refrigerants are contaminated by burning or immersion

of compressor◊ Conduct the recovery after extracting residual refrigerants by vacuumizing in the

case of recovering different refrigerant from the last time◊ Do not remove protective instruments intended to prevent overfilling on the

recovery equipment.◊ Do not put different refrigerants in the same vessel◊ Do not absorb so much oil◊ Do not recover water, mud, or substances other than refrigerants that are

regulated

¡ Confirm that the period of examination result of the vessel is valid. If the period hasexpired, do not put into the vessel and go through the examination

¡ Measure using a weightmeter and confirm that the quantity is below 90% of capacityand the vessel is not overfilled.


11

�In Case of the Transfer of Fluorocarbons from One Vessel to Another in the Facility .

Law to becomplied

¡ In case of the transfer of the refrigerants, (moving of the contents from the vessel toanother), this act is regulated as second-class manufacture by the enforcementregulations of the High-pressure Gas Safety Law, so second-class manufacturersare required to submit a notification to the prefectural governor

¡ Refer to the related law and regulation

Items to benoted

¡ Compliance with [2 In Case of the Recovery of Refrigerant Fluorocarbons in theFacility].

¡ In case of the transfer of the refrigerants, measure using a weightmeter and confirmweight of refrigerant moved.

¡ Remove oils and put the empty vessel in vacuum state as far as possible after thetransfer of the refrigerants


� In Case of the Storage of Fluorocarbons .

Storage facility of 3,000m3 and over(first-class store-place )

@ approval of the local governor@ compliance with technical@ standards for the first store-place@ etc.

Storage facility of 300∼3,000m3

(second-class store-place)

@ notification to the local governor@ compliance with technical standards for

the second store-place

0.15~300m3 storage facilities

@ no report is required@ compliance with safety measures

etc.

◊ proper management in accordance wit theHigh-pressure Gas Safety Law dependingon amount of fluorocarbon recovered.

◊ Development of the management systemto grasp stock amount of fluorocarbonrecovered.

◊ Confirm safety relating to health andenvironment

(Occupational environment / Livingenvironment)

12

� In Case of the Storage of Fluorocarbons Continued

Law to becomplied

¡ Fluorocarbon storage regulated by the High-pressure Gas Safety Law. In case ofstoring over 300m3 of fluorocarbon (if liquefied gas, then 3t), it must be stored in thepropellant storage places established by the notification to the local governor(second-class store-place). In case of storing over 3,000m3 of fluorocarbon (ifliquefied gas, then 30t), it must be stored in the propellant storage placesestablished by notification to the local governor (first-class store-place).

a. Storage facilities over 3,000m3 (the High-pressure Gas Safety Law: first-classstore-places)◊ According to the High-pressure Gas Safety Law, approval of the local governor

is required when storage facilities are established.◊ They must be in conformance with technical standards for first-class store-

places.◊ Construction for change of place, structure and equipment of the first-class

store-places requires approval of local governor.

b. Storage facilities from 300m3 to 3,000m3(the High-pressure Gas Safety Law:second-class store-places)◊ According to the High-pressure Gas Safety Law, notification to local governor is

required when storage facilities are established.◊ They must be in conformance with technical standard of second-class store-

places.◊ Employee safety education.◊ Construction for change of place, structure and equipment of the second-class

store-place, It must be required to obtain approval of local governor.◊ Clear indication of storage site by highly visible signs.◊ Measures in danger", "the notification", "restriction about fire", "emerge

measure", "tab", "reports", "duty of access of boarding inspection", these shouldbe regulated.

c. Storage facilities from 0.15m3 to 300m3 (the High-pressure Gas Safety Law:unregulated)

◊ Notification is not required by the High-pressure Gas Safety Law, but storage offluorocarbon is controlled under the law.

◊ Vessels filled with gas and empty vessel must be put in storage sites separately.◊ Put nothing in storage sites other than necessary items such as measuring

apparatus◊ Keep the temperature of vessels below 40� at any given time.◊ Take measures to prevent shocks and damage to valves by falling or tumbling;

careful handling.

¡ Refer to the related laws and regulations

Items to benoted

¡ Proper management in accordance with the High-pressure Gas Safety Lawdepending on amount of fluorocarbon recovered.

¡ Development of the management system to grasp stock amount of fluorocarbonrecovered should be done.


13

�In Case of the Feed of Fluorocarbons into the Destruction Equipment

Law to becomplied ¡ None

Items to benoted

¡ Minimize fugitive losses (leakage) of fluorocarbon to the environment whenrecovering

¡ Confirm safety for preventing damages to apparatus (hose) used to recoverfluorocarbon

¡ Remove oils and put the empty vessel in a vacuum state as far as possible, after theinjection of refrigerants into equipment to destroy fluorocarbons


14

3.2.2 Management Index of Fluorocarbon Destruction Facilities (equipment)

Management indexes are presented for the following five groups of facilities.

Group Fluorocarbon Destruction Facility

(1)Incineration with Waste ¡ Rotary Kiln ¡ Gasifying Melting System¡ Waste Tires Incineration Plants / Two-staged Burning System

(2)Incineration in ManufacturingProcess ¡ Cement Kiln ¡ Lime Calcination Furnace

(3)Submerged Combustion ¡ Liquid Injection Incinerator¡ Gaseous/Fume Oxidation Incinerator

(4)Plasma¡ Inductively-coupled Radio-frequency Plasma¡ Microwave Plasma¡ Arc Plasma

(5)Catalytic Destruction ¡ TiO2–series Catalytic Reactor¡ AlPO4–series Catalytic Reactor

(6)Other System ¡ Superheated Vapor Reactor

In this section, the management indexes concerning the following items are presented for each group

Items Outline of items

� facilities Fluorocarbon destruction facilities subject to each group.

� targets of fluorocarbondestruction Targets of the destruction of each group.

� the kind of fluorocarbonsdestroyed

The kind of fluorocarbons with a successful performance and adestruction efficiency of more than 99.99%.

� management at start-upstage of equipment andfacility

Requisites for equipment and facility at start-up.

� management of thehandling of fluorocarbonwaste and the operation ofequipment

The management indexes for items such as the feed offluorocarbons into the destruction equipment and the operationof destruction equipment

� environmental emissionsaccompanying thedestruction of fluorocarbons

The exhaust gases, wastewater, and solid residue produced bythe destruction of fluorocarbon.

� schematic diagrams oftypical destruction facilities

The conceptual schematic diagrams of the typical facilities ofeach group.

� examples of empirical datafor the destruction in thefacilities

Examples of empirical data for items such as the feed offluorocarbon waste and operational requisites as indicated in �.

15

( 1 ) Group of Incineration with Waste

Facilities in this group¡ Rotary kiln¡ Gasifying melting system¡ Waste tires incineration plants / two-staged burning system

Destruction conditions1. Achieve a fluorocarbon destruction efficiency of more than 99.99% at the exit of the facility2. Ensure the safety and stability of the destruction facilities by prevention of equipment

degradation, etc.

n [in case of CFC-12] Management ConditionsThe following indexes for each item are measures to operate the equipment for fluorocarbon

destruction. “Main furnace" means the part in which the destruction of fluorocarbons actuallyoccurs.

Management item Index

Feed of fluorocarbons Up to approximately 2% (on weight basis) of fluorocarbons incombustible waste

Feed of fuelsThe addition of fuels is to burn out the waste, and the feed rate offuels is determined to maintain the furnace temperature asdescribed in the index of [temperature in main furnace].

Feed of water none

Feed of air The recommended value is more than 110% of stoichiometric airto fuel ratio.

Temperaturein main furnace More than 850°C

Pressurein main furnace Around atmospheric pressure

Residence time of gasin main furnace$1 More than 2 seconds

Oxygen concentrationin main furnace More than 9%

$1 In case of injecting fluorocarbons into a secondary combustion chamber after reaction, keep the chamberat a temperature more than 850°C, and make the total residence time in the main furnace and thesecondary chamber more than 2 seconds.

In this group, also note the following remarks.

Remark Measures

Feed of waste Avoid incineration with chlorinated waste such as PVC as far aspossible.

Reported Fluorocarbons Destroyed in the Facilities at DE > 99.99%(¡: destroyed fluorocarbons reported by Dec,1999�

CFC HCFC HFCFacilities in this group

11 12 113 114 115 R-502 22 134aRotary kiln ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

Gasifying melting system ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

Waste tires incineration plants / two-staged burning system ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

$ confirm whether the facility meets the “destruction conditions” as stated below when conducting thedestruction.

3. Take measures to minimize the environmental emissions from the destruction offluorocarbons.

n Management at the Start-up Stage of the Operation

Because the operation conditions such as furnace temperature are unstable at the start-up, perform thefluorocarbon destruction after all conditions of equipment have become stable.

n Management of Emissions (gas, drainage, residue)

Emissions Gas(see P.40)

Drainage(see P.47)

Residue(see P.48)

Hydrogen chloride (HCl) ¡ — —

Hydrogen fluoride (HF) ¡ ¡ —Emissions from FluorocarbonDestruction$2

(Carbon dioxide (CO2))$4 ¡ — —

Chlorine (Cl2) ¡ — —

Dioxins (DXN) ¡ ¡ —

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) ¡ — —

Particulate matters ¡ — —

Carbon monoxide (CO) ¡ — —

Chlorobenzene (C6H5Cl) ¡ ¡ —

Emissions Entailedby Management$3

Chlorophenol (C6H5ClO) ¡ ¡ —

Others Rsidue — — ¡

$2 Emissions from Fluorocarbon Destruction: This manual focuses on fluorocarbons which do not contain chlorine(Cl). However, most facilities destroy chlorofluorocarbons such as CFC-12 (CCl2F2). Therefore, hydrogenchloride (HCl) is also included in the emissions from fluorocarbon destruction.

$3 Emissions Entailed by Management: Although, ideally, these emissions should be zero, there exist some,however small in amount. Thus, these emissions are added to this management indexes.

$4 Management indexes for carbon dioxide (CO2) are excluded from this manual.

16

17

Schemat ic D iagrams of Typica l Dest ruct ion Fac i l i t ies

¡ Rotary kiln

[source]Hitachi Zosen Corporation, the material about fluorocarbon destruction

¡ Gasifying Melting System

[source] the city of Kamaishi, Nippon Steel co., the report of experiment for fluorocarbon destruction at theclean plant in the city of Kamaishi, (1999)

•̀

•̀

•ª

•ª •ª

•̈

•̈

•«

Š£ ‘‡ ‰̃ “D

”r ƒK ƒX

”r ƒK ƒX

ŽG ŠH —p¸Ú°Ý

ŽG ŠHÎ̄ Êß

Ìß×̄ ÄÎ°Ñ

•@ •¬ •‡Ëß¯Ä •@ ”j •ÓËß¯Ä•‚¶ÛØ°‚²‚ÝËß̄ Ä

‹‹ ‚¶ ‚ñ ‘• ’u

••”RÊÞ°Å

•«•«•̈•̈•̀

•̈•B•B•B•B

•B

ã̂ —Ã Œn ”p Šü •̈

ã̂ —Ã Œn ”p Šü •̈ ‹Ÿ ‹‹ ‘• ’u

‰̃ “D Š£ ‘‡ •̂ —••Ý ”õ

•d –û

•d –û ‹Ÿ ‹‹ ‘• ’u

ƒt ƒ• ƒ“

ƒt ƒ• ƒ“ ‹Ÿ ‹‹ ‘• ’u

•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B•B

•̀

ã̂ —Ã Œn ”p Šü•̈ “Š “üØÌÀ

•ª•ª

Žå ŠDºÝÍÞÔ

•©

“ñŽŸ”R•ÄŽº

•Ä ”RÊÞ°ÅÛ°ÀØ°·ÙÝ

”R •ÄÌ̄ ÄÞ

•ª

Œã ”R •Ä ‘• ’u (½Ä°¶)

—â ‹p •…

•Á •Î ŠD /“Á Žê •• •Ü

Œ̧ ‰· •…

¶Þ½—â ‹p Žº ‰ººÝÍÞÔ

•©

•̈•̈

¶Þ½—â ‹p Žº

•¬ ŽËÉ½ÞÙ

•W ‚¶ ‚ñ Ší

•© •©

•B•B• •

”ò ŠD •̂ —••Ý ”õ

‡‚ ‚P ŠDÊÞÝ¶‡‚ ‚Q ŠDÊÞÝ¶

•«

•«

‰Œ “Ë

Œ̧ ‰· “ƒ

18

¡ Waste tires incineration plants / two-staged burning system

[Resource] Kyougyou-Kumiai Hokkaido Ecosys, Guidance material of fluorocarbon decomposition system

[Reference] Empirical Values for Management Items in the Group of Incineration with Waste (CFC-12Destruction )

Examples of empirical valuesManagement items

Rotary kiln Gasifying MeltingSystem

Waste Tires IncinerationPlants / Two-staged

Burning System

Feed rate of fluorocarbon < 5 kg/h 1.43 kg/h 11 kg/h

Percent of fluorocarbonfed$5 < 0.24% 0.05% 2%

Feed of fuel Fuel oil : 250 L/h Coke : 163 kg/h Kerosene : 60 L/h

Excess air (oxygen) ratio 190% of theoreticalamount

180% of theoreticalamount

160% of theoreticalamount

Temperaturein main furnace > 850°C > 1,500°C at the

bottom of furnace 1,050°C

Pressure in main furnaceGauge pressure$6

—0.001∼—0.00031kgf/cm2

Around atmosphericpressure

Gauge pressure$6

—0.0014 kgf/cm2

Residence time of gasin main furnace

4 seconds (includingthe secondary

chamber)8 seconds > 2 seconds

Oxygen concentrationin main furnace

9∼10% at thesecondary chamber

exit

14.1% at tuyere(low concentration of O2 at

part of fusion)9%

Feed rate of waste Industrial waste :2,083 kg/h

Municipal waste :2,700 kg/h

Waste tires :625 kg/h

$5 percent by weight of fluorocarbon in combustible waste$6 gauge pressure : pressure difference between the atmospheric pressure and the pressure in the furnace.

Minus signs indicate a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure.

( 2 )Group of Incineration in Manufacturing Processes

Facilities in this group

¡ Cement kiln

¡ Lime calcination furance

Destruction condit ions1. Achieve a fluorocarbon destruction efficiency of more than 99.99% at the exit of the facility2. Ensure the safety and stability of the destruction facilities by prevention of equipment

degradation, etc.

n [in case of CFC-12] Management ConditionsThe following indexes for each item are measures to operate the equipment for fluorocarbondestruction. “Main furnace" means the part in which the destruction of fluorocarbons actuallyoccurs.

Management item Index

Feed of fluorocarbons

Cement kiln :The feed rate must be set so that the increase ofchlorine concentration in final product falls within theallowable range of the quality specification$1.

Lime calcination furance :About 1.3% of weight of raw material disposed perunit of time

Feed of fuelsThe purpose is manufacture of products. Use amounts enough tomaintain the temperature set in the index for [temperature in mainfurnace].

Feed of water None

Feed of air None

Temperaturein main furnace

More than 1,000°Cin case of cement kiln, more than 1,400°C at the burner

Pressurein main furnace Around atmospheric pressure

Residence time of gasin main furnace More than 6 seconds

Oxygen concentrationin main furnace None

$1 Standard are prescribed by JIS(Japanese Industrial Standards) for portland cement (JIS-R5210), blastfurnace cement (JIS-R5211), fly ash cement (JIS-R5213), etc. In case of portland cement, chlorineconcentration is must be below 200ppm.

Reported Fluorocarbons Destroyed in the Facilities at DE > 99.99%(¡ : destroyed fluorocarbons reported by Dec,1999)


11 12 113 114 115 R-502 22 134aCement kiln ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

Lime calcination furance � ¡ ¡ ¡


3. Take measures to minimize the environmental emissions from the destruction of

fluorocarbons.





Drainage(see P.47)

Residue(see P.48)



(Carbon dioxide(CO2))$4 ¡ — —


Dioxin (DXN) ¡ ¡ —

Nitrogen oxide (NOX) ¡ — —

Particulate matter ¡ — —



Emissions Entailedby Management$3


Others Waste — — ¡




19 20

Schematic Diagrams of Typical Destruction Facilities

¡ Cement kiln

[Resource] Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of environmental conservation, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute ofEnvironmental Sciences, Chichibu Onoda Cement Corporation�final report of experimental study [cementkiln method], 1996

¡ Lime calcination furance

[Resource] Ueda lime Co. Ltd., guidance material of fluorocarbon destruction system

21

[Reference] Empirical Values for Management Items in the Group of Incineration in ManufacturingProcesses (CFC-12 Destruction )


Cement kiln Lime calcination furance

Feed rate of fluorocarbon 5kg/h ∼ 27kg/h

Percent of fluorocarbon fed $5 0.0017% ∼ 1.28%

Feed of fuel Feed coal Feed coke

Temperaturein main furnace

> 1,400°C at the burner> 1,000°C at the part in the back

of kiln.> 1,000�

Pressure in main furnace Gauge pressure$6

—0.062kgf/cm2 Around atmospheric pressure

Residence time of gasin main furnace 8 seconds About 7 seconds

$5 percent by weight of fluorocarbon in combustible waste$6 gauge pressure�pressure difference between the atmospheric pressure and the pressure in the furnace.


22

( 3 )!"#$%&#'&($)*+",+-&.#*)$/01#2

!"#$%$&$'()$*)&+$(),-./0

!)1$2/$3)$*4'#&$.*)$*#$*'-"&.-

!)5"('./(6!/7')89$3"&$.*)$*#$*'-"&.-

)):'(&-/#& $.*)#.*3$&$.*(1.);#+$'<')")=%/.-.#"->.*)3'(&-/#&$.*)'==$#$'*#?).=)!"#$%&'()%**+**,)"&)&+')'9$&).=)&+')="#$%$&?@A) B*(/-') &'$% -(.$&/% ()0% -&(1232&/% ".% &'$% 0$-&#45&2")% .(5232&2$-) >?) 0-'<'*&$.*) .=) '2/$07'*&

3',-"3"&$.*C)'&#A

!)D$*)#"(').=)E!EFG@H)I"*",'7'*&)E.*3$&$.*(J+') =.%%.K$*,) $*3'9'() =.-) '"#+) $&'7) "-') 7'"(/-'() &.) .0'-"&') &+') '2/$07'*&) =.-) =%/.-.#"->.*3'(&-/#&$.*A) ) LI"$*) =/-*"#'M) 7'"*() &+') 0"-&) $*) K+$#+) &+') 3'(&-/#&$.*) .=) =%/.-.#"->.*() "#&/"%%?.##/-(A

I"*",'7'*&)$&'7 $*3'9

!''3).=)=%/.-.#"->.*(

!)!%/.-.#"->.*()7/(&)>') ='3)K$&+$*) &+')#"0"#$&?).=) '9+"/(&),"(&-'"&7'*&)'2/$07'*&)$*(&"%%'3)"=&'-)&+')=/-*"#')=.-)=%/.-.#"->.*3'(&-/#&$.*A

!% 67)% "&'$#% #$-8$5&-9% ."33":% &'$% 2)0$;$-% ."#% <=$$0% ".% .4$3->% ()0<=$$0%".%:(-&$%"23%?%:(-&$%:(&$#>@

!''3).=)=/'%(

!''3).=)K"&'-

!%67&%!$$&-%&'$%2)0$;%".%<A!6B3C=@>%!$)&2")$0%1$3":�!) ;() =.-) =/'%(C) /(') "7./*&() ,-'"&) '*./,+) &.) 7"$*&"$*) &+'&'70'-"&/-')('&)$*)&+')$*3'9)=.-)D&$!8$#(&4#$%2)%!(2)%.4#)(5$HA

!''3).=)"$- J+'.-'&$#"%)"$-)-"&$.).=).<'-)GGNOA

J'70'-"&/-'$*)7"$*)=/-*"#' I.-')&+"*)GC@NN°E

P-'((/-'$*)7"$*)=/-*"#'

;-./*3)"&7.(0+'-$#)0-'((/-'

Q'($3'*#')&$7').=),"($*)7"$*)=/-*"#'

;>./&)G)('#.*3)"&)GC@NN°E;>./&)NAR)('#.*3)"&)GCSNN°E

89?,'*)#.*#'*&-"&$.*$*)7"$*)=/-*"#'

I.-')&+"*)SO

T*)&+$(),-./0C)"%(.)*.&')&+')=.%%.K$*,)$&'7(A

I"*",'7'*&)$&'7( $*3'9

I.-')&+"*)GC)>/&C)&+')=.%%.K$*,)$*3'9'()"-')'90'#&'3)&.)>')7'&A

J+') #"(') .=) $*#$*'-"&$*,) =%/.-.#"->.*K$&+)K"(&').$%)6)K"(&')K"&'-

I.-')&+"*)@

Q"&$.).=)*/7>'-).=+?3-.,'*)7.%'()&.)&.&"%7.%'().=)=%/.-$*')"*3

#+%.-$*'U!VE%W!X)YG

J+') #"(') .=) $*#$*'-"&$*,) =%/.-.#"->.*.*%?

I.-')&+"*)GA@

!''3) .=) K"(&') .$%) 6) K"(&'K"&'-

T=)=''3$*,)K"(&').$%)6)K"(&')K"&'-C)."33":%&'$%2)0$;%".%DA!6B3C=@>

YG J+') 0/-0.(') .=) =''3$*,) =/'%() $() &.) =''3) '*./,+) +?3-.,'*) &.) -'"#&) K$&+) "%%) #+%.-$*') "*3) =%/.-$*') #.*&"$*'3) $*=%/.-.#"->.*)7.%'#/%'(C)=.-)#.*<'-($.*)$*&.)+?3-.,'*)#+%.-$3')"*3)+?3-.,'*)=%/.-$3')>?)3'(&-/#&$.*)-'"#&$.*A))J+'('"-')7"*",'3)>?)$*3'9).=)U!VUWE%X)D7.%67.%HA))U'-'C)"()")-/%'C)+?3-.,'*)VUX)$*3$#"&'()"%%)+?3-.,'*)='3)$*&.)-'"#&.-AJ+')-"&$.).=)*/7>'-).=)7.%'()U)#.*&"$*'3)$*)=/'%()6)=%/.-.#"->.*)6)K"(&')K"&'-)&.)E%C)!)#.*&"$*'3)$*)=%/.-.#"->.*)$(3'=$*'3)"()U!VE%W!XA) )T=) &+')'2/$07'*&) =.-)3'(&-/#&$.*) $()'9#%/($<')'2/$07'*&)"*3)3.'()*.&) $*#$*'-"&') =%/.-.#"->.*K$&+)K"(&')K"&'-).-)K"(&').$%C)&+'*)&+')$*3'9)7"*",'()+?3-.,'*)U)$*)=/'%().*%?A

Q'0.-&'3)!%/.-.#"->.*():'(&-.?'3)$*)&+')!"#$%$&$'()"&):B)Z)[[A[[OV!\)3'(&-.?'3)=%/.-.#"->.*()-'0.-&'3)>?):'#CG[[[X

E!E UE!E U!E!"#$%$&$'()$*)&+$(),-./0

GG G@ GGS GG] GGR QFRN@ @@ GS]"

1$2/$3)$*4'#&$.*)$*#$*'-"&.- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

5"('./(6!/7')89$3"&$.*T*#$*'-"&.-

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Y)#.*=$-7)K+'&+'-)&+')="#$%$&?)7''&()&+')L3'(&-/#&$.*)#.*3$&$.*(^)"()(&"&'3)>'%.K)K+'*)#.*3/#&$*,)&+'3'(&-/#&$.*A

3.) J"_') 7'"(/-'() &"% !2)2!2D$% &'$% $)E2#")!$)&(3% $!2--2")-) =-.7) &+') 3'(&-/#&$.*) .=

=%/.-.#"->.*(A

!)I"*",'7'*&)"&)&+')`&"-&F/0)`&",').=)&+')80'-"&$.*

a'#"/(')&+').0'-"&$.*)#.*3$&$.*()(/#+)"()=/-*"#')&'70'-"&/-')"-')/*(&">%')"&)&+')(&"-&F/0C)0'-=.-7)&+'=%/.-.#"->.*)3'(&-/#&$.*)"=&'-)"%%)#.*3$&$.*().=)'2/$07'*&)+"<')>'#.7')(&">%'A

!)I"*",'7'*&).=)B7$(($.*()V,"(C)3-"$*",'C)-'($3/'X

B7$(($.*(5"(

V('')PA]NX:-"$*",'V('')PA]bX

Q'($3/'V('')PA]cX

U?3-.,'*)#+%.-$3')VUE%X ! d d

U?3-.,'*)=%/.-$3')VU!X ! ! dB7$(($.*()=-.7)!%/.-.#"->.*:'(&-/#&$.*Y@

VE"->.*)3$.9$3'VE8@XXY] ! d d

E+%.-$*')VE%@X ! d d

:$.9$*)V:efX ! ! d

f$&-.,'*).9$3')Vf8eX ! d d

P"-&$#/%"&')7"&&'- ! d d

E"->.*)7.*.9$3')VE8X ! d d

E+%.-.>'*g'*')VEhURE%X ! ! d

B7$(($.*()B*&"$%'3>?)I"*",'7'*&)YS

E+%.-.0+'*.%)VEhURE%8X ! ! d

8&+'-( i"(&' d d !

Y@)B7$(($.*()=-.7)!%/.-.#"->.*):'(&-/#&$.*\)J+$()7"*/"%)=.#/('().*)=%/.-.#"->.*()K+$#+)3.)*.&)#.*&"$*)#+%.-$*'VE%XA) U.K'<'-C) 7.(&) ="#$%$&$'() 3'(&-.?) #+%.-.=%/.-.#"->.*() (/#+) "() E!EFG@) VEE%@!@XA) ) J+'-'=.-'C) +?3-.,'*#+%.-$3')VUE%X)$()"%(.)$*#%/3'3)$*)&+')'7$(($.*()=-.7)=%/.-.#"->.*)3'(&-/#&$.*A

YS)B7$(($.*()B*&"$%'3) >?)I"*",'7'*&\) ) ;%&+./,+C) $3'"%%?C) &+'(') '7$(($.*() (+./%3) >') g'-.C) &+'-') '9$(&) (.7'C+.K'<'-)(7"%%)$*)"7./*&A))J+/(C)&+'(')'7$(($.*()"-')"33'3)&.)&+$()7"*",'7'*&)$*3'9'(A

Y])I"*",'7'*&)$*3'9'()=.-)#"->.*)3$.9$3')VE8@X)"-')'9#%/3'3)=-.7)&+$()7"*/"%A

@S @]

@R

(34+*5013&615,"5*/&#'&78%1359&6+/0"$301#2&:5319101+/

!)1$2/$3)$*4'#&$.*)$*#$*'-"&.-

)DQ'(./-#'H)f"_"3"?")E.AC)I"&'-$"%)">./&)3'(&-/#&$.*).=)=%/.-.#"->.*)>?)(/>7'-,'3)#.7>/(&$.*)(?(&'7

!)5"('./(6!/7')89$3"&$.*)$*#$*'-"&.-

)DQ'(./-#'H))TET)J'$g$*)=%/.-#+'7$#"%)E.AC)I"&'-$"%)">./&)3'(&-/#&$.*)(?(&'7).=)=%/.-.#"->.*

@h

DQ'='-'*#'H) B70$-$#"%)j"%/'()=.-)I"*",'7'*&)T&'7()$*)&+')5-./0).=)`/>7'-,'3)E.7>/(&$.*)VE!EFG@):'(&-/#&$.*)X

B9"70%'().=)'70$-$#"%)<"%/'(I"*",'7'*&)$&'7(

1$2/$3)$*4'#&$.*)$*#$*'-"&.-5"('./(6!/7')89$3"&$.*

$*#$*'-"&.-Q"&$.).=)+?3-.,'*)7.%')&.)&.&"%7.%').=)=%/.-$*')"*3)#+%.-$*'

U)!)VE%W!X

SAR;()7/%&$F0/-0.('()'2/$07'*&

Z)@;()'9#%/($<')'2/$07'*&

!''3)-"&').=)=%/.-.#"->.* GNAb_,6+ "GhR_,6+

P'-#'*&).=)=%/.-.#"->.*)='3!.%%.K)&+')$*3'9).=

U)!)VE%W!X!.%%.K)&+')$*3'9).=

U)!)VE%W!X

!''3).=)=/'%I'&+"*')\

">./&)bN_,6+I"$*%?)0-.0"*')\

"]R_,6+

B9#'(()"$-)V.9?,'*X)-"&$. G@RO).=)&+'.-'&$#"%)"7./*& G@NO).=)&+'.-'&$#"%)"7./*&

!''3).=)K"(&').$%) 6)K"(&')K"&'-"*3)K"&'-)<"0.-

cN_,6+)K"&'-)<"0.-"*3).&+'-C)=''3$*,)K"(&')%$2/$3

!''3$*,)(.)&+"&)$&)7$,+&)>').<'-@)"()&+')$*3'9).=)U)!)VE%W!X

J'70'-"&/-'$*)7"$*)=/-*"#' GCSRN°E Z)GC@NN°E

P-'((/-')$*)7"$*)=/-*"#' ;-./*3)"&7.(0+'-$#)0-'((/-'5"/,')0-'((/-'YR

"NANG_,=6#7@

Q'($3'*#')&$7').=),"($*)7"$*)=/-*"#'

GAS)('#.*3 ;>./&)@)('#.*3(

89?,'*)#.*#'*&-"&$.*$*)7"$*)=/-*"#'

ZSO ZSO

YR),"/,')0-'((/-')\) 0-'((/-') 3$=='-'*#') >'&K''*) &+') "&7.(0+'-$#) 0-'((/-') "*3) &+') 0-'((/-') $*) &+') =/-*"#'AI$*/()($,*()$*3$#"&')")0-'((/-')%.K'-)&+"*)"&7.(0+'-$#)0-'((/-'A

( 4 )Group of Plasma


¡ Inductively-coupled Radio-frequency Plasma

¡ Microwave plasma

¡ Arc plasma

Destruction conditions1. Achieve a fluorocarbon destruction efficiency of more than 99.99% at the exit of the facility

2. Ensure the safety and stability of the destruction facilities by prevention of equipment

degradation, etc.

n [in case of CFC-12] Management ConditionsThe following indexes for each item are measures to operate the equipment for fluorocarbondestruction. “Main reactor" means the part in which the destruction of fluorocarbons actually occurs.

Management item index

Feed of fluorocarbons¡ Fluorocarbon must be fed within the capacity of exhaust gas treatment

equipment installed after the reactor for fluorocarbon destruction¡ (The rate of feed must follow the index for [Feed of water])

Feed of fuels —

Feed of water The ratio of water feed to fluorocarbon weight, which is fed per unitof time, must be about 35~50%.

Feed of airIn the group of plasma, air feed is not an essential factor. However noteany generation of nitrogen oxide, in the case where air feed is necessaryfor incineration of carbon monoxide or control of temperature.

Temperaturein main reactor None

Pressurein main reactor

¡ Managed to maintain normal plasma condition¡ (It must follow the index for [Input and output of electric power

and frequency])

Residence time of gasin main reactor More than about 0.1second

Oxygen concentrationin main reactor None

In this group, also note the following items.

Management items index

Input and output of electricpower and frequency

Manage for a stable and ample feed of electric power as needed tomaintain normal plasma condition,.

Reported Fluorocarbons Destroyed in the Facilities at DE > 99.99%(¡ : destroyed fluorocarbons reported by Dec,1999)


11 12 113 114 115 R-502 22 134aRadio-frequency Induced CoupledPlasma ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

Microwave plasma ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

Arc plasma ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡



fluorocarbons.





Drainage(see P.47)

Residue(see P.48)










Emissions Entailedby Management $2






27 28

29


¡ Inductively-coupled Radio-frequency Plasma

[Resource] Ichikawa Environmental Engineering, Ltd., Material about demonstration plant of destruction offluorocarbon

¡ Microwave plasma equipment

[Resource] Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Material at briefing concerning the equipment to destroy fluorocarbon

30

¡ Arc plasma

[Resource] ShinMeiwa AutoEngineering Co., Material about fluorocarbon destruction system by Arc plasma

[Reference] Empirical Values for Management Items in the Group of Plasma (CFC-12 Destruction )


Radio-frequency InducedCoupled Plasma

Microwave plasmaequipment Arc plasma

Feed rate of fluorocarbon 100kg/h 2.0kg/h 10kg/h

Percent of fluorocarbonfed

Follow [feed ratio of water]



Feed ratio of water $4 Maximum 50% About 50% 35%

Feed of air No feed Feed 1.8Nm3/h afterplasma flame 3m3/h

Temperaturein main reactor(estimate at the part ofplasma flame)

Maximum 10,000°C�Maximum

over 6,000°C About 5,000°C

Pressure in main reactor 0.27kgf/cm2 Aroundatmospheric pressure 1.1 kgf/cm2∼

Residence time of gasin main reactor 2 second > 0.5 second 0.12 second

Input and output ofelectric power

Input : 200kWOutput : 100kW Output : > 2.0kW Input : 22.2kW

Output : 14.4kW

Frequency About 3MHz 2,450MHzNot a managementitem, because it is

direct-current$4 Feed ratio of water to weight of fluorocarbon fed per hour

( 5 )Group of Catalytic Destruction


¡ TiO2–series catalytic reactor

¡ AlPO4–series catalytic reactor

Destruction conditions1. Achieve a fluorocarbon destruction efficiency of more than 99.99% at the exit of the facility

2.. Ensure the safety and stability of the destruction facilities by prevention of equipment

degradation, etc.

n [in case of CFC-12] Management ConditionsThe following indexes for each item are measures to operate the equipment for fluorocarbondestruction. “Main reactor" means the part in which the destruction of fluorocarbons actually occurs.



¡ Fluorocarbon must be fed within the capacity of exhaust gastreatment equipment installed after the reactor for fluorocarbondestruction¡ The mixed rate (volume fraction) of fluorocarbon in mixed gas,

which is fed into catalyst packed bed, must be kept under 3%.¡ (The rate of feed must follow the index for [Feed of water])

Feed of fuels —

Feed of water The ratio of water feed to fluorocarbon weight, which is fed perunit of time, must be more than 75%

Feed of air Feed in order to control the concentration of fluorocarbon incatalyst packed bedFollow the indexes noted below to obtain ample efficiency influorocarbon destruction, and curtail catalyst degradation

TiO2–series catalytic reactor About 440°CTemperaturein main reactor

AlPO4–series catalytic reactor About 500°CPressurein main reactor Around atmospheric pressure

Residence time of gasin main reactor Follow the index for [Space velocity in catalyst packed bed]

Oxygen concentrationin main reactor None

In this group, also note the following items.

Management items index

Space velocity in catalystpacked bed$1 Less than 1,500h-1

$1 Space velocity [h-1] = gas volume disposed per hour [L/h] ÷ fill of catalyst [L]

Reported Fluorocarbons Destroyed in the Facilities at DE > 99.99%

(¡: destroyed fluorocarbons reported by Dec,1999)CFC HCFC HFC

Facilities in this group11 12 113 114 115 R-502 22 134a

TiO2–series catalytic reactor ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

AlPO4–series catalytic reactor ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡



fluorocarbons.





Drainage(see P.47)

Residue(see P.48)
















31 32

33


¡ TiO2–series catalytic reactor

[Resource] Hitachi, Ltd., Material concerning the collecting and the destruction system about fluorocarbon

¡ AlPO4–series catalytic reactor

[Resource] OITA University, Outline figure of destruction system of fluorocarbon

34

[Reference] Empirical Values for Management Items in the Group of Catalytic Destruction (CFC-12Destruction )


TiO2–series catalytic reactor AlPO4–series catalytic reactor

Feed rate of fluorocarbon 1kg/h 5kg/h

Percent of fluorocarbon fed Follow[feed ratio of water]

Follow[feed ratio of water]

Concentration of fluorocarbon 3% 1%

Feed ratio of water $5 75% About 600%

Feed of air 5.5m3/h 39m3/h

Temperature in main reactor About 440°C 500°C

Pressure in main reactor Gauge pressure∗ 6

—0.03kgf/cm2 Around atmospheric pressure

Space velocityin catalyst packed bed 1,500h-1 About 250h-1

$5 Feed ratio of water to weight of fluorocarbon fed per hour$6 gauge pressure : pressure difference between the atmospheric pressure and the pressure in the reactor.


( 6 )Group of Other Systems


¡ Superheated Vapor Reactor

Destruction conditions

1. Achieve a fluorocarbon destruction efficiency of more than 99.99% at the exit of the facility

2. Ensure the safety and stability of the destruction facilities by prevention of equipment

degradation, etc.

n [in case of CFC-12] Management ConditionsThe following indexes for each item are measures to operate the equipment for fluorocarbon

destruction. “Main reactor" means the part in which the destruction of fluorocarbons actuallyoccurs.



¡ Fluorocarbon must be fed within the capacity of exhaust gastreatment equipment installed after the reactor for fluorocarbondestruction¡ (Rate of feed must follow the index for [Feed of water])

Feed of fuels —

Feed of water Ratio of water feed to fluorocarbon weight, which is fed per unit oftime, must be 100%

Feed of air

In the case of disposing mixed gas containing HCFC, HFC, thetheoretical air ratio must be over 120% to incinerate carbonmonoxide and hydrogen, which are generated with the destructionof fluorocarbon.

Temperaturein main reactor

More than 850°C at the reactor entranceMore than 900°C at the reactor exit

Pressurein main reactor Around atmospheric pressure

Residence time of gasin main reactor More than 1.8 second

Oxygen concentrationin main reactor none

Reported Fluorocarbons Destroyed in the Facilities at DE > 99.99%

(¡ : destroyed fluorocarbons reported by Dec,1999)CFC HCFC HFC

Facilities in this group11 12 113 114 115 R-502 22 134a

Superheated Vapor Reactor ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡



fluorocarbons.





Drainage(see P.47)

Residue(see P.48)
















35 36

37


¡ Superheated Vapor Reactor

[Resource] TADANO LTD. , outline figure of system for destruction of fluorocarbon

38

[Reference] Empirical Values for Management Items in the Group of Other Systems (CFC-12Destruction )


Superheated Vapor Reactor

Feed rate of fluorocarbon 10kg/h

Percent of fluorocarbon fed Follow [Feed ratio of water]

Feed ratio of water $4 100%

Feed of airNo feed if only CFC-12 is destroyed

But in case of disposing mixed gas containing HFC or HCFC,130∼300L/min of air is fed.

Temperaturein main reactor > 850°C

Pressurein main reactor > 900°C

Residence time of gasin main reactor Around atmospheric pressure

Oxygen concentrationin main reactor 1.8 second

$4 Feed ratio of water to weight of fluorocarbon fed per hour

39

3.2.3 Management Indexes for Emissions from Installations due to Fluorocarbon Destruction

It is necessary to manage emissions of the following substances caused by the fluorocarbon destruction in

the installations.

In the Groups of Incineration with Waste and Incineration in Manufacture Processes, some of the

emissions can be governed by the standards specified by the Air Pollution Control Law, the Water Pollution

Control Law, and other relevant laws/regulations. In such cases, the emission standards of the corresponding

laws and regulations are adopted. However, in cases where there are no applicable laws, ordinances, and other

regulations, the criteria or targets to be achieved are set for the facilities for fluorocarbon destruction with

reference to the emission standards for similar facilities that are regulated by concerned laws and ordinances.

If lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity in which the facility is located, these

ordinances take precedence.

(1) Emissions (gas, drainage, and residue) Entailed by Management

Classification Name of substances Gas Drainage Residue


Hydrogen fluoride (HF) ¡ ¡ —Emissions from FluorocarbonDestruction $1

Carbon dioxide (CO2) ¡ — —


Dioxins (DXN) ¡ ¡ —

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) ¡ — —




Emissions Entailed byManagement $2


Others Residue — — ¡

$1 Emissions from Fluorocarbon Destruction: This manual focuses on the fluorocarbons which does not containchlorine (Cl), However, most facilities destroy the chlorofluorocarbon such as CFC-12 (CCl2F2). Therefore,hydrogen chloride (HCl) is also included in the emissions from fluorocarbons.

$2 Emissions Entailed by Management: Although, ideally, these emissions should be zero, there existsome, however small in amount..

The Air Pollution Control Law and other laws specify the standards for atmospheric emissions of HCI, HF,

DXN, NOX, and CO. The Water Pollution Control Law specifies the standards for effluents of pH, F- (fluorine)

ion, biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and suspended solids (SS) in drainage.

The Law Concerning Special Measures against Dioxins has recently specified emission standards for dioxins at

some incineration sources.

The disposal of solid residue produced from fluorocarbon destruction is regulated by the Waste Disposal

and Public Cleansing Law.

40

(2) Frequency of Measurements of Pollutants

The frequency of measurement is regulated for some pollutants by related laws and ordinances. The

pollutants that are not regulated by laws and ordinances are must be measured at least once a year.

(3) Emission Standards for Each Pollutant

(3-1) Exhaust Gases

! Hydrogen chloride (HCI)

The first clause of Article 17 of the Air Pollution Control Law specially regulates hydrogen chloride (HCl),

and emission standards for two kinds of facilities. HCl is also regulated by ordinances in local entities such as

Kanagawa prefecture.

In the Group of Incineration with Waste, it is required to adopt the emission standards contained in the Air

Pollution Control Law and ordinances.

The other groups are required to set original emission criteria or targets with reference to the emission

standards recommended by UNEP and the emission standards for the specific facilities, such as those for

chlorine quenching in the chlorinated ethylene manufacturing governed by the Air Pollution Control Law.

If lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity, in which the facility is located, these


! Emission Standards for Compliance by the Group of Incineration with Waste

(as of February 2000)

SubstanceRelated laws and

regulationsRelated facilities

Emissionstandards

Standards Recommendedby UNEP

Facilities for Destruction ofFluorocarbon

100 mg/Nm3

The Air Pollution ControlLaw

Waste Incinerator$3 700 mg/Nm3

Waste Incinerator 700 mg/Nm3HCI

Example of Local EntityKanagawa Prefecture$4 Facilities other than Waste

Incinerator8 mg/Nm3

$3 Waste Incinerator: Ii the 13th clause of the first schedule form of the Law

$4 ”Enforcement Regulations of the Ordinance Concerning Life Environment Preservation by KanagawaPrefecture (amended of September 24, 1999),” the 6th schedule form

" Emission Standards for Compliance or Reference by the Groups Other Than the Group of Incineration withWaste

(as of February 2000)

SubstanceRelated laws and

regulationsRelated facilities

Emissionstandards

Standards Recommendedby UNEP

Facilities for Destruction ofFluorocarbon

100 mg/Nm3

HCIThe Air Pollution ControlLaw

Facilities for Chlorine Quenchingfor Chlorinated EthyleneManufacturing$5

80 mg/Nm3

$5 : The facilities designed in the 16th~19th clause of the first schedule form of the Law: facility for chllorine quenching for chlorinated ethylene manufacturing, welding bath used for production of ferric chloride, reactor used for production of activated carbon, facility for chlorine reaction used for production of chemical products, facility for hydrogen chloride reaction, and facility of hydrogen chloride absorption (partially amended in November 1990)

41

�Chlorine (Cl2)

For chlorine (Cl2), all groups must set original emission criteria or targets with reference to the following

emission standards. If lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity, in which the facilities

are located, these ordinances take precedence.

¨ Emission Standards for Compliance or Reference by All Groups (as of February, 2000)

Substance Related laws and regulations Related facilities Emissionstandards

The Air Pollution Control LawFacilities for Chlorine Quenchingfor Chlorinated EthyleneManufacturing$5

30 mg/Nm3

Example of Local Entity (1)Kanagawa Prefecture$6 Plants or Business Establishments 3.17 mg/Nm3Chlorine

Example of Local Entity (2)Metropolis of Tokyo$7

Reaction Facilities and AbsorptionFacilities used for Production ofChemical Products$8

10 mg/Nm3

$5 The facilities designed in the 16~19th clause of the first schedule form of the Law: facility for quenching chlorinefor chlorinated ethylene manufacturing, welding bath used for production of ferric chloride, reactor used forproduction of activated carbon, facility for reaction of chlorine used for production of chemical products, facilityfor hydrogen chloride reaction, and facility of hydrogen chloride absorption (partially amended in November1990)

$6 ”Enforcement Regulations of the Ordinance Concerning Life Environment Preservation by Kanagawa Prefecture(amended of September 24, 1999),” the 6th schedule form

$7 ”Pollution Control Ordinance by Metropolis of Tokyo,” the 4th schedule form (harmful gas )$8 Welding bath used for ferric chloride production and reaction facility and absorption facility used for chemical

products manufacture

42

�Hydrogen fluoride (HF)

For hydrogen fluoride (HF), all groups must set original emission criteria or targets with reference to the

following emission standards. If lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity, in which the

facilities are located, these ordinances take precedence.

¨ Emission Standards for Compliance or Reference by All Groups (as of February, 2000)

Substance Related laws and regulations Related facilities Emissionstandards

Standards Recommended byUNEP

Facilities for Destruction offluorocarbon 5 mg/Nm3

Reaction Facilities Used forProduction of Glass or GlassProducts$5

10 mg/Nm3

Electrolysis Furnace$9 1.0 mg/Nm3

Electric Furnace, etc.$10 15 mg/Nm3

The Air Pollution Control Law

Open Hearth Furnace$11 20 mg/Nm3

Example of Local Entity (1)Kanagawa Prefecture$6

Plants or BusinessEstablishment

[emission standards as for HF]2.5 mg/Nm3

HF

Example of Local Entity (2)the Metropolis of Tokyo$7

Calcination Furnace Used forProduction of Glass or GlassProducts$12

10 mg/Nm3

$5 In the first schedule form of the Ordinance, the facilities used for production of glass or glass products in the9th clause, reaction facility, facility for condensation and melting furnace, in the 21st clause, and the facilities inthe 22nd, 23rd clauses

$6 “Enforcement Regulations of the Ordinance Concerning Life Environment Preservation by KanagawaPrefecture (amended of September 24, 1999),” the 6th schedule form

$7 ”Pollution Control Ordinance by Metropolis of Tokyo,” the 4th schedule form (harmful gas)$9 Electrolysis furnace in the 20th clause of the first schedule form of the Law$10 Electric furnace for reaction facilities and melting furnace in 21st clause the first schedule form of the Law$11 an Open hearth furnace of calcination furnace and melting furnace in the 21st clause of the first schedule form

of the Law (the 3rd schedule form of enforcement regulation, amended in June 1977)$12 Calcination furnace and melting furnace used for production of glass or glass products , and other facilities

which generate fluorine or fluorine compound, other than the soot facilities

43

� Dioxins (DXN)

As of February 2000, dioxins are regulated as the specific substances under the 9th clause of the

supplementary regulations of the Air Pollution Control Law, and criteria concerning emissions restriction have

been set. In addition, criteria concerning operation and maintenance have been set by the enforcement order

and regulation, which are based on the Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Law. (However, based on the

arrangement of the related laws involved in the enforcement of the Law Concerning Special Measures against

Dioxins, partial amendments were made in the 9th clause of the supplementary regulations of the Air Pollution

Control Law. In the amendments, dioxins were taken off from the list of specific substances that are controlled

under the criteria of emission restrictions, and the facilities concerning dioxins were also taken off from list of the

specific facilities (to be enforced on January 15, 2001).)

As for the Group of Incineration with Waste, in Article 8 of the Law Concerning Special Measures against

Dioxins, which was enforced on January 15, 2000, contains emission standards for exhaust gases and drainage.

The other groups are required to refer to the following emission standards in setting original emission

criteria or targets. If lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity, in which the facilities are

located, these ordinances take precedence.

n Emission Standards for Compliance by the Group of Incineration with Waste (as of Feb. 2000)

Substance Related laws andregulations

Related facilities and disposalcapacity of combustion chamber

Emission standards�as new furnace�

> 4 t/h 0.1ng-TEQ/Nm3

2∼4 t/h 1 ng-TEQ/Nm3DioxinsThe Law ConcerningSpecial Measuresagainst Dioxins

Waste Incinerator$13

< 2 t/h 5 ng-TEQ/Nm3

$13 Waste incinerator in No.5 of the first schedule form of the Law

¨Emission Standards for Compliance or Reference by the Groups Other Than the Group of Incineration with

Waste

(as of February, 2000)


Related facilities and disposalcapacity of combustion chamber

Emission standards(for new furnaces)

DioxinsThe Law concerningSpecial Measuresagainst Dioxins

Electric Furnace$14 0.5 ng-TEQ/Nm3

$14 Electric furnace in No.2 of the first schedule form of the Law

44

�Particulate matter

As for particulate matter, in the Group of Incineration with Waste and the Group of Incineration in

Manufacturing Processes , the emission standards are set by Article 4 of the enforcement regulation of the Air

Pollution Control Law.

Other groups are must set the original emission criteria or targets with reference to the following emission

standards.

If lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity, in which the facilities are located, these


n Emission Standards for Compliance by the Group of Incineration with Waste (as of Feb. 2000)Emission standards


Related facilities and disposalcapacity of combustionchamber Normal Special $15

> 4 t/h 0.04 g/Nm3

2∼4 t/h 0.08 g/Nm3Particulatematter


WasteIncinerator

$16

< 2 t/h 0.15 g/Nm3

n Emission Standards for Compliance by the Group of Incineration in Manufacturing Processes (as of Feb. 2000)

Emission standardsSubstance Related laws and

regulations Related facilitiesNormal Special �15

Undersurfacefurnace�17 0.40g/Nm3 0.20g/Nm3

Limecalcination

furnaceOther thanundersurfacefurnace�18

0.30g/Nm3 0.15g/Nm3Particulatematter


Cement production facility�19 0.10g/Nm3 0.05g/Nm3

¨ Emission Standards for Compliance or Reference by the Groups Other Than the Above-Mentioned(as of Feb.2000)

Emission standardsSubstance Related laws and

regulationsRelated facilities and

Amount of exhaust gas Normal Special �15

200,000 Nm3/hand over 0.05g/Nm3 0.04g/Nm3

40,000 ∼ 200,000Nm3/h 0.15g/Nm3 0.05g/Nm3

10,000 ∼ 40,000Nm3/h 0.25g/Nm3 0.15g/Nm3

Particulatematter

The Air PollutionControl Law

exclusiveincinerator of

oil fuel and theboiler

incineratingboth gas and

liquid Under10,000Nm3/h 0.30g/Nm3 0.15g/Nm3

$15 Area in which many facilities, which discharging soot related particulate matter and specific harmful substanceare established

$16 As for waste incinerators in the 13th clause of the first schedule form of the Law (amended of November, 1990)$17 Undersurface types of calcination furnace in 9th clause of the first schedule form of the Law (amended in

November 1990).$18 Facilities other than the above-mentioned ($1) of calcination furance in the 9th clause of the first schedule form

of the Law (amended in November 1990)$19 Facilities used for cement production in the category of calcination furance in the 9th clause of the first schedule

form (amended in November 1990)

45

�Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)

The emission standards for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), in the Group of Incineration with Waste and the Group

of Incineration in Manufacturing Processes, are specified in the 2nd clause of Article 5 of the enforcement

regulation of the Air Pollution Control Law.

The other groups must set the original criteria or targets with reference to the following emission standards.

If lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity, in which the facilities are located, these


n Emission Standards Required to be Complied by the Group of Incineration with Waste (as of Feb. 2000)

Substance Related lawsand regulations Related facilities Emission standards

Suspension RotaryFiring-type(continuousincinerator)$22

450 ppmNitrogen Oxides

(NOX)The Air PollutionControl Law$20

WasteIncinerator

$21Other than theabove-mentioned$23 250 ppm

n Emission Standards for Compliance by the Group of Incineration in Manufacturing Processes

(as of Feb. 2000)

SubstanceRelated

laws andregulations

Related facilitiesand amount ofexhaust gas

Emission standards

Facilities whose construction began on orafter June 18, 1977

250ppm

Lime CalcinationFurnace(only the gasincineration rotarykiln)$24

Facilities whose construction began on orbefore June 17, 1977

480ppm

Exhaust gas: 100,000m3/h and over(other than the facilities covered below)

250ppm

Exhaust gas: under 100,000m3/h(other than the facilities covered below)

350ppm

Facilities whose construction began fromDecember 10, 1975 to June 17, 1977.(Only facilities whose exhaust gas ismore than 100,000m3/h)

250ppm

NitrogenOxides(NOX)

The AirPollutionControlLaw�20

CementCalcinationFurnace$25

Facilities whose construction began on orbefore June 17, 1977(other than wet systems)

480ppm

46

¨ Emission Standards for Compliance or Reference by the Groups Other Than the Above-Mentioned(as of Feb.2000)


Related facilities andAmount of exhaust gas Emission standards

> 200,000 Nm3/h 130∼150 ppm

40,000 ∼ 200,000Nm3/h 150 ppm

10,000 ∼ 40,000Nm3/h 150 ppm

NitrogenOxides(NOX)

The Air PollutionControl Law$20

exclusiveincinerator of

oil fuel and theboiler

incineratingboth gas and

liquid< 10,000 Nm3/h 180 ppm

$20 The 2nd clause of the 3rd schedule form in enforcement regulation (partially amended in March, 1996)$21 As waste incinerators in 13th clause of the first schedule form of the Law (partially amended in November, 1990)$22 For Suspension rotary firing type (continuous incinerator only), in the category of waste Incinerator in the 13th

clause of the first schedule form of the Law (partially amended in November, 1990)$23 The facilities of $22, and waste incinerators which incinerate the waste discharged from a process in which nitro-

compound, amino-compounds or cyano-compounds or their derivatives are produced or used, or a process inwhich drainage is disposed using ammonia, in the category of waste incinerator in the 9th clause of the firstschedule form of the Law (partially amended in November, 1990) (only facilities whose amount of exhaust gas ismore than 40,000 m 3, if they are not continuous incinerators)

$24 Lime calcination furnace (only the rotary kiln type which incinerate gas �, in the category of calcination furnace inthe 9th clause of the first schedule form of the Law (partially amended in November, 1990)

$25 The facilities used for cement production of calcination furnace in the 9th clause of the first schedule form of theLaw (partially amended in November, 1990)

� Carbon monoxide (CO)

For the Carbon Monoxide, the Ministry of Health and Welfare notifi ed the standards for operation and

maintenance in the Guideline for Prevention of Dioxins Generation as the following table.

In all groups, however, if lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity, in which the

facilities are located, these ordinances take precedence.

¨ Emission Standards for Compliance or Reference by All Groups (as of Feb. 2000)

Substance Related laws and regulationsStandards foroperation andmaintenance

Carbon Monoxidestandards for operation and maintenance contained inthe Guideline for Prevention of Dioxins Generation bythe Ministry of Health and Welfare

100ppm

47

(3-2) Drainage

The Water Pollution Control Law (the 2nd schedule form of enforcement order partially amended in August

1993) specifies the emission standards for Content of fluorine (F), pH (hydrogen ion concentration), BOD

(biochemical oxygen demand), COD (chemical oxygen demand), and SS (suspended solids) for drainage.

These standards apply to the effluents from the destruction of fluorocarbons. There are cases where more

stringent effluent standards are set by ordinance of the local authority, based on Article 3 of the Water Pollution

Control Law.

The emission standards fot dioxins at some sources were set by the Law Concerning Special Measures for

Dioxins enforced on Jan 15, 2000.

In all groups, if lower emission standards are set by ordinances of the local entity, in which the facilities are

located, these ordinances take precedence.

n National Standards (as of February, 2000)

Substance Related laws andregulations Related area Emission standards

Content of fluorine(F)

Applying to drainage dischargedby plants or businessestablishments where theaverage daily volume ofdrainage is more than 50 m 3.

Under 15 mg/L�as contents of

fluorine ion�

The drainage discharged intopublic areas other than the sea

More than 5.8 andunder 8.6

�as hydrogen ionconcentration�

pH(hydrogen ionconcentration)

The drainage discharged intothe sea

More than 5.0 andunder 9.0

�as hydrogen ionconcentration�

BOD Average daily volume ofdrainage is 120mg/l or less 160 mg/L or less

COD Average daily volume ofdrainage is 120mg/l or less 160 mg/L or less

SS

The Water PollutionControl Law

Average daily volume ofdrainage is 120mg/l or less 200 mg/L or less

Dioxins (DXN)The Law ConcerningSpecial Measures againstDioxins

The facilities listed from No.1to No.7 of the 2nd scheduleform of the Law (for newfacilities)

10 pg/L or less

n Example of Standards by Local Authority (Kanagawa Prefecture) (as of February, 2000)


Related area Emission standards

Content of fluorine(F)

0.8 mg/L or less(as HF)

BOD 15 mg/L or less(under 10 mg)

COD 15 mg/L or less(On or under 10 mg)

SS

More stringent effluentstandards were set by theOrdinance of KanagawaPrefecture based on the3rd clause of Article 3 ofthe Water PollutionControl Law

The drainage discharged bygeneral business establishments

into water other than lakes forconservation of water quality

(for new facilities $1)

The values in ( ) on the rightindicate the standards for averagedaily volume.

35 mg/L or less(20 mg or less)

$1 "New facilities" means the specific business establishments those are established after November 11, 1971. Ifthey are the specific establishments newly regulated by amendment of Article 1 of the enforcement order of theWater Pollution Control Law, "November 11, 1971" is replaced by the day when the specific establishments wereestablished. Here, the facilities which were under construction before November 11, 1971, are not included in "specific establishments "

48

(3-3) Residue (emission as solid)

l Disposal of Particulate Matter, Cinders and Sludge

In the Group of Incineration with Waste and the Group of Incineration in Manufacturing Processes ,

particulate matter collected with dust collector equipment and cinders as ash remaining in incinerators are the

object of disposal as waste.

In other groups, in addition to particulate matter collected with dust collector equipment, sludge emitted

from exhaust gas treatment facilities is also the object of disposal.

The particulate matter collected with dust collector equipment is regulated as the “Special Controlled

Municipal Waste” by the Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Law.

Cinders and sludge are also regulated as “Industrial Waste” and must be disposed of in the controlled

landfill sites.

l Recycling of Calcium Fluoride

Calcium fluoride is generated as solid discharge in the destruction of fluorocarbons. As for the disposal of

calcium fluoride, calcium fluoride should be purified and reused as a resources, However, most of it is disposed

of as waste because of mixture with ash and sludge.

For the futures, it should be recycled into raw materials for products.

Appendix B

List of Attendees

3/11/01 Geneva ODS WorkshopParticipants List

Page 1 of 5

First Name Last Name Title Organization Mailing Address CityProvince/

State CountryPostal/ Zip

Code Telephone # Fax # E-mail AddressDr. Helen Tope Co-chair, Aerosols Technical Options

CommitteeSenior Policy OfficerWaste Management Policy

UNEP TEAP - c/o Environment Protection Authority

GPO Box 4395 QQ Melbourne Victoria Australia 3001 61-3-9695-2558 61-3-9695-2578 [email protected]

Mr. Milton Catelin Director Ozone Protection Environment Australia GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia 612-6274-1481 612-6274-1172 [email protected]. Garry Cranny Operations Manger National Halon Bank Dascem Holdings PM LTS, P.O. Box

285Melbourne Victoria Australia 3005 613-9649-7396 613-9649-7410 [email protected]

Mr. Robert Hawkes General Manager SRL Plasma Ltd P.O. Box 192 Croydon Victoria Australia 3136 61-3-9726-8052 [email protected]. Tamara Curll Assistant Director,

Ozone Protection SectionEnvironment Australia GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2600 Australia 612 6274 1701 612 6274 1172 [email protected]

Dr. Tamas Grof Senior Official Engineering and Metallurgical Industries BranchUnited Nations Industrial Development Organization

P.O. Box 300 Vienna Austria A-1400 (+43 1) 26026 4714 (+43 1) 26026 5833 [email protected]

Dr. Paul Krajnik Department of Chemicals Federal Ministry for the Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Stubenbastei 5 Vienna Austria A-1140 (+43 1)51 522/2350 (+43 1)541 522/7334

[email protected]

Dr. Ryuichi Oshima Industrial Development Officer UNIDO Vienna International CentreP.O. Box 300, A-1400

Vienna Austria 43-1-26026-3026 43-1-213436-3026 [email protected]

Ms. Johann Steindl Department of Chemicals Federal Ministry for the Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Stebenbastei 5 Vienna Austria A-1010 43-1-515-22 23 39 43-1-515-22 73 34 [email protected]

Mr. Donald Cooper UndersecretaryOffice of the Prime Minister

Environment Science & Technology Commissioin

P.O. Box cb-19048 Nassau, N.P. Bahamas (242) 327-6965 (242) 327-4626 [email protected]

Ms. Christine M. Wellington Environment Officer (Chemicals & Ozone)

Ministry of Environment, Energy & Natural Resources

SirFrank Walcott Building, 4th FloorCulloden Road

St. Michael Barbados, W.I.

(246) 431-7685/63 (246) 437-8859 [email protected]

Dr. Tom Batchelor Expert, Ozone Layer Protection Commission EuropéenneDirection-Générale Environnement D3, TRMF 1/72

Boulevard du Triomphe, 174 Brussels Belgium 1160 (+32) 2-296-87 (+32) 2-296-9554 [email protected]

Dr. Melanie Miller Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

Av. Etang Decellier 19 Brussels La Hulpe Belgium B-1310 (+32 2) 652 5455 (+32 2) 652 5455 [email protected]

Mr. Peter Horrocks Head of SectorDirectorate General ENV/D.3

European Commission Rue de la Loi 200 Brussels Belgium B--1049 (+32 2) 295 7384 (+32 2) 296 9554 [email protected]

Mr. Ronald Marijnissen Ministry of Environment Pachecolaan, 19 Bus 5 Brussels Belgium B-1010 (+32 2) 210 4671 (+32 2) 210 4852 [email protected]. Terezhina

BassaniCampos First Secretary, Environment Division

Department of Special AffairsMinistry of Foreign Relations

Annex II - Sala 29Esplanada dos Ministérios

Brasilia Brazil DF 70 170-900

55-61-411-680155-61-411-6811

55-61-224-1079 [email protected]

Ms. Lidia Assenova Senior Expert Ministry of Environment and Water 1000 Sofia, 22 Maria Luiza St. Bulgaria 00-359-2-980-99-89 00-359-2-980-39-26 [email protected]. Gabriel Hakizimana Coordonnateur du Bureau Ozone Ministere de l'Amenagement du Territoire et

de l'EnvironnementB.P. 1365 Bujumbura Burundi 257-235-964 257-228-902 [email protected]

Mr. Vic Buxton Director, Technology & Industry Branch Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 18th Floor Hull Quebec Canada K1A 0H3 (819) 953-3119 819 997 8427 [email protected]. Alain Carriere Scientist Cantox Environmental Inc. 2233 Argentia Road, Suite 308 Mississauga Ontario Canada L5N 2X7 905 542-2900 ext.261 905 542-1011 [email protected]. Alex Cavadias A/Head, Ozone Protection Program Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 12th Floor Hull Quebec Canada K1A 0H3 819 953-1032 819 994 0007 [email protected]. Philippe Chemouny International Technology Transfer Office Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 18th Floor Hull Quebec Canada K1A 0H3 819 997 2768 819 997 8427 [email protected]

Mr. Abe Finkelstein Chief, Clean Processes and Technologies

Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 19th Floor Hull Quebec Canada K1A 0H3 819 953-0226 819 953-0509 [email protected]

Mr. Ian Glew Process Engineer Bovar Waste Management Mail Bag 180 Swan Hills, Alberta Canada T0G 2C0 780-333-4197 ext. 780-333-2160 [email protected]. Tony Hetherington Deputy Chief Officer Multilateral Fund Secretariat Montreal Trust Bldg.

1800 McGill College Avenue, 27 FloorMontreal Quebec Canada H3A 3J6 514-282-1122 514-282-0068 [email protected]

Mr. John Hilborn Manager, Stratospheric Ozone Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 11th Floor Hull Quebec Canada K1A 0H3 819 953 4680 819 994 0549 [email protected]. Ian McGregor President Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc. 3549 Mavis Road Mississauga Ontario Canada L5C 1T7 [email protected]. Dan Nolan Cantox Environmental Inc. P.O. Box 846 Southhampton Ontario Canada N0H 2L0 1-519-797-5456 1-519-797-5440 [email protected]. Adrian Steenkamer Program Officer Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 19th Floor Hull Quebec Canada K1A 0H3 819 953-0962 819 953-0509 [email protected]. Don Thomson President Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry

Association (MOPIA)2141 B Henderson Highway Winnipeg Manitoba Canada R2G 1P8 (204) 474-4177 (204) 338-0810 [email protected]

Ms. Anna-Marie Muise Policy Analyst, Stratospheric Ozone Program

Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 11th Floor Hull Quebec Canada K1A 0H3 (819) 953-8241 819 994 0549 [email protected]

Geneva Wshop 001010.xls


Page 2 of 5



Code Telephone # Fax # E-mail AddressMs. Dawn M. Turner Past President Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry

Association (MOPIA)2141 B Henderson Highway Winnipeg Manitoba Canada R2G 1P8 (204) 474-4806 (204) 338-0810 [email protected]

[email protected]. Beatrice Olivastri Chief Executive Officer Friends of the Earth 206-260 St. Partick Street Ottawa Ontario Canada K1N 5K5 (613) 241-0085 (613) 241-7998 [email protected]. Javier E. Matta Second Secretary Environmental Division

Ministry of Foreign Affairs1143 Catedral St., 2nd Floor Santiago 21 Chile 56-2-6794718 56-2-6732152 [email protected]

Mr. Yi Liu Deputy Director GeneralForeign Economic Cooperation Office

State Environmental Protection Administration

No. 115 Nanxiaojie Xizhimennei Beijing 100035 China 86-010-66151775 86-010-66151776 [email protected]

Ms. Qing Wang Project OfficerForeign Economic Cooperation Office

State Environmental Protection Administration

115 Xizhimennei Nanxiaojie Beijing 100035 China 86-010-6615775 86-010-6615776 [email protected]

Mr. Marco Pinzon National Coordinator Ozone UnitOzone Technical Unit

Ministry of Environment Calle 37 No. 8-40 Ed Anexo. Piso-B Santafé de Bogota D.C.

Colombia (571) 340 6215 (571) 340 6215 [email protected]

Mr. Alfonso Liao Lee National Corodinator Comisión Gubernamental del OzonoMinisterio del Ambiente y Energia

Apartado: 7-3350-1000 San José Costa Rica (506) 233 1791 (506) 223-1837 [email protected]

Dr. L. Nelson Espinosa Peña Director de la Oficina Técnica del Ozono Ministerio de Ciencia Tecnologia y Medio Ambiente

Calle 20e/18-A y 47MiramarMunicipio Playa

C.P 11300 Habana

Cuba (537) 221592 (+537) 244 041(+537) 244 255

[email protected]

Dr. Fabio Fajardo-Moros Vice-Minister Ministerio de CienciaTecnologia y Medio Ambiente

Capitolio Nacional la Habana 10200 Habana Cuba (+537) 570 621 (+537) 570 600 [email protected]

Mr. Hong Song Bok Deputy Chief Engineer Vinalon Factory Huinsildong Sapo Districk Hamhung South Hamgyong

Democratic People's Republic of

850 53 22 4261

Mr. Yon Chan Ju Senior OfficerDepartment of External Cooperation

Ministry of Chemical Industry Pyongyang Democratic People's Republic of

850-2-381-4438 850-2-381-4017

Mr. Rafael Veloz Coordinador, Comité Gubernamental de OzonoSubsecretaria de Recursos NaturalesSecretaria de Extado de Agricultura

Carretera Duarte, K.M. 7 ½Los Jardines del Norte

Santo Domingo D.N.

Dominican Republic

(809) 547-3284 (809) 547-3305 [email protected]

Mr. Francisco Enrique

Guevara CoordinatorOficina de Protectión del OzonoConvenios Ambentales Multilaterales

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Avenida Roosevelt y 55 Av. NorteEdificio Ipsfa piso 5

San Salvador, C.A.

El Salvador 503-260-8900 503-260-5614 [email protected]

Mrs. Else Maarit Peuranen Senior Advisor Environment Protection DepartmentMinistry of the Environment

P.O. Box 380 Fin-00131 Helsinki

Finland (+358 9) 1991 9732 (+358 9) 1991 9630 [email protected]

Ms. Eliisa Irpola Senior Advisor, Chemicals Division Finnish Environment Institute P.O. Box 140Kesäkatu 6

FIN-00251 Helsinki

Finland 358-9-4030-0525 358-9-4030-0591 [email protected]

Mr. Nick Campbell Environment Manager Fluorinated Products Cours Michelet - La Defénse 10 Paris France 92091 (+33 1) 4900 8476 (+33 1) 4900 7567 [email protected]. Geoffrey Tierney Network Manager United Nations Environment Programme

Energy and Ozon Action UnitDivision of Technology, Industry and

39-43 Quai André Citroen75739 Paris Cedex 15

France 33-1-44-37-76-33 33-1-44-37-14-74 [email protected]

Mrs. Laurence Musset Chef de BureauBureau des Substances et Préparations Chimiques

DPPR/SDPD/BSPC Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement

20 Av de Ségur75302 Paris 07 SP

France 33-1-4219-1585 33-1-4219-1468 [email protected]

Ms. Claude Putavy ExotoxicologueBureau des Substances et Préparations Chimiques

DPPR/SDPD/BSPC Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement

20 Av de Ségur75302 Paris 07 SP

France 33-1-4219-1544 33-1-4219-1468 [email protected]

Dr. Wolfgang R. Hartmann Engineering Consultant SRL Plasma Ltd Forstmeisterstrasse 3 D-64285 Darmstadt

Germany 0049-6151-963967 0049-6151-666402 [email protected]

Dr. Siegismut Hug President Hug-Engineering Pfingstbornstr. 64 65207 Germany 011-49-6122-91-96- 011-49-6122-91-98- [email protected]. Heinrich W. Kraus Deputy Director General Protection oof the Ozone Layer

Federal Ministry for the EnvironmentBernkasteler Str. 8 53048 Bonn Germany (+49 228) 305 2750 (+49 228) 305 3524 [email protected]

Dr. Stefanie Pfahl Ecologic GTZ Proklima Pfalzburgerstr. 43-44 10717 Berlin Germany (+49 30) 8688 0111 (+49 30) 8688 0100 [email protected]. Dirk Legatis GTZ Proklima Limburger Strasse 29 61479 Germany (+49 6174) 964 575 (+49 6174) 61 209 [email protected]. Setphan Sicars GTZ Stresemannstr. 18 61462 Germany 49-6174-293-636 49-6174-293-737 [email protected]. Elpida Politi International Relations and European

Union AffairsMinistry for the Environment 15, Amaliados Street 11523 Athens Greece (301) 643 5740 (301) 643 4470 [email protected]

Mr. Francisco J. Argeñal Coordinator de la Unidad Técnica del Ozono

Subsecretaria del AmbienteSecretaria de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente

Edificio MedinaCalle La FuenteBarrio Abajo

Tegucigalpa M.D.C. 4710

Honduras (+504) 238 5308 (+504) 237 5726 [email protected]



Page 3 of 5



Code Telephone # Fax # E-mail AddressMr. Laszlo Dobo Consultant Hungarian Ministry of Environment Fo Utca 44 -50 1011 Budapest Hungary 36-1-457-3565 36-1-204-3056 [email protected]. Atul Bagai Director Ozone Cell

Ministry of Environment and ForestsCore 4B, India Habitat CentreLodhi Road

New Delhi 110003

India 91-11-464-2176 91-11-436-1712 [email protected]

Mr. Winston J. Samuel Refrigerant Gas Manufacturer's Association (REGMA)

A-16, Aruna Asaf Ali MargQutub Institutional Area

New Delhi 110067

India (+91 11) 685 7139 (+91 11) 685 4260 [email protected]

Mr. Viswanath Chiravuri Director Ministry of Envrionment and ForestsIndia Habitat Centre

Core IV BLodhi Road

New Delhi 110003

India (+91 11) 436 2698 (+91 11) 436 2698 [email protected]

Mr. Herru Soetomo Prawoto

Manager of Laboratory Garuda Maintenance FacilityNational Halon Bank

Soekarno-Hatta Airport 19110 Jakarta Indonesia 62-21-5508591 62-21-5502451 [email protected]

Mr. Rajiman Wilman Dir. of Quality Contraol / Halon Bank Project Coordinator

Garuda Maintenace FacilityNational Halon Bank

Soekarno-Hatta Airport 19110 Jakarta Indonesia 62-21-5508032 62-21-5501257 [email protected]

Mr. Antonio Lumicisi Directorate General for Global Atmosphere, Air and Noise Pollution

Ministry of the Environment Via Cristoforo Colombo 44 00147 Rome Italy 39-6-5722-5313 39-6-5722-5370 [email protected]

Ms. Federica Fricano International ActivitiesDirector General for Global Atmosphere, Air, Noise Pollution and Industrial Risk

Ministry of the Environment Via Cristoforo Colombo 44 00147 Rome Italy 39-6-5722-5314 39-6-5722-5370 [email protected]

Dr. Koichi Mizuno Director, Environmental Assessment Department, National Institute for Resources and Environment, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology

Ministry of International Trade and Industry 16-3 Onogawa, TsukubaIbaraki 305

Japan (+81) 298-61-8350 (+81) 298-61-8358 [email protected]

Mr. Yuichi Fujimoto Senior Expert Member Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer Protection

Hongo Wakai Bldg.2-40-17 HongoBunkyo-ku

Tokyo Japan 113-0033 (+813) 5689 7981 (+813) 5689 7983 [email protected]

Mr. Haruhiko Kono Director, Ozone Layer Protection Office Basic Industries BureauMinistry of International Trade and Industry

1-3-1 Kasumigaseki, Chijoda-ku 100-8901 Tokyo Japan (+81 3) 3501 4724 (+81 3) 3501 6604 [email protected]

Mr. Akira Okawa Deputy Secretary General Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer Protection

Hongo Wakai Bldg. 2-40-17 Hongo Bunkyo-ku

Tokyo Japan 1130030 81-3-5689-7981 81-3-5689-7983 [email protected]

Mr. Shizuko OTA Deputy Director Wide Area Atmospheric Protection OfficeAir Quality BureauEnvironment Agency

1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo Japan 100-8975 81-3-5521-8291 81-3-3580-7173 [email protected]

Mr. Ghazi Faleh Odat Deputy Director General General Corporation for Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 1408 Amman Jordan Jubeaa 1512

(+962 6) 533 1042 (+962 6) 533 5936

Dr. Madhava Sarma Executive SecretaryOzone Secretariat

United Nations Environment Programme P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi Kenya (+254 2) 623 851 (+254 2) 623 913 [email protected]

Mr. Gerald Mutisya Programme Officer / IT Ozone Secretariat, UNEP P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi Kenya (+254 2) 624 057 254-2-62-3913254-2-62-3601

[email protected]

Mr. David Okioga National Ozone UnitMinistry of Environment and Natural

P.O. Box 67839 Nairobi Kenya (+254 2) 609309 [email protected]

Ms. Jayne Toroitich Desk Officer Ozone Matters Kenya Mission to UNEPMinistry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

P.O. Box 41395 Nairobi Kenya 254-2-221055 254-2-215105 [email protected]

Dr. Saud A. Aziz Al-RashiedDirectorNoise & Air Pollution Monitoring Dept.

Environment Public AuthorityState of Kuwait P.O. Box 24395 Safat Kuwait 13104 48-21278 ext. 399 48-20599 [email protected]

Mr. Mazen K. Hussein Project Manager - Ozone Office Ministry of Envrironment Antelias P.O. Box 10-7091 Lebanon 00961 4 522222 00961-4-418910 [email protected]. Yahyah Pathel Environment Officer Ministry of Environment

Urban and Rural Development2nd Floor Ken Lee Tower, Barracks Street

Port Louis Mauritius 230-212-4385 230-210-0865 [email protected]

Mr. Francesco Castronovo Coordinador de la Unidad de Proteccion al Ozono

Instituto Nacional de EcologiaSecretaria de Medio Ambiente

Av. Revolucion No. 1425, Nivel 30Col. Tlacopac

San Angel Mexico C.P. 01040 52-5-624-354852-5-624-3549


Mr. Jorge Corona Co-chair, Solvent Technical Options Committee

CANACINTRA Environmental Commission Cto. Misioneros G-8, Dep. 501, cd Satelite

53100, Edo. De Mexico

Mexico (+52 5) 393 3649 (+52 5) 572 9346 [email protected]

Mr. Sergio Lozano General Manager, Chemical Division Quinobasicos S.A. de C.V. Ave. Ruiz Cortines No. 2333 Poniente 64400 Monterrey Nuevo Mexico (+52) 8 158 2695 (+52) 8 351 3582 [email protected]. Jacinto Martinez Asesor Presidencia Association

AgricultoresComité Regional de Sanidad Vegetal Costa Sur

Baja California Norte 21130 Mexicoali BC.

Mexico (+52 65) 538 954 [email protected]

Dr. Klaus Peter Störmer Head Proklima International GTZ 4454GTZ Proklima

Private Bag 18007 Klein Windhoek Namibia (+264 61) 273 500 (+264 61) 253 945 [email protected]

Mrs. Petra Karin Laaser Executive Assistant GTZ Proklima Private Bag 18004 Klein Windhoek Namibia (+264 61) 273 507 (+264 61) 253 945 [email protected]



Page 4 of 5



Code Telephone # Fax # E-mail AddressMr. Joop van Haasteren Directorate General for Environmental

ProtectionMinistry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the EnvironmentDirectorate of Industry and Consumer Policy/IPC 650

8, RijnstraatP.O. Box 30945

2500 GX The Hague

Netherlands (+31 70) 339 487779 (+31 70) 339 1293 [email protected]

Ms. Hilda Espinoza Urbina Directora Control Ambiental/Ozone OfficeDireccion General Calidad Ambiental

Ministerio del Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARENA)

Km. 12 ½ Carretera Panamericana NorteApartado No. 5123

Managua Nicaragua 505-2632353 505-2632354 [email protected]

Mr. Sani Mahazou Chef de Service de Lutte Contre les Pollutions et Nuisances

Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Lutte Contre la Désertification

B.P. 578 Niamey Niger (227) 73 33 29 (227) 73 55 91 [email protected]

Dr. D.B. Omotosho Deputy DirectorPollution Control and Environmental Health Department

Federal Ministry of Environment P.M.B. 265. Garki Abuja Nigeria 234-9-523-4932234-9-234-6596


Mr. Idi M. Maleh Principal Environmental Scientist National Ozone OfficeDepartment of Pollution Control and Environmental Health

P.M.B. 468, Garki Abuja Nigeria (+234 9) 234 6596 (+234 9) 234 6597 [email protected]

Ms. Carmen Mora-Donayre Directora de Asuntos Normativos y Jefa de la Oficina Técnica del Ozono

Ministerio de Industria, Turismo, Integración y Negociaciones Comerciales

Calle 1 Oeste No. 50, Urb. CorpacSan Isidro

Lima 27 Peru (+51 1) 224 3393 (+51 1) 225 5110 [email protected]

Dr. Janusz Kozakiewicz Director's Plenipotentiary on Ozone Layer ProtectionHead of Ozone Protection Unit

Institute of Industrial Chemistry 8 Rydygiera Str. Warsaw 01-793 Poland 48-22-633-9291 48-22-633-92-91 [email protected]

Ms. Ana Limpinho Senior Advisor General Directorate of Environment-Minstry of Environment Portugal

Rua da Murgueira-Zambujal-Apartado 7585

Alfragide 2720 Amadora

Portugal 351-21-4728301 351-21-4719075 [email protected]

Ms. Maria Cristina Vaz Nuñes Senior Advisor General Directorate of EnvironmentMinistry of Environment

Rua da Murgueira-Zambujal 2721-865 Amadora

Portugal 351-21-4721486 351-21-4719074 [email protected]

Mr. Sung-Yong Lim Assistant ManagerFund Administration Department

Korea Specialty Chemical Industry Association

F.K.I. Bldg. 17th28-1, Yoido-Dong

Youngdeungpo-ku

Seoul 150-756

Republic of Korea

82-2-784-0321 82-2-784-0322 [email protected]

Mr. Kwan-Soon Lee Managing Director Korea Specialty Chemical Industry Association

F.K.I. Bldg 17th.28-1, Yoido-Dong

Youngdeungpo-ku

Seoul 150-756

Republic of Korea

(+82 2) 786 2372(+82 2) 783 3150

(+82 2) 784 0322 [email protected]

Mr. Vassily N. Tselikov Deputy General DirectorExecutive Director of ODS Production and Consumption Phase-Out Projects

Centre for Preparation and Implementation of International Projects on Technical Assistance

13-2 Sr. Pereyaslavskaya Str. 129 041 Moscow Russian Federation

(+7 095) 971 0423/280 5788

(+7 095) 971 0423 [email protected]

Mr. Kheng Seng Lee Deputy DirectorOffice of Global Environmental Issues

Ministry of the Environment Environment Building40 Scotts Road # 11-00

Singapore 228 231 65-7319014 65-7384468 [email protected]

Mr. Lubomir Ziak Head of Air Protection GroupAir Protection Department

Ministry of the Environment Námestie Ludovita Stúra 1 812 35 Bratislava

Slovakia 421-7-5956-2543 421-7-5956-2662 [email protected]

Ms. Marjana Kovacic B.Sc. Chemical Engineer Nature Protection Authority Vojkova 1a 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia 386-01-478-4543 386-01-478-4051 [email protected]. Husamuddin Ahmadzai Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Blekholmsterrassen 36 SE 106 48

StockholmSweden (+46 8) 698 1145 (+46 8) 698 1602 [email protected]

Mrs. Nina Cromnier Head of Section Ministry of the Environment Tegelbacken 2 SE 103 33 Stockholm

Sweden (+46 8) 405 2056 (+46 8) 613 3072 [email protected]

Ms. Maria Ujfalusi Senior Administrative Officer, Section for Chemicals Control

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Blekholmsterrassen 36 SE 106 48 Stockholm

Sweden 468 698 1140 468 698 1222 [email protected]

Dr. Walter Brunner Co-chair, Halons Technical Options Committee

envico AG. Environmental Consulting Gasometerstrasse 9 CH 8031 Zurich Switzerland (+41-1) 272 7475 (+41 1) 272 8872 [email protected]

Mr. Blaise Horisberger Senior Scientific OfficerOffice Fédéral de l'Environnement, des Forêts et du Paysage

Département fédéral de l'Environnement, des Transports, de l'Energie et de la Communication

3003 Bern Switzerland (+41 31) 322 9024 (+41 31) 324 7978 [email protected]

Mr. Alejandro Castillo

Santana Third SecretaryCIJ, Environment, Météorologie et Union interparlementaire

Mission permanente de la République de Cuba auprès de l'Office des NationsUnies à Genève et des autres organisations interantionales en Suisse

Chemin de Valérie 100 1292 Chambésy Switzerland (+41 22) 758 9430 (+41 22) 758 9431 [email protected]

Mr. Werner Wagner Valorec AG Landhofweg 224153 Reinach

Switzerland 41 76 321 43 43 41 61 468 86 60 [email protected]

Mr. Bashar Al-Masri National Ozone Unit Minstry of Environment Tolyani St. P.O. Box 3773

Damascus Syria 963-33-3335645 [email protected]

Mr. M. Khaled Klaly National Ozone Unit Ministry of Environment Tolyani St. P.O. Box 3773

Damascus Syria 963-11-3310381 963-11-3314393 [email protected]



Page 5 of 5



Code Telephone # Fax # E-mail AddressMs. Wanna Rodratana Head, Ozone Layer Protection Unit Hazardous Substances Control Bureau

Department of Industrial WorksMinistry of Industry

75/6 Rama VI RoadRatchatewi

Bangkok 10400 Thailand 622-202-4228 662-202-4015 [email protected]@narai.diw.go.th

Ms. Somsri Suwanjaras ODS Specialist Hazardous Substances Control BureauDepartment of Industrial WorksMinistry of Industry

75/6 Rama VI RoadRatchatewi

Bangkok 10400 Thailand 662-202-4230 662-202-4015 [email protected]@narai.diw.go.th

Mr. Hassen Hannachi DirecteurAgence Nationale de Protection de l'Environnement

Ministère de l'Environnement et de l'Aménagement du Territoire

12, rue du CamerounB.P. 52 Belvédère

1002 Tunis Tunisia 216-1-844-059 216-1-841-715 [email protected]

Mr. John Y. Okedi Executive Director National Environment Management Authority

Communications House, 6th FloorPlot 1, Colville St., P.O. Box 22255

Kampala Uganda 256-41-251064/5/8 256-41-257-521/232680

[email protected]

Mr. Paul Ashford Managing Director Caleb Management Services LimitedGrovelands House, Woodlands GreenWoodlands Lane, Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4JT

United Kingdom (+44 1454) 610 220 (+44 1454) 610 240 [email protected]

Mr. Philip Callaghan Global Atmosphere Division Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Ashdown House, 3/A3123 Victoria Street

London SW1E 6DE

United Kingdom

(+44 207) 944 5235 (+44 207) 944 5219 [email protected]

Dr. Charles Neely Auburn University Alabama United States of America

334 844-5905 334 844-5900 [email protected]

Dr. Igor Polovtsev Senior Scientist Scientific Utilization Inc. 201 Electronics Blvd. Huntsville Alabama United States of America

35824 256-772-8555 256-772-0073 [email protected]

Dr. Stephen Andersen Co-Chair, UNEP/TEAP US Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW Washington DC United States of America

20460 1-202-564-9069 1-202-565-2135 [email protected]

Mr. Steve Gorman Team Leader and Senior Environmental SpecialistMontreal Protocol Operations UnitEnvironment Department

World Bank Room MC4-1071818 H Street, NW

Washington DC United States of America

20433 (+1 202) 473 5865 (+1 202) 522 3258 [email protected]

Mr. Erik Pedersen Technical SpecialistMontreal Protocol Operations Unit

The World Bank Room MC4-1051818 H Street, NW


20433 (+1 202) 473 5877 (+1 202) 522 3258 [email protected]

Mr. Fredric M. Schwartz Executive Vice President Pure Chem Inc. 1006 Richard Lane Danville California United States of America

94626-2916 925 831-8185 925 831-9785 [email protected]

Mr. Jim Traweek International Relations Officer Office of Environment PolicyUS Dept. of State

OES/ENV2201 C Street NW


20520-7818 202 647 4284 202 647 5947 [email protected]

Mr. Keith Bucher Executive Vice President Scientific Utilizatioin Inc. 201 Electronics Blvd. S. W., P.O. Box 6787

Huntsville Alabama United States of America

35824-0787 256 772-8555 256 772-0073 [email protected]

Mr. Paul Horwitz International AdvisorStratospheric Protection Division

United States Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street SW Washington DC United States of America

20460 202 564 9109 202 565 2093 [email protected]

Ms. Sue Stendebach Chief, Program Implementation Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, (Mail Code 6205j)

Washington, DC United States of America

20460 202-564-9117 202-565-2095 [email protected]

Ms. Mirian Vega Secretaria Técnica, Comisión Técnica Gubernamental de Ozono Directeur Nacional de Medio Ambiente

Ministerio de Vivienda Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente

Rincón 422 of 302 Montevideo 11000

Uruguay (+598 2) 917 0222 (+598 2) 916 1895 [email protected]

Mr. Manuel Valencia

Astudillo President Fondo Para la Reconversion Industrial y Technologica (FONDOIN)

Av. Francisco Solano LopezEdf. Centrol Solano Plaza IIOfc., 1-B, Sabana Grande

Caracas Venezuela 58-2-761-9135 58-2-761-9476 [email protected]

Dr. Dao Duc Tuan Ozone CoordinatorOzone Office for Montreal Protocol

Department of Science and TechnologyHydrometeorological Service of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

57 Nguyen Du Str. Hanoi Viet Nam 844-822-8974 844-826-3847 [email protected]

Mr. Faisal Ahmed Naisr Bin Ali Gaber

Director, National Ozone UnitGeneral Technical Secretariat

Environment Protection Council P.O. Box 19719Al-Huria Street

Sana'a Yemen 967-1-257881 967-1-257549 [email protected]@yahoo.com

Mr. Gentile Chasaya Senior Inspector and ODS Officer National Ozone UnitEnvironmental Council of Zambia

P.O. Box 35131 Lusaka Zambia (+260 1) 254 130-1 (+260 1) 254 164 [email protected]

Mr. Devious A. Marongwe Ozone Manager Ministry of Mines Environment and Tourism Private Bag 7753 Harare Zimbabwe 263-4-748-541 263-4-748-541 [email protected]. Dunstan Sorhaindo National Ozone Officer [email protected]

Geneva Wshop 001010April4.xls

Appendix C

Guidance Document on DisposalTechnologies for ODS in Canada

Cantox Environmental Inc.

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DISPOSALTECHNOLOGIES FOR OZONE-DEPLETING

SUBSTANCES (ODS) IN CANADA

Project No. K2617-9-0037March 31, 2000

Prepared for: Environment CanadaEnvironmental Technology AdvancementCleaner Production & TechnologiesPlace Vincent MasseyHull, QuebecK1A 0H3

Prepared by: CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL INC.2233 Argentia Road, Suite 308Mississauga, OntarioL5N 2X7

CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL INC.2233 Argentia Road, Suite 308, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 2X7

Phone: (905) 542-2900 Fax: (905) 542-1011 www.cantoxenvironmental.com

Environment Canada, Project # K2617-9-0037Cantox Envronmental Inc Project # 80940 March 31, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................ 31.1 THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AND OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES ............................................................ 31.2 REGULATION OF ODS IN CANADA .............................................................................................................. 41.3 PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF ODS DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................. 41.4 THE CANADIAN NATIONAL ACTION PLAN ON ODS...................................................................................... 5

2.0 METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 62.1 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 62.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE............................................................................................................................. 7

3.0 REVIEW OF ODS DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES....................................................................................... 93.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................. 93.2 SCREENING OF ODS DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES........................................................................................ 103.3 TECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION............................................................................................. 123.4 COMMERCIAL/ECONOMIC EVALUATION.................................................................................................... 18

4.0 STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION & REGULATORY ISSUES................................................................ 244.1 OVERVIEW & APPLICABLE REGULATIONS................................................................................................. 244.2 STORAGE, HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................... 27

4.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 274.2.2 Containers........................................................................................................................................... 294.2.3 Documentation, Labelling, Handling and Personnel Training Requirements.................................... 30

5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 32

6.0 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................... 376.1 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 376.2 ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................................ 39

APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF ODS DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................... 41

A-1.0Description Of Commercially Available Technologies................................................................................. 41A-1.1 PLASMA (NON-INCINERATION) TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................................................ 41

A-1.1.1 Argon Plasma Arc............................................................................................................................... 42A-1.1.2 Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency Plasma................................................................................... 43A-1.1.3 AC Plasma .......................................................................................................................................... 44

A-1.2 OTHER NON-INCINERATION TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................................. 44A-1.2.1 Solvated Electron Technology ............................................................................................................ 44A-1.2.2 UV Photolytic Destruction .................................................................................................................. 45A-1.2.3 Gas Phase Chemical Reduction .......................................................................................................... 45A-1.2.4 Gas Phase Catalytic Dehalogenation ................................................................................................. 46A-1.2.5 Liquid-Phase Chemical Conversion ................................................................................................... 47A-1.2.6 Vitrification ......................................................................................................................................... 47

A-1.3 INCINERATION TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................................................. 48A-1.3.1 High Performance Incineration .......................................................................................................... 50A-1.3.2 Liquid Injection Incineration .............................................................................................................. 50A-1.3.3 Reactor Cracking ................................................................................................................................ 50


A-1.3.4 Gaseous/Fume Oxidation.................................................................................................................... 51A-1.3.5 Rotary Kiln Incineration ..................................................................................................................... 51A-1.3.6 Cement Kilns ....................................................................................................................................... 52A-1.3.7 Internally Circulating Fluidised Bed Incineration.............................................................................. 52

A-2.0Description of emerging technologies ............................................................................................................ 54A-2.1 INCINERATION TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................................................. 54

A-2.1.1 Waste Gasification .............................................................................................................................. 54A-2.1.2 Gas Injection Oxidation/Hydrolysis.................................................................................................... 54

A-2.2 PLASMA TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................................................................................... 55A-2.2.1 Plasma Conversion of CFCs into Harmless Polymer Using Ethylene or Ethane as Co-monomer .... 55A-2.2.2 Destruction of ODS in Dilute Exhaust Stream Using Energetic Electron Induced Plasma - AdsorbentFilter Hybrid System.......................................................................................................................................... 55A-2.2.3 High Voltage Gliding Arc Plasma Discharge Reactor for CFC Destruction ..................................... 55A-2.2.4 Freon 113 Destruction in Air Under the Effect of Nanosecond Corona and Microwave Discharge . 55

A-2.3 CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................................ 56A-2.3.1 Chemical Reduction of ODS Using Metallic Sodium on a Solid Substrate ........................................ 56A-2.3.2 Chemical-Thermal Destruction of Halogenated Hydrocarbon with Calcium Silicate or Oxide ........ 56A-2.3.3 Mineralization of CFCs with Sodium Oxalate .................................................................................... 56A-2.3.4 Aerosol Mineralisation of CFCs by Sodium Vapour Reduction ......................................................... 56A-2.3.5 Molten Metal Technology (MMT) ....................................................................................................... 57A-2.3.6 Pressurized Coal Iron Gasification (P-CIG) ...................................................................................... 57A-2.3.7 Dormier Incineration Process in Steel Smelter................................................................................... 57A-2.3.8 Destruction of CFCs During Chemchar Gasification......................................................................... 57

A-2.4 PHOTOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................................................. 57A-2.4.1 UV Laser Photolysis for the Destruction or Transformation of Halon 1301 into CF3I ...................... 57A-2.4.2 Photochemical Degradation of Organic Wastes with a TiO2 Catalyst ............................................... 58A-2.4.3 UV Laser Controlled Decomposition of CFCs.................................................................................... 58

A-2.5 CATALYTIC TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................................................................... 58A-2.5.1 Dry Distillation Disposal System for Waste Foam and Refrigerators ................................................ 58A-2.5.2 Halohydrocarbon Destruction Catalyst .............................................................................................. 58A-2.5.3 Catalytic Oxidation of CFCs with a Pt/ZrO2-PO4 Based Catalyst...................................................... 58A-2.5.4 CFC Oxidation in a Catalyst-Sorbents Packed Bed ........................................................................... 59A-2.5.5 Transformation of CFCs to HFCs Using Dehalogenation Catalysts in a H2 Environment ................ 59

A-2.6 OTHER TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................................................................. 59A-2.6.1 Use of Waste CFC in an Antimony Process ........................................................................................ 59A-2.6.2 CFC Destruction into Biocatalytic System [Ref 20, 29c] ................................................................... 59A-2.6.3 Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO).............................................................................................. 59A-2.6.4 Electrohalogenation of CFC-113 on Pb/Pd Cathodes Combined with H2 Diffusion Anode .............. 60

APPENDIX B: EXPERT REVIEW COMMITTEE............................................................................................. 61

APPENDIX C: STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP ...................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF LITERATURE SEARCH ................................................................................ 71

Keywords Used in Search Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 71

Overall Search Strategy ........................................................................................................................................... 72

APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP MEETING SUMMARY ........................................... 73

Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................. 74

Path Forward ............................................................................................................................................................ 76

Environment Canada, Project # K2617-9-0037 1Cantox Envronmental Inc Project # 80940 March 31, 2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In September 1999, CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL INC., (CEI) in partnership with the PioneerTechnology Centre, (PTC) was contracted by Environment Canada to develop a GuidanceDocument for the disposal of surplus CFCs and halons in Canada, in consultation withappropriate experts and stakeholders, as described in the revised CCME National Action Plan.

The objective of this Guidance Document is to provide Canadian stakeholders with up-to-dateinformation on technologies available for the disposal of surplus quantities of ODS. ThisGuidance Document aims to provide clear guidance on the latest mechanisms, technologies, andprocedures for ensuring the safe and effective destruction, transformation, and/or permanentstabilization of ODS stockpiles.

In all, 42 ODS disposal technologies were identified and described, then evaluated on the basis ofmandatory environmental criteria and commercial availability. As a result, the 42 identifiedtechnologies were categorized into two main groups:

1. Commercially available and environmentally acceptable technologies.2. Emerging technologies.

ODS disposal technologies were included in the first group only if they met mandatoryenvironmental criteria. The first group of technologies were then further evaluated in twoseparate ways, based on two different sets of criteria:

� environmental and technical criteria; and� commercial and economic criteria.

The environmental/technical evaluation is intended to provide guidance as to which technologiesare considered to provide the best technical solutions to the disposal of ODS in terms of avoidingadverse environmental and/or human health impacts. These issues include the prevention of theultimate release of ODS and the depletion of the ozone layer, the prevention of the release ofGlobal Warming Gases (GWGs, or “greenhouse gases”) that contribute to global warming, aswell as avoiding the production and release of byproducts of destruction that may themselveshave adverse health or environmental effects.

The commercial/economic evaluation addresses different issues, and is meant to provide someguidance as to the current and future availability of technologies and facilities for the disposal ofanticipated Canadian surpluses of ODS, as well as an assessment as to what the costs ofdestruction for the various identified technologies may be. Although a detailed and precise costanalysis for each technology was well beyond the scope of this project, some attempt was madeto characterize the absolute and relative costs for the various technologies, based on reportedinformation and upon the engineering expertise of the project team.


In addition to the identification and evaluation of ODS disposal technologies, the GuidanceDocument provides information regarding the handling of ODS surplus quantities, includingapplicable regulations relating to transportation, storage and reporting requirements.

Finally, a number of valuable comments related to the implementation of an ODS disposalstrategy in Canada were expressed by stakeholders during a Stakeholder Workshop held inOttawa on March 9, 2000. Many of these remarks address potential barriers and disincentives tothe implementation of such a program. A significant comment was made regarding handlingprocedures for surplus ODS. Stakeholders indicated that if ODS is considered as a hazardouswaste, the required handling and manifesting procedures would create a significant barrier to thecollection and destruction of surplus ODS in Canada. Unless some exemption mechanism isprovided to allow stakeholders to store and ship ODS to collection facilities without having tosatisfy requirements normally applicable to the handling of hazardous waste, a collectionprogram may not work in practice. Another important conclusion that came out of theStakeholder Workshop was that there may be a business opportunity to develop a multi-purposewaste disposal facility in Canada that could handle surplus ODS as well as other types ofspecialized wastes, and that Environment Canada would be interested in receiving such aproposal and potentially supporting its development. The comments offered during theStakeholder Workshop are captured in detail in a meeting summary provided in Appendix E.


1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 The Montreal Protocol and Ozone-Depleting Substances

The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (the “MontrealProtocol”) was originally signed by 24 countries including Canada in September 1987 and hadbeen ratified by 169 countries as of July 1999. The Montreal Protocol resulted in a series oflegally binding measures to control or eliminate the production and consumption of Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) in various countries. The Montreal Protocol is a living treaty withbuilt-in provisions for making changes on the basis of new scientific information andtechnological developments (UNEP 1997).

The depletion of the ozone layer in the Earth’s stratosphere reduces the atmosphere’s ability toprovide protection from UV radiation from the sun, which results in serious risks to humanhealth, including increased risk of cancer and the weakening of immune system functions. Increased UV radiation due to ozone layer depletion has also been associated with adverseenvironmental impacts such as reduced vegetation production on land and reduced planktonproduction in oceans.

The Montreal Protocol is widely regarded to be one of the most important and effectiveinternational environmental agreements ever signed. Since 1994, atmospheric concentrations ofODS have declined about 3%, largely due to declines in methyl chloroform concentrations. Emissions of most ODS have diminished substantially from peak levels in the late 1980s. Despite this progress, atmospheric concentrations of some ODS continue to increase. Continuedreleases contribute to existing atmospheric concentrations, which exhibit significantenvironmental persistence. Once concentrations of methyl chloroform stabilize over the next 10to15 years, the rate of decrease in total atmospheric ODS is likely to diminish.

The restrictions put into place following the Montreal Protocol have resulted in a growingsurplus of unused CFCs and halons due to their replacement with more environmentally friendlysubstances. The surplus consists of unused ODS, ODS in use in older equipment, and ODSeither recycled, reclaimed, or stockpiled after removal from such equipment. Surplus quantitiesof ODS are expected to continue to grow as a result of management initiatives related to theMontreal Protocol.

In Canada, with the exception of mobile air conditioning sources, current uses of ODS based onstockpiled quantities have the potential to continue for many years. In several sectors, given thestatus quo, significant environmental releases of ODS from current uses are expected over thenext ten to twenty years. It is generally assumed that all of the current inventory of ODS willeventually be emitted to the atmosphere unless some kind of management program involvingdestruction technologies is put into place (Environment Canada 1998).

The above considerations highlight the importance of making progress in reducing or eliminatingfurther ODS emissions. While restrictions on the production, importation, and consumption ofODS resulting from the Montreal Protocol are necessary steps for managing ODS currently inuse or stockpiled, a critical challenge facing world governments lies in disposing of the growing


surplus of ODS in such a way as to avoid further atmospheric emissions. To this end, an up-to-date evaluation of existing and emerging ODS disposal technologies is required. In this context it is relevant to note that two decisions were recently taken under the Montreal Protocol to require Parties to develop management strategies, in which disposal issues are addressed, for both CFCs and halons (decisions XI/16 and X/7, respectively).

1.2 Regulation of ODS in CanadaThe production and importation of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons were banned inCanada in 1994-95 under the Ozone-depleting Substances Regulations and the Ozone-depletingSubstances Products Regulations (Canada Gazette 1995a, 1995b). The goal of these restrictionsis to diminish the threat posed by ODS and allow a return to former stratospheric ozone levels.1 By 1999, the import and export of recycled and reclaimed CFCs and halons had also been bannedin Canada. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are CFC replacements with much lessOzone Depletion Potential (ODP) than CFCs, are also being controlled. The current Canadianregulations already limit and control the production, import and export of HCFCs, and prescribea gradual phase-out of these substances to be completed in 2030.

Environment Canada has recently developed a strategy to accelerate the phase-out of the use ofCFCs and halons in Canada and has completed a series of public consultations on this strategy,which consists primarily of proposed bans on the refilling of equipment with CFCs and/or halons(Environment Canada 1999). These restrictions, as currently proposed, would prescribe a ban onthe refilling of all equipment with CFCs and/or halons, with the exception of residential whitegoods. The proposed refill bans would take effect between the years 2000 and 2008 and wouldrepresent, if implemented, a significant step towards the elimination of the use of CFCs andhalons in Canada.

The proposed refill bans, in combination with regulatory restrictions already in place and thegeneral trend towards the use of alternatives to CFCs and halons, are intended to accelerate theaccumulation of surplus quantities of ODS in Canada. The current total inventory of CFCs andhalons in Canada (including quantities charged to existing equipment and stockpiled quantities)is estimated to be about 23 000 tonnes of CFCs and 3100 tonnes of halons (Environment Canada1999). Thus, regulatory initiatives in Canada pursuant to the Montreal Protocol will likely resultin the creation of a significant quantity of surplus ODS that will have to be disposed of in orderto avoid ultimate release to the atmosphere and further degradation of the ozone layer.

1.3 Previous Reviews Of ODS Disposal TechnologiesIn order to address the issue of surplus ODS, an ad hoc Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established in 1990 under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme(UNEP) to review ODS disposal technologies. The 1992 TAC Report recommended sixdestruction technologies, all of which fell within the category of thermal oxidation (UNEP 1992).

1 “It is anticipated that, as a result of the measures adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at the meetingheld in Copenhagen in 1992, the ozone layer will have fully recovered by 2080.” (Canada Gazette 1995)


The TAC Report also recommended that an Advisory Panel be established to re-assess theseODS destruction technologies periodically, and to assess emerging technologies.

In 1993 a Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) was formed to update the 1992TAC Report. In 1994, the TEAP recommended that the TAC meet again with a group ofindustry, technology and regulatory stakeholders to update the 1992 TAC Report. Following thisrecommendation, a special UNEP-sponsored workshop was held in Montreal in May 1995. Theresulting report, indicated a number of existing technologies commercially available at that time,including several emerging ODS destruction and chemical transformation technologies (UNEP1995). The 1995 UNEP Report indicated that existing ODS destruction facilities in developedcountries were sufficient to dispose of the current and projected ODS wastes until the year 2000. Existing and emerging technologies were said to be able to handle ODS surpluses after 2000,although destruction of ODS would likely depend not only on availability of technologies butalso on available capacity, as well as the effectiveness of economic and regulatory incentives.

The current Guideline Document focusses on the issue of the disposal of anticipated surplusquantities of ODS in Canada, and extends the work described in the 1992 and 1995 UNEPreports in the following ways:

� by providing an updated report on emerging and commercially available ODS disposaltechnologies;

� by providing a technical/environmental assessment of commercially available technologiesthat meet minimum environmental criteria; and,

� by providing an updated report on commercial availability and cost issues associated withthose technologies that are the most likely candidates for disposing of Canadian ODS surplusquantities in the near future.

1.4 The Canadian National Action Plan on OdsThe 1997 Report of the Auditor General of Canada described a need for Environment Canada toarticulate clearly a strategy for the management and disposal of surplus ODS (OAG 1997). The1998 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) revised National Action Planfor the Environmental Control of Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) and their HalocarbonAlternatives (the “revised NAP”) contained an initiative to develop a plan for the disposal ofsurplus CFCs and halons (CCME 1998). It was proposed that the plan should involve anassessment of available ODS disposal technologies and the development of guidelines fordisposing of ODS surplus in Canada. The current Guidance Document is a direct result of thisproposal.


2.0 METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 MethodologyThe process for developing this Guidance Document relied on a combination of literatureresearch, personal communications with various experts and stakeholders, and consultation withgovernment representatives, technology experts, and Canadian stakeholders. A thoroughliterature search was conducted to identify newly emerging ODS disposal technologies and toupdate information on previously-identified technologies (see Appendix D). A large number ofrepresentatives of government, academia, waste disposal facilities, and technology developmentcompanies were identified and contacted individually to obtain up-to-date information (seeAppendices B and C). The project team included four process engineers, two from CEI and twofrom the Pioneer Technology Centre. These team members were responsible forcommunications with those providing information on specific technologies, and for thedevelopment of the individual descriptions of identified disposal technologies (see Appendix A).

An Expert Review Committee (ERC) was formed in consultation with Environment Canada(Appendix B). The ERC included 14 representatives from government, academia and industryfrom around the world, covering all of the categories of disposal technology identified. An initialdraft of the Review of Technologies was reviewed by individual ERC members, and was furtherdiscussed in a teleconference on February 11, 2000.

A Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) was also formed, consisting primarily of Canadianstakeholders such as government representatives, technology developers, ODS recyclers andreclaimers, waste disposal facility representatives, Environmental Non-GovernmentalOrganization (ENGO) representatives, industry representatives, and representatives oforganizations that have or anticipate having surplus stocks of ODS in the future. The SWGconsisted of 34 participating and 20 corresponding members (Appendix C). Participatingstakeholders attended a workshop in Ottawa on March 9, 2000, to discuss issues related to thedevelopment of the Guidance Document (see meeting summary in Appendix E). Correspondingstakeholders were given a one-month period to provide written comments after receiving a copyof the draft document.

A screening analysis was performed on all 42 identified technologies in order to create a sub-setof environmentally acceptable and commercially available technologies for the disposal ofCanadian ODS surplus. ODS disposal technologies that passed the screening evaluation werethen assessed according to environmental and technical criteria on the one hand, and on the basisof commercial and economic criteria on the other. The technical/environmental evaluation ofthose technologies selected by the screening analysis was provided in order to give allstakeholders additional information with which to determine the appropriateness of the availabletechnologies for use in disposing of current and future surplus ODS in Canada. Thecommercial/economic assessment provides stakeholders with up-to-date information regardingthe state of commercial development and availability, and the estimated average disposal costsfor the technologies already identified as being environmentally acceptable. Thus, the screening


assessment identifies commercially available and environmentally acceptable ODS disposaltechnologies; the further analysis provides more detailed information on technical,environmental, commercial and economic issues.

In considering the issues likely to be important to Environment Canada and to a wide variety ofCanadian stakeholders, it was felt that the most meaningful evaluation procedure would involve separate consideration of the environmental/technical issues and the commercial/economicissues. The environmental and technical issues are important in addressing the question: whichtechnologies are acceptable? As for the commercial and economic questions, they will ultimatelybe decided by market forces; the reason for providing this evaluation is to give regulators as wellas stakeholders up-to-date information regarding the practicality and potential financialimplications of decisions regarding the choice of disposal technologies.

2.2 Objectives And ScopeThe objective of this Guidance Document is to provide Canadian stakeholders with up-to-dateinformation on technologies available for the disposal of surplus quantities of ODS.

Specific objectives include the following:

� identification of commercially available and emerging technologies for the disposal of ODS;� gathering of up-to-date information on these technologies, including technical information,

state of development, commercial availability, and estimated costs;� identification of technologies that meet minimum technical and environmental standards

developed in consultation with Environment Canada;� identification of technologies that meet minimum criteria of commercial availability from the

point of view of Canadian stakeholders;� a technical/environmental evaluation of available ODS technologies;� an assessment of commercial and cost issues for available technologies;� a summary description of regulatory issues associated with the handling of surplus ODS in

Canada, including applicable federal and provincial regulations and transportation, storage,and reporting requirements; and,

� a discussion of barriers to the disposal of ODS surplus in Canada, based on stakeholder input.

Disposal refers to the destruction of ODS, transformation to another non-hazardous material, orstabilization in such as way that potential hazard to the environment is permanently eliminated. In practice, ODS disposal technologies are limited to the first two of these three possibilities. Management initiatives including recycling, re-use, or involving atmospheric release, are notconsidered here, only those activities leading to the permanent removal of ODS from surplusinventories in Canada.

The scope of this Guidance Document is limited to the determination of ODS disposaltechnologies that are appropriate to consider for the disposal of current and future ODS surplus inCanada. Although further information is provided in two separate evaluations of thetechnologies in this group that involve the ranking of available technologies, no attempt has beenmade to indicate which individual technologies within this group should be given preference forthe disposal of ODS surplus in Canada.


Rather, the currently available information on each of these technologies is placed at the disposalof the reader in order to assist with this task, which remains outside the scope of this GuidanceDocument. In other words, this Guidance Document aims to provide a framework for theanticipated discussion as to which technologies should be considered for the disposal of surplusODS in Canada.

Technologies discussed in the 1992 and 1995 UNEP documents on ODS disposal, generallyinvolved destruction by thermal oxidation. In can be said that there is great interest on the part ofthe international community to use non-incineration technologies for the disposal of ODS that donot generate greenhouse gases and that do not have the potential for releases of dioxins andfurans. As part of the scope of this document, non-incineration and chemical transformationtechnologies are identified and described that could provide alternative choices to incinerationfor the disposal of surplus ODS.

Although it is not the objective of this Guidance Document to determine the current capacity forODS disposal available to Canadian stakeholders, some general comments on this subject are inorder. At present there is only one Canadian facility permitted to dispose of ODS, a rotary kilnincinerator operated by Bovar Waste Management in Swan Hills, Alberta. This facility is limitedin terms of its capacity, and significant upgrades would be required to handle the quantities ofODS expected to be disposed of in Canada in the future. Current capacity is said to be of theorder of 40 tonnes/year. The required upgrade would take about 6 months and would result in acapacity of about 3000 tonnes/year (Ian Glew, Bovar Waste Management, personalcommunication).

In the U.S., several incineration facilities exist that can accept significant quantities of ODS. Various ODS disposal facilities with commercial-scale capacity also exist in Europe, andAustralia has a facility using plasma arc technology that has already been used to destroy asignificant quantity of ODS.

As surplus quantities of ODS grow, there will be both more stakeholders in search of alternativesto dispose of their surplus and more incentive for developers of technologies to provide thesealternatives on a commercial scale. Ultimately, regulatory initiatives will create a market for thedisposal of surplus ODS, and assuming significant stockpiles remain at that point, the currentreview of ODS disposal technologies suggests that a number of technologies are available orcould become available to address the issue of disposing of surplus quantities of ODS in Canada.


3.0 REVIEW OF ODS DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

3.1 OverviewEfforts to phase-out the production and use of ODS around the world, largely as a result ofinitiatives related to the Montreal Protocol, have driven the development of technologies todispose of these substances permanently. In some European countries, stringent restrictions on the use of CFCs and halons have resulted in the rapid accumulation of surplus ODS and thedevelopment of programs for the ultimate disposal of these substances. In Sweden in particular,much of the surplus inventory of CFCs and halons has already been destroyed.

The technologies used for ODS disposal in Europe to date have been largely incinerationtechnologies (such as reactor cracking). The same is true of most of the ODS that has beendestroyed to date elsewhere in the world, including the U.S. and Japan. A notable exception isAustralia, where a significant amount of that country’s inventory of surplus halons has beendestroyed using an argon plasma technology.

In anticipation of the need to provide Canadian stakeholders who are or who will be inpossession of surplus ODS with an appropriate choice among disposal technologies,Environment Canada commissioned this review of ODS disposal technologies. The followingprovides a framework for evaluating and ranking ODS disposal technologies that have beendeveloped to date in order to provide stakeholders with guidance on technology availability andinformation related to technical, environmental, commercial, and economic issues.

Appendix A contains a comprehensive description of ODS disposal technologies that have beenidentified. The description of technologies in Appendix A expands upon the informationassembled in the 1992 and 1995 UNEP documents through information obtained from the mostrecent literature and from many personal communications with representatives of chemical wastedisposal facilities, with developers of ODS disposal technologies, as well as with academicsexperts and government representatives from various countries. A number of new technologiesnot mentioned in the previous UNEP reports have been identified and are discussed. In the caseof technologies previously identified the information has been updated, particularly regardingissues of technology development status, commercial availability and cost.

Forty-two ODS disposal technologies are identified and discussed in this Guidance Document. All ODS disposal technologies identified were initially assessed against a set of mandatorycriteria to determine whether they were environmentally acceptable and commercially available. Of the 42 identified disposal technologies, 26 failed to meet the mandatory criteria. The reasonthese technologies did not pass the initial screen was typically because they were not consideredto be commercially available. For this reason, this group of 26 technologies has been designatedas “emerging technologies.”


The 16 technologies that satisfied the mandatory requirements were then considered in twoseparate further evaluations, one involving a set of environmental/technical criteria (Section 3.3),and another addressing commercial/economic issues (Section 3.4). In this document, these 16 technologies are referred to as “commercially available” technologies, however a qualification should be noted: these technologies are not only commercially available, they also meetmandatory environmental and technical criteria. Thus they are more accurately referred to ascommercially available and environmentally acceptable technologies.

For purposes of convenience, ODS disposal technologies have been grouped according to threegeneral categories: incineration technologies, plasma technologies, and other non-incinerationtechnologies. As noted in greater detail below, plasma technologies are not considered to beincineration technologies, despite the fact that they involve the thermal destruction of ODS,because they employ inert gas environments and avoid oxidation reactions.

3.2 Screening Of ODS Disposal TechnologiesThe screening assessment of 42 ODS technologies identified in this Guidance Documentconsisted of determining and applying mandatory criteria for the selection of commerciallyavailable and environmentally acceptable technologies. These criteria were established inconsultation with Environment Canada and with members of an Expert Review Committee and aStakeholder Working Group. Only technologies satisfying the mandatory screening criteria werefurther evaluated and ranked in the technical/environmental and commercial/economicassessments.

The screening assessment mandatory requirements are as follows:

1. Total polychlorinated dibenzo-paradioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans(PCDFs) in stack emissions are not to exceed 0.1 ng/m3 toxic equivalence (TEQ) usingthe international method (NATO 1988; Van de Berg 1998).

2. Destruction or conversion efficiency is not to be less than 90%.

3. The disposal technology must be commercially available by January 1st, 2003.

Given the ultimate goal of minimizing ODS emissions, a mandatory minimal standard fordestruction efficiency of not less than 90% was established. A destruction efficiency of not lessthan 99.99% had been suggested as a minimal standard in the past (UNEP 1992). There are otherissues to be considered, however, such as environmental impacts, commercial availability, costand practicality. In practice, a technology with significantly lower destruction efficiency but thatperforms very well in terms of limiting the production of greenhouse gases, provides a low-costsolution that is widely available commercially, and that is convenient to holders of ODS surplusmay be more effective in reducing overall emissions of ODS than an expensive, inconvenient,but highly efficient technology. Consequently, it was felt that technologies with a destructionefficiency as low as 90% should be given consideration. The destruction efficiency criterion wasgiven very high weighting in the subsequent technical/environmental evaluation, however, as itwas thought to be a critical determinant of an environmentally acceptable technology.


For the mandatory screening criterion for dioxin/furan emissions, a very stringent emission levelof 0.1 ng/m3 (TEQ) was established. Although a previous standard of 1.0 ng/m3 (TEQ) had beensuggested, (UNEP 1992), advances in technology in recent years justified a significantly more stringent level. This was also in accordance with the level suggested for the Canada-WideStandard for dioxins/furans. The dioxin/furan criterion was also given high weighting in thesubsequent technical/environmental evaluation due to concerns for adverse health effectsassociated with these substances. Dioxins and furans have been categorized among the group ofCanada’s most toxic substances, and under the new CEPA legislation they may be targeted forvirtual elimination. It was therefore considered important to favour disposal technologies thatminimize or eliminate dioxin/furan emissions.

The third mandatory criterion was commercial availability, and in practice this turned out to bethe most stringent of the mandatory criteria for the evaluation of the identified disposaltechnologies. Where technologies failed to meet the mandatory criteria, this was inevitablybecause they were judged not to be commercially available. All technologies reviewed passedthe destruction efficiency criterion, particularly given the fact that multi-stage units couldtheoretically ensure any desired level of destruction efficiency (although this strategy wouldnaturally result in elevated costs). Similarly, none of the technologies identified failed thedioxin/furan criterion. The intent was avoid disqualifying any technology, including the variousincineration technologies, if it was reasonable to assume that proper operating conditions andemission control systems would result in the mandatory technical and environmental criteriabeing satisfied. Some mechanism would clearly need to be in place to deal with the issue ofexceptions for individual facilities or in particular cases where the technical/environmentalcriteria may not be satisfied, however this would not necessarily disqualify the disposaltechnology itself.

Defining exactly what “commercially available” means required some clarification and exerciseof judgement. The working definition used for a “commercially available” technology was atechnology that is commercially viable, available on an industrial scale, and not significantlylimited in capacity by any factor or combination of factors. It was assumed that any process thathad been demonstrated on a commercial scale anywhere in the world was commercially availablefor the disposal of Canadian ODS surplus. Where a process was based on proprietary technologyit was assumed that it could be licensed for use in Canada. In cases where a commercial-scalefacility existed and had been tested on PCBs or other (non-ODS) chlorinated organics, it wasusually assumed that the technology could be applied to ODS, although professional judgementwas brought to bear on a case-by-case basis. As a minimum, pilot-scale testing had to have beenperformed in order for a technology to be considered commercially available. Bench-scaletesting, no matter how promising, was not felt to be enough to indicate the availability of atechnology in such a short time frame. In general, this mandatory criterion was interpretedconservatively in the sense that no technology would be excluded unless it was felt quite unlikelythat the technology would be available on a commercial scale by the year 2003. Where there wassome doubt, the technology was included and assessed, keeping in mind that commercialavailability was also a ranking criterion in the further commercial/economic evaluation.


The technologies that passed the mandatory screening criteria for technical performance,environmental protection, and commercial availability are listed below. Technologies weregrouped into three categories: Plasma, Incineration, and Other technologies: It is important tonote that plasma technologies typically involve inert atmospheres such as argon, thus, althoughthey involve thermal destruction, they do not result in oxidation, which limits the potentialproduction of dioxins and furans. Plasma technologies are therefore not considered to beincineration technologies.

Plasma Technologies (non-incineration)� Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency (ICRF)� Argon• Alternating Current (AC)

Incineration Technologies� High Performance� Liquid Injection� Rotary Kiln� Gas/Fume� Internally Circulated Fluidized Bed (ICFB)� Cement Kiln• Reactor Cracking

Other Non-Incineration Technologies� Solvated Electron� UV Photolysis� Gas Phase Chemical Reduction� Catalytic Dehalogenation� Liquid Phase Chemical Conversion• Vitrification

As a result of this screening process 16 technologies out of the 42 technologies considered were found to satisfy the minimum requirements of technical performance and commercialavailability. These included 7 established incineration technologies and 9 non-incinerationtechnologies: 3 plasma technologies and 6 other non-incineration technologies. These 16commercially available technologies were further evaluated on the basis oftechnical/environmental criteria, and economic/commercial criteria (Sections 3.3 and 3.4).

3.3 Technical/Environmental EvaluationA Kepner-Tregoe decision matrix was applied to the evaluation and ranking of commerciallyavailable technologies using a number of technical and environmental criteria and associatedranking values to assign total numerical scores to each technology. The set of criteria used toevaluate the qualifying destruction technologies with respect to their environmental/technicalconcerns are listed in Table 1 along with the weighting factors used in the technology


evaluations. Also included in Table 1 are the guidelines used to generate numerical scores foreach criterion. The criteria and the ranking values were developed in consultation withEnvironment Canada as well as with members of the Expert Review Committee and theStakeholder Working Group.

The purpose of the selected ranking process is to provide a framework for evaluating andprioritizing commercially available ODS disposal technologies in the context of the disposal ofsurplus ODS in Canada on the basis of environmental and technical criteria. The focus of theevaluation is on the avoidance or minimization of environmental impacts. Although the intent isto provide a quantitative tool that would allow any objective and well-informed party to apply thetool and result in the same outcomes, some degree of subjective interpretation in the applicationof the tool is inevitable. Throughout the evaluation, where data were estimated, the applicableassumptions and lines of reasoning are clearly stated.

Table 1 Evaluation Criteria, Weighting Factors, and Scoring

Criteria Weight Scoring

Destruction Efficiency 50% 10 = 99.9999%0 = 99.7% (Interval values calculated on a logarithmicscale)

Emissions of dioxins and furans[Toxic Equivalent PCDD/PCDF]

15% 10 ≤ 0.01 ng/m3

0 = 0.1 ng/m3

(Interval values calculated on a logarithmicscale)

Release of other gaseous emissions (NOx,SOx, VOCs, etc.), or generation of liquidwastes and/or solid residues (e.g., salts)

15% 10 = No emissions or waste8 = Minimal emissions or waste5 = Minor emissions or waste3 = Moderate emissions or waste1 = Significant hazardous emissions or waste

Energy consumption 10% 10 = Lowest 0 = Highest (Interval values interpolated linearly)

Chemical recovery 10% 10 = Chemical recovery1 = No chemical recovery

Destruction efficiency was an important issue in the examinations of ODS destructiontechnologies by the UNEP Technical Advisory Committee (UNEP 1992, 1995). Besides thestandard established as a mandatory criterion in the screening assessment, the disposaltechnology destruction efficiency criterion was also given very significant weighting (50%) inthis technical/environmental evaluation. The 1992 UNEP report described a destructionefficiency standard of at least 99.99% as “readily achievable in well-designed and operateddestruction facilities.” Furthermore, it stated that this standard “strikes a balance betweenveryhigh efficiency (!99.9999%) destruction facilities available to a limited market, and highefficiency (!99.99%) facilities available to a majority of the potential world market.” (UNEP


1992) As discussed above, however, there is also a balance between destruction efficiency andother issues such as environmental impact, commercial availability, cost and practicality. Technologies with less than 99.99% destruction efficiency were therefore also considered.2

Clearly, technologies used to dispose of ODS should have as high a destruction efficiency as ispractical in order to minimize ultimate atmospheric emissions of ODS. Ranking scores wereestablished based on the range of destruction efficiencies found for the technologies reviewed. The technology with the lowest destruction efficiency received a scoring value of zero, and thehighest a value of ten. Interval scores were assigned according to a logarithmic formula todiscriminate between high efficiency and very high efficiency technologies. Destructionefficiency for incineration technologies was assumed to be 99.99% unless specific informationindicated otherwise, since it appeared clear that this efficiency level could be obtained as aminimum for well-operated incineration facilities.3

The dioxins/furans criterion was also used both as a mandatory criterion in the screeningassessment [≤ 0.1 ng/m3 (TEQ)]. Its inclusion as a criterion in the furtherenvironmental/technical ranking allowed for a higher ranking evaluation for disposaltechnologies that have minimal or no such emissions associated with their operations. A score often was assigned to technologies that release no more than 0.01 ng/m3 TEQ PCDD/PCDF, whiletechnologies that just met the mandatory criterion of 0.1 ng/m3 received a value of zero. Intervalvalues were calculated according to a logarithmic formula to further emphasize the weightingtowards technologies with near-zero emissions. This criterion was assigned a weighting factor of15%. Dioxin/furan production for the various incineration technologies was estimated to be 0.1ng/m3 unless specific test data or a line of reasoning based on a knowledge of the processindicated otherwise.4

The destruction of ODS typically results in a variety of chemical by-products that maythemselves become issues of concern if released to the environment. Different ODS disposaltechnologies produce different by-products, such as acid gases, greenhouse gases (GHGs) and/orhalide salts. A criterion was included to favour those technologies that avoid generatingemissions or wastes that may be toxic or may present significant issues in terms of atmosphericemissions or of waste management. The scoring for this criterion was based the production of“no emissions or waste” to “significant hazardous emissions or waste.” The criterion necessarilyinvolved subjective interpretation, and was meant to differentiate between technologies on thebasis of the production of by-products, rather than to establish a rigorous framework to assignabsolute values. This criterion was assigned a weighting factor of 15%.

2 It should be noted that the lowest destruction efficiency for the commercially available technologies identified was99.7%. Thus, although lower DE would have been considered, it turned out not to be an issue in practice.

3 Destruction efficiencies for PCBs of up to 99.999999% (eight nines) have been reported by Bovar’s Swan Hillsfacility (Ian Glew, Bovar; personal communication).

4 Two major incineration facilities in Canada have reported minimal (0.01 ng/m3 to non-detection) emissions ofdioxins/furans for the incineration of PCBs, and it is reasonable that similar results could be obtained, at least forthese types of highly-sophisticated incinerators (Edrienne Turner, Bovar; Jan Sterman, MRR; personalcommunications).


Two final criteria were assigned weighting factors of 10%, as it was felt that some considerationshould be given to favouring ODS disposal technologies associated with low energyconsumption and with the recovery of useful chemical products. Energy consumption wasscored with the lowest energy consuming technology receiving a value of 10 and the lowestreceiving a value of 0; the others linearly interpolated between these extremes. The chemicalconversion criterion gave full weight to any technology that produced a significant quantity of auseful and marketable by-product as a result of disposing of ODS through chemical conversion.

Table 2 summarizes the raw data used to evaluate the technologies according to theenvironmental and technical criteria, along with notes identifying the source of the data and/oridentifying estimates/assumptions that were used to determine individual values.

Table 3 summarizes the unweighted evaluation scores for each criteria. Scores were assigned tothe data summarized in Table 2 according to the matrix described in Table 1. By reading downalong the columns, Table 3 allows the evaluation scores for individual criteria for eachtechnology to be compared.

Table 4 lists the overall technology ranking scores resulting from the addition of all weightedevaluation scores for each technical evaluation criterion, with the total then converted in order tobe expressed as a value out of 100.


Table 2: Technical Data for the Evaluation of ODS Destruction TechnologiesTechnology Destruction

Efficiency(%)

Dioxins& furans(ng/m3)

OtherEffluents

EnergyConsumption(KWh/kg CFC)

ChemicalRecovery

IncinerationNote Note Note

High Performance 99.99990 2 0.100 1 salt/GHG 1.71 10 NoLiquid Injection 99.99000 1 0.100 1 salt/GHG 1.30 11 NoRotary Kiln 99.99000 1 0.100 1 salt/GHG 1.54 12 NoGas/Fume 99.99000 1 0.100 1 salt/GHG 1.30 12 NoICFB 99.99900 2 0.100 1 salt/GHG 1.30 12 NoCement Kiln 99.99000 1 0.100 1 GHG 1.86 13 NoReactor Cracking 99.99900 2 0.100 2 wastewater 1.55 2 YesPlasma (non-incineration)IC RF 99.99000 2 0.025 2 salt 3.70 14 NoArgon 99.99990 2 0.025 2 salt 2.30 NoAC 99.99000 10 0.025 5 salt 2.10 15 NoOther (non-incineration)Solvated Electron 99.99000 2 0.010 4 salt 10.00 16 NoUV Photolysis 99.90000 2 0.010 4 spent liners 10.00 6 NoGas Phase Chem Red 99.99990 3 0.060 2 salt 1.38 7 NoCatalytic Dehalogenation 99.99900 3 0.010 4 salt 0.79 8 NoLiquid Phase Chem Conv 99.70000 2 0.010 4 salt 3.00 2 NoVitrification 99.99990 2 0.100 9 glass frit 4.88 2 No Comments:(1) Typical for conventional incineration(2) Reported data(3) Data reported for PCB; expect similar for CFC(4) Claimed and expected to be near zero because lowprocess temperature(5) Assumed similar to IC RF plasma(6) One expert estimated much higher value(7) Estimated: high temperature but fuel recovered(8) Estimated: moderate temperature

(9) Assumed could limit to acceptable level(10) Operator reported lower value; adjusted as perexpert comment(11) Reported by expert for co-incineration(12) Assumed similar to liquid injection(13) Adjusted for 1400 C operation(14) Reported and adjusted per Plascon cooling(15) Estimated using 90% efficiency(16) One reported value much higher


Table 3 Unweighted Scores: Technical / Environmental CriteriaTechnology Destruction

EfficiencyDioxins

& furansOther

EffluentsEnergy

ConsumptionChemicalRecovery

Weighting factor 50% 15% 15% 10% 10%

IncinerationHigh Performance 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.90 0.10Liquid Injection 2.12 0.00 0.45 0.94 0.10Rotary Kiln 2.12 0.00 0.45 0.92 0.10Gas/Fume 2.12 0.00 0.45 0.94 0.10ICFB 3.56 0.00 0.45 0.94 0.10Cement Kiln 2.12 0.00 0.75 0.88 0.10Reactor Cracking 3.56 0.00 1.20 0.92 1.00

Plasma (non-incineration)IC RF 2.12 0.90 0.75 0.68 0.10Argon 5.00 0.90 0.75 0.84 0.10AC 2.12 0.90 0.00 0.86 0.00

Other (non-incineration)Solvated Electron 2.12 1.50 0.75 0.00 0.10UV Photolysis 0.69 1.50 0.75 0.00 0.10Gas Phase Chem Red 5.00 0.33 0.75 0.94 0.10Catalytic Dehalogenation 3.56 1.50 0.75 1.00 0.10Liquid Phase Chem Conv 0.00 1.50 0.75 0.76 0.10Vitrification 5.00 0.00 1.20 0.56 0.10


Table 4 Technical / Environmental Ranking of ODS Disposal TechnologiesTechnologies Rank Evaluation Score

Argon Plasma 1 76Gas Phase Chemical Reduction 2 71Catalytic Dehalogenation 3 69Vitrification 4 69Reactor Cracking 5 67High Performance Incineration 6 65ICFB Incineration 7 51IC RF Plasma 8 46Solvated Electron 9 45AC Plasma 10 39Cement Kiln Incineration 11 39Liquid Injection Incineration 12 36Gas/Fume Incineration 13 36Rotary Kiln Incineration 14 36Liquid Phase Chemical Conversion 15 31UV Photolysis 16 30

It should be noted that this ranking of destruction technologies is not intended to disqualify oreliminate technologies at the lower end of the list from further consideration. All of thesetechnologies satisfy the minimum performance requirements identified in the screeningassessment. The ranking does however identify those technologies which best satisfy theenvironmental and technical criteria deemed most desirable for ODS destruction technologies. Of the top six technologies it is interesting to note that two represent existing facilities in Canadaand four represent technologies available commercially in other countries (two in the U.S., oneprimarily in Germany, and one in Australia). The foreign technologies could potentially belicensed for construction of facilities in Canada, or alternatively consideration could be given toexporting ODS for destruction.

3.4 Commercial/Economic EvaluationA Kepner-Tregoe decision matrix was also applied to the evaluation and ranking ofcommercially available technologies using commercial and economic criteria and associatedranking values to assign total numerical scores to each technology. The set of criteria used toevaluate the qualifying disposal technologies are listed in Table 5 along with the weightingfactors used. Also included in Table 5 are guidelines used to generate score values for eachcriterion. As with the environmental and technical criteria, these criteria and the ranking valueswere developed in consultation with Environment Canada as well as with members of the Expert


Review Committee and the Stakeholder Working Group. The purpose of the selected rankingprocess is to provide up-to-date information on ODS disposal technologies with a focus ondisposal cost and availability issues.

This analysis was based on the available information and the best judgement of the chemicalengineers who were members of the project team, in consultation with industry, government andacademic experts. It should be emphasized that a detailed and rigorous cost analysis for eachtechnology was well beyond the scope of this project. The information provides an informedestimate of the relative and absolute costs involved in the selected ODS disposal technologies. Although the intent is to provide a quantitative tool that would allow any objective and well-informed party to apply the tool and result in the same outcomes, some degree of subjectiveinterpretation in the application of the tool is inevitable. As noted earlier, costs are expressed inCanadian dollars (year 2000).

Table 5 Evaluation Criteria, Weighting Factors, and ScoringCriteria Weight ScoringCost of disposal[Capital, fixed, variable,maintenance costs amortized over10 years.]

60% 10 = $2.50/kg1 = $11.00/kg (Interval values calculated on an arithmetic scale)

Commercial availability 30% 10 = Commercial-scale facility available (significantcapacity)7 = Commercial-scale facility available (limitedcapacity)5 = Commercial-scale facility available (up-graderequired)3 = Pilot facility in place, commercial facility planned1 = Commercial-scale facility planned

Geographic availability 10% 10 = Available in Canada5 = Available in U.S.1 = Not available in North America

Although no minimal mandatory criterion for cost was established in the screening assessment,in practice cost will likely be one of the most important criteria determining whether, howquickly, and how efficiently stakeholders will act to collect and dispose of ODS surplus inCanada. As a result, in the current evaluation cost was given a very significant weighting valueof 60%. Ranking scores were established based on the range of costs for the technologiesreviewed, with the most expensive receiving a value of 1 and the least expensive a value of 10. Interval values were calculated according to a linear (arithmetic) formula.

As with the destruction efficiency and the dioxins/furans criteria, commercial availability wasused both as a mandatory criterion in the screening assessment and as a ranking criterion in thefurther analysis. Given that the technologies considered are expected to be commercially


available for the disposal of Canadian surplus ODS by the year 2003, there remains a good dealof variability in terms of what “commercially available” means. Technologies for whichcommercial-scale operations exist and are currently in operation were scored higher thantechnologies that had only been proven to work in pilot-scale tests and where commercialfacilities were planned subject to market conditions. Some subjective interpretation was requiredin order to assess the varying degrees of commercial availability; the process engineeringexperience of members of the project team from both Cantox Environmental Inc and from thePioneer Technology Centre was relied upon to make reasonable judgement in the assigning ofscores. Scores for this criterion had a 30% weighting factor.

The final criterion of geographic availability was assigned a weighting factor of 10% as it wasfelt that some consideration should be given to favouring ODS disposal technologies associatedwith convenient geographic availability. Technologies available in Canada received full scores,those available in the U.S. received half scores, and values of zero were assigned to technologiescurrently located overseas.

Table 6 summarizes the raw data used to evaluate the technologies according to the commercialand economic criteria, along with notes identifying the source of the data and/or identifyingestimates/assumptions that were used to determine individual values.

Table 7 summarizes the unweighted evaluation scores for each criteria. Scores were assigned tothe data summarized in Table 6 according to the matrix described in Table 5. Reading downalong the columns Table 7 thus allows the evaluation scores for individual criteria for eachtechnology to be compared.

Table 8 lists the overall ranking scores resulting from the addition of all weighted evaluationscores for each evaluation criterion, with the total then converted in order to be expressed as avalue out of 100.

In most cases, direct cost information provided by destruction facility operators or technologysuppliers was used, however these data can not be considered to be necessarily precise. Costsprovided by destruction facility operators tended to be all inclusive and generally made someallowance for operating overheads, waste disposal and depreciating capital costs. Estimates fornew technologies tend to be optimistic, especially where there is limited operating experience,and they often include only direct operating costs. However, the operating costs for mostdestruction technologies are relatively high compared with the limited capital costs indicated, sothe overall destruction cost will be most heavily influenced by operating costs.

Based on available cost estimates, destruction costs for incineration were assumed to be of theorder of $5/kg on average, i.e., in the medium-to-high range for ODS disposal technologies,unless other specific information suggested otherwise. It should be noted that incineration costshave decreased significantly over the past ten years, and average costs could well be lower thanthis estimated value. The cost estimate for the Cement Kiln Incinerator process is anapproximate assumption of average operating costs given the fairly large range expected fromone facility to another. Similarly, the operating cost figure for the Gas Phase ChemicalReduction technology ($10/kg) was a conservatively high estimate based on an understanding ofthe details of the process.


Table 6 Commercial and Economic Data for ODS Disposal TechnologiesTechnology Destruction Cost Commercial Availability Geographic Location Incineration Note Note

High Performance 4.00 13 Commercial 12 CanadaLiquid Injection 3.50 2 Commercial 6 USARotary Kiln 3.50 2 Commercial 6 USAGas/Fume 3.50 2 Commercial 6 USAICFB 3.50 2 Demo 7 JapanCement Kiln 3.25 3 Commercial 6 USAReactor Cracking 3.75 1 Commercial 6 Germany Plasma (non-incineration)IC RF 2.50 1 Demo 8 JapanArgon 2.75 1 Commercial 6 AustraliaAC 2.50 4 Condition 11 USA Other (non-incineration)Solvated Electron 11.00 1 Condition 9 USAUV Photolysis 11.00 1 Limited 10 USAGas Phase Chem Red 6.00 5 Condition 11 CanadaCatalytic Dehalogenation 3.60 5 Commercial 6 USA/Can?Liquid Phase Chemical Conversion 4.00 14 Condition 11 CanadaVitrification 3.80 1 Condition 11 USA Comments:(1) Reported data(2) Typical for incineration (pers communic)(3) Estimated; expected to be lower than other types ofincinerators(4) Estimated based on reported Argon costs(5) Estimated based on process temperature and complexity(6) Commercial operation established(7) Demonstrated on ODS in commercial-scale field trial

(8) Demonstrated on commercial scale in 35-month field trial(9) Commercial operation but not with ODS; proven with ODS onpilot scale(10) Proven with ODS on pilot scale(11) Commercial operation but not with ODS(12) Commercial operation; readily upgradable to handle ODS(13) Estimated; conventional cost adjusted for high performance(14) Claimed competitive with incineration


Table 7 Unweighted Scores: Commercial & Economic CriteriaTechnology Cost Commercial Availability Geographic LocationWeighting factor 60% 30% 10% IncinerationHigh Performance 4.94 2.70 1.00Liquid Injection 5.29 3.00 0.50Rotary Kiln 5.29 3.00 0.75Gas/Fume 5.29 3.00 0.50ICFB 5.29 1.20 0.10Cement Kiln 5.47 3.00 0.50Reactor Cracking 5.12 3.00 0.10 Plasma (non-incineration)IC RF 6.00 1.50 0.10Argon 5.82 3.00 0.10AC 6.00 1.50 0.50 Other (non-incineration)Solvated Electron 0.00 2.40 0.50UV Photolysis 0.00 0.90 0.50Gas Phase Chem Red 3.53 2.40 1.00Catalytic Dehalogenation 5.22 2.40 0.75Liquid Phase Chem Conv 4.94 2.40 1.00Vitrification 5.08 2.40 0.50


Table 8 Commercial/Economic Ranking of ODS Disposal TechnologiesTechnology Rank Evaluation Score

Cement Kiln Incineration 1 90Argon Plasma 2 89Rotary Kiln Incineration 3 88Liquid Injection Incineration 4 88Gas/Fume Incineration 5 88High Performance Incineration 6 86Catalytic Dehalogenation 7 84Liquid Phase Chem Conv 8 83Reactor Cracking 9 82AC Plasma 10 80Vitrification 11 80IC RF Plasma 12 76Gas Phase Chem Red 13 69ICFB Incineration 14 66Solvated Electron 15 29UV Photolysis 16 14

Unlike the environmental/technical ranking, this commercial ranking is not intended to addressissues as to which is a “better” technology. Non-economic issues could suggest that technologiesnear the bottom of this ranked list might be more appropriate than others that scored higher. Should this be the case, the value of the above exercise would be to identify potential economicbarriers to such a technology selection. Again, the purpose of this exercise is to provideregulators and stakeholders with current information regarding the commercial and economicissues associated with available ODS disposal technologies. All of these technologies satisfy theminimum requirements of technical performance and commercial availability. However, a fewtechnologies score very low compared to most others and it is unlikely these would be pursuedseriously.

The selection of a disposal technology will be made by stakeholders based on criteria judged tobe important to them, and such criteria may not align with those used in this evaluation. However, disposal costs will likely dominate any commercial evaluation of technologies, as itdoes in this evaluation.


4.0 STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION & REGULATORY ISSUES

4.1 Overview & Applicable RegulationsIn Australia, where a significant amount of surplus halon has already been collected anddestroyed over the past few years, all handling, transportation, labelling and containerrequirements are covered by various national and state Standards. Procedures for handlingrecovered product are not substantially different than those for virgin material; thus, there are nosignificant or special barriers to the handling and transportation of ODS for recycling or fordestruction. [See Australian contacts in Appendices B & C].

In the U.S., the handling and transport of ODS is controlled by national (as opposed to state) legislation, and requirements are described in Sections 608 and 609 of the U.S. Clean Air Act. [See U.S. contacts in Appendices B & C; helpful U.S. EPA contacts are, for section 608, JuliusBanks (202) 564-9870, and for section 609, Lars Wilcut (202) 564-2411.]

Regulations applicable to the handling of ODS in Canada depend upon whether or not it isconsidered surplus, (i.e., whether or not it is considered to be hazardous waste) and whetherprovincial or national borders are crossed in the case of transportation. The designation ashazardous waste is a critical key issue, since this typically triggers a series of complex handlingand manifesting requirements under federal and/or provincial regulations.

Although it is important to distinguish between virgin and used material, in practice the keydistinction is between ODS that is still a viable product in the commercial market and ODS thatis considered surplus. A more precise definition of the former may be found in the RegulationsRespecting The Handling, Offering For Transport And Transporting Of Dangerous Goods (theTDGR), where waste specifically does not refer to “a product, substance or organism that is […]returned directly to a manufacturer or supplier of the product, substance or organism forreprocessing, repackaging or resale, including a product, substance or organism that is [either]defective or otherwise not usable for the original purpose, or in surplus quantities but still usablefor its original purpose.” (Environment Canada 1992)

In general, the ODS that is not considered hazardous waste or that is exempted from hazardouswaste regulations may be handled, shipped, and used following typical commercial practices; theonly restrictions apply to shipping outside of Canada, in which case the 1998 Ozone-DepletingSubstances Regulations and Federal Halocarbon Regulations (as well as the TDGR), wouldapply. The first two regulations prohibit the export and import of virgin ODS for sale and use, aswell as the import of reclaimed/recycled ODS; the latter, however, may be exported for sale andre-use provided the appropriate permit is obtained. Exports of ODS for the purposes ofdestruction is permitted provided appropriate manifesting and control.

There are currently no restrictions in Canada on the refilling of equipment such as refrigerationunits, air conditioning units, and fire extinguishing systems with appropriate CFCs or halons,with the exception of the refilling of automotive air conditioning systems, which is restrictedunder provincial legislation in several provinces. Canada’s Proposed Strategy to Accelerate the


Phasing-Out of Uses of CFCs and Halons and to Dispose of the Surplus Stocks was released bythe Federal-Provincial Working Group on Controls Harmonization (Ozone-DepletingSubstances) in January, 2000, and national consultations were conducted in February and March. The proposal is to be submitted to the CCME in the summer of 2000. This initiative may lead to provincial legislation restricting the refill of such equipment with CFCs and halons in the nearfuture. Once refill is prohibited, significant quantities of ODS in Canada will become surplus,since it can no longer be used for its intended purpose.

Besides virgin material for which there may no longer be a commercial or permitted use,therefore, there are two main categories of ODS waste:

• waste destined for recycling, i.e., ODS that has impurities that, once removed or treated insome way, can be used in the originally intended application, or some other application; and,

• waste destined for disposal.

Assuming neither is categorized as a hazardous waste under federal or provincial regulations, theformer may be handled and shipped to permitted ODS recyclers, and the latter may be handledand shipped to permitted disposal facilities following appropriate procedures described below[i.e., in the case of compressed gases, the TDGR would apply].

Once ODS is considered surplus, it becomes hazardous waste by definition. That is, once there isno longer a market for a virgin or used CFC or halon material, and no further possibility existsfor reclaiming, recycling, or reusing the ODS, and it can not be exported for such purposes or forany other purpose than for destruction, it is automatically considered a controlled substance and ahazardous waste. ODS that is moved from one company to another, or shipped for use in anotherapplication, is not considered hazardous waste as long as nothing had to be done to treat it ormodify in some way.

Once a substance is considered a hazardous waste, either provincial or federal regulations (orboth) control its transport and handling, including detailed manifesting provisions. Manifestingand regulations applicable to the transport of hazardous waste differ depending on whetherborders are crossed, and depending upon which borders are crossed, i.e., whether they areprovincial or national. If the substance is shipped outside Canada, Environment Canada’sTransboundary Movement Division is the regulating authority, and the transport and handling ofthe substance is regulated by the Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes Regulations underCEPA legislation (Environment Canada 1992). If a provincial boundary is crossed, this activityfalls under the interprovincial responsibilities of Transport Canada , i.e., transport and handlingwould be controlled by the Regulations Respecting The Handling, Offering For Transport AndTransporting Of Dangerous Goods (the TDGR). If movement is limited entirely within oneprovince, then the province in question has sole jurisdiction and only provincial regulationsapply. All of these regulations describe a complex series of prescriptions for controlling thehandling, storage, and transportation of hazardous wastes, including detailed manifestingprovisions.


Table 9 lists federal and provincial contact persons who may be of help in determining whetherand which hazardous waste regulations apply in individual cases. Another helpful contact in theTransboundary Movement Division of Environment Canada is Suzanne Leppinnen, ProgramEngineer (819) 953-3378 [[email protected]].

Betty Smith (Chair)Ontario

(416) 314-7917 (416) 314-9411 [email protected]

Rob DalrympleBritish Columbia

(250) 356-9973 (250) 953-3856 [email protected]

John HendersonNova Scotia

(902) 424-2536 (902) 424-0503 [email protected]

Simone GodinNew Brunswick

(506) 453-3855 (506) 453-2390 [email protected]

Toby MatthewsNewfoundland

(709) 729-5793 (709) 729-6969 [email protected]

Glenda MacKinnon-PetersPrince Edward Island

(902) 368-5047 (902) 368-5830 [email protected]

Benoît NadeauQuebec

(418) 521-3950ext. 4955

(418) 644 3386. [email protected]

Marc PedneaultQuebec

(418) 521-3950ext. 4963

(418) 644 3386. [email protected]

John MyslickiCanada

(819) 953-1390 (819) 997-3068 [email protected]

Joe WittwerCanada

(819) 953-2171 (819) 997-3068 [email protected]

Don LabossièreManitoba

(204) 945-7094 (204) 948-2420 [email protected]

Tony FernandesAlberta

(780) 427-0636 (780) 422-4192 [email protected]

Roger HodgesSaskatchewan

(306) 787-9301 (306) 787-0197 [email protected]

Bryan LeviaYukon

(867) 667-3436 (867) 393-6205 [email protected]

Ken HallNorthwest Territories

(867) 920-6476 (867) 873-0221 [email protected]

Robert EnoNunavut

(867) 975-5907 (867) 975-5982 [email protected]

Diane KunecCCME

(204) 948-2757 (204) 948-2125 [email protected]

Table 9 Hazardous Waste Task Group MembersName Phone Fax E-Mail


It is important to note that a substance may be considered a hazardous waste under provincialregulations even though it is not considered a hazardous waste under national regulations. Forexample, in Ontario, used R-11 and R-12 are both considered hazardous waste (under Regulation347) even if they may be reclaimed and recycled for further commercial use. However, if the R-11 or R-12 material is to be 100% recycled, or sent to a wholesaler who intends to collect theODS and send it to a recycler or to a hazardous waste disposal facility, the material is exemptedfrom hazardous waste regulations and can be transported relatively simply (following basicprocedures described in the TDGR, discussed below). This exemption therefore provides animportant mechanism allowing stakeholders to handle and transport surplus and reclaimableODS without having to face burdensome handling and manifesting procedures.

Most provincial manifesting follows quite closely the procedures used by Environment Canada’sTransboundary Movement Division, although some provinces have certain specific exemptionsor special provisions, as just described. In practice, the environmental aspects of interprovincialmovement of dangerous goods is handled by Environment Canada, and the new CEPA will infact transfer this area of responsibility from Transport Canada to Environment Canada. Transport Canada (i.e., the TDGR) will remain responsible for details such as packagingprotocols, labelling, etc. In terms of tracking or maintaining an inventory of hazardous wastemovement, provinces are responsible as long as this movement is within Canada, and thisinformation is available on the inter-provincial manifests applicable for each shipment. Information on the ultimate disposal of the material would be obtained from the destructionfacility, and this activity falls under provincial jurisdiction. For transportation outside of Canadafor the purposes of destruction, as noted, the Transboundary Movement Division of EnvironmentCanada is the regulating authority, and an export permit is required. Environment Canada isresponsible for contacting their international counterparts (e.g., in the U.S. EPA) to ensure thatthere is an ultimate and acceptable destination for the wastes, and will also insist on receiving acertificate of disposal to ensure that the material reached its destination and was destroyed.

4.2 Storage, Handling and Transportation4.2.1 Overview

This section discusses the requirements applicable to CFCs and halons in Canada for substancesthat are not considered hazardous wastes, or that are exempt from hazardous waste regulationsfor the purpose of transport for recycling, reclaiming, or disposal. In general, stakeholderfeedback has indicated that if ODS is considered as a hazardous waste, the required handling andmanifesting procedures would create a significant barrier to the collection and destruction ofsurplus ODS in Canada. Unless some exemption mechanism is provided to allow stakeholdersto store and ship ODS to collection facilities without having to satisfy requirements normallyapplicable to the handling of hazardous waste (as is the case in Ontario for R-11 and R-12, forexample), a collection program may not work in practice.


As stated above, handling procedures, and in particular manifesting requirements, for ODS that isconsidered hazardous waste are complex, and these cannot be covered in detail within the scopeof this document. The reader is advised to consult Table 9 for a list of provincial and federalcontacts for further information regarding regulations and procedures applicable to hazardouswastes.

Assuming the ODS is not a hazardous waste and will not cross international borders, handlingprocedures are relatively straightforward. The key regulations to consider are the RegulationsRespecting The Handling, Offering For Transport And Transporting Of Dangerous Goods (theTDGR), which are administered by Transport Canada. For the reader’s convenience, the variousregulations and documents most applicable to these issues are listed in Table 10.

Regulation/Document ReferenceCylinders, Spheres, and Tubes for the Transportation ofDangerous Goods

National Standard of CanadaCAN/CSA-B339-88

Environmental Code of Practice for Elimination ofFluorocarbon Emissions from Refrigeration and AirConditioning Systems

Environmental Protection Service, EnvironmentCanada. Report EPS 1/RA/2. March 1996.

Environmental Code of Practice on Halons Ozone Protection Programs Section, CommercialChemicals Evaluation Branch, EnvironmentCanada. www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/firecode.htm

Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes Regulations Environment Canada, Transboundary MovementDivision. SOR/92-637, November 12, 1992. www.ec.gc.ca/tmd/regs.htm

Federal Halocarbon Regulations Environment Canadawww.ec.gc.ca/ozone/fhr-rfh/english/index.htm

Ozone-depleting Substances Products Regulations. Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 129, No. 26(SOR/95-584). December 13, 1995.

Ozone-Depleting Substances Regulations Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 129, No. 26(SOR/95-576). December 7, 1995.

Packing for Transportation of Dangerous Goods inPrescribed Packagings

CGSB Provisional Standard 43-GP-152MP. (SeePart V of TDGR).

Regulations Respecting The Handling, Offering ForTransport And Transporting Of Dangerous Goods

Transport Canada 1999www.tc.gc.ca/Actsregs/TDG/english/part-i.html

The two major categories of ODS in this context are:

• low pressure CFCs that are liquids at room temperature (e.g., R-11, R-113, and R-123); and,

• high pressure CFCs and halons that are compressed gases at room temperature (e.g., theCFCs R-12, R-22, R-114, R-500, R-502, and the halons 1211 and 1301).

Table 10 Regulations & Documents Relevant to the Handling of Surplus ODS


The former category, that is the liquids, are not specifically controlled by the TDGR. Such ODSmay therefore be stored and handled in regular drums with adequate labelling as per normalcommercial practices (i.e., similar to the containers and labelling procedures used whenpurchasing the virgin or reclaimed product). They may be transported within Canada withoutany specific manifesting requirements, although normal record keeping procedures are requiredby the Ozone-Depleting Substances Regulations and the Federal Halocarbon Regulations. Thereader should also be aware of the recommended procedures for ODS handling, reporting,training of personnel, etc., that are contained in the Environmental Code of Practice forElimination of Fluorocarbon Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Systems andthe Environmental Code of Practice on Halons, both available from Environment Canada(Environment Canada 1996, 1997).

High pressure CFCs and halons are considered “dangerous goods” under the TDGR. Specifically, they are considered either Class 2.2 compressed gases (non-flammable, non-toxic)or Class 6.1 compressed gasses (non-flammable, toxic; e.g., chloroform). Virtually all ODScurrently in use are Class 2.2 compressed gases; Schedule II of the TDGR should be consulted toverify the classification in specific cases. The following discussion deals mainly with thestorage, handling and transport of Class 2.2 compressed gases. Stakeholders dealing with toxiccompressed gases in specific cases (i.e., Class 6.1 gases), should be aware of the existence ofconsiderably more stringent requirements for these substances.

4.2.2 Containers

The TDGR prescribe specific requirements for approved cylinders that may be used to containthe ODS, for labelling and for the training of personnel who will be handling the material.

Prior to 1992, cylinders used for compressed gases were considered acceptable if they wereapproved under either Canadian Transport Commission (CTC) or U.S. Department of Transport(DOT) regulations. After 1992, cylinders for such use had to be approved by Transport Canada(TC). Cylinders to be used to contain, store, and transport CFCs and halons that are compressedgases, therefore, must be TC-approved at the appropriate pressure rating. The pressure rating formost CFCs is typically 260-400 pounds per square inch (psi). In the case of R-13, cylinders mustbe TC-approved for use at 1800 psi (R-13 is a relatively rare refrigerant used for very lowtemperature refrigeration in special applications).

More specifically, the appropriate cylinders permitted to be used for the collection, storage, andtransportation of ODS in Canada must:

a) Be in conformance with the National Standard of Canada CAN/CSA-B339-88, Cylinders,Spheres, and Tubes for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods, dated February 1988 andamended January 1992 and February 1993; or,

b) Be cylinders where the initial test date of the cylinder or tube is December 31, 1992 or earlier.


Cylinders containing virgin CFCs must be tested and re-certified every 12 years. Used CFCsmay be highly corrosive, however, and cylinders containing these materials must be tested andre-certified every 5 years. The key issue for Canadian stakeholders is that cylinders that arealready filled with CFCs may be shipped to a recycling facility that is capable of de-gassing andre-certifying the cylinder, even if it is past the 5-year limit (in the case of used product) or 12-year limit (in the case of virgin material) for recertification. Cylinders that are out of date,however, may not be re-filled once they are emptied.

Stakeholders in Canada should be aware that in 1994, DuPont Canada initiated a successfulprogram to recover a significant portion of existing CFC stock previously sold. A large numberof cylinders were approved and made available for this purpose, and many of these are stillcurrently in use among Canadian ODS stakeholders. Technically, the permission of the originalowner of the cylinder is required in order for it to be used to collect and store or transport CFCs. However, in order to deal with liability issues, DuPont issued a recall of all of its cylinders; as aresult, it is now the responsibility of the company in possession of these cylinders to maintainand re-certify them.

In addition to the above, see Part V of the TDGR for various national standards, and particularlythe CGSB Provisional Standard 43-GP-152MP, Packing for Transportation of Dangerous Goodsin Prescribed Packagings, that apply to the packaging and containers used for the transport ofdangerous goods such as compressed gases. Further specifics concerning standards applicable tocontainers used for Class 2 gases may be found in section 7.32 of the TDGR. Schedule IX of theTDGR contains a list of standards applicable to packaging and containers for dangerous goods. Schedule VIII of the TDGR describes specific standards for the inner and outer packaging ofClass 2.2 compressed gases, and CFCs in particular.

4.2.3 Documentation, Labelling, Handling and Personnel Training Requirements

It should be noted that in general, many of the provisions in the TDGR applicable to poisonousgases also apply to corrosive gases such as used ODS.

Specific documentation for shipments of ODS that are compressed gases, as prescribed by theTDGR, varies depending on whether the shipment involves interprovincial or international bordercrossing. The appropriate section describing required documentation may be found in Part IV ofthe TDGR (see in particular sub-section 4.4, Dangerous Goods Other Than Waste).

For ODS that are compressed gases, requirements concerning safety marks, labelling, productidentification numbers (PINs) are described in Part V and in Schedule V of the TDGR, inparticular those sections applicable to dangerous goods in general and to corrosive gases. Seealso the CGSB Provisional Standard 43-GP-152MP, Packing for Transportation of DangerousGoods in Prescribed Packagings referred to in this section.


Detailed descriptions of handling procedures applicable to Class 2.2 compressed gases may befound in Parts VII and VIII of the TDGR, which cover the following items:

� Notification;� Emergency response assistance planning;� Preparation of means of containment;� Re-use of drums;� Discharge, emission or escape of dangerous goods from packages and small containers;� Handling, including loading procedures; and,� Standards applicable to containers.

Requirements for training for personnel handling dangerous goods is to be found in Part IX of theTDGR. This part also discusses reporting requirements in the case of accidental releases. It is tobe noted that Table 1 of this part of the TDGR indicates that immediate reporting of anyaccidental release of a Class 2.2 compressed gas is required only if a minimum of 100 L isreleased.


5.0 REFERENCES

Bickle, G.M., Suzuki, T., and Mitarai, Y. 1994. Catalytic Destruction of Chlorofluorocarbonsand Toxic Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. Applied Catalysis B, Environment 4(2):141-153. April27, 1994.

Brooks, B.R. 1996. Developing a UV Technology Having Multiple Applications Within DOEand DOD. In: American Nuclear Society. Spectrum '96: Proceedings of the 6th InternationalTopical Meeting on Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Management, Seattle, WA. AmericanNuclear Society, La Grange, Park, IL, Vol. 1:305-310. August 18-23, 1996.

Burdeniuc, J., and Crabtree, R.H. 1996. Mineralization of Chlorofluorocarbons andAromatization of Saturated Fluorocarbons by a Convenient Thermal Process. Science271(5247):340-341. January 19, 1996

Cabot, P.L., Centelles, M., Segarra, L., and Casado, J. 1997. Palladium-AssistedElectrodehalogenation of 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- Trifluoroethane on Lead Cathodes CombinedWith Hydrogen Diffusion Anodes. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 144(11):3749-3757. November 1997.

Canada Gazette 1995a. Ozone-depleting Substances Regulations. Canada Gazette Part II, Vol.129, No. 26 (SOR/95-576). December 7, 1995.

Canada Gazette 1995b. Ozone-depleting Substances Products Regulations. Canada Gazette PartII, Vol. 129, No. 26 (SOR/95-584). December 13, 1995.

CCME 1998. National Action Plan for the Environmental Control of Ozone-DepletingSubstances (ODS) and their Halocarbon Alternatives. Canadian Council of Ministers of theEnvironment. Prepared by the Federal Provincial Working Group on Controls Harmonization(ODS). CCME PN 1291. January 1998. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/nap-pan/nap_e.htm

CCME 1997. National Air Issues Coordinating Committee (NAICC) Meeting, Federal-Provincial Working Group on Controls Harmonization (Ozone Depleting Substances). Victoria,BC. February 3-4, 1997.

CCME 1995. Strengthening Canada’s Ozone Layer Protection Program: Recommendations toStrengthen Canada’s Ozone Layer Protection Program. Federal-Provincial Working Group onControls Harmonization (Ozone Depleting Substances). May 1995.

Chemical Engineer 1994. Lanstar Cracks CFC Waste Problem. The Chemical Engineer(Bulletin of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, 566:5; no author attributed). 1994.

CSA 1988. Cylinders, Spheres, and Tubes for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods. CanadianStandards Association. National Standard of Canada CAN/CSA-B339-88.


Dufaux, D.P., and Zachariah, M.R. 1997. Aerosol Mineralization of Chloroflurocarbons bySodium Vapor Reduction. Environmental Science & Technology 31(8):2223-2228. August,1997.

Environment Canada 1999. Strategy to Accelerate the Phasing Out of Uses of CFCs and Halonsand Dispose of the Surplus Stocks. Federal-Provincial Working Group on ControlsHarmonization (ODS). Environment Canada. January 19, 2000.www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/tocnews.htm

Environment Canada 1998. Options for the Management of Surplus Ozone-DepletingSubstances in Canada. Prepared by Shapiro & Associates (project # K2218-7-0027). June 11,1998.

Environment Canada 1997. Environmental Code of Practice on Halons. Ozone ProtectionPrograms Section, Commercial Chemicals Evaluation Branch. www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/firecode.htm

Environment Canada 1996. Environmental Code of Practice for Elimination of FluorocarbonEmissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Systems. Environmental Protection Service,Environment Canada. Report EPS 1/RA/2. March 1996.

Environment Canada 1992. Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes Regulations. Transboundary Movement Division. SOR/92-637, November 12, 1992. www.ec.gc.ca/tmd/regs.htm

Farmer, A.J.D. 1998. PLASCON(TM): A Thermal Plasma Process for Destruction of Halon1211. In: IEEE. 25th Anniversary: IEEE Conference Record--Abstracts: 1998 IEEEInternational Conference on Plasma Science. (25th IEEE International Conference on PlasmaScience, June 1-4, 1998, Raleigh, CA) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),Piscataway, NJ, pp. 290 (Abstract No. 6P65). June, 1998.

Friedl, C. 1994. The Disposal of Used FCKW is Unsolved (Entsorgung von alt-FCKW istungeloest). VDI-Nachrichten (Verein Deutscher Ingenieure Nachrichten) 6:19-end. 1994.

Hug, R.S. 1993. Vernichtung von FCKW unter Rueckgewinnung von Fluss- and Salzsaeure. [Destruction of Fluorochlorohydrocarbons With Recovery of Hydrofluoric Acid andHydrochloric Acid After Cessation of FCHC Production.] Chemie Ingenieur Technik 65(4):430,432-433. 1993.

Hug, R.S. 1995. Thermisches Spaltverfahren zur Vernichtung vonFluorchlorkohlevwasserstoffen: Konzept einer ruckstandsarmen Kreislaufwirtschaft. [ThermalSplitting Process for the Decomposition of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons: Concept for Low ResidueProduct Circulation] Pharmazeutische Industrie 57(12):1029-1032. 1995.

Ivanov, O.A., Akhmedzhanov, R.A., and Ivanova, L.S. 1999. Evolution of the Products ofDestruction of an Admixture of Freon-113 in Air Under the Effect of Nanosecond Corona andMicrowave Discharges. High Temperature (Teplofizika Vysokikh Temperatur) 37(5):771-778. 1999.


Martin, R.S., Garrison, K.E., Manahan, S.E., Morris, J.S., and Larsen, D.W. 1999. Destructionof Chlorofluorocarbons During Chemchar Gasification. Journal of Environmental Science andHealth (Part A - Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering) A34(4):795-807. 1999.

McBrayer, R.N., and Griffith, J.W. Turn Off the Heat: First Commercial Supercritical WaterOxidation System Destroys a Petrochemical Company’s Waste Less Expensively ThanIncineration. Industrial Wastewater. July/August 1996.

NATO 1988. Scientific Basis for the Development of International Toxicity Equivalency Factor(I-TEF), Method of Risk Assessment for Risk Assessment of Complex Mixtures of Dioxins andRelated Compounds. North Atlantic Treaty Organization/Committee on the Challenge ofModern Society. Report No. 176, Washington, D.C. 1988.

OAG 1997. 1997 Report of the Auditor General of Canada. Chapter 27, Ozone LayerProtection: The Unfinished Journey. Office of the Auditor General of Canada and theCommissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. December, 1997.

Process Engineering 1994. Cracking Way to Destroy CFCs. Process Engineering (London)75:19; December 1994. (No author attribution.)

Rehmat, T., Branion, B., Rogak, S., Filopovic, D., Teshima, P., Hauptmann, E., Gairns, S., Lota,J. 1999. Supercritical Water Oxidation for Waste Disposal. Pre-prints of the PACWEST 1999Conference, Pulp & Paper Technical Association of Canada, Pacific Coast & Western Branches. Chateau Whistler, Whistler, British Columbia. May 19-22, 1999.

Russell, S.D., and Sexton, D.A. 1995. Laser Controlled Decomposition of Chlorofluorocarbons. Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, (Patent) Patent 5,362,450. 1995.

Russell, S.D., and Sexton, D.A. 1995. Photon Controlled Decomposition of NonhydrolyzableAmbients. Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, (Patent) Patent 5,451,378. 1995.

Samdani, G. 1994a. Plasma Converts Liquid CFCs Into Harmless Polymeric Film or Powder. Chemical Engineering 101(8):17. August 1994.

Samdani, G. 1994b. CFCs Find a Home in Environmentally Benign Cement. ChemicalEngineering 101(10):19-20. October 1994.

Samdani, G. 1995. Incinerators Need Only Minor Changes to Handle CFCs. ChemicalEngineering 102(4):19. April 1995.

Samdani, G. 1994b. Catalytic System Breaks Down CFC-12 for Disposal. Chemical Engineering101(7):17. July 1994.

Samdani, G. 1997. Destroy CFCs While Making Cement. Chemical Engineering 104(7):21. July 1997.


Smith, D., Voden, K., Cunningham, R., and Rucker, L. 1997. Socio-Economic Assessment of aBan on the Use of Existing Products and Equipment Containing CFCs or Halons. AppliedResearch Consultants (ARC), Ottawa, ON / KPMG. 1997.

Soucy, G., Fortin, L., and Boulos, M.I. 1996. Toxic Waste Destruction by Thermal PlasmaTechnology. In: CEIA: Proceedings of the Evolution of Waste Management to PollutionPrevention and Resource Recovery, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 18th Canadian Waste ManagementConference. Canadian Environmental Industry Association (CEIA). October 21-24, 1996.

Stenger, H.G., Buzan, G.E., and Berty, J.M. 1993. Chlorine Capture by Catalyst Sorbents forthe Oxidation of Air-Pollutants. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 2(1):117-130. 1993.

Sylvestre, M., Betrand, J.-L., and Viel, G. 1997. Feasibility Study for the Potential Use ofBiocatalytic Systems to Destroy Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Critical Review: EnvironmentalScience & Technology 27(2):87-111. 1997.

Tezuka, F. 1996. Dry Distrillation Disposal System for Waste Refrigeration. American Chemical Society National Meeting: Abstract Paper (New Orleans) 211(1):I&EC 036. March24-28, 1996.

Transport Canada 1999. Regulations Respecting The Handling, Offering For Transport AndTransporting Of Dangerous Goods. www.tc.gc.ca/Actsregs/TDG/english/part-i.html

Ueno, H., Iwasaki, Y., Tatsuichi, S., and Soufuki, M. 1997. Destruction Of Chlorofluorocarbonsin a Cement Kiln. Journal of the Air Waste Management Association 47(11):1220-1223. 1997.

UNEP 1997. Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer: Technology andEconomic Assessment Panel. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Vol. 1. 1997.

UNEP 1995. 1995 ODS Disposal Technology Update. United Nations Environmental Program:Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel ODS Disposal SubcommitteeWorkshop held in Montreal, Canada, May 2-3, 1995. June 1995.

UNEP 1994a. 1994 Report of the Solvents, Coatings and Adhesives Technical OptionsCommittee for the 1995 Assessment of the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete theOzone Layer. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP).

UNEP 1994b. Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer: 1994 Report ofthe Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee for the 1995 Assessment of theMontreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. United Nations EnvironmentalProgram (UNEP).

UNEP 1994c. 1994 Report of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps TechnicalOptions Committee. For the 1995 Assessment of the Montreal Protocol on Substances ThatDeplete the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Program. November 1994.


UNEP 1992. Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on ODS DestructionTechnologies. United Nations Environment Program. May 1992.

Van den Berg, M., Birnbaum, L., Bowveld, B.T.C., Brunstrom, B., Cook, P., Feeley, M., Giesty,J.P., Hanberg, A., Hasegawa, R., Kennedy, S.W., Kubiak, T., Carsen, J.C., van Leeuwen, F.X.R.,Liem, A.K.D., Nolt, C., Peterson, r.E., Poellinger, L., Safe, S., Schrenk, D., Tillitt, D., Tysklind,M., Younes, M., Waern, F., and Zacharewski, T. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) forPCBs PCDDs, PCDFs, for Humans and Wildlife. Environ Health Perspect. 106, 775-792. 1998.

Wiersma, A., Vandesandt, E., Makkee, M., Vanbekkum, H., and Moulijn, J.A. 1996. Process-Development For The Selective Hydrogenolysis Of CCL2F2 (CFC-12) Into CH2F2(HFC-32) Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis 101(Part A):369-378. 1996.


6.0 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

6.1 Definitions

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Each province and territory, and thefederal government are represented at the meetings by the respective Minister of theEnvironment. Wide ranges of environmental issues are discussed at the meetings.

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) A very stable compound containing chlorine, fluorine, and carbonatoms. Chlorofluorocarbons decompose in the stratosphere and release chlorine, which destroysozone.

Disposable Container A container designed to be used only once for transportation or storageof CFCs or HCFCs; designed in accordance with Transport Canada specification 39 (DOT 39 ifmade in the USA).

Disposal The method used to eliminate a substance that will no longer be used for the originalpurpose for which it was made. The method may include transformation, destruction, or disposalas a hazardous waste if mixed with other substances.

FPWG Federal Provincial Working Group on Controls Harmonization (Ozone-DepletingSubstances). The group is responsible for coordinating the development of controls across alljurisdictions for ozone-depleting substances and their alternatives. This group now reports to theNational Air Issues Coordinating Committee.

GHG Greenhouse gases, such as carbon monoxide and various hydrocarbons. These are widelybelieved to contribute to global warming and climate change.

GWP Global Warming Potential. A relative measure of the warming effect that the emission ofa radiative gas might have on the surface troposphere. Usually a factor relative to CO2.

Halon A compound containing bromine, chlorine, fluorine, and carbon in its structure. Halonshave high ODP.

Halocarbon A carbon-based compound that may contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, bromineor iodine in its structure.

Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) A chemical compound that contains hydrogen, chlorine,fluorine, and carbon atoms. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are much less stable than CFCs, but smallquantities can reach the stratosphere and release chlorine. They are considered acceptable assubstitutes for CFCs for a transitional period but because of their low ozone-depletion potential,HCFC production and importation will be phased out by the year 2030.

Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) A chemical compound that contains only hydrogen, fluorine, andcarbon. Since no chlorine is present, these compounds have no ozone-depletion potential and aregood replacements for CFCs, although they have a global warming effect.


Hydrobromofluorocarbon (HBFC) A compound containing only hydrogen, bromine, fluorine,and carbon atoms in its structure. HBFCs have a higher ODP than CFCs but not as high ashalons.

Methyl Bromide (MBr) A chemical compound containing bromine, hydrogen and carbon. It isa pesticide used as a fumigant.

Montreal Protocol An international agreement titled "The Montreal Protocol on Substances thatDeplete the Ozone Layer." The Protocol sets the reduction and phase-out dates for theconsumption of ozone-depleting substances. It was developed under the auspices of the UnitedNations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to provide a coordinated response to the globalproblem of ozone depletion. More than 160 countries have signed the Protocol.

Ozone-Depleting Substance (ODS) A chemical compound that is sufficiently stable to reachthe stratosphere and capable of reacting with stratospheric ozone, either directly or throughrelease of a chemical element that reacts after the compound decomposes.

Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) The rated effect of a compound on the ozone layer comparedto CFC-11, which is assigned the value of 1.0. Official ODP values is assigned in the MontrealProtocol.

Perfluorocarbon (PFC) A chemical compound that contains only fluorine and carbon. PFCs arenot ODS. They do however have a high global warming potential. They may be a substitute forCFCs and HCFCs if lower GWP compounds are not available.

Recovery Collection of ODS such as CFCs or HCFCs from equipment during servicing orbefore disposal (as opposed to venting to the atmosphere).

Recycling Reuse of recovered ODS by charging back into the equipment after servicing. TheODS goes through some cleanup procedures before return, e.g., filtering, drying. This is usuallydone at the job site, but may be done off-site, depending on the volume.

Reclamation Recovered refrigerants are shipped off-site to a central processing facility andcleaned by filtering, drying, distillation, and chemical treatment to meet or exceed industryaccepted reuse standards. Results are verified by laboratory analysis.

Refillable Container A container that meets the requirements of Transport Canada and isapproved for multiple use.


6.2 Abbreviations

A/C Air conditioning

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon

CFC-11 Trichlorofluoromethane

CFC-12 Dichlorodifluoromethane

CFC-115 Chloropentafluoroethane

FPWG Federal Provincial Working Group on Controls Harmonization

GHG Greenhouse gas

GWP Global Warming Potential

Halon 1211 Bromochlorodifluoromethane

Halon 1301 Bromotrifluoromethane

HBFC Hydrobromofluorocarbon

HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon

HCFC-22 Chlorodifluromethane

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon

HRAI Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Institute

MSWI Municipal solid waste incinerator

NAICC National Air Issues Coordinating Committee (a CCME committee)

NAP National Action Plan

NOx Nitrogen oxides

ODP Ozone Depletion Potential

ODS Ozone-Depleting Substance

PIC Products of incomplete combustion


PFC Perfluorocarbon

R/R Recovery and Recycling

R/R/R Recovery, Recycling, and Reclamation

R-134a Hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant

R-502 An azeotropic refrigerant blend of HCFC-22 and CFC-115

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme


APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF ODS DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

The first section of this Appendix describes Commercially Available technologies that passed theinitial screening assessment, i.e., those that met the mandatory requirements of technicalperformance, environmental emissions, and commercial availability. The second sectiondescribes Emerging Technologies that did not meet the mandatory criteria, typically because theyfailed to meet the criterion for commercial availability. The ODS disposal technologies aredescribed in terms of process type and specific features. Descriptions of commercially availabletechnologies are organized into two parts, a process description and a discussion of thetechnology’s operating history. The latter part also presents an evaluation of the commercialavailability of the technology and most recent cost information.

NOTE: All dollar figures in this document are expressed as year 2000 Canadian dollars unlessotherwise specified.

A-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES

A-1.1 Plasma (Non-incineration) Technologies

Introduction:

Plasma, which is often described as the fourth stage of matter, is a mixture of electrons, ions andneutral particles at temperatures between 5000°K and 20 000°K. This high temperature, ionized,conductive gas is created by the interaction of a gas with an electric arc or magnetic field.Thermal plasmas are the source of reaction species at high temperatures that favour kineticreactions.

Ionization of gases is not a combustion process. This is a process to convert electrical energydirectly to thermal energy at high temperatures. Applying reaction heat with plasma technologyrenders it possible to control heat and the chemical environment independently. For example, itis possible to heat a reducing gas to a high temperature without the use of oxygen, or to obtain anoxidizing environment without the introduction of any fuel. Thermal plasmas can be generatedby passing an electric current through a gas between electrodes, by radio frequency (RF) or ACdischarge without electrodes, or by microwaves.

The choice of using a direct current (DC) plasma torch is based on its commercial availability ata power range up to 2 megawatts (MW) and at reasonably high energy efficiencies. Theefficiency of the transformer and rectifier together is generally 95% to 98%, while the transfer ofelectrical energy to thermal energy is normally in the range 65% to 85%. Since losses aregenerally associated with the need to cool the torch with water, the higher efficiencies areachieved at higher gas flow rates and at higher power levels. With a DC plasma torch, plasmagases such as argon, nitrogen, air, argon/hydrogen can be used and plasma volume is relativelysmall with high energy density.


In RF applications, inductively coupled plasma torches are used, and energy coupling to theplasma is accomplished through the electromagnetic field of the induction coil. The absence ofelectrodes allows operation with a large range of gases, including inert, reducing or oxidizingatmospheres. In fact, the ability to use steam alone as the gas offers a cost saving compared tothe AC plasma torch, which generally requires an inert gas such as argon. This kind of dischargeproduces a relatively large plasma volume. These plasmas are common at power levels up to 100kilowatts (kW) and scale-up has been demonstrated up to the 1 MW range. The transfer fromline AC to high frequency AC is quite efficient at about 95%. Efficiencies of coupling ACcurrent in the coil to the plasma fireball of 65-75% have been reported with tube-type oscillationpower supplies and up to 90% with solid-state power supplies. However, an expert suggestedefficiencies up to 50% were more probable for commercial units.

More recently, AC plasmas have been reported which are produced from 480V 3-phase power at60 Hz stepped up through a high voltage transformer. Significantly, there is no need for highfrequency AC as in the RF plasma. The equipment required to produce these plasmas is muchsmaller and less costly than that required for RF plasmas. Electrical efficiencies are higher thanfor DC plasmas because there is no need for rectification and the electrical to thermal conversionis 85% to 90% efficient. The AC plasma volume produced is also large, comparable to thatproduced by RF. This technology was developed in Russia and has been further refined byScientific Utilization International, of Huntsville, AL over the last seven years. There has beenvery little published about this technology in refereed journals.

Operating History:

During the past decade plasma technology has evolved as one of the more promising innovativetechnologies for the thermal destruction of hazardous wastes. The current interest in applyingplasmas to the destruction of hazardous wastes is related to the availability of both DC and RFplasma torches in the power range 0.3-1.0 MW. The most notable use of this technology forODS disposal is in Australia’s halon and CFC destruction program, discussed below.

A-1.1.1 Argon Plasma Arc

Process Description: PLASCON is an “in flight” plasma process, which means that the wastemixes directly with the argon plasma column. Argon was selected as the plasma gas since it isinert and does not react with the torch components. Waste is rapidly heated (one millisecond, orms) in the reaction chamber (a flight tube) to about 3000°C, where pyrolysis occurs in about 20ms. Oxygen is added at the injection manifold to ensure that any carbon formed during pyrolysisis converted to carbon monoxide. Pyrolysis is followed by rapid (2 ms) alkaline quenching from1500°C to less than 100°C. Such rapid quenching prevents the formation of dioxins and furans. The cool gas from the quench is further scrubbed with alkaline liquor in a counter-current packedcolumn to neutralize HCl and other acid gases. The off-gas from the column, which consistsmainly of CO, H2, Ar and some CO2, then passes to a small ground flare that converts CO to CO2

and H2 to H2O.


A destruction efficiency of 99.9999% has been achieved at destruction rates of 150 kg/hr. On-stream factors have run at about 80% due to problems in the flight tube and injection manifoldassociated with the very hot operating conditions. The halide salt solution from the scrubbingsystem is stored and discharged on weekends to the Melbourne’s municipal wastewater treatmentsystem during periods of reduced industrial activity.

Operating History: PLASCON, an argon plasma arc process, was developed in Australia bySRL Plasma Ltd. in conjunction with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganization (CSIRO). The process was developed over an eight year period andcommercialized in 1992. Following extensive pilot studies on various CFCs and haloncompounds in 1993, the PLASCON system was provided to the Department of AdministrativeServices Centre for Environmental Management (DASCEM) for the destruction of Australia’ssurplus halons and CFCs. The plant was commissioned in 1996 and since then about 1000 MTof Halon 1011 and about 100 MT of CFCs have been destroyed at destruction rates of 115-120Kg/hr. Key advantages of this process are the very high destruction efficiencies and negligibledioxins/furans emissions demonstrated on a commercially operating system. Costs are reportedto be of the order of $2.75/kg.

A-1.1.2 Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency Plasma

Process Description: Plasma temperatures of 10 000°C were achieved in the 185 kW torch anddestruction efficiencies of at least 99.99% were demonstrated at feed rates of about 50 kg/hr. The equipment for the demonstration plant is essentially the same as that used in the pilot plantexcept for the electric power supply, which was 132 kW (2.4 MHz, 8.8 kV, 15.0 A). GaseousCFCs and steam are fed through the plasma torch where they are heated and enter directly intothe destruction reactor maintained at about 2000°C for about 2 seconds. Subsequently, the gasesare cooled and scrubbed with caustic solution to remove acid gases. At feed rates of at least 50kg/hr, destruction efficiencies of greater than 99.99% were demonstrated. Testing for trace toxicemissions during the demonstration measured 0.01 ng/m3 total PCDDs and 0.01-0.02 ng/m3 totalPCDFs TEQ.

Operating History: In 1994, several Japanese researchers from government, academia andindustry collaborated in experiments which demonstrated the destruction of CFC-12 and Halon1301 in a pilot-scale Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency Plasma (ICRFP) reactor. Based onthese pilot plant results, a demonstration plant was constructed at the Chiba prefecture by aconsortium of industrial concerns under the auspices of the Ministry of International Trade andIndustry (MITI). The demonstration plant operated over the period April 1993 to March 1996 bywhich time 2.443 MT of CFC-12 had been destroyed. A major advantage claimed for the RFplasma over DC plasma is the elimination of electrodes which are known in DC plasmas to besubject to corrosion. The RF plasma also has a slower gas flow rate and a larger plasma flamewhich results in higher residence time. This process has demonstrated high destructionefficiencies and very low PCDD/PCDF emissions on a scale approaching commercial scale. It isalso possible that the RF approach may lead to increased on-stream time over that observed in thePLASCON process described above. No operating costs for a commercial-scale unit are reportedbut are estimated to be somewhat less than indicated for the Plascon process because argon is notrequired, that is, costs are expected to be of the order of $2.50/kg.


A-1.1.3 AC Plasma

Process Description: Systems incorporating their patented Plasmatron AC plasma are designedby Scientific Utilization International (SUI) for the destruction of hazardous wastes. As discussedabove, the AC plasma is produced directly with 60 Hz high voltage power but in other respects issimilar to the inductively coupled RF plasma. The system is electrically and mechanically simpleand is thus claimed to be very reliable. Also, the Plasmatron process can tolerate a wide varietyof working gases, including air, and can tolerate oily gases. While some information is availabledescribing the plasma generator and its associated equipment, no information was provideddescribing the destruction process, but one could imagine a process very similar to the Plasconprocess.

Operating History: These plasmas have only recently been developed to the stage where they arebeing applied to hazardous or toxic waste destruction. It has not yet been commercially appliedto the destruction of ODS but CFC was destroyed to non-detectable levels in a 500 kWdemonstration unit. A 1 MW AC plasma system was shipped in late February 2000 to the U.S.Customs Service in California for destruction of narcotics. The technology satisfies US EPA andState of California environmental requirements. SUI is prepared to offer Plasmatron systemsdesigned for the destruction of ODS. No cost information was provided but destruction costs areestimated to be less than Plascon because of better reliability and its ability to use air as theworking gas; that is, $2.50/Kg.

A-1.2 Other Non-Incineration TechnologiesA-1.2.1 Solvated Electron Technology

Process Description: The process is a batch process involving two simple vessels; one a heatedreaction vessel and the other a refrigerated ammonia recycle vessel. The ODS compounds aredecomposed in the reaction vessel with liquid ammonia and metallic sodium. The processoperates at atmospheric pressure. It is expected that no dioxins and furans would be produced bythis process since it does not involve oxidation and operates at relatively low temperatures. Noatmospheric emissions result from the decomposition of the original ODS material. Only non-toxic waste products are formed: sodium chloride, sodium fluoride, biodegradable organiccompounds, and water. Methane and ethane are also produced as by-products. Metallic sodiumis consumed in the process and is the major component of operating cost. About 95-98% of theammonia is recycled and hence does not contribute much to operating cost. The process wasdemonstrated on a pilot scale to destroy carbon tetrachloride, several CFCs, HFCs, refrigerantblends and halons at greater than 99.99% efficiency. Destruction costs are claimed to range fromabout $9.00 - $13.75 per kilogram of CFC (an approximate average of $11.00/kg was used forranking purposes).

Operating History: Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc. of Albuquerque, New Mexico,developed a process for the destruction of ODS in the early 1990s based on solvated electronsolutions formed by dissolving metallic sodium in ammonia. A US patent for the process wasissued in 1995. While developed specifically for ODS destruction, the process has never been


commercially applied to ODS destruction because of lack of demand. It has been appliedsuccessfully to PCB destruction and is currently being applied to the destruction of chemicalwarfare agents. A major advantage of the process is its simplicity. A disadvantage is the lack ofdemonstration of ODS destruction on a commercial scale, although there appears to be littledoubt that the process could be successfully applied for that purpose. Handling metallic sodiumpresents safety issues and will require careful attention to operating procedures. Finally,operating cost is heavily dependent on the cost of metallic sodium.

A-1.2.2 UV Photolytic Destruction

Process description: The process involves mixing the ODS material in the gaseous state with airand leading the mixture into a reactor fitted with low pressure mercury ultraviolet (UV) lampsemitting light with wavelengths in the range 185-254 nm. Photons emitted from these lamps arecapable of breaking apart the chemical bonds of the ODS molecule, forming free radicals. PTIaffixes a dry, porous reagent liner to the inner surface of the reaction chamber that chemicallyreacts with the free radicals produced by the photochemical destruction of the ODS molecules. The chemical reaction forms stable, inorganic, solid reaction products within the liner material. The only other by-products from the photochemical destruction of ODS are CO2, water vapourand air. Laboratory bench and pilot-scale tests with a feed rate of 11.4 kg of Halon 1211 per daydemonstrated destruction efficiencies of 99.66%. Test results on other ODS demonstrateddestruction efficiencies greater than 99.9%. It was believed optimized commercial equipmentwould achieve greater than 99.99% destruction efficiency. No formation of dioxins and furans isexpected due to the low temperature of the entire process. The liner is a PTI proprietary mixtureof calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide and other ingredients. Spent linersare not a hazardous waste as defined by the U.S. Resource Conservation and Reclamation Act (RCRA) and can be disposed of as an ordinary solid waste, or even recycled as a cementingredient.

Operating History: Process Technologies, Inc. (PTI) of Boise, ID developed and patented aproprietary process for the destruction of chlorinated compounds including ODS based on UVphoto-dissociation. The process has never been commercialized for ODS destruction due to lackof demand. Advantages of the PTI process are that it is a non-thermal process achieving highdestruction efficiencies without dioxin/furan formation, that the liner prevents the formation ofHF and HCl in the exhaust, and that the process is simple and modular in design. Costs arereported to be about $11/kg of ODS. It was not possible to obtain further information from PTI;the technology may no longer be actively promoted.

A-1.2.3 Gas Phase Chemical Reduction

Process Description: The liquid or gas is preheated with boiler steam before injection throughatomizing nozzles into the reactor. The gas mixture from the atomizing nozzles swirl around acentral stainless steel tube and is heated by vertical radiant tubes with internal electric heatingelements to a temperature of about 850°C. The process reactions take place from the bottom ofthe central tube onwards and take less than one second to complete. Organic compounds are


ultimately reduced to methane, hydrochloric acid, and (reportedly) minor amounts of lowmolecular weight hydrocarbons. Destruction and removal efficiencies for PCB and DDT wasteswere shown to be greater than 99.99999% (seven nines) and 99.9999% (six nines), respectively. Some formation of dioxins and furans at operating temperature is possible, and levels of 40-80pg/m3 have been reported. The hydrochloric acid is neutralized by addition of caustic sodaduring initial cooling of the process gas. An attached multi-stage scrubbing system removesinorganics from the reacted gas stream. The product gas, composed primarily of hydrogen andmethane, is subsequently used as fuel for system components.

Operating History: Eli Eco Logic International Inc. (ECO LOGIC) of Rockwood, Ontariodeveloped and commercialized the ECO LOGIC Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction process. ECOLOGIC applied for a patent for this core technology in 1986. The proprietary process is a non-incineration technology suitable for destroying organic wastes in all matrices including soil,sediment, sludges, high-strength oils, watery wastes and bulk solids such as electrical equipment. ECO LOGIC has destroyed PCB waste and DDT waste on a commercial scale, and hasconsiderable laboratory and field data on many other hazardous wastes including chemicalwarfare agents. ECO LOGIC supplies fixed systems and provide treatment services withtransportable systems. The major advantage of this process is the very high destructionefficiencies achieved. The transportability of the process may also prove beneficial. The majordrawback is the lack of experience on any scale in destroying ODS, although the process hasbeen proven on PCBs. Precise cost information is not available, although the process would beexpected to be fairly expensive. As an approximate estimate, a high default value of $10/kg wasused for ranking purposes.

A-1.2.4 Gas Phase Catalytic Dehalogenation

Process Description: Hitachi Corp. of Tokyo, Japan has developed a process in which CFCs aredestroyed over a proprietary metal oxide catalyst at 400°C at atmospheric pressure. The HCl andHF produced are absorbed in a lime solution. Destruction efficiencies greater than 99.99% wereachieved for CFC-12. No dioxin/furan data is available, although formation of these compoundswould be expected to be minimal at these operating temperatures.

Operating History: Hitachi claims operating costs of about $2.85-4.30/kg CFC. Capital costswere estimated at about $ 430 000 for a 1 kg/hr system and $ 1.43 million for a 10 kg/hr system. A Canadian stakeholder is currently negotiating rights to similar technology from a US licensor. This process has been commercialized for PCB destruction and has been applied to numerousother chlorinated compounds, but has not yet been applied to the destruction of ODS. Laboratorytests are underway and a report on CFC destruction is expected by the end of March 2000. Commercial destruction of PCBs has demonstrated a destruction efficiency of 99.9998%. It isclaimed that no dioxins or furans are produced in the process. Destruction costs are anticipatedto be consistent with the figures described above. The key advantage of this technology is theexpected low destruction cost which results primarily from its low operating temperature relativeto incineration technologies. It is also very efficient in destroying CFCs and avoids formation ofdioxins and furans.


A-1.2.5 Liquid-Phase Chemical Conversion

Process Description: This technology uses a liquid-phase chemical conversion process operatingat between 80-120°C, where ODS is reacted with a blend of potassium hydroxide andpolyethylene glycol. Based on lab-scale demonstrations, the destruction efficiency is greater than99.7% for CFCs and halons. It has been tested on ODS in pilot-scale tests and is usedcommercially for PCB wastes. The process is claimed to require and low capital investment andto be almost emission free. No dioxins/furans are generated in this relatively low-temperatureprocess.

Operating History: This mobile system technology was developed by Ontario HydroTechnologies to destroy a variety of wastes. Two mobile units are currently in operation for PCBdestruction. Although commercial destruction of ODS is not currently available using thisprocess, Ontario Hydro has indicated that modifications to existing equipment, demonstrationtesting, and regulatory approval could be obtained in a relatively short time (3-4 monthsclaimed), should a demand for this service materialize. Costs are estimated to be less expensivethan incineration for ODS, based on extrapolation from experience with PCB waste disposal.

A-1.2.6 Vitrification

Process Description: This process fixes the products of ODS dissociation and hydrolysis intochemically durable glass frit which is capable of being processed into glass product. The firststage involves destruction of organics at high temperature typically with a plasma arc. Once thehalogens are separated from the carbon and hydrolyzed in the off-gas treatment system, the glassmanufacturing process begins. Naturally, the gas cleaning system would have to include rapidcooling to prevent significant formation of dioxins and furans. A specially formulated mixture ofcalcium oxide and silica oxide along with other proprietary chemicals are added to the smelter tobegin the formation of glass. The additives ensure that the glass frit product can be returned tocommerce for additional processing into higher quality glass product.

Operating History: The process is offered by Pure Chem, Inc., a specialty refrigerant processorwith experience in the conversion of halogenated compounds into a glass matrix usingvitrification. The process has not been applied to CFCs but has been applied to carbontetrachloride achieving 99.9999% destruction. The process has also been used by the U.S.Department of Energy to fix radioactive materials and heavy metals. Operating cost of about $3.80/Kg is reported and capital cost, depending on the size of the facility, is reported in the range $1.5 to $3.5 million. Although the byproducts of this process are incorporated in the glass frit,which is then sold, the process was not considered to be a chemical conversion process thatresults in a directly marketable chemical product. However, it is significant that the profits of thesale of the glass frit can be used to offset the costs of destruction, and that the process avoids thecosts of dealing with the disposal of byproducts such as halide salts. These factors may result insignificantly lower overall disposal costs, in comparison to some other technologies where theestimated costs of dealing with the disposal of byproducts has not been factored in.


A-1.3 Incineration Technologies

The only technologies recommended in the 1992 UNEP report for the destruction of ODS werethermal oxidation (incineration) processes. Incineration is the use of controlled flamecombustion to destroy ODS in an engineered device. Several specific processes wererecommended, however not all may be appropriate for all classes of ODS. The technologies aredescribed separately below, but there are a number of characteristics common to all incinerationprocesses.

The significance of the production of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from incineration technologies isimportant to note. This has become a major scientific and political concern in many countries,and as a result there is significant incentive for the consideration of non-incineration technologiesfor the disposal of ODS. However, incineration technologies do have the general advantage ofbeing fully developed commercially and conveniently located geographically, and thus are givendue consideration in terms of finding realistic and timely solutions to the disposal of ODSsurplus. All of these factors have been taken into account in the ranking of commercially-available ODS disposal technologies.

Process Description:

Thermal oxidation processes generally operate at temperatures of 900°C or higher, i.e., temperatures at which organic compounds are destroyed. Destruction efficiencies of 99.99% arereadily achieved in well-designed units that are operated properly. High performanceincinerators designed specifically to destroy stable organic compounds, such as PCBs and ODS,operate at significantly higher temperatures, generally at 2100°C or higher. Such highperformance incinerators generally achieve 99.9999% destruction. Because halogen-containingODS has a low heat value, the required high operating temperatures can only be achieved by useof a supplementary fuel such as natural gas, fuel oil, or propane.

The primary products from the thermal destruction of ODS are carbon dioxide (CO2), water(H2O) and hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids (HCl and HF). Hydrogen bromide (HBr) and/orbromine (Br2) are produced in the case of the destruction of halons. Products of incompletecombustion (PICs) such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, organic acids and partially degradedproducts may also be produced, but these PICs are emitted in only small amounts from well-designed incineration facilities that provide high temperatures, adequate residence times (1 to 2seconds), excess oxygen and good mixing.

A more serious problem is the potential production of toxic polychlorinated dibenzo-paradioxins(PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in trace quantities. PCDD/PCDFformation can be minimized in well-designed incinerators. Since these compounds generallyform in the temperature range 500 to 900°C, their formation is unavoidable as the hot flue gasesfrom incinerators are cooled in the associated gas cleaning system. It has also been reported thatthe incineration of halons increases the potential for dioxin formation This is believed to be due


to the free radical scavenging effect of bromine. However, inclusion of a quench coolingoperation to rapidly cool the gas to a temperature well below the dioxin/furan formationtemperature range usually limits formation of these toxic byproducts to acceptable levels. Itshould be noted that the formation and control of dioxins and furans is independent of the type ofincinerator.

Another serious technical problem is the production of the above-mentioned acid gases, whichmust be removed by inclusion of a gas scrubbing system. This generally involves the use of electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, Venturi scrubbers, packed bed scrubbers or plate scrubbers. The formation of bromine compounds in the case of halon incineration is particularlytroublesome. In general this substance is particularly difficult to remove, however severalapproaches can be taken to minimize the formation of Br2, including the introduction of sulphur-containing compounds and the minimization of the cooling period.

The formation of halide acids also presents some technical difficulties. An HF-resistantrefractory lining and binder must be used in the combustion chambers through the quench area. Corrosion resistant fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) is generally required in the scrubbingsystems and the presence of fluoride requires special lining of the FRP to avoid attack of theglass fibers. Finally, the acid gases also require upgrading of the bag material in the baghouse. Incineration facilities typically are not fitted with such equipment, however retro-fitting ofexisting facilities is possible. Cost factors would naturally have to be taken into considerationbefore performing such a retrofit, and it is not yet clear whether a sufficient market for ODSsurplus will become available to warrant this investment in Canadian and U.S. facilities(Sterman, 1999).

Operating History: The only incineration facility in Canada currently permitted to dispose ofODS is Bovar’s facility in Swan Hills, Alberta, although at this time there are technical issuesthat severely limit capacity (see discussion of rotary kilns below). A number of the various typesof incineration technologies are available in the U.S. and have been in operation for many yearsfor the destruction of hazardous waste materials, including ODS. Operating costs for theincineration of ODS are expected to be in the medium-to-high range compared with mosttechnologies. Precise cost estimates vary considerably depending upon the type of ODS,quantities to be destroyed, and market conditions. Low pressure ODS such as CFC-11 and CFC-113, which are usually mixed with other solvents, are less expensive to incinerate than highpressure ODS such as CFC-12 and CFC-22, while halons are in the high pressure category andalso have additional issues because of their bromine content. There are indications thathazardous waste incinerators in the U.S. may be currently running low on supply; prices maytherefore fall in the future. Based on information available in the current literature and onseveral personal communications with incineration facilities, an approximate value of $5 perkilogram of ODS destroyed has been selected as a default value for incineration technologies forwhich no other specific cost information could be obtained.


A-1.3.1 High Performance Incineration

Process Description: The Bovar facility at Swan Hills, Alberta, is a state-of-the-art highperformance incineration facility where the company operates two rotary kilns. The smaller ofthese includes a rapid cooling step and is thus more amenable to modifications that would allowthe kiln to be used for ODS destruction. The operating temperature of the secondary combustionchamber is maintained at 1200°C, higher than the 1100°C typical for conventional incinerators. The unit has been specifically designed to ensure adequate residence time (greater than 2 sec) atgreater than 1100°C in sufficiently turbulent conditions to ensure destruction of PCB to a DRE of99.9999%. Furthermore, Bovar submits its unit to a three day compliance test every 6–16months during which the incinerator is loaded with PCB material and these compliance testshave consistently demonstrated 99.999999% DRE. The incinerator proposed for ODSdestruction is expected to achieve 99.9999% destruction because the autodecompositiontemperatures of CFCs are comparable to PCBs. Nevertheless, Bovar would propose to run acompliance test prior to processing ODS material.

Operating History: Under Alberta regulations, Bovar may destroy ODS at its Swan Hills facility;in fact this is the only facility currently permitted to destroy ODS in Canada. Bovar has indicatedan interest in pursuing the necessary modification to its facility to handle significant quantities ofODS should an appropriate market for ODS surplus disposal materialize in Canada. Bovarindicates it would take about six months to implement the necessary modifications.

A-1.3.2 Liquid Injection Incineration

Process Description: Liquid injection incinerators are usually single-chamber units with one ormore waste burners into which the liquid waste is injected, atomized into fine droplets, andburned in suspension. Problems of flame stability may result when large volumes (greater than40%) of CFCs or other ODS are injected into the burner. These incinerators are able to handle awide range of liquid or vapour wastes, have high turndown ratios and have no moving parts. Liquid injection incinerators are limited to treating wastes that can be atomized through theburner and are therefore susceptible to plugging, however, the incineration of ODS is not likelyto be limited by these constraints to a significant degree.

Operating History: The only liquid injection hazardous waste incinerator in Canada is operatedby Safety Kleen in Sarnia, Ontario, but it is not presently capable of nor permitted to destroyhalogenated wastes.

A-1.3.3 Reactor Cracking

Process Description: The process uses a cylindrical, water-cooled reactor made of graphite, andan oxygen-hydrogen burner system. The reactor is flanged directly to an absorber. Waste gasestypically consisting of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs are fed into the reaction chamber where thetemperature is maintained between 2000-2600°C. The gases are broken down to HF, H2O, HCl,CO2 and Cl2. The cracked products are cooled in the absorber and the acid gases are purified andrecovered as 55% HF and 33% HCl, both of technical grade quality. Cracking efficiency exceeds


99.999%. The resulting waste gas essentially only consists of CO2, O2 and water vapour andmeets the requirements of the German Clean Air regulations (TA-Luft). The process is fueledwith 35-40 Kg of hydrogen per MT CFC and consumes 300 Kwh of electrical energy per MTCFC.

Operating History: Reactor cracking is a proprietary process developed by Hoechst AG(Frankfurt, Germany). A European patent (EP 0 212 410 B1) was issued in 1986. Solvayacquired Hoechst’s fluorocarbon business in 1996, and now operates the cracking destructionfacility, which is located near Frankfurt. Solvay works in collaboration with Westab, a companythat collects and transports waste CFCs. The process has operated since 1983 to treat wastegases from the production of CFCs and, more recently, waste CFCs. Solvay has legal permissionto destroy 9700 tonnes of CFC per year. Principal advantages of the process are its use of anoxygen-hydrogen flame which limits formation of NOx, its very high operating temperature andrapid cooling (which prevents the formation of PCDD/PCDF), and the recovery of hydrofluoricand hydrochloric acids. The process is limited to gaseous feeds although commercial destructionof CFCs could involve the inclusion of a vaporization step in the facility. Solvay indicates a costof about $3.75 for destruction at its Frankfurt facility. Solvay is also prepared to offer itstechnology under license for construction of a facility in Canada. Solvay estimates a 1600MT/year CFC cracking unit would cost about $3 million excluding the license fee andengineering.

A-1.3.4 Gaseous/Fume Oxidation

Process Description: This process uses refractory-lined combustion chambers for the thermaldestruction of waste vapour streams, most often VOCs. The fume stream is heated using anauxiliary fuel such as natural gas or fuel oil. A combustion temperature near 1100°C is requiredfor most ODS compounds. Gaseous residence times in fume incinerators is about 1-2 seconds. Some fume incinerators are equipped with heat exchangers in the flue gas outlet to pre-heat thecombustion air and/or the waste fume. These recuperative incinerators are capable of recoveringup to 70% of the energy in the flue gas.

Operating History: Fume incinerators are designed for continuous operation and are a simple,proven technology and, as noted above, can include energy recovery. Some of the ODS (e.g.CFC-12, CFC-114, or CFC-115) are gases at ambient temperature and can be destroyed byfeeding directly from their pressurized storage into the incinerator. Fume incinerators are almostalways privately operated and are typically found in manufacturing plants . They are seldomused at commercial hazardous waste incineration facilities because of the impracticality oftransporting low density fumes and gases.

A-1.3.5 Rotary Kiln Incineration

Process Description: Rotary kiln incinerators are refractory-lined rotating cylindrical steel shellsmounted on a slight incline from horizontal. Capable of handling both liquid and solid wastes,the rotation of the shell enhances mixing and the inclination causes ash or molten slag to fall out.


Most rotary kilns are equipped with an afterburner which ensures complete destruction ofexhaust gases. Liquid materials such as CFCs, halons and other ODS can be fed into the rotarykiln or directly into the afterburner.

Operating History: Rotary kilns have been used to destroy all forms of hazardous waste (gas,liquid, solids, including sludge). Because of this flexibility, rotary kilns are most frequentlyincorporated into the design of commercial incinerator facilities. The principal advantage of therotary kiln is its ability to handle a wide variety of liquid and solid wastes. However, these kilnsare very expensive to build and maintenance costs are high. Also, because of the production ofacid by-products noted above, there are generally severe restrictions on the amount of ODS in theraw material feed to the kiln.

A-1.3.6 Cement Kilns

Process Description: Existing cement kilns, when properly operated, can destroy most organiccompounds including PCBs because the temperature in the burning zone is over 1500°C andresidence times are up to 10 seconds. Tests have demonstrated CFC destruction efficiencies ofgreater than 99.99%. In general, most cement kilns could tolerate the controlled addition ofODS, but this would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Fluorine can be beneficial tothe cement making process because it allows the cement-producing reactions to occur at a lowertemperature, thus offering the opportunity for reduced fuel consumption. However, higher levelsof fluorine have negative effects on cement quality. As a broad generalization, the maximumfluorine content is about 0.25% of the raw material feed. Chlorine is generally regarded as anunwanted constituent because it creates operating problems and the newer pre-heater/pre-calcinerkilns are expected to have the lowest tolerance for chlorine. The theoretical limit for chlorine isabout 0.015% of the raw material feed but the practical tolerance is believed to be much higher.

Operating History: The major advantage of this approach is that there are large existingcapacities in Canada and the U.S. The disadvantage is that fluorine and chlorine input rates needto be carefully controlled. Furthermore, cement kilns are not currently set up to handle or burnCFCs and halon wastes. Necessary modifications would require equipment for monitoringhazardous emissions. Operation costs per unit of ODS destroyed are estimated to be less thanthose for most incineration technologies, i.e., about $4/kg as opposed to about $5/kg.

A Canadian stakeholder has entered into discussions with an overseas firm that has access to acement kiln for which addition of appreciable quantities of chloride are beneficial due to thenature of the kiln raw material. Comprehensive testing has reportedly demonstrated that thereare no adverse environmental impacts from substitution of up to 500-1,000 MT/year of CFCs inplace of addition of chlorine. Due to the limited availability of CFCs locally there may be anopportunity to export CFCs from Canada for destruction to this facility.

A-1.3.7 Internally Circulating Fluidised Bed Incineration

Process Description: . Internally circulating fluidized bed incinerators can be fired with anysolid, liquid or gas fuel. CFCs and air are blown through the incinerator fluidized bed, and CFCs are broken down by the presence of methane and hydrogen in the reducing atmosphere of


the incinerator. Calcium carbonate is also fed into the incinerator to adsorb the corrosive HCland HF gases formed by the breakdown of the CFCs, although one expert indicated he wasunable to substantiate this claim.

Operating History: In 1995, a joint effort by Japan’s National Institute of Materials & ChemicalsResearch (NIMCR) and the incinerator supplier Ebara Corp. of Tokyo demonstrated CFCdestruction in an internally circulating fluidized bed (ICFB) incinerator. The incinerator wasmodified by attachment of a special nozzle at the bottom of the incinerator to blow CFCs and airthrough the fluidized bed. Tests using a 30 MT/day incinerator at Ebara’s Fujisawa factory haveshown that burning with wood chips can destroy more than 99.9998% of CFCs.

The main attraction of this approach is its relative simplicity and the large number of wood chipburners in Canada, although it is not necessary to burn wood chips in ICFB incinerators. However, an ABB fluid bed incinerator is known to have been operating on a BC pulp mill since1997. Nevertheless, such installations would need to install gas cleaning systems incorporatingquench cooling.


A-2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

The following ODS disposal technologies were reviewed and evaluated, and judged not torepresent realistic solutions for Canadian stakeholders in possession of surplus ODS within thetime frame required. In most cases the main reason for this determination was the lack ofevidence of commercial availability. Where other reasons applied, they were included in thebrief descriptions below.

The decision not to include a particular technology in the previous discussion of commerciallyavailable technologies does not necessarily mean that the technology could not become a viablecontender for the disposal of ODS surplus stocks in Canada should circumstances change orunforeseen developments ensue. Many of the technologies described certainly have merit from atheoretical point of view, particularly those which involve chemical transformation and thepotential recovery of a valuable chemical product. Should a particular technology be promotedactively, and sufficient resources made available, it is conceivable that it could becomecommercially available in a relatively short time frame, and could then compete favourably withthe commercially available technologies discussed previously. In practice, however, the timerequired to develop a new technology and make it available on a commercial scale would restrictthe technologies described below to ODS destruction well after the criterion date of January 1,2003. The current review presents a picture of the technology situation at this point in time andgiven the available data; allowance should be made for future reconsideration of the technologiesdescribed in this section should circumstances change.

A-2.1 Incineration TechnologiesA-2.1.1 Waste Gasification

Waste is gasified at 1600°C, forming a molten ash bath. The hot gases generated are furthertreated in a hot coke bed where any unconverted halogenated hydrocarbons are decomposed. Themolted ash is dripped into water, where it forms a glass-like agglomerate for disposal. Dioxinand furan formation is unlikely. The system consumes coke, which may introduce additional ashand sulfur. A Dutch facility using this process has an annual capacity of 5000 tons of waste.

Originally classified as a commercially available technology in the 1992 UNEP document, thisprocess was not considered to be a likely candidate as a solution for Canadian ODS surplus. Only limited tests were performed with CFCs and halons were not tested, but more importantly,confirmation of destruction efficiency with ODS is lacking. No further information was found tosuggest this technology could realistically be applicable to the disposal of ODS in Canada by2003.

A-2.1.2 Gas Injection Oxidation/Hydrolysis

Also known as “burn box” technology, this was commercialized as a packaged fume incinerator. It was not specifically tested on ODS, but rather on similar compounds. The 1992 UNEPdocument reported that two US vendors were beginning a testing project to evaluate destructionefficiency for CFCs. No additional information was found to determine current status.


Essentially, this is simply a smaller version of commercially available incinerators, and it was feltunlikely that someone would buy such an incinerator specifically to destroy CFCs.

A-2.2 Plasma TechnologiesA-2.2.1 Plasma Conversion of CFCs into Harmless Polymer Using Ethylene or Ethane as

Co-monomer

This technology was developed by Samco International Inc. in Kyoto and uses a radio-frequencyplasma to copolymerize CFCs with ethylene or ethane. The resultant copolymer is highly cross-linked. A lab-scale apparatus treated 10 g/h of CFC-113 with an efficiency of 80% in 1994. Samco has already done all of the basic development work for this CFC stabilization process,and has patents in the US and Japan. Commercialized equipment is expected to have a treatmentcapacity of 1 kg/h, and maximum recovery efficiency would be achieved with multi-stage units. Samco International Inc. has no immediate plans to develop equipment for higher volumes ofCFC. The technology could be licensed, and it could represent an interesting alternativetechnology if applications for the copolymer were found. Despite the above, the technology wasclassified as an emerging technology because of the lack of a commercial-scale operation andbecause the vendor is apparently not developing and promoting the technology for such largerscale operations.

A-2.2.2 Destruction of ODS in Dilute Exhaust Stream Using Energetic Electron InducedPlasma - Adsorbent Filter Hybrid System

This is a low temperature plasma technology developed at McMaster University in Hamilton,Ontario. Reaction by-products are adsorbed into an activated carbon bed. A destructionefficiency of greater than 90% was achieved with trichloroethylene. The development of thetechnology is at the bench-scale and it has not been demonstrated for ODS destruction. It wasnot thought that this technology would become commercially available by 2003, particularlysince other plasma technologies are further developed.

A-2.2.3 High Voltage Gliding Arc Plasma Discharge Reactor for CFC Destruction

This plasma technology was developed by GREMI (Université d’Orléan, France). CFCs are fedinto the plasma along with water vapor. There is potential formation of synthesis gas (CO andH2) that could be recovered. HCl and HF could be scrubbed or recovered. Destruction efficiencyof CFCs greater than 90% was demonstrated. The development of this technology is limited tobench-scale tests. It was thought unlikely that this technology would become commerciallyavailable by 2003, particularly since other plasma technologies are further developed.

A-2.2.4 Freon 113 Destruction in Air Under the Effect of Nanosecond Corona andMicrowave Discharge

This technology is described in a study to develop better understanding of CFC destructionmechanisms in plasma, and is at the R&D developmental stage only.


A-2.3 Chemical Destruction TechnologiesA-2.3.1 Chemical Reduction of ODS Using Metallic Sodium on a Solid Substrate

The ODS gas stream is fed to a column filled with a solid substrate coated with sodium metal. The process operates under an inert atmosphere. In bench-scale tests, destruction efficiency forCFCs was shown to be greater than 99%, and greater than 98% for halons. No toxic gaseous orliquid effluents are generated. This is a relatively simple destruction process, however, thepreparation of the solid substrate with coated sodium metal may be more complicated. Theprocess was developed by a German company, and E.A. Technology Ltd. has also developedsuch a process. The technology was expected to be available within 5 years in 1992. Noadditional information was found, however, confirming development beyond bench-scale testing,and it was not considered likely to be commercially available in 2003 on that basis.

A-2.3.2 Chemical-Thermal Destruction of Halogenated Hydrocarbon with Calcium Silicateor Oxide

Waste is fed to a reactor along with calcium silicate or oxide at 700°C and 98 kPa. The halogenreacts with the solid reagent. A destruction efficiency of greater than 99.99% was obtained withhalogenated hydrocarbons, and no dioxins were detected. The process has not been tested forODS destruction.. The solid reagent can be recovered by superheated steam, which producesHCl. The process has been demonstrated at the pilot scale. In 1992, a commercial facility wasexpected to be in operation within 2-3 years. No additional information could be located toconfirm development beyond bench-scale testing, and it was not considered likely to becommercially available in 2003 on that basis.

A-2.3.3 Mineralization of CFCs with Sodium Oxalate

This process was developed at the Department of Chemistry of Yale University, New Haven. Gaseous CFCs are fed into a packed bed filled with sodium oxalate powder at 290°C, whichgenerates NaF(s), NaCl(s), C(s) and CO2. Residual sodium oxalate can be pyrolysed to carbonateat 350°C if desired. The inventors claim complete destruction of CFCs and CCl4. This is arelatively simple process that could likely be scaled up with little difficulty. Economical successwould depend on cost and availability of sodium oxalate. It was classified as emergingtechnology because it was believed that it will not be available by year 2003, based on the currentstate of development.

A-2.3.4 Aerosol Mineralisation of CFCs by Sodium Vapour Reduction

The process was developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Maryland,USA. Gaseous CFCs are fed along with argon (Ar) and sodium (Na) vapour into a reactormaintained at 1400°C, which generates NaF(s), NaCl(s) and C(s). The fine solids are separatedfrom the argon by filtration. Residual sodium vapour can be condensed and the argonrecompressed for recovery and recycle. The carbon can be separated by washing out the salt. Adestruction efficiency for CF4 greater than 99% was obtained. The technology development wasat the bench scale in 1997, no additional development has been done since, and there areapparently no intentions to continue development.


A-2.3.5 Molten Metal Technology (MMT)

This technology involves the injection of the wastes along with oxygen in a reactor containingmetallic solvent at 1650°C, which dissociates the wastes into their atomic constituents. Theresultant acid gases are then required to be scrubbed. The technology was being tested for CFCsdestruction at the bench scale in 1992. If successful, a prototype was anticipated. Noinformation was available confirming the further development of this technology.

A-2.3.6 Pressurized Coal Iron Gasification (P-CIG)

P-CIG is a process for the gasification of coal that is injected into a slag-covered iron bath alongwith oxygen at 1450°C. The technology was tested at the lab scale for halon destruction, andpilot-scale development of this technology was being planned in 1992. No information wasavailable confirming the further development of this technology.

A-2.3.7 Dormier Incineration Process in Steel Smelter

The volume of wastes is first reduced by pyrolyzing the organic material at 700°C in a rotarykiln. Wastes are then fed into a molten-steel bath at 1600°C to reduce waste to their chemicalconstituents. The resultant acid gases are then be scrubbed. The first pilot plant was expected tobe in operation in a West German steel plant in 1992. No information was available confirmingthe further development of this technology.

A-2.3.8 Destruction of CFCs During Chemchar Gasification

In a process developed at the University of Missouri (Columbia, Mo.), CFCs are oxidized in aheated column filed with char and 5% KOH. The chlorine from the CFCs is recovered as KCLand the fluorine recovered as non-leachable carbon fluoride. A destruction efficiency of greaterthan 99.996% was obtained with CFC 113 and CFC 13 in bench-scale tests in 1998. Theformation of carbon fluoride was considered to be problematical, and furthermore it was thoughunlikely that the technology would become commercially available by 2003.

A-2.4 Photochemical TechnologiesA-2.4.1 UV Laser Photolysis for the Destruction or Transformation of Halon 1301 into CF3I

This technology was developed in Israel by Spectronix Ltd.. It uses an ArF excimer laser toirradiate Halon 1301 in the presence of I2 to generate CF3I. The inventors claim that CF3I is apotential halon replacement. The technology is fully described in the U.S Patent 5,211,821. Technology development is at the bench scale. The development of a working prototype was notcontinued due to lack of resources and timing considerations. This was classified as anemerging technology because will likely not be available by 2003.


A-2.4.2 Photochemical Degradation of Organic Wastes with a TiO2 Catalyst

This technology involves irradiation of the organic waste with an UV lamp over a TiO2 catalyst. The technology was tested for the destruction of chlorinated organics, but has not been tested forODS. In 1992, commercialization was expected to occur in the “near future,” however, noinformation was available confirming the further development of this technology.

A-2.4.3 UV Laser Controlled Decomposition of CFCs

This technology was presented in a patent held by the U.S. as represented by the Secretary of theNavy. CFCs are decomposed by UV light, and decomposition products are reacted with GroupIV chemical element-based mediating species (Si, SiO2, etc), prior to being scrubbed into water. The acid scrubbing solution requires neutralization. Tetrachloroethylene is a product of the CFCdecomposition. This process was used in the electronics industry and was not considered to beapplicable to large-scale CFC destruction.

A-2.5 Catalytic TechnologiesOne of the challenges of the catalytic destruction of ODS is to prevent catalyst deactivation dueto the presence of halogens. The development of all catalytic technologies presented below is atthe bench scale. The duration of the catalyst would need to be quantified to determinereplacement costs.

A-2.5.1 Dry Distillation Disposal System for Waste Foam and Refrigerators

This technology was developed by Toshiba Co., Japan. This is a two-step technology for treatingfoam containing CFCs. The foams are first dry distillated at 200°C to release the CFCs. Thegaseous CFCs are then decomposed in a catalytic reactor using a Cr2O3-based catalyst. The oilfrom the resin may be reclaimed. Waste CFCs can also be treated directly with the catalyticreactor. A continuous bench-scale system was being developed in 1996, but no informationconfirming further development could be located.

A-2.5.2 Halohydrocarbon Destruction Catalyst

This process use a proprietary catalyst to decompose ODS along with water vapour orhydrocarbon to provide the hydrogen source. In 1992, a full-scale system was scheduled forstart-up in Taiwan. No information was available confirming the further development of thistechnology.

A-2.5.3 Catalytic Oxidation of CFCs with a Pt/ZrO2-PO4 Based Catalyst

The catalyst was developed by Sumitomo Metal Mining Company, Japan. CFCs are oxidized inan air-water vapour environment at 500°C. The generated acid gases are required to be scrubbed. In bench-scale tests in 1994, the destruction efficiency for CFCs was greater than 93%. Catalystactivity was maintained for a 300-hr trial. Longer-term activity would require to be validated. The technology was classified as emerging because it was not thought likely to be commerciallyavailable by the year 2003.


A-2.5.4 CFC Oxidation in a Catalyst-Sorbents Packed Bed

The process was developed by the Department of Chemical Engineering of Lehigh University,USA. Diluted CFCs streams (30-350 ppm) are oxidized with air into a catalyst bed. The Cu/Mncatalyst is supported on Na2CO3. The generated acid gases are absorbed by the Na2CO3 catalystsupport, which help minimizing catalyst deactivation. A destruction efficiency for CFC 11 ofgreater than 80% was achieved in bench-scale tests. The inventors claim their catalyst is betterthan noble metal and metal oxide. The technology was classified as emerging because it was notthought likely to be commercially available by the year 2003.

A-2.5.5 Transformation of CFCs to HFCs Using Dehalogenation Catalysts in a H2Environment

The Department of Chemistry of Simon Fraser University, Canada has done work to develop thistechnology. Bench-scale tests of various catalysts showed that a Pt/charcoal catalyst was themost efficient. The process generates HFCs that are presumed to degrade in the troposphere. Further development was realized by the Department of Chemical Process Technology of DelftUniversity of Technology, The Netherlands. Bench-scale tests were performed for theconversion of CFC 12 into HFC 32 over a Pd/charcoal catalyst in an H2 Environment. Nocatalyst deactivation was observed after an 800-hr trial. The inventors claim to be able to achieve100% destruction efficiency of CFC using multi-fixed bed reactor, but this has not bedemonstrated. The technology was classified as emerging because it was not thought likely to becommercially available by the year 2003.

A-2.6 Other TechnologiesA-2.6.1 Use of Waste CFC in an Antimony Process

This technology was presented in an abstract, and few details were given. The process exists at acommercial scale in Lanstar, Manchester UK. Waste CFCs and HCFCs come from ICI inRuncorn, UK. About 200 TM/y of CFCs were destroyed in 1994. This was considered to be aspecialized technology application that is unlikely to be available for significant quantities ofCanadian surplus ODS.

A-2.6.2 CFC Destruction into Biocatalytic System [Ref 20, 29c]

An INRS-Santé paper concluded that biocatalytic destruction of CFCs was feasible, but only withlimited potential capacity. Experimental scale tests with CFCs achieved up to 99.9% destructionefficiency in an anaerobic liquid stream. No test data on gaseous CFC streams were presented.

A-2.6.3 Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)

This technology is available from Weatherly Inc and is used commercially to destroy organicwaste. Diluted organic wastes into water are mixed with pure oxygen, heated and pumped to600°C and 25.4 Mpa in a tubular reactor. Under these extreme conditions, the presence ofhalogen salts lead to severe corrosion of the equipment. It would not be economically feasible totreat ODS due to these corrosion issues.


A-2.6.4 Electrohalogenation of CFC-113 on Pb/Pd Cathodes Combined with H2 DiffusionAnode

This technology was developed at the University of Barcelona, Spain. It treats CFCs in a 70-80%MeOH solution. The development of the technology is at the early R&D stage.


61

APPENDIX B: EXPERT REVIEW COMMITTEE

Expert Review Committee

Name/Title Organization Address Area of Expertise Phone/Fax/E-mailMike Ascough DuPont Canada Inc

Technical ServiceChemistry of refrigerants;technologies for destruction ofrefrigerants

Tel: (613) [email protected]

James BoltonPresident

Bolton Photoscientific Inc 92 Main StAyr, ONN0B 1E0

Destruction and transformation oftoxic chemicals using UV;photochemistry; physicalchemistry

Tel: (519) 741-6383Fax: (519) [email protected]

Mike BumbacoChief

Environment CanadaSpecial Programs

3439 River Road SouthGloucester, OntarioCanadaK1A 0H3


Gary Cranny DASCEM Holdings Argon plasma arc destruction ofhalons, CFCs, HCFCs[Australian process]

Tel: 61-3-9649-7396Fax: [email protected]

Ted (Edward)Grandmaison

Queen’s UniversityDept of ChemicalEngineering

Gas combustion technologies Tel: (613) 533-2771Fax: (613) [email protected]

Michael Forlini USEPA, StratosphereProtection Division

6205J (mail code), 41 MStreet SW, Washington, DC,20460

All technologies for ODSdestruction


Gerry GetmanVP, R&D

Commodore AdvancedSciences Inc

2340 Menaul BlvdSuite 400Albuquerque, NM 87103

Chemical destruction of ODS Tel: (419) [email protected]

Ian Glew Bovar Waste Management P.O. Box 303Swan Hills, AlbertaT0G 2C0

Hazardous waste incineration Tel: (780) 333-4197 ext [email protected]

Brian HobsbawnAssistant Director

Environment AustraliaOzone Protection

P.O. Box 787Canberra, AustraliaACT 2601

Argon plasma arc destruction ofhalons, CFCs, HCFCs [Australianprocess]

Tel: [email protected]

C.W. Lee U.S. EPA Research Triangle ParkNorth Carolina

Incineration technologies Tel: (919) 541-7663Lee.wai@epalgov


62

Expert Review Committee

Name/Title Organization Address Area of Expertise Phone/Fax/E-mailRichard J. MunzChair

McGill University,Department of ChemicalEngineering

3610 University St.Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B2

Plasma technologies Tel: (514) 398-4277Fax: (514) [email protected]

Charles Neely University of AuburnDept. of Chemistry

Auburn, Alabama A/C plasma technology for ODS (334) [email protected]

Fernando PretoResearch Scientist

CANMET EnergyTechnology Centre

1 Haanel DriveNepean, ON, K1A 1M1

Incineration technologies;formation of dioxins and furans


Jan StermanVP, Technical Affairs

Material ResourceRecovery (MRR)www.mrri.com

P.O. Box 683Cornwall, ON K6H 5T5

Hazardous waste incineration Tel: (613) 938-7575Fax: (613) [email protected]

Frederic SchwartzExecutive VP

Pure Chem Inc 1006 Richard LaneDanville, Texas 94526

Vitrification Tel: (925) 831-8185Fax: (925) [email protected]

Robert YostTechnical sales rep

ICI Klea Wilmington, DE Chemistry of refrigerants;technologies for destruction ofrefrigerants

Tel: 302-887-1091Fax: [email protected]

Environment Canada, Project # K2617-9-0037 Cantox Envronmental Inc Project # 80940 March 31, 2000

63

APPENDIX C: STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP

Stakeholder Working Group: Participating Members

Name/Title Organization Address Phone/Fax/E-mailS. AhmedEnvironmental and TechnicalSpecialist[Colin Park to represent S.A. atWorkshop]

Fisheries & OceansCanadian Coast Guard

200 Kent Street, 6th FloorOttawa, Ontario K1A 0E6Canada


Mike Ascough DuPont Canada IncTechnical Service


Holmer BerthiaumeHead, Hazardous MaterialsDirectorate

Dept of National Defence EnvironmentalProtection

101 Colonel By DriveOttawa, OntarioK1A 0K2


Craig BoyleEnvironmental ManagementAnalyst

Public Works And Government ServicesCanada (PWGSC, Environment)

Place du Portage, Phase III, 8B3Hull, Quebec K1A OS5


Janette BrodeurEnvironmental Coordinator,Halon Project Manager

DND, Defence Construction Canada,Contract Services Directorate

Place de Ville, Tower B 112 KentStreet, 17th FloorOttawa, OntarioCanada K1A 0K3


Mike BumbacoChief

Environment CanadaSpecial Programs

3439 River Road SouthGloucester, OntarioCanadaK1A 0H3


Jean CarbonneauControls Development Engineer

Environment CanadaOzone Protection Programs Section


Alex CavadiasProgram Engineer

Environment Canada, Chemical Industries Place Vincent Massey351 St. Joseph Blvd.Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3


Daniel Champagne Ministère de l'Environnement et de la fauneService de la qualité de l'atmosphèreDirection des politiques du secteur industriel

675 Boulevard René Lévesque Est9ième étageÉdifice Marie-GuyartQuébec, Québec G1R 5V7

Tel: (418) 521-3950 poste 4977Fax: (418) [email protected]


64

Stakeholder Working Group: Participating Members

Name/Title Organization Address Phone/Fax/E-mailLoraine CharlesEnvironmental ContaminantsOfficer

Environmental Contaminants & NuclearPrograms DivisionEnvironment Canada - EnvironmentalProtection Branch

4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview ON,M3H 5T4


Philippe ChemounyProgram Officer

Environment Canada Technology andIndustry Branch

Place Vincent Massey351 St. Joseph Blvd.Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3


Donald ConnorHalon Specialist

Vipond Fire Protection Inc. 6380 Vipond DriveMississauga, Ontario L5T 1A1


Janot De LacroixManager of Protection andPrevention Service

Centre Canadien d’ArchitectureCandian Centre for Architecture

1920 rue BaileMontreal, Quebec H3H 2S6


Abe FinkelsteinManager

Environment Canada,Cleaner Production & Technologies



Jim W. Flowers Protocol Resource Management Inc Aurora, ON (905) [email protected]

Ian Glew Bovar Waste Management P.O. Box 303Swan Hills, AlbertaT0G 2C0

Tel: (780) 333-4197 ext [email protected]

Elio Guglielmi 2906 West Broadway, Suite 241Vancouver, British ColumbiaV6K 2G8

Tel: (604) 731-6603Fax: (same as above)[email protected]

Warren HealeyPresident

Heating, Refrigerants, and AirConditioning Institute (HRAI)

5045 Orbitor DriveBuilding 11, Suite 300Mississauga, ON L4W 4Y4


Dr. John HewingsSenior Advisor

Ontario Ministry of the EnvironmentAir Policy and Climate Change Branch

135 St. Clair Ave. West - 4th FloorToronto, Ontario M4V 1P5


John Hilborn Environment Canada Tel: (819) [email protected]


65

Stakeholder Working Group: Participating MembersName/Title Organization Address Phone/Fax/E-mailMonty Johnston Bovar Waste Management Tel: (416) 493-7821

Fax: (416) [email protected]

Bill KahlerDirector, Technical Products

Levitt-Safety Ltd. 2872 Bristol CircleOakville, Ontario L6H 5T5Canada


Tim KearneyVice President

RemTec International 6150 Merger DriveHolland, Ohio 43528USA

Tel: (419) 867-8990Fax (419) [email protected]

Maryse LambertResearch Advisor - Air Quality

Hydro QuébecDirection EnvironnementVice-presidence Planification strategiqueet Developpement des affaires

75 boul. Rene-Levesque ouest18e etage Montreal, QuebecH2Z 1A4

Tel: (514) 289-2211 ext. 5347Fax: (514) [email protected]

Jeremy Mann Environment Canada Tel: (613) 991-9468Russ MartinPresident

Universal Recovery

Jason Maurier Ontario Ministry of the Environment Tel: (416) 314-2412Fax: (416) [email protected]

Ian McGregorPresident

Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc. Mississauga Tel: (905) 279-5123 ext. 244Fax: (905) [email protected]

A. M. (Amjad) MianFire Prevention Engineer

Manitoba Hydro 1100 Waverley StreetP.O. Box 815Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 2P4


Mark MillerExecutive Director

MOPIA (Manitoba Ozone ProtectionIndustry Association Inc.)

2141-B Henderson HwyWinnipeg, Manitoba R2G 1P8

Tel: (204) 338-0804 or 1-888-667-4203Fax: (204) [email protected]

Beatrice OlivastriChief Executive Officer

Friends of the Earth 206 - 260 St. Patrick StreetOttawa, ON K1N 5K5


Colin Park Canadian Coast Guard Tel: (613) [email protected]


66

Stakeholder Working Group: Participating MembersName/Title Organization Address Phone/Fax/E-mailAdam Richardson Control Fire Systems 63 Advance Road

Toronto, ON M8Z 2S6Tel: (416) 236-2371Fax: (416) [email protected]

Adrian Steenkamer Environment Canada,Cleaner Production & Technologies



Art StelzigHead

Environment Canada, Chemical Producers Place Vincent Massey351 St. Joseph Blvd.Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3


Monique ThériaultEnvironmental TechnicalProgram Manager

Public Works And Government ServicesCanada (PWGSC, Environment)

Place du Portage, Phase III, 8B3Hull, Quebec K1A OS5


Pierre VaillancourtDirector, Corporate Security

Teleglobe Inc. 1000 de La Gauchetiere Street WestMontreal, Quebec H3B 4X5


Carlo Vissani FRC Canada Tel: (514) 998-0311


67

Stakeholder Working Group: Corresponding MembersName/Title Organization Address Phone/Fax/E-mailJames J. Bamwoya Environment Canada 45 Alderney Drive

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada,B2Y 2N6


Bob BeatyHead, Emissions & Standards

BC EnvironmentAir Resources Branch

Box 9341 - Stn Prov GovtVictoria, BC V8W 9M1(courier = 2975 Jutland Road, 3rd

Floor Victoria, BC V8T 5J9)


Mr. L. BegorayEnergy, Vehicles, Fuels Specialist

Alberta Environmental ProtectionDepartmentScience & Technology Branch

Oxbridge Place, 4th Floor9820 - 106th StreetEdmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6

Tel: (780) 427-7598Fax: (780) 422-4192 [email protected]

Marie-France BérardDirectrice régionale

Environnement CanadaRégion du Québec

105 rue McGill, 4ième étageMontréal (Québec) H2Y 2E7


Lars BergManaging Director

Refnet Oslo, Norway

Michael Bennett Refrigerant Recovery Australia Tel: 026 239 5654Fax: 026 239 [email protected]

Peter BlackallRegional Director,

Environment CanadaPrairie and Northern Region

Twin Atria No.2, 2nd FloorNo. 210, 4999, 98 Ave.Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3

Tel: (403) 951-8862 (Not in service?)Fax: (403) 495-2615

Fiona Bragdon Department of EnvironmentIndustrial Approvals SectionAir Quality Engineering

364 Argyle Street, P.O. Box 6000Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1

Tel: (506) 457-4848 (Direct line 444-2479)Fax: (506) [email protected]

John Clark Environment CanadaAtlantic Region

Queen Square, 16th Floor45 Alderney DriveDartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 2N6


Louise ComeauPolicy Analyst

Federation of CanadianMunicipalities

24 Clarence St.Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5P3



68

Stakeholder Working Group: Corresponding Members

Name/Title Organization Address Phone/Fax/E-mailFred Dawson DuPont Canada Inc (Mississauga office) Tel: (905) 821-5059

Fax: (905) [email protected]

Alexandre Dubé Univesité de Sherbrooke [email protected] EnoManager

N.W.T. Department of RenewableResourcesEnvironmental Protection

600 - 5102 - 50th AvenueYellowknife, N.W.T. X1A 3S8

Tel: Fax: (403) [email protected]

Luciano Gonzalez Ontario Power TechnologiesDepartment of EnvironmentalTechnologies

Toronto, ON Tel: (416) 207-5876Fax: (416) [email protected]

Constantin Gorgon Safety-Kleen Inc. Sarnia, ONKen HamiltonRegional Director

Environment CanadaAtlantic Region

Queen Square, 16th Floor45 Alderney DriveDartmouth, Nova ScotiaB2Y 2N6


Peter Haring Department of Environment andLabourPollution Prevention Division

P.O. Box 8700St. John's, NewfoundlandA1B 4J6(For courier = ConfederationBuilding - West Block 4th Floor)


Michael Hingston Nova Scotia Department of theEnvironment

P.O. Box 2107Halifax, N.S. B3J 3B7(5151 Terminal Road, 5th Floor -Halifax, NS)


Roger Hodges Saskatchewan Environment andResource ManagementEnvironmental Protection Branch

3211 Albert StreetRegina, Saskatchewan S4S 5W6


Victor Hudon Weatherly Inc.Estee JacobsonVP, Technical Affairs

Material Resources Recovery Cornwall, ON

Debbie Johnston PEI Department of Technology &Environment

P.O. Box 2000Charlottetown, P.E.I. C1A 7N8(Courrier = 11 Kent Street - 4th

Floor - John’s Building)



69


Name/Title Organization Address Phone/Fax/E-mailTom Land U.S. EPA

Stratospheric Protection DivisionTel: (202) [email protected]

Graham LatonasVP Environmental Programs

Bovar Waste Management Inc. 4 Manning Close N.E.Calgary, Alberta, T2E 7N5


Alain Leduc Ville de MontréalService des travaux publics et del’environnementDivision de l’ environnement

700, rue Saint-Antoine est (Bureau2.109)Montréal (Québec) H2Y 1A6

Tel: (514) 872-2210Fax: (514) 872-8146Alain_Leduc@ ville.montreal.qc.ca

John McIsaacVP

Cryo-Line Tel: (702) 257-7900Fax: (702) [email protected]

Tom Moorehouse U.S. Department of Defence,Institute for Defence Analysis

Tel: (703) 845-2442 (home)Fax: (703) 750-6840 (home)[email protected]

Mr. Bengt PetterssonManager, Standards & Approvals

Department of Renewable Resources Box 2703Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2C6[Courier = 10 Burns Road (R-8)Y1A 4Y9]


Ron ShimizuRegional Director

Environment CanadaOntario Region

4905 Dufferin StreetDownsview, Ontario M3H 5T4


Ron SibleyProgram Manager

US Department of DefenseOzone Depleting SubstancesReserve


Chris SmallRegulatory Affairs

Safety-Kleen Sarnia, ON Tel: (519) 332-0720

Yasmin TarmohamedDirector, Environment, Health andSafety

Canadian Vehicle ManufacturersAssociation (CVMA)


Gary Taylor Taylor-Wagner Inc Tel: (416) 250-0966Fax: (416) [email protected]


70


Name/Title Organization Address Phone/Fax/E-mailJim Thomas Jim Thomas Refrigerant Services

IncTel: (902) 468-4997Fax: (902) [email protected]

Ms. Oili Tikkanen

Dir Marketing & Sales

Solvay FluorideOrganic Luroride Division

Tel: (203) 629-7900 ext-126Fax: (203) [email protected]

O. TsujiPresident & CEO

Samco International Japan

Ron Verch British Columbia Institute ofTechnology (BCIT)

3700 Willingdon AveBurnaby BC V5G 3H2.


Karen Warren Manitoba EnvironmentPollution Prevention

123 Main Street - Suite 160Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1A5


Sherri WatsonRepresentative

Federation of CanadianMunicipalities

62 Pontiac StreetOttawa, Ontario K1Y 2K1

Tel: (613) 792-1357Fax (613) [email protected]

John WellnerDirector, Air Program

Pollution Probe 12 Madison AveToronto, ON M5R 2S1

Tel: (416) 926-1907 ext 236Fax: (416) [email protected]

Brian WilsonRegional Director

Environment CanadaEnvironmental Protection BranchPacific and Yukon Region

224 West EsplanadeNorth Vancouver, B.C.V7M 3H7


Sherry WoodlandBusiness Development Specialist

ELI Eco-Logic International Rockwood, ON

Michael Zacharia University of Minnesota[Previously with Nati’l Institute ofStandards and Technology]


APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF LITERATURE SEARCH

The following section describes the literature search strategy to find and retrieve informationrelating to technology used to dispose, destroy or transform Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS).The databases listed below were chosen for their direct relevance to the science and technologyliterature. A total of 17 databases were used in the search. The keywords listed below werechosen so that all facets of the subject area would be covered without the risk of missing anyimportant information.

Databases Used for Search� Abstracts in New Technologies and Engineering� Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology Abstracts� Conference Papers Index� Ei Compendex� Ei Engineering in Brief� Energy Science and Technology� Federal Research in Progress� Inside Conferences� INSPEC (1969-present)� ISMEC: Mechanical Engineering Abstracts� JICST – Eplus – Japanese Science and Technology� Meteorological and Geoastrophysical Abstracts� NTIS – National Technical Information Service� Pollution Abstracts� Science� SciSearch – a Cited Reference Science Database (1990)� Wilson Applied Science and Technology Abstracts

Keywords Used in Search StrategyChemical names of interest� CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons� HFCs or hydrofluorocarbons� HCFCs or hydrochlorofluorocarbons� Halons� Carbon tetrachloride� ODS� Ozone-depleting substances (or chemicals)


Phrases relating to technologies� Destruction� Destroy� Disposal� Transformation� Stabilisation

WITH� Technologies� Technology� ProcessOnce on-line in the DIALOG database, the search strategy was implemented. After completionof the initial search strategy, a total of 554 records were obtained. These records were saved andprinted in title form (with dates of publication included), so that a preliminary screening of thetitles could be performed.

Overall Search Strategy� On-line call up of 17 databases in Dialog database� Search for: [Chemical names of interest] AND [Phrases relating to technologies]� Date restriction of 1990 to present for all records� Listing of all related records (Titles only) was obtainedAll titles were reviewed and only relevant records (i.e. by date and relevance of title) were chosenfor further evaluation. In order to evaluate these records further, the chosen titles were re-enteredinto the Dialog database, and a recall of the full abstract was performed. The abstracts were thensaved and reviewed again for relevance (i.e., by date, information, and language of document5).

Consideration of Patent DatabasesThe use of databases containing patent information was considered as part of the search strategy.The Derwent World Patents Index and the U.S. Patents Full Text were two examples of optionaldatabases in Dialog which were considered. Patent information that could have been obtainedfrom the search would not have included information on the actual use of the process in currentlyrunning facilities, and would have resulted in non-specific technology information due to thegeneralized search strategy. Furthermore, the likelihood of obtaining information ontechnologies that are no yet at the commercial development stage was considered to be quitehigh. In view of the high costs associated with the use of these databases and the limited qualityof the data obtainable for the purposes of this project, it was decided that more specific andrelevant technological information could be obtained from other known sources and contacts.

5 Documents in French or in German were not necessarily excluded since CEI has capabilities in both of theselanguages.


APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP MEETING SUMMARY

Ozone-Depleting Substances Disposal TechnologiesStakeholder Working Group

March 28, 2000Lord Elgin Hotel, Ottawa (09:00-15:00)

Attendees

Mike Ascough DuPont CanadaHolmer Berthiaume Department of National DefenceCraig Boyle Public Works Government Services CanadaJean Carbonneau Environment CanadaAlain Carrière Cantox Environmental IncAlex Cavadias Environment CanadaDaniel Champagne Environnement QuébecPhilippe Chemouny Environment CanadaDon Connor VipondAbe Finkelstein Environment CanadaJim Flowers Protocol Resources Management IncIan Glew Bovar Waste ManagementJohn Hewings Ontario Ministry of the EnvironmentJohn Hilborn Environment CanadaMonty Johnston Bovar Waste ManagementTim Kearney Remtec InternationalJeremy Mann Environment CanadaRuss Martin Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry AssociationJason Maurier Ontario Ministry of the EnvironmentIan McGregor Fielding Chemical Technologies IncMark Miller Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry AssociationDan Nolan Cantox Environmental IncBeatrice Olivastri Friends of the EarthColin Park Canadian Coast GuardJacob Shapiro Cantox Environmental IncAdrian Steenkamer Environment CanadaArt Stelzig Environment CanadaMonique Thériault Public Works Government Services CanadaCarlo Vissani FRC Canada


PROCESS

Stakeholders were welcomed and thanked for their participation, introductions were made, andthe agenda was reviewed without changes. Brief presentations were given by EnvironmentCanada representatives on the Global ODS Agenda, the proposed ODS Phase-out Strategy, andon the history of the ODS Disposal Guidance initiative. Representatives of CantoxEnvironmental Inc (CEI) then gave presentations summarizing the draft Status Report,highlighting the identification of commercially available and emerging technologies as well asthe technical/environmental and economic/commercial evaluations of disposal technologies.

DISCUSSION

All stakeholders present were given an opportunity to raise questions or concerns, and tocomment on issues related to the control options presented. In general, many of the commentsaddressed policy issues, particularly Canada’s recently released phase-out strategy for ODS, sincethese are so closely associated with the development of a program to dispose of surplus ODS. The following summarizes the main points of discussion.

Costs

• The cost estimates discussed in the Status Report were provided to give some generalguidance to stakeholders. Accurate cost estimates on each process would be a very complexand involved exercise, and was beyond the scope of the current project.

• Transportation costs were not included in the analysis of the technologies. Some experiencesuggests that this would represent a relatively small though still significant percentage of thetotal disposal cost (about $0.60/kg, based on transport from Ontario to Alberta).

• Stakeholders indicated that a comprehensive economic evaluation of the ODS phase-outstrategy would be appropriate.

Viability of Disposal in Canada

• Several stakeholders suggested that it would be ideal to have a made-in-Canada solution toCanada’s ODS surplus, however there did not appear to be a solid business case forestablishing a facility in Canada to dispose of the required quantities of surplus ODS.

• Government representatives suggested that in order for a disposal facility to be viable inCanada it would have to have other destruction capacities, for example for pesticides, otherchlorinated organics, military wastes, etc. Environment Canada would be interested inreceiving any proposals to help develop such a project.

• One stakeholder pointed out that CFCs will likely not be recovered and disposed of for themobile and household appliance sectors, the former because of the rapid rate of loss and thelatter because the phase-out strategy is the status quo, which means in practice very smallamounts of CFCs will be recovered. Thus, the total amount of surplus CFC from theCanadian inventory available for disposal is much smaller than anticipated. Only about 26%of the total CFC inventory will be directly addressed by the phase-out plan, and not all of thiswill be recovered, since experience shows that recovery rates are typically well below 100%.


These considerations raise questions as to whether investing in a new or upgraded disposalfacility in Canada is economically viable. Throughout the discussions, the question of thesize of the market/inventory for surplus ODS was considered critical, as this would drive thecreation of a disposal option in Canada.

• There was concern regarding the destruction of surplus halon in Canada. Given theavailability of relatively inexpensive facilities in the U.S., there may be no business case for adestruction facility for halons in Canada.

Industry & Government Roles

• It was suggested by government stakeholders that only an industry-led “Product Stewardship”initiative to cover the costs of disposal could be effective (e.g., the proposed HRAI initiative. The resources and initiatives cannot come from the government, although governmentassistance in setting up such programs would be appropriate. Roles industry could playinclude: developing capital cost estimates for various processes; assessment of the economicand technical feasibility of collecting, cleaning, pressurizing, shipping, and disposing ofsurplus ODS. Industry stakeholders agreed with this approach in principle, but re-iteratedthat the business case for disposing of the quantities of ODS involved may not be viable, andmay require government support if this is to be successful.

Inventory Issues

• It was suggested that the halon inventory had been underestimated.• It was pointed out the Canada’s ODS inventory is not rigorous enough to provide a “measure

of success” as surplus ODS is recovered and destroyed; there will be no way to be certain ofhow successful such a program is. Mandatory reporting requirements (under CEPA) wouldbe needed to get a realistic estimate of the volumes of surplus ODS.

• One stakeholder indicated that the announcement of Canada’s proposed accelerated phase-out strategy for ODS has already had an effect, and stakeholders are beginning to look forways to get rid of quantities that are not yet considered surplus. Thus, the inventory availablefor disposal may turn out to be smaller than anticipated.

Issues With New Facilities in Canada

• There are many issues associated with the approval process for a destruction facility that needto be taken into account and that represent significant barriers and delays, including:− Hazardous waste regulations− Environmental Assessment hearings (environmental & socio-economic impacts)− Cost-benefit analysis− Board and Ministerial approval processes− Process of proceeding with a pilot facility

• Mobile facilities may be a practical alternative, however these would involve an entire set ofdifferent regulatory issues that, again, involve barriers and delays.

• Given the challenges and delays associated with building and approving a new destructionfacility in Canada, it was argued that it may make more sense to focus on existing facilitiesfor ODS disposal.


Other Issues

• Certification of destruction would be an important mechanism for assuring that ODS hadbeen disposed of appropriately if ODS is to be exported for disposal.

• Destruction capacity for ODS in Canada is currently limited. The only facility licensed todestroy CFCs and halons is Bovar’s incinerator in Swan Hills, Alberta. Capacity at thisfacility is limited to about 40 tonnes/year at present, but could be upgraded to about 3000tonnes/year within 6 months.

• It was suggested that some of the emerging technologies identified could be of interest froman environmental perspective. Others pointed out that there simply is not enough time towait for emerging technologies to become commercially available, and that the focus has toremain on existing technologies.

• Representatives of the ODS recycling industry expressed concerns over the shiftingperception of their operations as “bad,” now that the focus in on disposal of ODS, despite theenvironmental benefits of their efforts to date. Considerable investment has been made toprovide these recycling services, and some consideration should be given to compensatingrecyclers for the impacts the new phase-out strategy will have on their business.

• A concern was raised regarding Canada’s policy on importing ODS surplus for destruction,should a full-capacity facility be developed in Canada. It was stated that such imports wouldbe supported only if they were managed and disposed of in an environmentally responsiblemanner.

• One stakeholder pointed out that there is a need to re-visit environmental criteria for ODSdisposal technologies since there are health issues associated with disposal, e.g., in the caseof incineration, concern for dioxin/furan formation. In addition to the technical evaluation ofavailable disposal technologies, there is an important political discussion surrounding the useof incineration in particular.

PATH FORWARD

March 2000 Comment period on Status Report for all stakeholders

March 31, 2000 Guidance Document to be submitted to Environment Canada

May 2000 (?) Guidance Document to be made available to stakeholders

Appendix D

Contacts for Further Information

Contacts for Further Information

Office of the Director GeneralEnvironmental Technology Advancement DirectorateEnvironment Canada351 St. Joseph BoulevardHull, QC K1A 0H3CANADATel: (819) 953-3090Fax: (819) 953-9029

Mr. Philippe ChemounyInternational Technology Transfer OfficerEnvironmental Technology Advancement DirectorateEnvironment Canada351 St. Joseph BoulevardHull, QC K1A 0H3CANADATel: (819) 997-2768Fax: (819) 997-8427E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Tamara CurllAssistant DirectorOzone Protection SectionEnvironment AustraliaAUSTRALIATel: (61 2) 6274 1701Fax: (61 2) 6274 1172E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Blaise HorisbergerAdjoint scientifiqueOffice fédéral de l'environnement, des forêts et du paysageSUISSETel: (41 31) 322 90 24Fax: (41 31) 324 79 78E-mail: [email protected]

Adrian Steenkamer Jr.Program OfficerEnvironmental Technology Advancement DirectorateEnvironment Canada351 St. Joseph BoulevardHull, QC K1A 0H3CANADATel: (819) 953-0962Fax: (819) 953-0509E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Geoffrey TierneySenior Environmental Affairs OfficerEnergy and OzonAction UnitDivision of Technology, Industry and EconomicsUnited Nations Environment Programme (France)FRANCETel: (33 1) 4437 7633Fax: (33 1) 4437 1474E-mail: [email protected]

Appendix A Manual of Destruction Technologies for ... · Table 1. Classification and Outline of...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix A Manual of Destruction Technologies for ... · Table 1. Classification and Outline of...