HFC and ODS Recovery and Destruction

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and ozone-depleting substances (ODS), including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), are classes of synthetic compounds used in refrigeration with high global warming potentials (GWPs) and atmospheric lifetimes ranging from months to centuries. While their persistence varies by compound, most are sufficiently long-lived to mix globally and contribute meaningfully to near-term climate forcing. Their controlled destruction therefore represents one of the most immediate and impactful opportunities to reduce radiative forcing and slow global temperature rise.

Significant CO₂-equivalent warming potential already resides in deployed cooling equipment and end-of-life products around the world. In many regions, particularly Montreal Protocol Article 5 countries, the infrastructure needed to recover these gases at end of life is limited, recovery is not mandated or enforced, and the typical outcome is atmospheric release. The Kigali Amendment establishes a phase-down trajectory for HFC production and consumption, and the Montreal Protocol has driven substantial progress on ODS phase-out, but neither framework directly addresses the legacy bank of gases already in the field. The controlled destruction of these substances is complementary to both the ODS phase-out and the HFC phase-down. By preventing the venting of high-GWP compounds, such as during routine refrigerant servicing or at equipment end-of-life, projects implemented under this Protocol avoid contributing to warming while supporting compliance with international commitments.

This Protocol establishes the requirements and standards for quantifying, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved through the collection and destruction of HFCs and ODS that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere. It provides a consistent framework for projects seeking to generate high-integrity credits for permanent mitigation of super-pollutant emissions, ensuring that credited reductions are real, additional, independently verified, and conservatively quantified. Emission reductions are credited exclusively on the basis of avoided GHG emissions (GWP-100); ozone co-benefits are not credited.

Beyond delivering verified climate outcomes, the Protocol contributes to the broader infrastructure, workforce capacity, and data that the refrigerant sector needs to manage end-of-life gases at scale. The collection networks, trained technicians, analytical testing capabilities, and reporting systems that destruction projects establish are the same capabilities that reclamation, equipment transition, and lifecycle management require. Every project generates publicly reported data on refrigerant type, quantity, source, chain of custody, and destruction performance, building an empirical base that does not exist today. Destruction is a necessary and permanent climate intervention and the operational foundation it creates enables the full suite of refrigerant management solutions to follow.

Specific standards and Protocols that are utilized as the foundation of this Protocol, and for which this Protocol is intended to comply with, are the following:

• Isometric Standard
• ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14064-2: 2019 – Greenhouse Gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at The Project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements

Additional reference standards that inform the requirements and overall practices incorporated in this Protocol include:

• ISO 14064-3: 2019 - Greenhouse Gases - Part 3: Specification with Guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements
• ISO 14040: 2006 - Environmental Management - Lifecycle Assessment - Principles & Framework
• ISO 14044: 2006 - Environmental Management - Lifecycle Assessment - Requirements & Guidelines
• AHRI 700 Standard
• UNEP TEAP Code of Good Housekeeping

Additional standards, methodologies and Protocols that were reviewed, referenced and informed the development of this Protocol include:

• VM0016 Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances and Hydrofluorocarbons, Version 2.0 (Verra, December 2025)
• GHR001 Methodology for Assessing Emissions Reductions via Collection and Destruction of HFCs, Version 1.1 (Global Heat Reduction Initiative, a program of Scientific Certification Systems Inc., December 2024)
• Draft Methodology for Recovery and Destruction of Hydrofluorocarbons in Article 5 Countries, Version 2.1 (Yale Carbon Containment Lab, 2024)

Projects meeting the following applicability criteria are considered eligible for crediting under this Protocol:

• Eligible countries
  • Refrigerants must be recovered from countries which have ratified the Kigali Amendment, and meet the country-level eligibility screen (see Section 6.2). Refrigerants recovered from Article 5 countries, meeting the rest of the applicability conditions are deemed additional. Non-Article 5 country projects require enhanced additionality demonstration.
  • Other project activities (aggregation, destruction, laboratory analysis) may be implemented in separate countries from recovery.
• Eligible gases
  • Projects must destroy eligible refrigerant gases:
    • CFCs as specified in Montreal Protocol Annex A, Group I and Annex B, Group I
    • HCFCs as specified in Montreal Protocol Annex C, Group I
    • HFCs as specified in Montreal Protocol Annex F, Group I
    • Eligible HFC refrigerant blends
    • Additional refrigerant gases may be proposed for inclusion with approval by Isometric. Commercial blends containing any listed substance are also eligible.
• Eligible sources
  • HFC or ODS must be recovered from sources that have a baseline scenario that includes total or partial atmospheric release. As such, only HFC and ODS refrigerants recovered from the following sources are eligible:
    • Routine servicing
    • End-of-life
  • Recovered refrigerant gases must be approved following the requirements in Section 8.1.2
  • Recovered refrigerant must not be part of a product stewardship scheme or other program that creates incentives or mechanisms resulting in refrigerant destruction as an industry common practice. Edge cases, such as where a product stewardship program relies on revenue from carbon finance to fund destruction will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
• Eligible destruction facilities
  • Must be approved following the requirements in Section 8.3

The quantification, monitoring and documentation requirements in this Protocol support container-based handling of HFCs and ODS. Future versions may support alternative direct capture-to-destruction pathways such as via mobile destruction units, co-located recovery and destruction, or continuous-feed systems.

The following topics are covered briefly in this Protocol due to their inclusion in the Isometric Standard, which governs all Isometric Protocols. See in-text references to the Isometric Standard for further guidance.

For each specific project to be evaluated under this Protocol, the Project Proponent must document project characteristics in a Project Design Document (PDD) as outlined in the Isometric Standard. The PDD will form the basis for project verification and evaluation in accordance with this Protocol, and must include consideration of processes unique to each project such as:

• documentation of official permitting
• detailed description of how recovered HFCs will be characterized
• description of the mitigation plan according to the environmental and social risk assessment in adherence with Section 5, including an accompanying robust monitoring plan to ensure efficacy
• description of the quantification strategy for gross CO₂e reduction following Section 7
• description of all measurements and methods used to quantify processes relevant to the calculation of net CO₂e reduction, cross-referenced with relevant standards where applicable
• description of all models used to quantify processes relevant to the calculation of net CO₂e reduction that are not directly measurable

Projects must be validated and net CO₂e reductions verified by an independent third party, consistent with the requirements described in this Protocol as well as in the Isometric Standard.

The VVB must adhere to these requisite components:

• verify that the quantification approach adheres to requirements of Section 7, including demonstration of required records.
• verify that the Environmental & Social Safeguards outlined in Section 5 are met.
• verify that The Project is compliant with requirements outlined in the Isometric Standard.

The threshold for Materiality, considering the totality of all omissions, errors and mis-statements, is 5%, in accordance with the Isometric Standard.

Verifiers should also verify the documentation of uncertainty of the GHG statement as required by the Isometric Standard.

Qualitative Materiality issues may also be identified and documented, such as:

• control issues that erode the verifier’s confidence in the reported data;
• poorly managed documented information;
• difficulty in locating requested information;
• noncompliance with regulations indirectly related to GHG emissions, removals or storage.

Project validation and verification must incorporate a site visit to project facilities in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14064-3, 6.1.4.2, including, at a minimum, a site visit at the destruction facility during the first Validation or Verification of a Project. Validators should, whenever possible, observe project operations to ensure full documentation of process inputs and outputs through visual observation (see Validation and Verification Requirements Section of the Isometric Standard). For HFC and ODS destruction processes, this may include consolidation, sampling and destruction procedures.

Verifiers and validators must comply with the requirements defined in Validation and Verification Requirements Section of the Isometric Standard. In addition, VVB teams must maintain and demonstrate expertise associated with the specific technologies of interest.

All VVBs are approved by Isometric independently and impartially based on alignment with Conflict of Interest policies, rotation of VVB policies, oversight on quality and the following requirements:

• VVBs must be able to demonstrate accreditation from:
  • an International Accreditation Forum member against ISO 14065 or other relevant ISO standard, including but not limited to ISO 14034, ISO 17020, ISO 17029; or
  • a relevant governmental or intergovernmental regulatory body.
• Alternatively, VVBs may be approved on a case-by-case basis if they are able to demonstrate to Isometric that they satisfy all required Verification needs and competencies required for the relevant Protocol and follow the guidelines of ISO 19011 or other relevant standards.

Greenhouse gas reduction or avoidance can often be a result of a multi-step process, with activities in each step managed and operated by a different operator, company or owner. When there are multiple parties involved in the process, and to avoid double counting of net CO₂e reductions, a single Project Proponent must be specified contractually as the sole owner of Credits. Contracts must comply with all requirements defined in Ownership Section of the Isometric Standard.

This Protocol employs a positive list approach to additionality. The applicability conditions in Section 3 and the country-level eligibility framework in Section 6.2 together constitute the positive list. Projects meeting these criteria are deemed additional without requiring project-level additionality demonstration.

In particular, projects in Article 5 countries are deemed additional where:

1. The host country does not mandate HFC recovery or destruction, or where such a mandate exists, compliance is below 50% (assessed via the country-level eligibility screen in Section 6.3;
2. The recovered refrigerant is not part of a mandatory product stewardship or take-back program that already ensures recovery and destruction as an industry common practice (see Eligible Sources in Section 3); and
3. The project does not increase the production or import of new HFCs above Kigali Amendment phase-down limits (assessed via the country-level consumption check in Section 6.3 ).

Non-Article 5 country projects are not covered by the positive list and require project-level additionality demonstration as specified in the country eligibility framework (Scenario V, Section 6.3).

The counterfactual scenarios and baselines are described in Section 6.2 of this Protocol.

Isometric monitors positive list eligibility conditions at the protocol level through periodic reviews of regulatory developments, market conditions, and Kigali Amendment compliance data across eligible countries. Changes to country-level eligibility (e.g., introduction and enforcement of mandatory recovery regulations, or failure of the consumption check) are reflected in updated country eligibility determinations published by Isometric and apply to new Crediting Periods.

For projects that rely on project-level additionality demonstration (i.e., Non-Article 5 country projects under Scenario V), the additionality determination must be reviewed at project validation and reassessed in the event of significant changes to project operating conditions, such as:

• regulatory requirements or other legal obligations for project implementation change or new requirements are implemented;
• project financials indicate Carbon Finance is no longer required, potentially due to, for example:
  • increased tipping fees for waste feedstocks;
  • sale of co-products that make the business viable without Carbon Finance;
  • reduced rates for capital access.

Any review and change in the determination of additionality will not affect the availability of Carbon Finance and Credits for the current or past Crediting Periods, but, if the review indicates The Project has become non-additional, this will make The Project ineligible for future Credits.

The uncertainty in the overall estimate of net CO₂e impact as a result of The Project must be accounted for. The total net CO₂e impact for a specific Reporting Period must be conservatively determined, and projects must conduct an uncertainty analysis for the net CO₂e impact calculation in compliance with requirements outlined in Uncertainty in Removals and Reductions Section of the Isometric Standard.

Projects must report a list of all key variables used in the net CO₂e removal calculation and their uncertainties, as well as a description of the uncertainty analysis approach, including:

• required measurements used for net CO₂e calculation;
• emission factors utilized, as published in public and other databases used;
• values of measured parameters from process instrumentation, such as electricity usage from utility power meters;
• laboratory analyses.

The uncertainty information should at least include the minimum and maximum values of each variable that goes into the net CO₂e calculation (see Section 7 for more details). More detailed uncertainty information should be provided if available, as outlined in the Isometric Standard.

In addition, a sensitivity analysis that demonstrates the impact of each input parameter’s uncertainty on the final CO₂e uncertainty must be provided. Details of the sensitivity analysis method must be provided such that a third party can reproduce the results. Input variables may be omitted from an uncertainty analysis if they contribute to a < 1% change in the net CO₂e reduction. For all other parameters, information about uncertainty must be specified.

In accordance with the Isometric Standard, all evidence and data related to the underlying quantification of net CO₂e reduction and environmental monitoring will be available to the public through Isometric Certify. That includes:

• Project Design Document
• GHG Statement
• Measurements taken
• Model specifications and output
• Emission factors used
• Scientific literature used

The Project Proponent can request certain information to be restricted (only available to authorized buyers, the Registry and VVB) where it is subject to confidentiality. However, that does not apply to any numerical data produced or used as part of the quantification of net CO₂e impact.

In addition, in compliance with FAIR Principles, The Project Proponent should publicly disseminate deployment data that is relevant to scientific research, such as through open data repositories.

Following the Isometric Standard, Credits issued under Isometric's HFC and ODS Recovery and Destruction Protocol are contingent on the implementation, transparent reporting and independent verification of comprehensive safeguards. Isometric takes a holistic approach to Environmental and Social Safeguarding (ESS) Risks associated with project activities must be weighed alongside risks of climate change to support responsible innovation.

Environmental and Social Safeguards must include, but are not limited to, the following Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles:

• Compliance: Project Proponents must comply with all national and local laws, regulations and policies.
  • For HFC and ODS Recovery and Destruction projects, this may include obtaining the following permits:
    • Host Country Destruction Permit
    • Operational and Maintenance Permit
    • Transboundary Movement Permit
• Risk Identification: Project Proponents must assess the potential environmental and social risks of project activities, in adherence with the Isometric Standard. Risk identification, impact assessment and mitigation plans must include, at a minimum, a discussion of pollution prevention and safe working conditions.
• Impact Assessment and Mitigation: Project Proponents must conduct an impact assessment and strategy for mitigation for each risk identified above. Impact assessments may be qualitative or quantitative.
• Monitoring and Adaptive Management: Implementation of risk mitigation measures must also be accompanied by a robust monitoring plan to ensure efficacy. Project Proponents must preemptively develop a remediation plan in the case that the identified risks occur and result in harm to the environment or society.

Project activities under this Protocol involve the handling, transport, storage, and destruction of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and other controlled substances. These activities, if improperly managed, may pose risks to human health, worker safety, and the environment through fugitive emissions, generation of hazardous by-products, or inadequate operational controls. To mitigate these risks, the requirements in this Protocol are aligned with the requirements set forth in the UNEP Code of Good Housekeeping and UNEP Technology Screening Process.

The original text of these resources have been included in Appendix A (Code of Good Housekeeping) and Appendix B (Technology Screening Process) for reference. Where "ODS" or "ozone-depleting substance" appears in Appendix A or Appendix B, it must be interpreted as "ODS and HFC" or "controlled substance" as applicable to The Project activity.

The scope of this Protocol includes GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) associated with an HFC and ODS Destruction Project.

A cradle-to-grave GHG Statement must be prepared encompassing the GHG emissions relating to the activities outlined within the system boundary.

GHG emissions and reductions associated with The Project may be direct emissions from a process, or indirect emissions from combustion of fuels, electricity generation, or other sources. Emissions must include all GHG SSRs within the system boundary, from the construction or manufacturing of each physical site and associated equipment, closure and disposal of each site and associated equipment, and operation of each process, including embodied emissions of equipment and consumables used in the project. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities.

Any emissions from sub-processes or process changes that would not have taken place without the involvement of the reduction, such as subsequent transportation or substitute refrigerant production, must be fully considered in the system boundary. This allows for accurate consideration of additional, incremental emissions induced by the reduction process.

The system boundary must include all relevant GHG SSRs controlled and related to The Project, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1. If any GHG SSRs within Table 1 are deemed not appropriate to include in the system boundary, they may be excluded provided that robust justification and appropriate evidence is provided in the PDD.

Figure 1. Process flow diagram showing system boundary for eligible HFC destruction projects.

Table 1: Project System Boundary

Miscellaneous GHG emissions are those that cannot be categorized by the GHG SSR categories provided in Table 1. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities and must report any outside of the SSR categories identified as miscellaneous emissions.

In some instances, the project activities may be integrated into existing activities, such as the recovery and subsequent transport of refrigerant gases. Activities that were already occurring, and would continue to occur in the absence of The Project, may be omitted from the system boundary of the GHG accounting if evidence of this is provided.

Emissions associated with a project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of a project must also be considered. This is covered under Market Integrity Safeguards in Section 6.3.

In line with the GHG Accounting Module v1.1, the Project must:

• Consider all GHGs associated with SSRs, in alignment with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of GHGs which includes: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20) and fluorinated gasses such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). For CO2 stored, only CO2 shall be included as part of the quantification. For all other activities all GHGs must be considered. For example, the release of CO2, CH4, and N2O is expected during diesel consumption;
• Quantify emissions in tonnes CO₂ equivalent (t CO₂e) using the 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the GHG of interest, based on the most recent volume of the IPCC Assessment Report (currently the Sixth Assessment Report); and
• Consider materiality of SSRs in line with Isometric requirements.

This section establishes the baseline scenario against which emission reductions are quantified and the additionality framework that determines whether destruction would have occurred without Carbon Finance. Projects meeting the eligibility criteria in applicability are deemed additional.

In the absence of project activities, the general fate of HFC and ODS refrigerants at end of life or during servicing may include any combination of the following outcomes:

1. Imminent atmospheric release (venting). Refrigerant is released to the atmosphere during servicing, equipment decommissioning, or disposal. This is the predominant fate in Article 5 countries lacking recovery mandates or infrastructure.
2. Recovery for reuse or reclamation. Refrigerant is recovered and returned to the commercial refrigerant market, either as-is or after processing to virgin-equivalent specifications. The gas may face eventual release through operational leakage over the remaining equipment lifetime.
3. Destruction without Carbon Finance. Refrigerant is destroyed at a permitted facility outside of any GHG crediting program, whether voluntarily, as part of a product stewardship scheme, or under a government mandate. This may also include cases where products are disposed of at an incineration facility where destruction occurs as a by-product of general waste management.

Refrigerant that has not been recovered from equipment, including gas remaining in operating systems, contained in manufactured products, or held in virgin or reclaimed commercial inventories, is outside the scope of eligible sources (Section 3) and is not considered in the baseline.

The fate of the refrigerants from eligible sources could be a mix of outcomes 1–3. The proportion attributable to each outcome is reflected in the country-level default values for venting ($X_{vent} ​$​), reuse ($X_{reuse}$), and destruction ($X_{destroy}$) established in Section 6.2.2. Where destruction without carbon finance is occurring at a material rate, such as through an adequately funded extended producer responsibility (EPR) program or other financial mechanism, this is captured in the $X_{destroy}$ default value and is excluded from the creditable baseline.

Isometric will maintain an annually updated set of country-level default values which describe the relative proportion of refrigerant venting, reuse and destruction in the baseline. These default rates exclude other projects implemented under GHG programs. When the cumulative reuse and destruction rate rises above 50% (or 0.50), the country shall no longer be eligible for further credit. For predictability, a project’s default values will be fixed for 5 years. After 5 years, the default values will be updated according to the current year’s default values.

In 2026, for projects in eligible Article 5 countries, the following default assumptions in Table 2 apply.

Table 2: Default rates of venting, reuse and destruction in Article 5 countries.

HFC

Venting of HFC refrigerants at end of life and during servicing is near-universal in Article 5 countries, where recovery infrastructure is limited and there is typically no economic incentive or regulatory requirement for recovery. However, some informal recovery-for-reuse does occur (e.g., technicians recovering refrigerant during servicing for recharging the same or other equipment), and a blanket assumption of zero reuse would overstate the baseline.

CFC

CFC production has been fully phased out in all countries under the Montreal Protocol (Article 5 deadline: 2010). No new CFC is being manufactured. However, significant quantities of CFC remain in legacy equipment (older commercial and industrial refrigeration, centrifugal chillers) and in stockpiles, particularly in Article 5 countries. Recovered CFC has limited but nonzero residual value for topping up legacy equipment that cannot be economically retrofitted.

HCFC

HCFC production is being phased out under the Montreal Protocol but remains ongoing at reduced levels in Article 5 countries (97.5% reduction from baseline required by 2025, complete phase-out by 2030 for Group 1; 2040 for Group 2). HCFC-22 remains the dominant working refrigerant in much of the Article 5 installed base, particularly in residential and light commercial air conditioning. Recovered HCFC-22 has meaningful commercial value because the installed equipment base is large and retrofit costs are high, creating demand for recovered gas to service existing systems.

Compliance rate adjustments

Where recovery or destruction of refrigerants is mandated by national law implementing the obligations to Kigali Amendment phasedown or Montreal Protocol (e.g., national HFC management regulations, mandatory recovery-at-servicing rules, or end-of-life destruction requirements), and this mandate is demonstrably enforced, the baseline must be adjusted to reflect gradually increasing compliance. Venting bans alone do not trigger this adjustment; the mandate must require destruction action. Compliance rate adjustments will be triggered only where a host country has enacted and demonstrably enforces a requirement to destroy or reuse refrigerants at end of life. Enforcement is evaluated through published compliance data, government enforcement reports, or equivalent evidence. As of 2026, no Article 5 country is known to enforce such a requirement for HFCs, CFCs, or HCFCs.

The release efficiency of refrigerant gases that are vented, reused and destroyed are indicated in Table 3. These values are used for net reduction quantification as described in Section 7.

Table 3: Default release efficiency factors for venting, reuse and destruction.

The release efficiency of reused refrigerant is currently set to zero, reflecting the Protocol's design choice to credit only the avoided emissions from the fraction that would have been imminently vented. Gas that would have been reused faces eventual atmospheric release through operational leakage, but the timing and magnitude are uncertain and vary by equipment type, maintenance practice, and remaining useful life. Setting $RE_{reuse} = 0$ avoids speculative crediting of delayed emissions and prevents potential double counting. This value may be revised in future Protocol versions as lifecycle refrigerant management (LRM) practices in Article 5 countries evolve and empirical data on in-service leak rates becomes available from deployed projects.

ODS and HFC destruction projects interact differently with global production and trade systems, and this difference shapes the safeguards required.

For ODS, market leakage is set to zero. ODS production is in terminal decline under the Montreal Protocol's phase-out schedule. No new CFC is manufactured anywhere; HCFC production is being eliminated on a binding timeline. Destruction of recovered ODS cannot be offset by producing more of the same substance, so there is no mechanism by which credited destruction creates headroom for additional supply.

For HFCs, the picture is fundamentally different. The Kigali Amendment requires a phasedown, not a phase-out, of HFC production and consumption. Non-Article 5 countries must reach 85% reduction by 2036, while Article 5 countries phase down to 15-20% of baseline by the mid-2040s. Because ongoing production is legally permitted within phasedown limits, the interaction between destruction crediting and consumption accounting requires active safeguards. Two risks are relevant:

1. Consumption-headroom risk. Under the Montreal Protocol's consumption formula (Consumption = CS_Produced - CS_Destroyed - CS_Feedstock + Imports - Exports), destroyed refrigerant is subtracted from calculated consumption. This creates a theoretical mechanism by which credited destruction could lower a country's reported consumption, potentially creating headroom for additional production or imports above what the phasedown schedule would otherwise allow.
2. Manufacture-for-destruction risk. Where the carbon credit value of destroying a unit of HFC exceeds its market price as a working refrigerant, an economic incentive may exist to procure or manufacture new HFC specifically for destruction. This risk is gas-specific and jurisdiction-specific, and varies with carbon credit prices, virgin gas prices, and the costs of recovery, aggregation, and destruction.

Historical evidence indicates that the consumption-headroom risk has been low in practice. Analysis of Ozone Secretariat data from 1986 to 2022 across all Article 5 parties and all controlled substances identified only one instance in which a small quantity of destruction was used as the basis for phasedown compliance, representing approximately 0.1% of that country's total production in that year. Nevertheless, as HFC destruction crediting scales, the interaction between credited volumes and national consumption accounting will become more material. The safeguards in this section are designed to be robust at scale, not only at current volumes.

The Project activity must not create an economic incentive for the production or import of new HFCs for the purpose of destruction. The following framework of eligibility criteria, ongoing monitoring, and graduated responses is designed to address both risks.

Country eligibility for HFC destruction crediting is determined by the scenario framework in Table 4, which differentiates treatment based on three factors: Kigali Amendment ratification status, whether the national HFC baseline has been established, and whether the country is an HFC producer.

In addition to the scenario-specific criteria below, Kigali Amendment ratification is a cross-cutting prerequisite: refrigerants must be recovered from countries that have ratified the Kigali Amendment, with no exceptions. Requirements relating to double counting and the avoidance of crediting destruction that generates compliance-equivalent value under other programs are addressed in the Isometric Standard.

Table 4: Country eligibility scenario framework

Isometric conducts an annual country-level eligibility review for each source country in which credited destruction is occurring or is anticipated. The review integrates data from multiple sources to assess whether the risks identified above are adequately controlled. The review covers three areas.

Production-and-import reconciliation. Isometric will obtain the most recent Article 7 data reported by each eligible source country to the Ozone Secretariat, supplemented where available by UNEP trade data, national customs statistics, and relevant data reported by Project Proponents. Isometric will compare reported national HFC production and imports (by Annex F substance group) against the aggregate volume of destruction credited under this Protocol and any other known crediting programs operating in that country.

Where this comparison indicates that credited destruction volumes are material relative to the country's consumption profile (for example, where credited destruction is approaching or exceeding the gap between the applicable Kigali consumption limit and actual reported consumption), Isometric will apply the graduated response framework below. Isometric may also consider whether year-on-year trends in reported production or imports in a country where credited destruction is growing are consistent with normal market dynamics, or whether the pattern warrants further investigation.

Destruction quantities credited under this Protocol will be publicly reported and can be cross-referenced against national reports to the Ozone Secretariat, enabling independent verification that credited destruction is not being used to inflate allowable consumption.

Market conditions assessment. Isometric will assess available data on HFC market conditions in each eligible source country. This review draws on confidential fee-per-kilogram data reported by Project Proponents at intake, published trade data, Ozone Secretariat reporting, and any other relevant market intelligence.

The assessment evaluates whether market conditions present an elevated risk of manufacture-for-destruction or other perverse incentives. Factors considered include, but are not limited to: the ratio of reported acquisition fees to estimated virgin prices by gas species; the presence or absence of functioning reclamation infrastructure; the existence of grey or informal market channels that may distort published price data; and trends in reported acquisition costs over successive reporting periods.

As a project-level prerequisite, Project Proponents must demonstrate that total payments made to HFC suppliers, aggregators, or intermediaries do not exceed the prevailing market cost of equivalent virgin refrigerant in the relevant jurisdiction. Fee and virgin price data reported at intake under Section 8.1.3 will be used, in aggregated form, to inform this country-level assessment.

Supply-chain concentration check. Isometric will monitor the concentration and structure of gas supply into credited destruction at the project and supplier level, using data collected under the chain-of-custody requirements in Section 8.

The purpose of this check is to identify patterns that may indicate non-additional destruction: specifically, situations where a single supplier, intermediary, or affiliated network accounts for a disproportionate share of credited destruction in a country, or where the volume and composition of gas supplied is not consistent with the stated recovery context, equipment profile, and geographic area documented in collection or batch collection logs.

This check uses data Isometric already collects: aggregate credit generation volumes per Project Proponent per source country; reported acquisition volumes by supplier or intermediary from intake logs and batch collection logs; fee-per-kilogram data; and the results of any mass reasonableness checks conducted under Section 8.1.2.2. Where the analysis identifies a concerning concentration pattern, Isometric will apply the graduated response framework below.

Where the annual review identifies an elevated risk in any of the areas above, Isometric may apply one or more of the following responses, scaled to the severity and nature of the risk:

(a) Enhanced verification requirements. Impose additional verification requirements for projects in the affected country, which may include increased gas sampling rates, gas testing specifically targeting virgin markers (e.g., oil contamination analysis, isotopic analysis), independent third-party market price audits, or mandatory conversion of Tier 2 provenance gas to Tier 1 per-unit documentation for a sample of containers.

(b) Restricted gas list. Maintain a country-specific restricted gas list identifying HFC species or blends for which the risk is assessed as unacceptably high. The restricted gas list will be published as part of Isometric's country eligibility determinations and updated during each annual review. Projects in the affected country may not claim credits for destruction of restricted gas species unless Isometric grants a specific exemption based on evidence that adequate project-level controls are in place.

(c) Unbundled fee structure. Require Project Proponents operating in the flagged country to demonstrate structural separation between the fee paid per kilogram of recovered refrigerant and any payments for collection labor, logistics, transportation, or equipment. The refrigerant-specific component must be reported separately and assessed against available virgin price data. This allows total compensation to technicians and suppliers to remain sufficient to incentivize recovery while ensuring the refrigerant acquisition cost itself does not create an arbitrage opportunity.

(d) Supply-chain intervention. Reclassify gas from a flagged supplier or intermediary to a lower provenance tier, revoke an intermediary's pre-screened status, or require the Project Proponent to provide additional documentation on whether the flagged entity or its affiliates are engaged in HFC production, import, or wholesale trade.

(e) Pause on new project registrations. Suspend registration of new projects in the affected country while permitting existing registered projects to continue operating under enhanced verification requirements as specified in (a). The pause remains in effect until Isometric's subsequent annual review determines that the risk has been adequately mitigated or that additional data supports lifting the restriction.

(f) Country removal or credit discounting. Remove the country from the list of eligible source countries, or discount credits for destruction in that country by the amount necessary to offset the identified risk. This response is reserved for cases where the consumption-headroom check fails (Scenarios III and IV) or where other risks cannot be adequately mitigated through measures (a) to (e).

The criteria and thresholds used in these assessments will be refined as data accumulates and published as part of Isometric's country eligibility determinations.

The Reporting Period, $RP$, represents an interval of time over which reductions are calculated and reported for verification. The total net $CO_2e$ reduction is calculated using a series of measurements for a specified Reporting Period.

For HFC and ODS destruction projects, a single Reporting Period must not exceed 1 year.

GHG emission calculations must include all emissions related to the project activities that occur within the Reporting Period. This includes:

• any emissions associated with project establishment allocated to the Reporting Period,
• any emissions that occur within the Reporting Period,
• any anticipated emissions that would occur after the Reporting Period that have been allocated to the Reporting Period, and
• leakage emissions that occur outside of the system boundary as a result of induced market changes that are associated with the Reporting Period.

The net CO₂e reduction equation is:

$$CO_2e_{Reduction} = CO_2e_{Baseline} - CO_2e_{Project}$$

Equation 1

Where:

• $CO_2e_{Reduction}$ represents the net CO₂e reduction for the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Baseline}$ represents the HFC and ODS emissions which would have occurred in the absence of The Project, over the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Project}$ represents the CO₂e emissions from the associated LCA in The Project over the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.

The Project Proponent must determine the baseline scenario for all emissions using the following set of equations. Total baseline emissions are the sum of baseline emissions from each substance class present in the destroyed material:

$$CO_2e_{Baseline,RP} = CO_2e_{Baseline,HFC,RP} + CO_2e_{Baseline,CFC,RP} + CO_2e_{Baseline,HCFC,RP}$$

Equation 2

Where:

• $CO_2e_{Baseline,RP}$ represents total baseline emissions from all eligible refrigerants over the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Baseline,HFC,RP}$ represents baseline emissions attributable to HFC constituents, in tonnes CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Baseline,CFC,RP}$ represents baseline emissions attributable to CFC constituents, in tonnes CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Baseline,HCFC,RP}$ represents baseline emissions attributable to HCFC constituents, in tonnes CO₂e.

Each substance-class baseline equation follows the same general structure but uses substance-class-specific default rates. The HFC baseline equation is presented in full below. The CFC and HCFC baseline equations follow the same structure, substituting the relevant substance-class-specific default values and GWP values.

Baseline emissions from HFC refrigerants are determined based on the counterfactual fate of HFCs in the absence of The Project activity, accounting for the proportion of HFCs that would be vented, reused, or destroyed under business-as-usual conditions.

$$CO_2e_{Baseline,HFC,RP} = \left[ X_{vent,HFC} \cdot RE_{vent,HFC} + X_{reuse,HFC} \cdot RE_{reuse,HFC} + X_{destroy,HFC} \cdot RE_{destroy,HFC} \right] \times \sum_{i=1}^{N} m_{HFC,i} \times GWP_{effective,HFC,i}$$

Equation 3

Where:

• $CO_2e_{Baseline,RP}$ represents baseline emissions from HFC refrigerants which would be released into the atmosphere in the absence of The Project activity, over the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes CO₂e.
• Isometric default values (see Section 6.2.2):
  • $X_{vent,HFC}$ represents the mass fraction of HFCs which would be vented into the atmosphere in the baseline, unitless.
  • $RE_{vent}$ represents the release efficiency factor for refrigerant gases which would be vented, unitless.
  • $X_{reuse,HFC}$ represents the mass fraction of HFCs which would be reused in the baseline, unitless.
  • $RE_{reuse}$ represents the release efficiency factor for refrigerant gases which would be reused, unitless.
  • $X_{destroy,HFC}$ represents the mass fraction of HFCs which would be destroyed in the baseline, unitless.
  • $RE_{destroy}$ represents the release efficiency factor for refrigerant gases which would be destroyed, unitless.
• Project-specific values:
  • $m_{HFC,i}$ represents the eligible mass of HFC constituents in container $i$ sent for destruction by The Project activity, in tonnes. For containers holding only HFCs, $m_{HFC,i} = m_i$ (the total eligible mass per Equation 5). For containers holding a mixture of HFCs, CFCs, and/or HCFCs, $m_{HFC,i}$ is the HFC mass fraction of the eligible mass. See Equation 6.
  • $GWP_{effective,HFC,i}$ represents the effective mass-weighted 100-year GWP of the HFC constituents in container $i$, in tCO₂e/t HFC. See Equation 4.
  • $N$ represents the total number of containers sent for destruction over the Reporting Period, RP.

For containers with multiple HFC species, the effective GWP of the HFC fraction is:

$$GWP_{effective,HFC,i} = \sum_{j=1}^{M_{HFC}} \left[ \eta_{HFC,j} \times GWP_j \right]_i$$

Equation 4

Where:

• $GWP_j$ represents the 100-year GWP of HFC species $j$ per the IPCC AR6 values, in tCO₂e/t HFC_j. Ineligible constituent gases have $GWP_j = 0$.
• $\eta_{HFC,j}$ represents the mass fraction of HFC species $j$ within the HFC fraction of container $i$, unitless. Determined from laboratory analysis (Section 8.2.2.4). Note: $\eta_{HFC,j}$ is normalized to the HFC fraction only, such that $\sum \eta_{HFC,j} = 1$ across all HFC species in the container.
• $M_{HFC}$ represents the total number of distinct HFC species within container $i$.

Moisture and high boiling residue are non-refrigerant contaminants that accumulate during recovery, storage, and handling. Moisture is typically present as dissolved or free water; high boiling residue includes compressor oils, sealants, and other non-volatile contaminants. Both must be deducted from the gross mass to determine the quantity of refrigerant eligible for crediting.

The eligible mass $m_i$ in a container is calculated as:

$$m_i = m_{gross,i} *[1 - (C_{moisture,i}/1000000) - (HBR,i/100)]$$

$$m_{gross,i} = m_{full,i} - m_{empty,i}$$

Equation 5

Where:

• $m_{full,i}$ represents the full container weight of container $i$ measured up to 2 days prior the destruction event, in tonnes. Determined by direct measurement, see Section 8.1.6.
• $m_{empty,i}$ represents the empty weight of container $i$ measured up to 2 days after the destruction event, in tonnes. Determined by direct measurement, see Section 8.1.6.
• $C_{moisture,i}$ represents the moisture, in ppm by mass. Determined from sample analysis, see Section 8.2.2.4.
• $HBR,i$ represents the fraction of high boiling residue, in %. Determined from sample analysis, see Section 8.2.2.4.

Where a container holds a mixture of substances from more than one class (e.g., both HFCs and HCFCs), the total eligible mass $m_i$ (per Equation 5) must be allocated to each substance class based on the composition analysis results.

The eligible mass attributable to substance class $c$ in container $i$ is:

$$m_{c,i} = m_i \times \varphi_{c,i}$$

Equation 6

Where:

• $m_i$ represents the total eligible mass of container $i$ per Equation 5, in tonnes.
• $\varphi_{c,i}$ represents the mass fraction of substance class $c$ (HFC, CFC, or HCFC) in container $i$, determined from laboratory composition analysis.

The following constraints must be satisfied.

Container-level composition constraint

The sum of the mass fractions of all constituent species in a container must equal 1. This constraint operates at the container level, not the substance-class level:

$$\sum_{j=1}^{M} \eta_j = 1$$

Equation 7

Where:

• $\eta_j$ represents the mass fraction of constituent species $j$ (across all substance classes) in container $i$.
• $M$ is the total number of distinct species in the container.

This is the primary constraint verified against the laboratory composition analysis. A tolerance of ±1% is permitted on the sum of identified species. Where the reported composition sums to between 99% and 101%, results may be normalized to 100% for the purposes of Equations 4, 6, 7, and 8. Where the reported composition sums to less than 99% or greater than 101%, the sample must be flagged and the discrepancy investigated before the composition can be used for crediting. The unidentified fraction must not be assigned a GWP for baseline quantification purposes.

Substance-class allocation constraint

The mass fractions allocated to each substance class must sum to 1 (excluding non-eligible constituents already removed via Equation 7):

$$\varphi_{HFC,i} + \varphi_{CFC,i} + \varphi_{HCFC,i} + \varphi_{other,i} = 1$$

Equation 8

Where:

• $\varphi_{other,i}$ is the mass fraction of non-eligible constituents (e.g., hydrocarbons, nitrogen, air).

Non-eligible constituents receive $GWP = 0$ in the baseline calculation.

Baseline fate constraint

For each substance class $c$, the sum of the mass fractions for baseline fates must equal 1:

$$X_{vent,c} + X_{reuse,c} + X_{destroy,c} = 1$$

Equation 9

This section establishes adjustments to the creditable mass based on the provenance tier assigned at intake (Section 8.1.3). Provenance adjustments ensure that the credited quantity reflects the level of assurance that the destroyed material was recovered from eligible sources.

Where gas is accompanied by a complete per-unit collection log (Section 8.1.2, Tier 1), no provenance adjustment is applied. The full eligible mass per Equation 5 is credited.

Where gas is sourced from a pre-screened intermediary and accompanied by a batch collection log (Section 8.1.2, Tier 2), an uncertainty discount is applied to the creditable mass to reflect the reduced assurance of provenance relative to per-unit documentation.

The default uncertainty discount for Tier 2 gas is determined by Isometric and published as part of the project's validation terms. Factors that may influence the discount rate include:

• The specificity and detail of the batch collection log (e.g., a log covering a narrow geographic area and short timeframe provides higher assurance than one covering a broad region over several months).
• The outcome of any mass reasonableness check conducted under Section 8.1.2.2.
• The intermediary's track record across prior reporting periods.
• The availability of corroborating evidence such as equipment disposal records, scrapyard manifests, technician work orders time logs, timestamped and geotagged data etc.

Discount rates for Tier 2 provenance are expected to fall in the range of 5-15%, with the rate determined at validation based on the factors listed above.

The adjusted creditable mass for Tier 2 gas in container $i$ is:

$$m_{credited,i}^{T2} = m_i \times (1 - d_{provenance})$$

Equation 10

Where:

• $m_i$ is the eligible mass per Equation 5, in tonnes.
• $d_{provenance}$ is the uncertainty discount rate for Tier 2 provenance, expressed as a decimal (0 < $d_{provenance}$ < 1). The discount rate is set by Isometric at validation and may be revised at subsequent verifications based on updated evidence.

The discount is applied before the baseline fate calculation in Equation 3. For containers holding a mixture of Tier 1 and Tier 2 gas (i.e., where field containers with different provenance tiers have been aggregated into a single destruction container), the discount is applied proportionally to the Tier 2 mass fraction based on the aggregation consolidation log.

An exclusion is applied when the VVB determines that one or more containers aggregated into a destruction container lack adequate provenance documentation, such that the verifier cannot confirm with reasonable assurance that the material was recovered from an eligible source. Examples of insufficient provenance include, but are not limited to:

• No collection log or batch collection log associated with the field recovery.
• An intermediary that has not been registered as a pre-screened intermediary supplying gas with only batch-level records.
• Weight discrepancies exceeding 10% between provenance documentation and the aggregation intake log that cannot be reconciled.

Adjustment:

• Where provenance documentation for a field container is insufficient, the mass of that field container must be excluded from the eligible mass of the aggregated container. The excluded mass is the mass recorded at the intake log for that field container (Section 8.1.3).
• Where the aggregated container holds a mixture of substances (i.e., field containers containing different refrigerant types were consolidated together), and the specific composition of the excluded field container is unknown, the excluded mass must be conservatively assumed to consist entirely of the highest-GWP species identified comprising > 0.1% of total refrigerant mass in the aggregated container's composition analysis. This ensures that the GWP impact of the provenance gap is not understated.
• Where the excluded field container mass accounts for more than 50% of the total aggregated container mass, the entire container is ineligible for crediting. This threshold reflects the point at which the provenance gap is sufficiently large that the remaining material cannot be considered reliably characterized.

$CO_2e_{Project}$ is the total GHG emissions associated with a Reporting Period, RP. This can be calculated as:

$$CO_2e_{Project,RP} = CO_2e_{Establishment,RP} + CO_2e_{Operations,RP} + CO_2e_{End-of-Life,RP} + CO_2e_{Leakage,RP}$$

Equation 11

Where:

• $CO_2e_{Project,RP}$ represents the total GHG emissions for a Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Establishment,RP}$ represents the GHG emissions associated with project establishment, represented for the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes of CO₂e, see Section 7.4.1.
• $CO_2e_{Operations,RP}$ represents the total GHG emissions associated with operational processes for a Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes of CO₂e, see Section 7.4.2.
• $CO_2e_{End-of-Life,RP}$ represents GHG emissions that occur after the Reporting Period and are allocated to a Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes of CO₂e, see Section 7.4.3.
• $CO_2e_{Leakage,RP}$ represents GHG emissions associated with secondary effects (substitute refrigerant production and use), over a given Reporting Period, in tonnes of CO₂e, see Section 7.4.4.

GHG emissions associated with project establishment should include all historic emissions incurred as a result of project establishment, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1. This includes the following emissions sources:

• Equipment and materials manufacture
• Equipment and materials transport to site
• Construction and installation of aggregation facilities
• Other miscellaneous emissions not captured by the above categories

For HFC destruction projects, project establishment emissions must be quantified for aggregation or destruction facilities that meet either of the following criteria:

• Greenfield facility: a facility that was purpose-built for The Project activity and was not operational prior to The Project start date.
• Major refurbishment: an existing facility that has undergone significant physical modification involving the replacement, addition, or structural alteration of core processing equipment.

Project establishment emissions occur from the point of project inception up until the first Reporting Period. Establishment emissions may be accounted for in the following ways, with the allocation method selected and justified by The Project Proponent:

• as a one-time deduction from the first verification, or
• amortized over the first crediting period (or less) as annual emissions.

GHG emissions associated with $CO_2e_{Operations, RP}$ must include all emissions associated with operational activities, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1.

$CO_2e_{Operations, RP}$ emissions occur over the Reporting Period for the deployment being credited and are applicable to the current deployment only. $CO_2e_{Operations, RP}$ emissions must be attributed to the Reporting Period in which they occur.

It is assumed that sufficient oxygen exists within the destruction process to completely convert all carbon from HFCs and ODS into CO₂. The direct CO₂ emissions are calculated as:

$$CO_2e_{direct,RP} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} m_i *CC_{effective,i}$$

Equation 12

Where:

• $CO_2e_{direct,RP}$ represents the direct emissions from HFC destruction over the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes CO₂e.
• $N$ represents the total number of containers sent for destruction by The Project activity, over the Reporting Period, RP.
• $CC_{effective,i}$ represents the effective carbon content of container $i$ in tonnes CO₂ per tonne refrigerant.

For mixed gas containers:

$$CC_{effective,i} =  \sum_{j=1}^{M}[\eta_j*CC_j]_i$$

Equation 13

Where:

• $\eta_j$ represents the mass fraction of the constituent refrigerant $j$ in container $i$, unitless. Determined from lab analysis, see Section 8.2.2.4.
• $CC_j$ represents the carbon content of refrigerant $j$, in tonnes CO₂ per tonne HFC_j.
• $M$ represents the total number of constituent refrigerants within a single container.

CO₂e_{End-of-Life,RP} includes all emissions associated with activities that are anticipated to occur after the Reporting Period, but are directly or indirectly related to the Reporting Period. For example, this could include end-of-life emissions for project equipment (indirectly related to all deployments).

GHG emissions associated with CO₂e_{End-of-Life,RP} may occur from the end of the Reporting Period onwards, and typically through to completion of project site deconstruction and any other end-of-life activities.

GHG emissions associated with activities that are indirectly related to all deployments may be allocated in the same ways as set out in CO₂e_{Establishment,RP.}

End-of-life emissions must be quantified for any facility for which establishment emissions are required under the criteria set in Section 7.4.1.

CO₂e_Leakage,RP includes emissions associated with secondary effects from The Project activity.

Projects must calculate CO₂e_Leakage,RP where the baseline reuse fraction $X_{reuse}$ is greater than 0.05 (5%). Where the baseline venting rate is 100%, leakage is assumed to be zero.

CO₂e_Leakage,RP is calculated as follows:

$$CO_2e_{Leakage,RP} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} m_i*X_{reuse}*(EF_{substitute} +  TLR * \max(GWP_{substitute},GWP_i))$$

Equation 14

Where:

• $CO_2e_{Leakage,RP}$ represents total emissions from secondary effects (leakage) by The Project activity over the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes CO₂e.
• $m_i$ represents the total eligible mass of container $i$ per Equation 5, in tonnes.
• $X_{reuse}$ represents the mass fraction of refrigerant which would be reused or remain in storage in the baseline, unitless.
• $EF_{substitute}$ represents emission factor associated with production of substitute refrigerant, in t CO₂e/ t refrigerant.
• $GWP_i$ represents the global warming potential of destroyed refrigerant i, in tCO2e/t refrigerant_i.
• $GWP_{substitute}$ represents the global warming potential of substitute refrigerant for refrigerant i, in tCO2e/t Substitute.
• $TLR$ represents the total leak rate over a 10-year period.
• $N$ represents the total number of containers sent for destruction by The Project activity, over the Reporting Period, RP.

The total leak rate over a 10-year period,

$TLR$ is calculated as:

$$TLR = 1 - (1 - LR)^{t}$$

Equation 15

Where:

• $LR$ represents the annual rate that refrigerants leak out of equipment into the atmosphere.
• $t$ represents the crediting period in years. By default, $t$ = 10.

Assumptions on substitute refrigerant are as follows:

• If official published data, research, or industry studies are not available, the default substitute gas is assumed to be HFC-32 (GWP 771).
• The default emissions factor for HFC-32 production must be sourced from reputable sources, such as officially published data, recognized LCA databases, or verifiable industry studies.
• The GWP of the substitute gas is always assumed to be greater than or equal to the GWP of the destroyed gas. Project Proponents shall not be credited for decreased leakage due to a lower GWP substitute gas.

Assumptions on the physical leak rate of refrigerants are as follows:

• The default physical annual leak rate is 0.137 (13.7%), if official published data, research or industry studies specific to the equipment are not available.

Project Proponents may exclude any SSRs included in Table 1 from the final net reduction quantification if these are demonstrated to be negligible. Negligible SSRs are those which fall below a Materiality threshold based on environmental significance of less than 1% of net CO₂e reduction in any given Reporting Period. The sum of negligible SSRs must not be equal or more than 1% of net reduction.

To demonstrate this, Project Proponents may utilize an economic input-output (EEIO) approach as a preliminary screening test, estimating emissions based on project financial data (e.g., CAPEX data) combined with EEIO emission factors. If this screening demonstrates that emissions are below the Materiality threshold, emissions can be excluded, or can be estimated using high level estimations if included. See Section 5 of the Isometric GHG Accounting Module v1.1 for more details on the approach and example libraries.

Alternatively, where financial data is unavailable, Project Proponents may use other benchmarks to estimate emissions. For example, when quantifying the embodied emissions of existing infrastructure, proponents may rely on physical benchmarks from industry-standard life cycle inventory databases based on physical parameters, such as facility area (e.g., kgCO2e/m2) or processing capacity (e.g., tCO2e/tonne of throughput).

Specifically for destruction facility energy use, Project Proponents may use the imported activity data benchmarks set out in Section 7.5.2.1 as the materiality screening tool, applying the benchmark for the destruction technology that best matches their facility.

The outcome of the materiality assessment determines the activity data quality required for each SSR retained in the GHG Statement boundary:

• Where an SSR is demonstrated to be below the materiality threshold and retained in the boundary, the high-level estimation used in the screening exercise (e.g. EEIO-based, LCI-based, or benchmark-based) is acceptable as the reported activity data. No further refinement is required.
• Where an SSR is at or above the materiality threshold, it must be quantified using the approach outlined in Section 7.5.2.

Project Proponents must use the most representative, accurate, and plausible data that is available at the time of assessment in the GHG Statement. Activity data used to inform GHG accounting may be primary data or secondary data. Project Proponents must strive to use primary data in GHG accounting, but secondary data may be used where primary data is either not available or not practical. More details on data requirements, including data quality hierarchy and data quality principles, can be found in Section 3 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.1.

Project Proponents shall apply the approach below for activity data quantification of emission source components at or above the materiality threshold per Section 7.5.1. The approach applies on a per-component basis: Project Proponents may apply different approaches to different components, provided the conditions for each are independently met.

For components at or above the materiality threshold, Project Proponents shall follow the hierarchy below:

1. Direct measurement (default): The default and required starting point is direct measurement or recording of project-specific activity data for each component (aggregation facility energy, transport, destruction facility energy). This includes, but is not limited to, metered electricity consumption, fuel purchase records, recorded transport distances by vehicle type, and mass of refrigerant per shipment. Direct measurement or recording of project-specific activity data must be applied at least during the first 3 complete Reporting Periods following project registration, and remains permanently available to Project Proponents thereafter.
2. Project-specific benchmarks (optional): After 3 complete Reporting Periods of direct measurement or recording of project-specific activity data for a given component, Project Proponents may optionally derive a project-specific benchmark for that component, calculated as the throughput-weighted average of the per-tonne intensities across the qualifying periods. The benchmark must be recalculated at least once per crediting period, and Project Proponents must revert to direct measurement on any material change in operations affecting the benchmarked component (including a change in destruction technology, destruction facility, primary transport mode, or geographic distribution of recovery sites).
3. Where direct measurement is structurally unobtainable for a given component, Project Proponents may use one of the following:

• 3a. Externally-sourced benchmarks: An activity data benchmark from an external source, such as peer-reviewed studies, published industry reports, defaults from recognized methodologies, or operator data from similar facilities or technologies, subject to Isometric agreement on source selection and conservative uplift at validation.
• 3b. Imported activity data benchmarks: The pre-approved benchmarks for destruction facility energy set out in Section 7.5.2.1, in lieu of seeking case-by-case agreement.

For the purposes of this section, primary data is considered "structurally unobtainable" where it cannot be obtained through reasonable effort by the Project Proponent due to a feature of the project arrangement itself, such as a third party's refusal or inability to share data, contractual restrictions, or absence of metering infrastructure, rather than supplier preference or convenience.

Structural unobtainability must be evidenced and re-attested annually as part of routine monitoring reporting. Acceptable evidence includes a written attestation from the relevant third party (e.g., destruction facility operator) explicitly stating that primary metered or recorded data cannot be shared, with the reason stated (commercial confidentiality, absence of sub-metering, contractual restrictions, or equivalent).

For components retained in the GHG Statement boundary but below the materiality threshold, high-level estimations are acceptable as the reported activity data, and the requirements above do not apply.

Emission factors are applied to the resulting activity data in accordance with Section 7.5.4 for energy use emissions accounting, Section 7.5.5 for transportation emissions accounting, and Section 7.5.6 for embodied emissions accounting.

Where direct measurement is structurally unobtainable for destruction facility energy use, and no representative external source is available under option 3a, Project Proponents may use the pre-approved benchmarks below. Benchmarks are technology-specific.

Project Proponents must identify which of the three categories below applies to their facility, evidenced by the destruction facility documentation already required at validation (Section 8.3: process flow diagram, technology type, manufacturer and model designation, design specifications, and operating permit). The category determination is reviewed and confirmed by the verifier as part of validation.

Where a Project Proponent's destruction technology does not exactly match one of the three categories below but operates on the same physical and energy principles as one of them, the Project Proponent may apply the benchmark for the closest matching category. The match must be justified in writing with reference to:

• (a) whether destruction relies on co-processing alongside other waste or feed material;
• (b) whether destruction is fuel-driven, electricity-driven, or both; and
• (c) the operating temperature regime.

The justification is reviewed and confirmed by the verifier as part of validation. By way of example, liquid injection incineration and gaseous/fume oxidation operate on the same principles as dedicated thermal oxidation; municipal waste incineration co-processing refrigerant operates on the same principles as co-firing.

Where the destruction technology cannot be evidenced to the satisfaction of the verifier, the Project Proponent must calculate destruction facility energy emissions under each of the three benchmarks below using the project-specific or country-specific emission factors otherwise applicable per Section 7.5.4, and apply whichever benchmark produces the highest CO₂e emissions per tonne of refrigerant destroyed. The calculation must be repeated each Reporting Period.

The activity data input for each component is the imported value multiplied by the mass of refrigerant destroyed in the Reporting Period. The fuel intensity is fuel-agnostic; Project Proponents shall convert to fuel quantity using the net calorific value of the fuel actually used at the destruction facility, and apply the relevant fuel-specific CO₂ emission factor in accordance with Section 7.5.4. Project-specific or country-specific grid emission factors are applied to the electricity intensity in accordance with the same section.

These benchmarks are not available for:

• Aggregation facility energy use: no published benchmarks are available; Project Proponents may address this component through the materiality assessment in Section 7.5.1.
• Transport: distance can be inferred from facility coordinates, and mode and cargo mass may be available from transport contracts and shipment documentation; otherwise conservative assumptions on mode and mass are considered acceptable.

Source and derivation are set out in Appendix D.

Ancillary activities, such as supplementary research and development activities and corporate administrative activities, that are associated with a project but are not directly or indirectly related to the issuance of Credits can be excluded from the system boundary.

This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of energy use as part of the GHG Statement. Emissions associated with energy usage result from the consumption of electricity or fuel.

Electricity

Examples of electricity usage may include, but are not limited to:

• Operation of equipment at aggregation facilities
• Refrigeration and cooling systems for storage
• Facility and building operation (lighting, HVAC, control rooms, safety and monitoring systems)
• Electricity consumption at destruction facilities (for plasma arc or other destruction technologies)

The following calculation approach must be used to estimate emissions from project’s electricity consumption:

$$CO_2e_{EC,PJ,RP} = (EC_{grid,RP} * EF_{grid,RP} * (1 + f_{TD-losses,RP})) + (EC_{generator,RP} * EF_{generator,RP})$$

Equation 16

Where:

• $CO_2e_{EC,PJ,RP}$ represents total emissions from The Project’s electricity consumption over the Reporting Period, RP, in tonnes CO₂e
• $EC_{grid,RP}$ represents the total electricity consumed from the grid over the Reporting Period, RP, in kWh
• $EF_{grid,RP}$ represents the emission intensity of the electricity grid over the Reporting Period, RP, in kgCO₂e/kWh
• $f_{TD-losses,RP}$ represents the transmission and distribution grid losses factor which is set at 25% for all projects
• $EC_{generator,RP}$ represents the total electricity consumed from a non-grid generator over the Reporting Period, RP, in kWh
• $EF_{generator,RP}$ represents the emission factor associated with the non-grid generator, in kgCO₂e/kWh

The project grid emission factor, $EF_{grid,RP}$, must be determined using the following hierarchy. The Project Proponent must use the highest-ranked source for which data are available and provide documented evidence in the PDD justifying why any higher-ranked source could not be used.

1. Combined Margin (CM) emission factor from a reputable source — Suitability and technical rigor evaluated by Isometric during validation.
2. Default values by renewable/nuclear share — If appropriate CM factors are not available:

If the generation source is a captive fossil fuel fired power plant, Projects should make every attempt to gather information on the emission intensity of the technology generating the electricity. Where a specific emission intensity is not available, Projects must apply a default of 1.3 kgCO₂e/kWh

Project may determine the transmission and distribution grid losses factor, $f_{TD-losses,RP}$, using the following hierarchy:

1. Projects may use transmission and distribution grid losses factors from a reputable source;
2. If transmission and distribution grid losses factors are not available for the location of the Project, $f_{TD-losses,RP}$ is set at 25% for all projects.

Fuels

Examples of fuel usage may include, but are not limited to:

• Fossil fuels utilized for space heating, boiler operation, or backup power generation at aggregation facilities.
• Fuel consumed (e.g., LPG or diesel) by on-site material handling equipment, such as forklifts, used to move cylinders within aggregation or destruction facilities.
• Combustion fuels (e.g., natural gas or fuel oil) required to fire the incinerator, maintain reaction chamber temperatures, or operate afterburners at the thermal destruction facility.

Section 6 of the Energy Use Accounting Module v1.3 provides requirements on how fuel-related emissions must be calculated in a Project.

This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of transportation emissions as part of the GHG Statement.

Emissions associated with transportation include transportation of products and equipment as part of a Reporting Period's activities. Examples may include, but are not limited to:

• Transportation of HFCs and ODS from aggregation facilities to destruction facilities

Section 4.2 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.1 provides requirements on how transportation-related emissions must be calculated in a Project.

This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of embodied emissions as part of the GHG Statement. Embodied emissions are those related to energy use or other emissions during the manufacture of equipment and materials used in a process.

Examples of project-specific materials and equipment that must be considered as part of the embodied emission calculation include but are not limited to:

• Storage containers and cylinders
• Aggregation facility equipment
• Any materials used for repair, maintenance, or retrofits

The GHG Accounting Module v1.1 sets out the approach to be followed to account for embodied emissions, including life cycle stages to be considered (Section 4.1), and data sources and emission factors (Section 3.4).

This section establishes monitoring and documentation requirements necessary to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and credibility of HFC and ODS destruction projects.

Requirements are grouped based on asset type. HFC and ODS destruction projects use the following assets:

• Recovered Containers
• Samples
• Destruction Facility

Requirements are further organized into two categories:

• Validation requirements include evidence and documentation required at initial project registration.
• Verification requirements include ongoing evidence to be submitted for each Reporting Period.

Requirements are grounded in the following principles:

• Technical Capability: To minimize risk associated with safe handling of HFCs and ODS and ensure that destruction will be performed in a manner consistent with protecting the environment.
• Measurement Accuracy: HFC and ODS quantities must be measured with sufficient precision to support credible emission reduction claims. Given the high GWP of HFCs, ranging from 164 to 14,600 times that of CO₂, even small measurement errors can translate to significant over- or under-crediting. Requirements for calibrated scales, accredited laboratories, and standardized sampling procedures ensure measurement uncertainty remains within acceptable bounds.
• Chain of Custody Integrity: HFCs and ODS must be tracked from the point of intake to destruction to prevent double-counting, fraud, and leakage. Documentation requirements establish an auditable trail that verifiers can use to confirm that credited material was collected from eligible sources and destroyed at approved facilities. Traceability upstream of intake, from the point of origin where refrigerant was recovered from equipment, is strongly encouraged and determines the provenance tier assigned to each gas batch, which in turn affects the creditable quantity (see Section 8.1.2).

This section establishes requirements for the handling, tracking, and documentation of recovered refrigerant from the point at which the Project Proponent assumes custody through to destruction.

The Project Proponent bears full responsibility for chain of custody once refrigerant enters its custody at intake. From that point forward, every container holding refrigerant, whether an inbound cylinder received at intake, an aggregated bulk container, or any intermediate vessel, must be uniquely identified, and every transfer of refrigerant between containers must be documented. Where inbound containers do not already carry a formal ID from upstream, they must be assigned a temporary identifier at intake sufficient to link them to the intake log. These obligations apply regardless of whether handling is performed directly by the Project Proponent or through contracted third parties such as logistics providers or aggregation facilities.

Prior to intake, refrigerant provenance is established through one of two channels. Under Tier 1 provenance, refrigerant is accompanied by a complete per-unit collection log documenting each recovery event. Under Tier 2 provenance, refrigerant is sourced from a pre-screened intermediary who provides a batch collection log covering an aggregated reporting period. Tier 2 gas is subject to a mass reasonableness check and an uncertainty discount at quantification, reflecting the reduced granularity of documentation.

Validation requirement

The Project Proponent must describe the container types and specifications to be used for recovery, aggregation, and transport of HFC and ODS refrigerant. The description must demonstrate that the specified containers are designed to provide functional containment sufficient to prevent loss of refrigerant under normal storage and transport conditions.

• Containers must comply with applicable national and international regulations for the transport of pressurized and/or hazardous materials (e.g., DOT, ADR, IMDG Code, UN Model Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, or equivalent national requirements).

• For containers with a refrigerant capacity >50kg,
  • the Project Proponent must demonstrate that specified containers are rated to retain pressurized refrigerant without loss under normal transport and storage conditions, including exposure to ambient temperatures up to 55°C.
  • the Project Proponent must describe how it will ensure that large containers are within their requalification period as required by the applicable regulatory authority (e.g., DOT hydrostatic test cycle, ADR periodic inspection, or equivalent national requirement).

The Project Proponent must maintain an unbroken chain of custody for all refrigerant from the point at which the Project Proponent assumes custody through to destruction. The chain of custody must be documented such that any individual container can be traced from the point of intake into Project Proponent custody through every subsequent handling stage to the point of destruction.

• All containers within Project Proponent custody must be assigned a unique container ID and labelled with that ID.
• Where refrigerant is transferred between containers (e.g., during aggregation or repackaging), the Project Proponent must document the linkage between source and destination containers, including the date of transfer, the identities of both containers, and the mass transferred.
• The use of third-party logistics providers or other contracted agents for transport or aggregation does not relieve the Project Proponent of this obligation.

Guidance

These validation requirements assess the project design utilizes container types and handling procedures that are adequate to maintain containment integrity throughout the chain of custody. The VVB is not required to physically inspect individual containers at validation.

This section establishes provenance requirements for recovered refrigerant prior to intake. The completeness of collection-stage documentation determines the provenance tier assigned to each gas batch, which affects the creditable quantity under Section 7.3.3.

Validation requirements

The Project Proponent must describe the geographic scope, types of collection points, and recovery plan in the PDD.

The Project Proponent must describe the anticipated composition of HFCs and ODS to be recovered.

The Project Proponent must identify the supply channels through which recovered refrigerant will be acquired. For each supply channel, the PDD must specify whether the gas will be accompanied by:

• a full collection log (Tier 1 provenance); or
• a batch collection log from a pre-screened intermediary (Tier 2 provenance)

Gas accompanied by a complete per-unit collection log receives Tier 1 provenance.

Verification requirements

The following information must be provided for each collection event:

• Location of the point of origin (e.g., facility name and physical address for commercial recoveries, postal code or equivalent sub-national administrative identifier code for residential recoveries).
• Date of recovery event.
• Source equipment type (e.g., residential split system, window unit, small commercial packaged unit).
• Approximate quantity recovered.
• Where refrigerant is recovered from a single commercial equipment source, the following information is required:
  • Equipment manufacturer and serial number.
  • Nameplate refrigerant charge, where available.
• Confirmation of whether source equipment was serviced or decommissioned.
• For equipment servicing cases, the following additional information is required:
  • Reason for servicing.
  • Confirmation that the refrigerant was not going to be recycled or reused on site.
  • Confirmation that the refrigerant recovery is not incentivized through direct payment under a product stewardship scheme or other program providing payments or other incentives for HFC or ODS recovery.
• Attestation signed by a facility representative at the point of origin.

Guidance

The following data items are recommended for inclusion in the collection log but are not required for Tier 1 provenance:

• Field container ID.
• Refrigerant type.

Recording these items strengthens traceability and supports reconciliation at aggregation intake, but their absence does not affect provenance tier classification.

Where the Project Proponent intends to source recovered refrigerant from intermediaries using batch collection logs (Tier 2 provenance), each intermediary must be approved at validation or at the first verification in which their gas is included.

Validation requirements

For each proposed intermediary, the Project Proponent must submit:

• Entity name, legal registration, and physical address.
• Description of the intermediary's business activity (e.g., HVAC servicing, equipment decommissioning, scrapyard operation).
• Evidence of relevant licensing, certification, or registration under applicable national or industry frameworks (e.g., F-gas handling certification, national refrigerant management licenses, waste carrier registration), if applicable.
• Description of the geographic area and equipment types from which the intermediary typically recovers or sources refrigerant.
• Estimated annual refrigerant recovery by gas type.
• Description of existing record-keeping practices for refrigerant recovery.

The VVB must assess each proposed intermediary against the following criteria:

• The intermediary operates a legitimate refrigerant handling or equipment management business with a verifiable track record.
• The intermediary's stated throughput is plausible given the estimated installed base in the geographic area served.
• There is no evidence to reasonably suggest that the intermediary has provided virgin HFCs for destruction. Such evidence could include, inter alia, allegations by a regulatory body of fraudulent handling or importation of refrigerants, non-compliance with HFC quota systems (as applicable), or physical evidence of potential fraudulent activity such as improper cylinder labeling, incorrect cylinder sizing, or inappropriate valve systems

Approval of a pre-screened intermediary is valid for the project's crediting period. Isometric may revoke approval if new information raises concerns about the intermediary's eligibility. The Project Proponent must notify Isometric of any material change in an intermediary's business, licensing status, or geographic scope.

Verification requirements

Gas sourced from a registered pre-screened intermediary may be accompanied by a batch collection log in lieu of per-unit records.

Each batch collection log must include the following information:

• Name and registration reference of the pre-screened intermediary.
• Reporting period covered by the batch (start and end dates).
• Geographic area from which the gas was recovered (e.g., city, province, region, or defined service territory).
• Contextual information about the recovery sources, including at minimum, best estimates of: the equipment categories from which the gas was recovered (e.g., residential air conditioning, commercial refrigeration), the relative proportion of gas recovered during servicing versus at end-of-life, and the number of equipment units serviced or decommissioned.
• Total quantity of recovered refrigerant by gas type for the reporting period.
• Description of how the gas was stored and handled between recovery and transfer to the Project Proponent.
• Signed declaration by an authorized representative of the intermediary attesting that:
  • the reported quantities were recovered from the described sources; and
  • the gas has not been sold, committed, or credited under any other GHG program or product stewardship scheme which directly incentivizes recovery.

Historical recovery provision

Where refrigerant was recovered prior to the date of initial publication of this Protocol and the Project Proponent is unable to retrospectively reconstruct specific batch collection log fields, Isometric may grant a case-by-case exemption from those fields. To be considered for an exemption, the Project Proponent must:

• Provide all batch collection log information that is available, with a written explanation identifying which fields cannot be completed and why.
• Provide documentation of storage conditions between the time of recovery and transfer to the Project Proponent, including the type of containers used, storage location, and any transfers between containers or facilities.
• Provide any corroborating records from the period of recovery, such as purchase receipts, work orders, waste transfer notes, or business records that support the claimed recovery activity.

Isometric will assess each request on the basis of the completeness of available documentation, the plausibility of the claimed recovery history, and the adequacy of storage records. Exemptions granted under this provision do not alter the provenance tier classification; the gas remains Tier 2 and is subject to the standard uncertainty discount, which may be increased to reflect the reduced documentation assurance.Gas sourced under Tier 2 provenance is subject to a mass reasonableness check and an uncertainty discount applied at quantification, as described in Section 7.3.3.

Mass reasonableness check

For gas sourced from pre-screened intermediaries under Tier 2 provenance, Isometric or the VVB may conduct a mass reasonableness check comparing reported recovery volumes against contextual indicators including, but not limited to:

• Estimated installed base of relevant equipment in the intermediary's stated service area, drawing on national inventory data, import statistics, and industry surveys where available.
• Seasonal patterns in servicing and decommissioning activity.
• Historical recovery volumes reported by the same intermediary or by other projects in the same region.
• Trends in refrigerant type and volume that are consistent with the equipment profile of the region.

The mass reasonableness check is a risk-based review and is not required at every verification.

Where the check identifies volumes that are implausible or cannot be adequately explained, Isometric may:

• require enhanced documentation for the affected batches, including conversion to Tier 1 per-unit records for a sample of containers;
• increase the uncertainty discount applied under Section 7.3.3;
• reclassify the affected batches to Tier 3 (insufficient provenance), resulting in mass exclusion; or
• suspend or revoke the intermediary's pre-screened status.

Intake marks the point at which the Project Proponent acquires physical or contractual custody of recovered refrigerant. All chain of custody requirements under this Protocol commence at intake. Intake requirements apply to all refrigerant gas entering the project regardless of supply channel. Where the Project Proponent performs direct recovery, intake occurs when the recovered refrigerant is received at the first facility where the intake procedure described in this section can be fully applied (e.g., weighing, logging, container ID assignment). The collection log requirements under Point of Origin (Tier 1) apply to the field recovery stage prior to intake.

Consolidation may occur at intake. Where inbound containers are consolidated into larger containers at the point of intake, both the intake requirements in this section and the consolidation requirements in the Aggregation section (below) apply concurrently. In such cases, the aggregated container created during intake becomes the first container of record for downstream chain of custody purposes. The intake log must still record the identity and mass of each inbound container transferred into the aggregated container, even where those inbound containers do not carry a formal container ID from an upstream collection log (see Aggregation verification requirements).

Validation requirements

The Project Proponent must describe the intake procedure for recovered refrigerant in the PDD. At minimum, the procedure must include the following:

• Each inbound container of refrigerant must be logged on receipt, recording the date of receipt, identity of the delivering party, and associated provenance documentation (collection log reference for Tier 1 gas, or batch collection log reference for Tier 2 gas).
• All containers must be assigned a unique container ID. Where inbound containers are consolidated into an aggregated container at the point of intake, the aggregated container must be assigned a unique container ID in accordance with the Aggregation section. Inbound containers that are not individually tracked upstream should be identified by a sequential intake reference or equivalent temporary identifier sufficient to link each inbound unit to its intake log entry and to the resulting aggregated container.
• Each inbound container must be weighed. The recorded weight must be compared against any weight documented on the transport manifest, attestation form, or batch collection log. Where an inbound container is transferred directly into an aggregated container at intake, the mass transferred must be recorded and must reconcile with the weighed inbound mass.
• Each inbound container must be visually inspected for physical condition and integrity, including valve condition, evidence of leakage, corrosion, or damage. Containers identified as defective must be flagged for priority processing or repackaging.
• For all recovered refrigerant acquired through purchase or buy-back programs, the fee rendered per kilogram of recovered refrigerant must be recorded and assessed against the prevailing cost of equivalent virgin refrigerant.

Composition sampling at intake is recommended but not required. Where the facility performs intake sampling:

• A portable refrigerant analyzer may be used to verify the declared refrigerant type. Results should be recorded in the intake log.
• Where the declared refrigerant type does not match the analyzer result, the discrepancy should be documented. The container may still proceed to destruction, but the pre-destruction sampling (Section 8.2.2) will determine the creditable composition.

Verification requirements

The following information must be provided in an intake log for each inbound container of refrigerant:

• Facility name where intake occurred.
• Date of receipt.
• Identity of delivering party.
• Container ID(s) received.
  • Where inbound containers do not carry a formal container ID, a sequential intake reference or equivalent temporary identifier must be assigned.
  • Where consolidation occurs at intake, the aggregated container ID created under the Aggregation consolidation log may be used.
• Container weight at intake.
• Provenance tier assigned (Tier 1 or Tier 2).
• Provenance documentation reference:
  • For Tier 1: collection log.
  • For Tier 2: batch collection log and pre-screened intermediary registration.
• Visual inspection record (recommended).
• Refrigerant composition check (recommended).

For all recovered refrigerant acquired through purchase or buy-back programs, the following information must also be recorded at intake:

• The fee rendered per kilogram of recovered refrigerant, by gas species, for each supplier or acquisition channel;
• The Project Proponent's documented assessment of the prevailing cost of equivalent virgin refrigerant in the source country at the time of acquisition, including the basis for the assessment (e.g., supplier quotations, published import data, trade publications).
• This information will be treated as commercially sensitive and will not be published or disclosed beyond Isometric and the VVB. Isometric will use reported fee and virgin price data, aggregated across projects, to inform the country-level eligibility assessment. Where aggregated data indicates that acquisition fees for recovered refrigerant in a given country are systematically approaching or exceeding virgin gas prices, Isometric may adjust that country's eligibility status or impose additional scrutiny requirements during the periodic country-level review.

Aggregation is the consolidation of recovered refrigerant from multiple inbound containers into larger containers. Aggregation may occur at the point of intake (see Intake section) or at subsequent handling stages. Multiple rounds of aggregation may occur between intake and destruction. All facilities performing consolidation must establish and follow documented procedures for all consolidation activities.

Validation requirements

For each facility performing aggregation, the Project Proponent must describe the consolidation procedure associated with aggregation prior to destruction. At minimum, the procedure must include the following:

• Each aggregated container must be assigned a unique identifier at the point of creation. The facility must record which source containers were consolidated into each aggregated container, together with the mass transferred from each source container.
• Same-type aggregation is recommended as best practice. Consolidating containers that contain the same refrigerant species or commercial blend simplifies downstream sampling and reduces the risk of cross-contamination.
• Mixed-species aggregation is permitted. Where containers containing different refrigerant types are consolidated into a single aggregated container, the resulting container must be treated as a mixed refrigerant container and flagged accordingly. The mixed refrigerant composition and quantity analysis requirements in Section 8.2.2.4 will apply at the point of destruction.
• Transfer equipment must be maintained and operated to minimize fugitive emissions. For example, transfer lines must be evacuated before and after each transfer, and hoses and connections must be inspected for leaks before use.

Verification requirements

The following information must be provided in a consolidation log:

• Facility name.
• Date of consolidation.
• Aggregated container ID.
• List of source container IDs.
• Mass transferred from each source container.
• Total mass of aggregated container contents.

Guidance

The following guidance is recommended for maintaining adequate storage and inventory control at facilities performing aggregation. These procedures minimize fugitive emissions and maintain traceability. While these are not checked each verification, consistent departures from best practice may warrant further investigation.

• Storage of refrigerant containers in designated areas that comply with applicable local regulations for the storage of fluorinated gases and, where applicable, hazardous or dangerous goods.
• Maintenance of a continuously updated inventory system that records the location, status, and quantity of all containers held on site. The inventory should distinguish between inbound containers awaiting consolidation, aggregated containers awaiting dispatch, and any containers flagged for investigation or repackaging.
• Implementation of a system for regular monitoring and leak detection of stored containers, such as periodic visual inspection and, where practicable, use of electronic leak detection equipment.
• Prioritization of containers identified as leaking for repackaging or expedited processing.

Validation requirements

For containers >50kg of refrigerant capacity, Project Proponents must ensure that transportation includes proper packaging, labeling, hazard classification, and notification of safety and accident instructions at each stage of shipment.

Verification requirements

For each HFC and ODS container, the following information must be provided at all refrigerant transfers of >50kg:

• Names, addresses, and contact information of all entities
• Mass of containers at each transfer
• Bills of lading or shipping manifests
• For imported HFCs and ODS, documentation must demonstrate the country of origin.
• Transportation documentation must include the unique container ID for each container. Containers may be grouped into a shipment batch.

Validation Requirements

The Project Proponent must identify the scale(s) for mass determination of full and empty containers to be used at the destruction facility. Each scale must have a unique ID.

The Project Proponent must describe procedures for scale calibration traceable to national or international standards. The procedure must include recalibration if out of tolerance.

The Project Proponent must confirm the scale measuring range corresponds to the capacity of containers and tanks to be weighed.

The Project Proponent must confirm that measurement of full container weight and empty container weight will be no more than 2 days prior to commencement of destruction and no more than 2 days after the conclusion of destruction respectively.

Verification Requirements

The following information must be provided for mass determination:

• Weight tickets must be retained linking container ID to scale ID, measured mass, date and time.
  • The full weight must be measured no more than 2 days prior to commencement of destruction.
  • The empty weight must be measured no more than 2 days after the conclusion of destruction.
• The net mass of contents must be reported for each container ID.
• The record of calibration for all scales used for all weight measurements above must be provided. Any scales found to be out of tolerance must have been recalibrated before continued use.

The following information must be provided as proof of destruction:

• Destruction facility name and location.
• Date and time of destruction start.
• Date and time of destruction completion.
• Destruction technology used.
• Attestation by destruction facility representative.

Sampling on containers sent for destruction is required. Composition analysis may be conducted through one of three pathways, depending on gas type, geographic context, and available infrastructure. Pathways B and C must be approved by Isometric and VVB on a case-by-case basis.

Pathway A: Accredited Laboratory Analysis — A physical sample is drawn and analyzed at an AHRI 700 or ISO 17025 accredited laboratory (or nationally accredited equivalent). Available for all gas types in all countries. This is the default pathway.

Pathway B: Non-Accredited Laboratory Analysis — A physical sample is drawn and analyzed at a laboratory that does not hold AHRI 700 or ISO 17025 accreditation (or nationally accredited equivalent). Available in Article 5 countries only, subject to a random 50% validation using Pathway A for mixed gases and random 20% validation using Pathway A for single component gases.

Pathway C: Handheld Analyzer — Composition is measured on-site using a portable refrigerant analyzer connected directly to the container. Available for single-component gases in Article 5 countries only, subject to a random 20% validation using Pathway A.

Pathways B and C are transitional measures to enable project activity in regions where accredited laboratory infrastructure is limited. They are not intended as permanent alternatives to accredited laboratory analysis. Isometric will review the continued availability of Pathways B and C at each protocol revision, with the expectation that eligibility will be progressively tightened and these pathways retired as accredited laboratory access improves in participating regions. Factors informing this review include: the number and geographic distribution of accredited laboratories capable of refrigerant analysis in Article 5 countries; the validation results across active projects (including discrepancy rates and trends); and the commercial viability of accredited laboratory services given project volumes in each region. Project Proponents approved to use Pathways B or C should plan for a transition to Pathway A over the project lifetime.

Sampling on upstream containers is recommended. Where projects choose to sample at field recovery, the following guidance applies:

• A portable refrigerant analyzer may be used to obtain an indicative composition reading. The results should be recorded on the attestation form alongside the container identifier.
• Where laboratory-grade analysis is performed on upstream containers, the sampling procedures in the Laboratory Sample Collection section should be followed. Results obtained at this stage may be used to support planning and segregation decisions at the aggregation facility, but do not substitute for the mandatory pre-destruction analysis.
• Recording the pressure and temperature of the field container at recovery provides a useful cross-check for downstream mass verification and is recommended as a best practice.

Validation requirements

The Project Proponent must describe and justify the sampling or measurement frequency. The frequency must be approved by Isometric.

• By default, 1 sample or measurement must be collected per container for homogeneous containers, or 2 samples must be collected per container for mixed gas containers.
• Mixed gas containers refer to containers with < 90% by mass homogeneity. Commercial refrigerant blends are not considered mixed gas containers as they are homogeneous by design.

The Project Proponent must provide the SOPs used for sampling or measurement procedures to determine HFC and ODS composition and concentration. SOPs are recommended to be based on or adapted from published industry manuals where available. During audit, the VVB will confirm that sampling or measurement is conducted in accordance with the SOP.

Sampling or measurement must be conducted by a certified technician or trained personnel. The Project Proponent must demonstrate proof of training or certification.

The Project Proponent must describe how independence will be maintained throughout sampling or measurement, such as by an independent technician or by Project Proponent staff under independent witness (e.g. video recording or photo).

All connections to containers or sample bottles must use standard refrigerant fittings (1/4" SAE flare or equivalent standardized connections). Improvised or adapted fittings must not be used.

Verification requirements

Each sample or measurement must be individually labeled with the following information recorded:

• Name of Project Proponent.
• Name of technician taking sample or measurement.
• Employer of technician.
• Unique sample ID.
• Source container ID from which sample was extracted or on which measurement was performed.
• Time and date of sample or measurement.
• Analysis pathway used (A, B, or C).
• Any deviations from the SOP must be documented.
• Refrigerant species identified and concentration as % by mass.
• Effective GWP of the sample or measurement.
• Moisture level in parts per million by weight (to be deducted from total mass).
• Mass of high boiling residue as % of mass (to be deducted from total mass).
• Total eligible HFC mass after all applicable deductions.

For mixed gases which have duplicate samples:

• The lesser of the two effective GWP must be used in quantification.
• The average moisture level and mass of high boiling residue can be used to determine total eligible HFC mass.

This section covers all requirements for projects using laboratory analysis, from sample bottle preparation through to laboratory results. All subsections below apply to both Pathway A and Pathway B unless otherwise noted.

Validation requirements

Each sample bottle must have a unique sample bottle ID.

The sample bottle must conform to DOT specification 4BA or 4BW, or an internationally equivalent standard (e.g., EN 1442, ADR/RID compliant, or TPED-approved cylinders).

The sample bottle must have a service pressure rating equal to or exceeding the saturation pressure of the target refrigerant at 55°C (131°F), with a minimum service pressure of 260 psig. For R-410A or other high-pressure refrigerants, the minimum service pressure must be 400 psig.

The sample bottle must be appropriately sized for the required sample quantity to ensure sufficient liquid fill for reliable liquid-phase analysis.

The sample bottle must be compatible with the standards corresponding to the SOPs used by the laboratory for analysis.

Validation requirements

The SOP for sample collection must include:

• Sample bottles must be cleaned and evacuated prior to use to prevent cross-contamination. The preparation procedure must achieve removal of prior refrigerant residue, moisture, and other contaminants from the bottle interior. AHRI 700 Section 5.2.2 is an accepted preparation method. Where this method is not available, an equivalent procedure may be used provided it is documented in the SOP and achieves evacuation to less than 67 Pa (500 microns).
• The tare weight of the evacuated sample bottle must be recorded after cooling and prior to sampling.
• Each sample must be taken in a liquid state. The sample bottle must have a liquid dip tube reaching the bottom of the vessel, or sampling must be conducted with the bottle oriented valve-down, to ensure a liquid-phase sample is obtained.

• A minimum sample size of 0.454 kg (1 pound) must be drawn for each sample, or a smaller size may be used if:
  • The analytical laboratory provides written confirmation that its validated method requires a smaller minimum sample size.
  • The laboratory's method validation documentation is available for verification review.
  • Sufficient sample volume is retained for potential re-analysis.

• The sample bottle must be checked for leaks after filling and the gross weight recorded.

Project Proponents must confirm there will be an unbroken chain of custody for the sample container from sample collection to laboratory analysis.

Additional requirements for mixed gases

For mixed gases, the SOP for sample collection must include:

• Prior to sampling, the mixed refrigerant must be circulated. Circulation may be conducted in the original container or in a temporary holding tank or container. Where practicable, the circulation and sampling container should meet the following criteria:

  • The container allows for effective mixing of the refrigerant contents. Solid internal obstructions such as baffles are acceptable provided they do not impede flow.
  • The container was fully evacuated prior to filling.
  • The container has sampling ports to sample liquid and gas phase refrigerants, with the liquid port intake at the bottom and the vapour port intake at the top.
  • The container and associated equipment can circulate the mixture via a closed loop system from the bottom to the top.

  Where the original container does not meet all of the above criteria, it may still be used provided it has mixing capacity and a representative sample is obtained that complies with the circulation and sampling requirements below.

• Once the mixed refrigerant is in a compliant container, circulation must be conducted as follows:
  • Liquid mixture must be circulated from liquid port to vapor port.
  • A volume equal to two (2) times the container volume must be circulated.
  • Circulation must occur at a rate of at least 113.6 liters/minute for standard containers, or a lower circulation rate may be used for smaller containers with engineering justification.
  • Circulation start and end times must be recorded.
  • Samples must be collected within 30 minutes of circulation completion or up to 120 minutes with continuous agitation.
  • Samples must be taken from the bottom liquid port.

Note: Recovered refrigerant from operating equipment may contain compressor oil and other contaminants that stratify in a static container due to the density difference between liquid refrigerant and lubricant oil. While recirculation prior to sampling is required for mixed gas containers, Project Proponents should be aware that oil stratification can also affect homogeneous containers holding refrigerant recovered from equipment with compressor oil contact. Recirculation of homogeneous containers prior to sampling is recommended as good practice.

Validation requirements

For samples shipped to other countries for laboratory analysis, Project Proponents must ensure that transportation of refrigerant samples includes proper packaging, labeling, hazard classification, and notification of safety and accident instructions at each stage of shipment.

Verification requirements

For each sample shipped, the following information must be provided at all transfers:

• Names, addresses, and contact information of all entities.
• Bills of lading or shipping manifests.
• Transportation documentation must include the unique sample ID and source container ID.

Validation requirements

The Project Proponent must identify the laboratory to be used for sample analysis. During the audit, the VVB will confirm the laboratory is not affiliated with the Project Proponent beyond analytical services.

The Project Proponent must indicate if the laboratory meets Pathway A or Pathway B requirements.

• To meet Pathway A requirements, the laboratory must be accredited, such as having AHRI 700 or ISO 17025. Nationally accredited labs that use AHRI or ISO methods are also acceptable.

The Project Proponent must describe the analytical methods and corresponding SOPs to be used. Sample analysis must include:

• Gas chromatography
• Moisture analysis
• High boiling residue analysis

The Project Proponent must confirm the sample composition analysis covers all refrigerant types included in the Project.

Verification requirements

In addition to the shared verification requirements (Section 8), following records must be retained by the Project Proponent for each sample analyzed via laboratory:

• Associated laboratory reports.
• Any other relevant data associated with laboratory analysis, such as notes on sample integrity, anomalous results or QA/QC on analytical instruments.

Additional verification requirements for Pathway B

• A random set comprising 50% of containers analyzed via Pathway B must be sent for analysis at an accredited laboratory (meeting Pathway A requirements). The containers to be validated must be selected by Isometric or VVB.
• For each reporting period, a reconciliation check must be conducted between the non-accredited laboratory and the accredited validation laboratory for all containers in the 50% validation set.
  • Documentation of any material discrepancies and corrective actions taken.
• Where the accredited laboratory results differ materially from the non-accredited laboratory results, Isometric may require an increase in the validation rate or suspension of Pathway B.

Validation requirements

The Project Proponent must identify the handheld analyzer make, model, and firmware version to be used. The device must be capable of providing quantitative purity analysis (% composition by mass) for the specific refrigerant species present in the container.

• Where the handheld analyzer identifies a single refrigerant species at ≥ 90% purity by mass, the container is classified as homogeneous and the identified species is used for GWP calculation.
• Where the handheld analyzer identifies a recognized commercial blend (e.g., R-410A, R-407C) at ≥ 90% purity by mass, the container is classified as homogeneous and the blend's published GWP is used.
• Where the handheld analyzer cannot quantify the refrigerant species, or where purity is < 90% by mass, the container must be routed to laboratory analysis under Pathway A or B and the mixed gas requirements apply.

The SOP for gas composition sampling using a handheld analyzer must include the following:

• The handheld analyzer must be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The Project Proponent must provide the calibration certificate or record, including the date of last calibration and the calibration interval.
• The analyzer must sample from the vapor phase of the container unless the device manufacturer specifies otherwise.
• Where the container is equipped with both liquid and vapor ports, the measurement must be taken from the port specified by the device manufacturer for composition analysis.
• A minimum stabilization period must be observed before recording the measurement result. The stabilization period must follow the device manufacturer's operating instructions, or a minimum of 60 seconds if not specified.

Moisture and contaminant deduction

Handheld analyzers do not measure moisture content or high boiling residue. To account for these contaminants conservatively, the following deduction must be applied to all containers analyzed via Pathway C:

• A flat deduction of 2% of total container mass must be applied to account for moisture and high boiling residue combined. This deduction is applied before calculating eligible HFC mass.
• Where the Project Proponent can demonstrate through laboratory analysis that average moisture and high boiling residue is consistently below 1% of total mass across a crediting period, the Project Proponent may apply to Isometric for a reduced deduction rate for subsequent crediting periods. The reduced rate must not be less than 1%.

Verification requirements

In addition to the shared verification requirements, the following must be recorded for each container analyzed via Pathway C:

• Handheld analyzer make, model, and firmware version.
• Calibration date and certificate reference.
• Stabilization time observed.
• Screenshot or digital export of the analyzer reading, where the device supports this function.
• Moisture and contaminant deduction applied (2% default, or approved reduced rate).

Additional verification requirements for Pathway C

• A random set comprising 20% of containers analyzed via Pathway C must be sent for third-party accredited laboratory validation. The containers to be validated must be selected by Isometric or VVB.
• For validated containers, a physical sample must be drawn following the Laboratory Analysis sample collection requirements and analyzed under Pathway A.
• Where the laboratory result differs from the handheld result by more than 3 percentage points of purity (by mass), the Project Proponent must investigate and document the cause of the discrepancy. Isometric may require an increase in the validation rate or suspension of Pathway C.

HFC and ODS destruction eligible under this Protocol must occur at validated destruction facilities. The validation framework is designed around a simple principle: confirm that the facility can destroy refrigerants effectively and safely, then verify that it continues to do so over time. The minimum eligibility requirements for approved destruction facilities include: a valid operating permit, a performance test demonstrating DRE of at least 99.99%, and co-pollutant emissions within TEAP performance criteria.

Validation is granted for five years, after which performance testing must be repeated. Revalidation is also triggered by material changes to the destruction unit or significant compliance events.

Validation requirements

The following facility identification information must be provided:

• legal name and address of the facility
• legal name, address, and contact information of the facility owner/operator
• previous validation or verification materials if the facility is registered under any other carbon credit programs
• GPS coordinates of the destruction unit(s)

The following information must be provided to confirm regulatory compliance:

• a valid operating permit(s) in the host country.
• a summary of permit conditions relevant to refrigerant destruction.
• the facility must have no unresolved environmental violations related to air emissions, hazardous waste management, or worker safety related to HFC or ODS refrigerant destruction within the 24 months preceding the qualification application.

The Project Proponent must provide a description of the destruction facility, including:

• process flow diagram of the destruction facility
• destruction technology type, the technology manufacturer and model designation
• design specifications covering maximum refrigerant throughput capacity, operating temperature range, residence time at operating temperature

The facility must have been demonstrated to meet UNEP TEAP Task Force on Destruction Technologies performance criteria:

*All concentrations must be expressed on a dry gas basis at standard conditions (0°C, 101.3 kPa), corrected to 11% O₂.

• Performance testing must
  • use a feed substance that is at least as thermally stable as the target substance ¹.
    • Projects wishing to destroy HFC-23 must demonstrate that the facility has met the TEAP screening criteria for destroying HFC-23 specifically, or a fluorinated substance with higher thermal stability (e.g., SF₆), given the relatively higher thermal stability of HFC-23 compared to other Annex F Group 1 HFCs
  • be conducted under operating conditions representative of normal destruction operations:
    • The HFC feed rate during testing must be within plus or minus 20% of the typical operating feed rate.
    • The destruction chamber temperature during testing must be within the normal operating range.
    • All pollution control equipment must be operating normally during testing.
    • The HFC feed composition must be analytically verified prior to the test.
    • The HFC feed rate must be measured and documented continuously during the test.
  • The full test methodology and results must be submitted for approval. The host-country regulatory testing protocol is accepted as the standard. If no regulatory protocol exists, TEAP guidelines should be used.

The Project Proponent must establish and justify a site-specific CO concentration threshold. Continuous CO monitoring is used as the primary adaptive management tool for ongoing assurance that destruction is proceeding effectively.

• The default CO threshold is 100 mg/Nm³, consistent with TEAP performance criteria. Facilities may set a higher threshold where site-specific conditions justify it (e.g., cement kilns where baseline CO from primary operations is elevated). In such cases, the threshold must be set relative to the facility’s documented baseline CO concentration during non-destruction operations, and the justification must be included in the validation submission.

Projects must continuously monitor CO concentration during all destruction operations. If the CO concentration exceeds the approved threshold for more than 15 minutes during a destruction event, the facility must halt the HFC or ODS feed until the cause is identified and resolved. The exceedance event must be documented, including the duration, peak concentration, root cause analysis, and corrective action taken.

Where the destruction facility deviates from the validation requirements set out above, The Project Proponent must explain why it does not align, and provide justification for why the facility should nonetheless be considered eligible under the Protocol. Such justification must demonstrate how the intent of the relevant requirement is fulfilled despite the misalignment. This justification must be evaluated and approved by Isometric.

Guidance

The following operational standards are recommended. Destruction facilities should strive towards implementing these best practices to ensure operational integrity of HFC and ODS destruction.

• The facility should have instrumentation for continuous monitoring
  • Required parameters include:
    • reaction zone temperature
    • flue-gas temperature before gas cleaning
    • flue-gas temperature after gas cleaning
    • flue gas oxygen (O2) concentration
    • flue gas carbon monoxide (CO) concentration
    • HFC feed rate
• On-line instruments should have SOPs for calibration method and frequency. Calibration records should be stored.
• The facility should be equipped with the following cut-off control systems on the HFC feed when:
  • Temperature in the reaction chamber falls below the minimum temperature needed to achieve destruction.
  • Other minimum destruction conditions stated in the performance specifications cannot be maintained.
  • Feed rate exceeds the maximum permitted rate by more than 10%.
  • Communication with the data logging system is lost for more than 5 minutes.
• For facilities using automatic cut-off systems, alerts should be automatically generated under the following conditions:
  • when any monitored parameter approaches within 10% of the automatic cut-off threshold.
  • when an automatic feed cut-off is activated.
  • when any monitored parameter shows readings outside expected ranges for more than 15 minutes.
  • when communication with monitoring equipment is lost.
• The facility should be equipped with data acquisition and integrity measures:
  • The facility should have data logging systems capable of recording all monitored parameters at 1-minute intervals or faster.
  • Data should be stored in a format that prevents unauthorized modification, such as write-once media, cryptographically signed records, or a database with audit trail.
  • Raw data should be retained for a minimum of 10 years from the date of collection.
• The facility operations should
  • ensure that incoming consignments of HFCs and ODS undergo documentation verification, preliminary inspection, and gross weight measurement upon arrival at the destruction facility.
  • ensure that all unloading occurs in designated areas with restricted personnel access, free from activities that could lead to collision, accidental dropping, or spillage.
  • ensure that HFCs and ODS are stored in specially designated areas with systems for stock control, leak detection, and regular monitoring.
  • ensure that all personnel involved in facility operations receive training appropriate to their tasks, with documented records of training and periodic refresher training.
  • include routine maintenance, spot checks and manual stack-sampling.
• The facility should be designed and constructed to minimize fugitive losses, incorporating appropriate engineering controls for pumps, valves, tank vents, piping joints, and drainage systems as specified in Appendix A.

Verification requirements

• CO exceedance records must be provided to the VVB at each verification event. Repeated or sustained exceedances may trigger a requirement for early revalidation performance testing at Isometric’s discretion.

Re-validation requirements

A destruction facility must be revalidated, including a new performance test, under any of the following circumstances:

• Every three years from the date of the most recent qualifying performance test.
• When material changes are made to the destruction unit, including but not limited to: replacement of the primary combustion chamber or reaction vessel, change in destruction technology type, major refurbishment affecting the thermal or chemical processing of the feed, or significant modification to the pollution control equipment.
• Following any regulatory enforcement action related to air emissions, hazardous waste management, or worker safety at the facility related to HFC or ODS refrigerant destruction.
• When directed by Isometric based on evidence of sustained or repeated CO exceedances, or other information indicating that the facility may no longer meet performance standards.

Isometric will conduct a step-level reconciliation for each container across each adjacent pair of transfer points:

• Intake to aggregation dispatch (including any consolidation)
• Aggregation dispatch to destruction receipt
• Destruction receipt to mass destroyed

If the cumulative loss for any individual container exceeds 10% between collection and destruction, or if aggregate losses across all containers exceed 10% for any Reporting Period, The Project Proponent must conduct an investigation to identify the stage(s) where the losses occurred and make associated corrective actions.

Reproduced in full from: TEAP, Code of Good Housekeeping in Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer - 7th Edition (2006)

To provide additional guidance to facility operators, in May 1992 the Technical Advisory Committee prepared a "Code of Good Housekeeping" as a brief outline of measures that should be considered to ensure that environmental releases of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) through all media are minimized. This Code, updated by the Task Force on Destruction Technologies and amended by the Parties at their Fifteenth Meeting, in 2003, is also intended to provide a framework of practices and measures that should normally be adopted at facilities undertaking the destruction of ODS.

Not all measures will be appropriate to all situations and circumstances and, as with any code, nothing specified should be regarded as a barrier to the adoption of better or more effective measures if these can be identified.

Pre-delivery

This refers to measures that may be appropriate prior to any delivery of ODS to a facility.

The facility operator should generate written guidelines on ODS packaging and containment criteria, together with labelling and transportation requirements. These guidelines should be provided to all suppliers and senders of ODS prior to agreement to accept such substances.

The facility operator should seek to visit and inspect the proposed sender's stocks and arrangements prior to movement of the first consignment. This is to ensure awareness on the part of the sender of proper practices and compliance with standards.

Arrival at the facility

This refers to measures that should be taken at the time ODS are received at the facility gate. These include an immediate check of documentation prior to admittance to the facility site, coupled with a preliminary inspection of the general condition of the consignment. Where necessary, special or "fast-track" processing and repackaging facilities may be needed to mitigate risk of leakage or loss of ODS. Arrangements should exist to measure the gross weight of the consignment at the time of delivery.

Unloading from delivery vehicle

This refers to measures to be taken at the facility in connection with the unloading of ODS. It is generally assumed that ODS will normally be delivered in some form of container, drum or other vessel that is removed from the delivery vehicle in total. Such containers may be returnable.

All unloading activities should be carried out in properly designated areas, to which restricted access of personnel applies. Areas should be free of extraneous activities likely to lead to, or increase the risk of, collision, accidental dropping, spillage, etc. Materials should be placed in designated quarantine areas for subsequent detailed checking and evaluation.

Testing and verification

This refers to the arrangements made for detailed checking of the ODS consignments prior to destruction.

Detailed checking of delivery documentation should be carried out, along with a complete inventory, to establish that delivery is as advised and appears to comply with expectations.

Detailed checks of containers should be made both in respect of accuracy of identification labels, etc., and of physical condition and integrity. Arrangements must be in place to permit repackaging or "fast-track" processing of any items identified as defective. Sampling and analysis of representative quantities of ODS consignments should be carried out to verify material type and characteristics. All sampling and analysis should be conducted using approved procedures and techniques.

Storage and stock control

This refers to matters concerning the storage and stock control of ODS.

ODS materials should be stored in specially designated areas, subject to the regulations of the relevant local authorities. Arrangements should be put in place as soon as possible to minimize, to the extent practicable, stock emissions prior to destruction.

Locations of stock items should be identified through a system of control that should also provide a continuous update of quantities and locations as stock is destroyed and new stock delivered. In regard to storage vessels for concentrated sources of ODS, these arrangements should include a system for regular monitoring and leak detection, as well as arrangements to permit repackaging of leaking stock as soon as possible.

Measuring quantities destroyed

It is important to be aware of the quantities of ODS processed through the destruction equipment. Where possible, flow meters or continuously recording weighing equipment for individual containers should be employed. As a minimum, containers should be weighed "full" and "empty" to establish quantities by difference.

Residual quantities of ODS in containers that can be sealed and are intended to be returned for further use, may be allowed. Otherwise, containers should be purged of residues or destroyed as part of the process.

Facility design

This refers to basic features and requirements of plant, equipment and services deployed in the facility.

In general, any destruction facility should be properly designed and constructed in accordance with the best standards of engineering and technology and with particular regard to the need to minimize, if not eliminate, fugitive losses.

Particular care should be taken when designing plants to deal with dilute sources such as foams. These may be contained in refrigeration cabinets or may be part of more general demolition waste. The area in which foam is first separated from other substrates should be fully enclosed wherever possible and any significant emissions captured at that stage.

Pumps: Magnetic drive, sealers or double mechanical seal pumps should be installed to eliminate environmental releases resulting from seal leaks.

Valves: Valves with reduced leaks potential should be used. These include quarter-turn valves or valves with extended packing glands.

Tank vents (including loading vents): Filling and breathing discharges from tanks and vessels should be recovered or vented to a destruction process.

Piping joints: Screwed connections should not be used and the number of flanged joints should be kept to the minimum that is consistent with safety and the ability to dismantle for maintenance and repair.

Drainage systems: Areas of the facility where ODS are stored or handled should be provided with sloped concrete paving and a properly designed collection system. Water that is collected should, if contaminated, be treated prior to authorized discharge.

Maintenance

In general, all maintenance work should be performed according to properly planned programmes and should be executed within the framework of a permit system to ensure proper consideration of all aspects of the work.

ODS should be purged from all vessels, mechanical units and pipework prior to the opening of these items to the atmosphere. The contaminated purge should be routed to the destruction process or treated to recover the ODS.

All flanges, seals, gaskets and other sources of minor losses should be checked routinely to identify developing problems before containment is lost. Leaks should be repaired as soon as possible.

Consumable or short-life items, such as flexible hoses and couplings, must be monitored closely and replaced at a frequency that renders the risk of rupture negligible.

Quality control and quality assurance

All sampling and analytical work connected with ODS, the process and the monitoring of its overall performance should be subject to quality assessment and quality control measures in line with current recognized practices. This should include at least occasional independent verification and confirmation of data produced by the facility operators.

Consideration should also be given to the adoption of quality management systems and environment quality practices covering the entire facility.

Training

All personnel concerned with the operation of the facility (with "operation" being interpreted in its widest sense) should have training appropriate to their task. Of particular relevance to the ODS destruction objectives is training in the consequences of unnecessary losses and in the use, handling and maintenance of all equipment in the facility. All training should be carried out by suitably qualified and experienced personnel and the details of such training should be maintained in written records. Refresher training should be conducted at appropriate intervals.

Code of transportation

In the interest of protecting the stratospheric ozone layer, it is essential that used ODS and products containing ODS are collected and moved efficiently to facilities practising approved destruction technologies. For transportation purposes, used ODS should receive the same hazard classification as the original substances or products. In practice, this may introduce restrictions on hazardous waste shipment under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and this should be consulted separately. In the absence of such specific restrictions, the following proposed code of transportation for ODS from customer to destruction facilities is provided as a guide to help minimize damage caused to the ozone layer as a result of ODS transfers. Additional guidance is contained in the United Nations Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations.

It is important to supervise and control all shipments of used ODS and products containing ODS according to national and international requirements to protect the environment and human health. To ensure that ODS and products containing ODS do not constitute an unnecessary risk, they must be properly packaged and labelled. Instructions to be followed in the event of danger or accident must accompany each shipment to protect human beings and the environment from any danger that might arise during the operation.

Notification of the following information should be provided at any intermediate stage of the shipment from the place of dispatch until its final destination. When making notification, the notifier should supply the information requested on the consignment note, with particular regard to:

a. The source and composition of the ODS and products containing ODS, including the customer's identity;

b. Arrangements for routing and for insurance against damage to third parties;

c. Measures to be taken to ensure safe transport and, in particular, compliance by the carrier with the conditions laid down for transport by the States concerned;

d. The identity of the consignee, who should possess an authorized centre with adequate technical capacity for the destruction;

e. The existence of a contractual agreement with the consignee concerning the destruction of ODS and products containing ODS.

This code of transportation does not necessarily apply to the disposal of ODS-containing rigid insulation foams. The most appropriate way to dispose of such products may be by direct incineration in municipal waste incinerators or rotary kiln incinerators.

Monitoring

The objectives of monitoring should be to provide assurance that input materials are being destroyed with an acceptable efficiency generally consistent with the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) recommendations listed in annex II to the present report and that the substances resulting from destruction yield environmentally acceptable emission levels consistent with, or better than, those required under national standards or other international Protocols or treaties.

As there are as yet no International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards applicable for the sampling and analysis of ODS or the majority of the other pollutants listed in annex IV to the present report, where national standards exist they should be employed. Further, where national standards exist they may be used in lieu of ISO standards provided that they have been the subject of a verification or validation process addressing their accuracy and representativeness.

As ISO develops international standards for pollutants listed in annex IV to the present report, the technical bodies charged with developing such standards should take note of the existing national standards including those identified in appendix F to the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) of April 2002 (volume 3, report of the Task Force on Destruction Technologies) and strive to ensure consistency between any new ISO standards and the existing standard test methods, provided that there is no finding that those existing methods are inaccurate or unrepresentative.

Where national standards do not exist, the Technical Advisory Committee recommends adoption of the following guidelines for monitoring of destruction processes operating using an approved technology.

In the interest of ensuring a common international basis of comparison for those pollutants or parameters where ISO standards exist (currently particulates, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen), use of those standards is encouraged and jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt them as national standards or acceptable alternatives to existing national standards.

The use of EPA or other national standards described in appendix F is also considered acceptable, however. The precedence given to the EPA methods in the present code is based on the relative comprehensiveness of the methods available (both in scope and content), and the relative ease of access to those methods.

Measurement of ODS

Operators of destruction facilities should take all necessary precautions concerning the storage and inventory control of ODS-containing material received for destruction. Prior to feeding the ODS to the approved destruction process, the following procedures are recommended:

a. The mass of the ODS-containing material should be determined, where practicable;

b. Representative samples should be taken, where appropriate, to verify that the concentration of ODS matches the description given on the delivery documentation;

c. Samples should be analysed by an approved method. If no approved methods are available, the adoption of United States EPA methods 5030 and 8240 is recommended;

d. All records from these mass and ODS-concentration measurements should be documented and kept in accordance with ISO 9000 or equivalent.

Control systems

Operators should ensure that destruction processes are operated efficiently to ensure complete destruction of ODS to the extent that it is technically feasible for the approved process. This will normally include the use of appropriate measurement devices and sampling techniques to monitor the operating parameters, burn conditions and mass concentrations of the pollutants that are generated by the process.

Gaseous emissions from the process need to be monitored and analysed using appropriate instrumentation. This should be supplemented by regular spot checks using manual stack-sampling methods. Other environmental releases, such as liquid effluents and solid residues, require laboratory analysis on a regular basis.

The continuous monitoring recommended for ongoing process control, including off-gas cleaning systems, is as follows:

a. Measurement of appropriate reaction and process temperatures;

b. Measurement of flue gas temperatures before and after the gas cleaning system;

c. Measurement of flue gas concentrations for oxygen and carbon monoxide.

Any additional continuous monitoring requirements are subject to the national regulatory authority that has jurisdiction. The performance of online monitors and instrumentation systems must be periodically checked and validated. When measuring detection limits, error values at the 95 percent confidence level should not exceed 20 percent.

Approved processes must be equipped with automatic cut-off control systems on the ODS feed system, or be able to go into standby mode whenever:

a. The temperature in the reaction chamber falls below the minimum temperature required to achieve destruction;

b. Other minimum destruction conditions stated in the performance specifications cannot be maintained.

Performance measurements

The approval of technologies recommended by TEAP is based on the destruction capability of the technology in question. It is recognized that the parameters may fluctuate during day-to-day operation from this generic capability. In practice, however, it is not possible to measure against performance criteria on a daily basis. This is particularly the case for situations where ODS only represents a small fraction of the substances being destroyed, thereby requiring specialist equipment to achieve detection of the very low concentrations present in the stack gas. It is therefore not uncommon for validation processes to take place annually at a given facility.

With this in mind, TEAP is aware that the measured performance of a facility may not always meet the criteria established for the technology. Nonetheless, TEAP sees no justification for reducing the minimum recommendations for a given technology. Regulators, however, may need to take these practical variations into account when setting minimum standards.

The ODS destruction and removal efficiency for a facility operating an approved technology should be validated at least once every three years. The validation process should also include an assessment of other relevant stack gas concentrations identified in annex II to decision XV/[…] and a comparison with maximum levels stipulated in relevant national standards or international Protocols/treaties.

Determination of the ODS destruction and removal efficiency and other relevant substances identified in annex IV to the present report should also be followed when commissioning a new or rebuilt facility or when any other significant change is made to the destruction procedures in a facility to ensure that all facility characteristics are completely documented and assessed against the approved technology criteria.

Tests must be done with known feed rates of a given ODS compound or with well-known ODS mixtures. In cases where a destruction process incinerates halogen-containing wastes together with ODS, the total halogen load should be calculated and controlled. The number and duration of test runs should be carefully selected to reflect the characteristics of the technology.

In summary, the destruction and removal efficiency recommended for concentrated sources means that less than 0.1 gram of total ODS should normally enter the environment from stack-gas emissions when 1,000 grams of ODS are fed into the process. A detailed analysis of stack test results should be made available to verify emissions of halogen acids and polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran (PCDD/PCDF). In addition, a site-specific test Protocol should be prepared and made available for inspection by the appropriate regulatory authorities. The sampling Protocol must report the following data from each test:

a. ODS feed rate;

b. Total halogen load in the waste stream;

c. Residence time for ODS in the reaction zone;

d. Oxygen content in flue gas;

e. Gas temperature in the reaction zone;

f. Flue gas and effluent flow rate;

g. Carbon monoxide in flue gas;

h. ODS content in flue gas;

i. Effluent volumes and quantities of solid residues discharged;

j. ODS concentrations in the effluent and solid residues;

k. Concentration of PCDD/PCDF, particulates, HCl, HF and HBr in the flue gases;

l. Concentration of PCDD/PCDF in effluent and solids.

Reproduced in full from: UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Report of the Task Force on Destruction Technologies, UNEP, 2002. As a result, some footnote numbers and formatting may not be consistent with the original TEAP document. Information may also be outdated relative to the newest TEAP authoritative guidance on destruction technologies.

Criteria for Technology Screening

The following screening criteria were developed by the UNEP TFDT. Technologies for use by the signatories to the Montreal Protocol to dispose of surplus inventories of ODS were assessed on the basis of:

1. Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE)
2. Emissions of dioxins/furans
3. Emissions of other pollutants (acid gases, particulate matter, & carbon monoxide)
4. Technical capability

The first three refer to technical performance criteria selected as measures of potential impacts of the technology on human health and the environment. The technical capability criterion indicates the extent to which the technology has been demonstrated to be able to dispose of ODS (or a comparable recalcitrant halogenated organic substance such as PCB) effectively and on a commercial scale.

For convenience, the technical performance criteria are summarized in Table A3-1. These represent the minimum destruction and removal efficiencies and maximum emission of pollutants to the atmosphere permitted by technologies that qualify for consideration by the TFDT for recommendation to the Parties of the Montreal Protocol for approval as ODS destruction technologies. The technologies must also satisfy the criteria for technical capability as defined below.

Table A3-1: Summary of Technical Performance Qualifications

All concentrations of pollutants in stack gases and stack gas flow rates are expressed on the basis of dry gas at normal conditions of 0°C and 101.3 kPa, and with the stack gas corrected to 11% O2.

Destruction and Removal Efficiency

Destruction Efficiency (DE) is a measure of how completely a particular technology destroys a contaminant of interest – in this case the transformation of ODS material into non-ODS by-products. There are two commonly used but different ways of measuring the extent of destruction – DE and Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE). The terms are sometimes interchanged or used inappropriately. DE is a more comprehensive measure of destruction than DRE, because DE considers the amount of the chemical of interest that escapes destruction by being removed from the process in the stack gases and in all other residue streams. Most references citing performance of ODS destruction processes only provide data for stack emissions and thus, generally, data is only available for DRE and not DE.

Because of the relatively volatile nature of ODS and because, with the exception of foams, they are generally introduced as relatively clean fluids, one would not expect a very significant difference between DRE and DE. For these reasons this update of ODS destruction technologies uses DRE as the measure of destruction efficiency. For the purposes of screening destruction technologies, the minimum acceptable DRE is:

• 95% for foams; and,
• 99.99% for concentrated sources.

It should be noted that measurements of the by-products of destruction of CFCs, HCFCs and halons in a plasma destruction process have indicated that interconversion of ODS can occur during the process. For example, under some conditions, the DRE of CFC-12 (CCl2F2) was measured as 99.9998%, but this was accompanied by a conversion of 25% of the input CFC-12 to CFC-13 (CClF3), which has the same ozone-depleting potential. The interconversion is less severe when hydrogen is present in the process, but can nonetheless be significant. For this reason, it is important to take into account all types of ODS in the stack gas in defining the DRE.

For the reasons described in the previous paragraph, the Task Force recommends that future calculations of DRE use the approach described below.

DRE of an ODS should be determined by subtracting from the number of moles of the ODS fed into a destruction system during a specific period of time, the total number of moles of all types of ODS that are released in stack gases, and expressing that difference as a percentage of the number of moles of the ODS fed into the system.

In mathematical terms:

$$DRE = \frac{N_I^{in} - \sum_i N_i^{out}}{N_I^{in}}$$

where $N_I^{in}$ is the number of moles of ODS fed into the destruction system and $N_i^{out}$ is the number of moles of the ith type of ODS that is released in the stack gases.

Emissions of Dioxins and Furans

Any high temperature process used to destroy ODS has associated with it the potential formation (as by-products) of polychlorinated dibenzo-paradioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). These substances are among the products of incomplete combustion (or PICs) of greatest concern for potential adverse effects on public health and the environment. The internationally recognized measure of the toxicity of these compounds is the toxic equivalency factor (ITEQ), which is a weighted measure of the toxicity for all the members of the families of these toxic compounds that are determined to be present.

The task force members note that the World Health Organization has developed a new system for calculating TEQs, however, most of the existing data on emissions is expressed in the former ITEQ system established in 1988.

For purposes of screening destruction technologies, the maximum concentration of dioxins and furans in the stack gas from destruction technologies is:

• 0.5 ng-ITEQ/Nm3 for foams; and,
• 0.2 ng-ITEQ/Nm3 for concentrated sources.

These criteria were determined to represent a reasonable compromise between more stringent standards already in place in some industrialized countries [for example, the Canada-Wide Standard of 0.08 ng/m3 (ITEQ)], and the situation in developing countries where standards may be less stringent or non-existent. Although a previous standard of 1.0 ng/m3 (ITEQ) had been suggested in the UNEP 1992 report, advances in technology in recent years, and the level of concern for emissions of these highly toxic substances justified a significantly more stringent level.

Emissions of Acid Gases, Particulate Matter and Carbon Monoxide

Acid gases are generally formed when ODS are destroyed and these must be removed from the stack gases before the gases are released to the atmosphere. The following criteria for acid gases have been set for purposes of screening destruction technologies:

• A maximum concentration in stack gases of 100 mg/Nm3 HCl/Cl2
• A maximum concentration in stack gases of 5 mg/Nm3 HF
• A maximum concentration in stack gases of 5 mg/Nm3 HBr/Br2

Particulate matter is generally emitted in the stack gases of incinerators for a variety of reasons and can also be emitted in the stack gases of facilities using non-incineration technologies. For the purposes of screening technologies, the criterion for particulate matter is established as:

• A maximum concentration of total suspended particulate (TSP) of 50 mg/Nm3

Carbon monoxide (CO) is generally released from incinerators resulting from incomplete combustion and may be released from some ODS destruction facilities because it is one form by which the carbon content of the ODS can exit the process. Carbon monoxide is a good measure of how well the destruction process is being controlled. For the purposes of screening technologies, the following criterion has been established:

• A maximum CO concentration in the stack gas of 100 mg/Nm3

These maximum concentrations apply to both foams and concentrated sources. They were set to be achievable by a variety of available technologies while ensuring adequate protection of human health and the environment.

Technical Capability

As well as meeting the above performance requirements it is necessary that the destruction technologies have been demonstrated to be technically capable at an appropriate scale of operation. In practical terms, this means that the technology should be demonstrated to achieve the required DRE while satisfying the emissions criteria established above.

Demonstration of destruction of ODS is preferred but not necessarily required. Destruction of halogenated compounds that are refractory, i.e., resistant to destruction, is acceptable. For example, demonstrated destruction of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) was often accepted as an adequate surrogate for demonstrated ODS destruction.

For this evaluation, an ODS destruction technology is considered technically capable if it meets the following minimum criteria:

• It has been demonstrated to have destroyed ODS to the technical performance standards, on at least a pilot scale or demonstration scale (designated in Table 2-2 as "Yes").
• It has been demonstrated to have destroyed a refractory chlorinated organic compound other than an ODS, to the technical performance standards, on at least a pilot scale or demonstration scale (designated in Table 2-2 as "P," which indicates that the technology is considered to have a high potential for application with ODS, but has not actually been demonstrated with ODS).
• The processing capacity of an acceptable pilot plant or demonstration plant must be no less than 1.0 kg/hr of the substance to be destroyed, whether ODS or a suitable surrogate.

These criteria of technical capability will minimize the risk associated with technical performance and ensure that destruction of ODS will be performed in a predictable manner consistent with protecting the environment.

This appendix sets out the source data and derivation methodology for the imported activity data benchmarks in Section 7.5.2.

Common methodology

All three benchmarks are derived by applying a consistent 2× conservative uplift to source data drawn from recognized methodologies, commercial product specifications, or peer-reviewed and patent literature. The 2× uplift is applied uniformly to make the benchmarks deliberately conservative relative to expected real-world energy intensity, in order to incentivize Project Proponents to seek primary data where obtainable, or — where that is structurally unobtainable — to seek a more representative external source under option 3a.

The uplift is applied to the activity data intensity only. Emission factors are not imported from any source; Project Proponents apply project-specific or country-specific emission factors per Section 7.5.4.

Co-firing facilities

The benchmarks for co-firing facilities are imported from Appendix D of the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) Article 5 Ozone Depleting Substances Project Protocol, Version 2.0. CAR's values are derived from confidential industry records of US ODS destruction operations, predominantly co-processing facilities (cement kilns, rotary kilns, hazardous waste incinerators), where refrigerant is destroyed alongside other waste or feed material in shared combustion infrastructure.

Conversion arithmetic (using 1 tonne = 2,204.62 lb and 1 MMBtu = 1.05506 GJ):

• Fossil fuel: 0.0009 MMBtu/lb × 2,204.62 lb/tonne × 1.05506 GJ/MMBtu = 2.094 GJ/tonne; × 2 = 4.188 GJ/tonne.
• Electricity: 0.0018 MWh/lb × 2,204.62 lb/tonne = 3.968 MWh/tonne; × 2 = 7.937 MWh/tonne.

Plasma arc

The plasma arc benchmark is anchored on two independent sources, both pointing to a design-point electricity intensity of approximately 5.0 MWh/tonne refrigerant destroyed.

Source 1 — PyroGenesis SPARC commercial system. The Steam Plasma Arc Refrigerant Cracking (SPARC) system is the most widely deployed dedicated plasma destruction technology for refrigerants. Commercial installations include the New Zealand National Refrigerant Destruction Facility (commissioned 2026, 100 t/yr capacity, all-electric, geothermal-powered).

Torch-only specific electricity at design feed rate:

• 150 kW ÷ 50 kg/hr = 3.0 kWh/kg = 3.0 MWh/tonne.

Balance-of-plant equipment (scrubber pumps, fans, wet quench, continuous emissions monitoring, control systems, feed pumps, cooling, facility HVAC) typically draws 50–100% of torch power. Applying a mid-range 1.67× multiplier: 3.0 × 1.67 ≈ 5.0 MWh/tonne at design point.

Source 2 — Foundational plasma arc literature. US Patent 5,206,879 (ICI, 1993), the foundational patent for plasma arc destruction of fluorocarbons, specifies a preferred energy transfer to the gas stream of 8 MJ/kg. Assuming 70% torch electrical-to-thermal efficiency, the electrical input is 8 ÷ 0.7 = 11.4 MJ/kg = 3.17 kWh/kg. Adding 1.5× balance-of-plant: 4.8 MWh/tonne at design point.

Adopted source value**:** 5.0 MWh/tonne (design point), aligned across the two independent sources.

After 2× uplift: 10.0 MWh / tonne refrigerant destroyed.

Dedicated thermal oxidation

The dedicated thermal oxidation benchmark is anchored on the regulatory and engineering envelope established by recognized methodologies and EU industrial emissions law for thermal destruction of halogenated organic waste. Refrigerants are non-flammable and contribute no fuel value to combustion (they are fire-inhibiting); a dedicated facility must therefore continuously fire supplemental fuel (typically natural gas, LNG, or LPG) to maintain combustion temperature, dissociate the C–F and C–Cl bonds, and heat the full flue volume (combustion air, steam, and acid gas products) to the required operating temperature.

Regulatory operating envelope. Under EU Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste (consolidated under the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU) and the EU Waste Incineration BREF, hazardous waste containing more than 1% halogenated organic substances expressed as chlorine must be incinerated at a minimum of 1,100°C for at least 2 seconds, with a continuously available auxiliary burner activated automatically whenever the temperature falls below this threshold. Refrigerants destroyed in dedicated facilities fall within this category and are subject to this regulatory floor.

Methodology framework. The CDM AM0001 methodology, Version 05.2 (Incineration of HFC-23 waste streams) defines the activity-data energy intensity for dedicated thermal oxidation as the ratio of natural gas consumption to refrigerant destroyed ($Q_{NGy}$ / $Q_{HFC23y}$), monitored continuously at registered project facilities. The methodology confirms the operating regime: thermal oxidation chamber at >1,200°C with LNG (natural gas) as supplemental fuel, refrigerant fed alongside air and steam. This monitoring identity provides the technical basis for the activity-data benchmark; specific $Q_{NGy}$ / $Q_{HFC23y}$ ratios from registered AM0001 projects (Ulsan, Gujarat Fluorochemicals, SRF Alwar, Navin Fluorine, Quimobásicos) define the empirical envelope, though these monitoring reports are not aggregated as a published default.

Engineering basis. The Gujarat Fluorochemicals project design document (660 t/yr HFC-23 capacity) confirms that flue heat recovery is not economically practicable for dedicated halocarbon oxidizers due to flue gas corrosivity, meaning the full supplemental fuel input is consumed without offset. The UNEP TEAP Task Force on Destruction Technologies report (2002) confirms the 1,000–1,300°C operating envelope across all approved dedicated halocarbon destruction technologies.

Cost-based corroboration. The CDM AM0001 background paper (McCulloch 2004) reports operating costs of approximately €1,000 per tonne HFC-23 destroyed for a 200 t/yr dedicated thermal oxidizer (citing EFCTC 2001 and Harnisch & Hendriks 2000). Assuming natural gas accounts for the dominant share of operating cost at industrial gas prices, this opex implies a fuel demand on the order of tens of GJ per tonne destroyed — consistent with the engineering envelope above.

Adopted source value: 30 GJ / tonne refrigerant destroyed (design point), within an estimated range of 20–35 GJ/tonne. This central value is consistent with:

• (a) the engineering first-principles requirement to maintain ≥1,100°C across the full flue volume with no heat recovery;
• (b) the cost-based corroboration in McCulloch (2004); and
• (c) the AM0001 monitoring framework that defines this as the activity-data identity for dedicated thermal oxidation.

After 2× uplift: 60 GJ / tonne refrigerant destroyed.

Periodic review

The values in this appendix are based on the sources cited above as of their respective publication dates. Isometric will reassess these values when more recent or more representative published benchmarks become available.