# Market	Characterization	of	the	U.S.	Foams	Industry

P REPARED FOR 

### :

Stratospheric	Protection	Division

Office	of	Air	and	Radiation

U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency

Washington,	D.C.	20460

P REPARED B Y 

### :

ICF	International

1725	Eye	Street,	NW

Washington,	DC	20006

M A Y 

### 2014

# Market	Characterization	of	the	U.S.	Foams	Industry

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

............................................................................................................................... ........... 1

2 Market Characterization

....................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Overview of Foam Types and End

‐ Uses

........................................................................................ 1

2.2 Foam Market

............................................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Foam Sector Revenue and Employment

..................................................................................... 12

2.4 Foam Applications

....................................................................................................................... 13

3 Sector Background

.............................................................................................................................. 14

4 Climate

‐ Friendly Alternatives

............................................................................................................. 15

5 References

............................................................................................................................... ........... 181 

## 1 Introduction

Foams are plastics (such as polyurethane or polystyrene) that are manufactured using blowing agents to

create bubbles or cells in the material's structure. The foam plastics manufacturing industries, the

markets they serve, and the blowing agents used are extremely varied. Foams are used as insulation in a

range of equipment and products, including refrigerated appliances, refrigerated trucks (“reefers”) and

other refrigerated transport systems, buildings (e.g., walls, roofs, floors), and pipes. Foams are also used

to provide buoyancy, and as cushioning in products, such as steering wheels, furniture, and shoes.



### Historically, a variety of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) 

### have been

used as foam blowing agents because of their favorable chemical properties. Used in the

production of foam, certain blowing agents may lead to environmental damage when released to the

atmosphere at time of foam manufacture, during product use, and/or at product disposal. In particular,

CFC and HCFC blowing agents are ozone

‐ depleting substances (ODS) with high global warming potentials

(GWPs). In addition, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which have more recently been adopted in the U.S.

market, also have high GWPs but do not damage the ozone layer. Other blowing agents that are both

ozone ‐ and climate

‐ friendly have also been used and are increasingly being adopted.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize the U.S. foams sector in terms of market size, historical and

current blowing agent use, and the availability of climate

‐ friendly alternatives.



## 2 Market Characterization

This section provides an overview of foam types and end

‐ uses, the foams market today, and lists the

major market suppliers and system houses. Additional general sector information on the market size,

sales, and employment is also provided, as available.



### 2.1 

## Overview of Foam Types and End

‐ Uses

Foams are characterized as “closed

‐ cell” or “open

‐ cell.” Closed

‐ cell foams have completely

enclosed/discrete cells which encase the blowing agent used to create the cells during the foam

production process; as a result, the blowing agent remains intact in the foam product (with only small

amounts emitted during the production process) and is slowly emitted over the product lifetime and at

or after (i.e., post

‐ life emissions) disposal (if not properly recovered and destroyed). Conversely, in open

‐

celled foams, each cell is connected to another cell and is not completely enclosed; thus, most or all

blowing agent is emitted during the manufacture/production of the foam

‐ containing product. Closed

‐

cell foams are generally used in insulating and buoyancy applications, whereas open

‐ cell foams are most

often used in cushioning applications.

Foams can also be classified by the primary polymer used in production. Specifically, there are four foam

types that have traditionally relied upon ozone

‐ depleting substances, as described below.

 Polystyrene foam is the largest foam market in the United States, based on revenue. This foam

type is estimated to represent approximately 52% of the revenue generated from all foam2 manufacture. 1 In terms of quantity of foam generated, however, polystyrene is second to

polyurethane, and represents approximately 30% of all foam (BCC Research 2010). Polystyrene

foam is categorized as either “extruded” or “expanded,” based on how it is manufactured.

Extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam is manufactured by an extrusion process at elevated

temperatures, which offers improved thermal properties. XPS includes boardstock (or ‘board’),

billet, and sheet foam; board and billet foam is often manufactured for construction

applications, although XPS billet is also manufactured for buoyancy and insulating pipe

applications. Sheet foam is typically manufactured for packaging purposes with thermal

requirements. Expanded polystyrene is blown from beads of polystyrene which contain a

blowing agent (typically a hydrocarbon such as pentane for extruded sheet foam, and a

hydrocarbon or a hydrofluorocarbon for extruded boardstock). The beads are blown into hot

moulds to create blocks and moulded shapes, typically for packaging applications.

 Polyurethane generates less revenue than polystyrene foam but represents 52% of the total

quantity of foam generated by weight (BCC Research 2010). The technology was developed in

the early 1930s and has since been the predominant foam type due to its versatility.

Polyurethane foams can be formulated to achieve a range of properties (e.g., density, resilience)

for different applications; it can be flexible or rigid. Rigid polyurethane foam is most often used

in insulating applications, which represents the most significant use of this foam type. Flexible

foams are most often used in non

‐ insulating applications, specifically in the furniture industry

and the automotive industry. Polyisocyanurate is chemically similar to polyurethane and is used

in some of the same rigid thermal applications, and thus is often grouped with polyurethane

foam. While it is less resilient than polyurethane, polyisocyanurate does offer improved fire

performance and greater rigidity.

 Polyolefin foam represents less than 10% of the foam manufactured in the United States by

weight (BCC Research 2010). Polyolefin foam is a polymer produced from a simple olefin. The

two most common polyolefin foams are polyethylene and polypropylene, taken from the name

of the olefin used to produce them: ethylene or propylene. Polyolefin foams have similar

properties to XPS foam and are generally used in similar applications. This foam type, however,

offers additional resilience which often makes it the foam type of choice in packaging

applications.

 Phenolic foam accounts for less than 10% of all foam manufactured in the United States by

weight (BCC Research 2010). This type of foam is very rigid, typically more so than polyurethane

or polyisocyanurate. This foam type includes insulation board and bunstock, or ‘blocks.’ The

rigidity characteristic of phenolic foams has historically made them unacceptable where

vibration or thermal shock is a consideration. However, more recent developments have led to

improved resilience, fire performance, as well as the best thermal performance of all foam

types. This foam type is commonly used in insulating applications, specifically pipe sections,

walls, roofs, and cold stores.

1 Based on the 2012 data presented in IBIS (2012a) and IBIS (2012b). See details in Section Error! Reference source

not found.

.12 Table 1 summarizes the foam types and common application.Table 1. Foam Types and Applications

Foam Type Product Type Open

or

Closed

Cell Insulating Applications Non-insulating ApplicationsDomestic AppliancesCommercial AppliancesPipe SectionWall and Door/ Window FramesFloorRoofTransportationCold StoresTransportationFurniturePackagingBuoyancyShoe Soles

Polyurethane Boardstock (includes

polyisocyanurate)

(rigid) closed √ √ √

Appliance(rigid) closed √ √

Spray (rigid) closed √ √ √ √ √ √

Slabstock (rigid) closed √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Continuous and

Discontinuous Block

(rigid) closed √ √ a √ √ √ b √ a

Injected / Pipe-inPipe (rigid) closed √

Continuous and

Discontinuous

Sandwich Panel

(rigid) closed √ √ √ √

One Component

Foam (OCF) open √

Slabstock and

Moulded (flexible) open √ c √ √ √ √

Integral Skin (flexible) open √ √ √ √

Polystyrene Extruded Sheet closed √

Extruded Boardstock

and Billet closed √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Expanded closed √ √ √ √

Phenolic Boardstock closed √ √

Panel closed √ √ √

Disk Block closed √ √

Polyolefin

(polyethylene,

polypropylene) Board closed √ √

Pipe closed √

Source: UNEP (2010a), Jeffs (2013).

a For continuous blocks only.

b For discontinuous blocks only.

c Acoustic insulation.



## 2.2 Foam Market

For the purposes of this characterization, the foams market supply chain is divided into two separate

groups: suppliers and systems houses. Suppliers produce the chemicals used in the manufacture of

foams, which includes blowing agents and polyols, 2 while systems houses manufacture the foam. Large

2 A compound containing multiple alcoholic hydroxyl groups.12 systems houses may purchase these chemicals from suppliers and then formulate their own blend of

polyol and blowing agent and or use additives, such as fire retardants, catalysts, and surfactants to

produce foam that meets their product specifications. In contrast, small systems houses may purchase

pre

‐ blended or “fully formulated” polyols from suppliers to produce foam in favor of simpler operating

conditions. Spray foam, on the other hand, is created on a jobsite by combining equal volumes of two

chemicals, commonly referred to as A

‐ side and B

‐ side. These two chemicals react and expand at the

point of application. A

‐ side is manufactured by suppliers, or chemical manufacturing companies, while

the B

‐ side formulation is developed by systems houses (SPFA 2013).



## 2.3 Foam Sector Revenue and Employment

Several market reports were reviewed to assess the foams industry by end

‐ use. According to the data

available in these market reports, in 2012, the foam market was estimated to gross between $12.0 and

$17.3 billion (IBIS [2012 a, 2012b] and Barnes [2013a, 2013b]). 3 Of this, the polystyrene sector

represented more than 50% of the industry, based on gross revenue. The same year, the polyurethane

and other foams industries employed between 25,700 and 27,300 people and grossed between $6.4

and $8.6 billion (IBIS 2012a, Barnes 2013b); the polystyrene industry employed about 25,000 people and

grossed between $5.7 and $8.7 billion (IBIS 2012b, Barnes 2013a). Notably, these 2012 estimates of the

number of employees and businesses are significantly lower than those provided for 2007 by the U.S.

Census; the reason for this discrepancy is unclear.

Annual foam production estimates by polymeric foam type (which include PU, polyolefins, polystyrene,

and other foam types) are illustrated in Figure 1, followed by the production estimates for polyurethane

foam by sub

‐ market in Table 5. The data are based on two different reports, BCC Research (2010) and

ACC (2012) but show consistent estimates for polyurethane production in 2010 (at slightly less than four

billion pounds).

Figure 1. Polymeric Foam* U.S. Market Esti mate by Resin Family , 2009-2005 (million pounds)

Source: BCC Research (2010).

3 2012 is the most recent year for which market data is available. This estimate is based on the highest gross

revenues cited for each foam type across the available reports; the lower bound is estimated at $12.0 billion,

based on Barnes (2010) and Barnes (2012).13 *Includes all foam types listed under, and in addition to, the U.S. EPA Vintaging Model.

Additional market information was available for the polyurethane industry from the American Chemistry

Council. In 2010, the polyurethane industry directly created 37,700 jobs, paying $2.0 billion in wages to

its employees, and generated $19.7 billion in revenues. Indirectly, this industry created and supported

164,900 additional jobs and generated $40.1 billion in output. Overall, the polyurethane industry

supports 202,600 jobs through various activities including raw materials purchasing, equipment and

services. Based on these figures, more than four jobs are created upstream or indirectly for each job in

the polyurethanes industry, totaling five jobs in the economy for each job in polyurethanes (ACC 2012).



## 2.4 Foam Applications

More detailed information on foam product segmentation/application was also available, as shown

below. Figure 3 illustrates the product segmentation of the polystyrene market as a percentage of the

overall revenue, followed by Figure 4, which illustrates the product segmentation of polyurethane as

well as polyolefin, phenolic, and other foam products. In contrast, Table 5 provides segmentation of

polyurethane product by product weight. The inclusion of other foam types may explain the significant

differences in the product/end

‐ use categories, notably furniture and transportation, between Figure 4

and Table 5.

Figure 2. 2012 Polystyrene Product Segmentation*

Source: IBIS (2012b).

* Consumer and institutional products include polys tyrene foam cups, plates, bowls and cutlery for

household and commercial use.

Figure 2. 2012 Polyurethane and Other Product Segmentation14 Source: IBIS (2012a).

Table 5. 2010 Polyurethane Produc tion by Application/Product Type*

Million Pounds % of Total

Building and Construction 1,432 38%

Transportation and Marine 770 20%

Furniture and Bedding 730 19%

Appliances 230 6%

Packaging 172 5%

Footwear 19 1%

Other End-Use** 428 11%

Total 3,781 100%

Source: ACC (2012).

*Includes minor production of non-foam pr oducts, such as adhesives and coatings.

**Includes marine, tank, and pipe uses.



## 3 Sector Background

Most foam types were historically produced in the United States with CFC blowing agent, due to their

relative abundance, and favourable chemical properties. CFC

‐ 11 was the predominant blowing agent,

followed by CFC

‐ 12, and CFC

‐ 113 in niche applications. One exception to this is expanded polystyrene,

which has never used ODS blowing agents (ICA 2014).

Historically, a variety of CFCs and HCFCs have been used as foam blowing agents because of their

favorable chemical properties. In 1973 chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina began studying

effects of CFCs on the earth’s atmosphere. They discovered that CFCs were stable enough to migrate to

the stratosphere and that the chlorine atoms contained in these molecules could break down large

amounts of ozone in the stratosphere. In 1978, the United States took the first steps towards reducing

use and emissions of CFCs by banning their use as propellants in aerosol products. Under the Montreal

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and Clean Air Act ODS are subject to a phaseout of

production and consumption and under the CAA foam blowing agents are subject to additional

regulations, including a ban on sale and distribution of foams made with CFCs or HCFCs with few

exceptions.

Section 610 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments established the nonessential products bans which

addressed the uses of CFCs and HCFCs in plastic foam products The Nonessential Product Bans in 1993

and 1994 prohibited the sale, distribution, or offer for sale or distribution all foam products containing

or manufactured with CFCs and HCFCs, except insulating foams. 4 This ban included open

‐ cell foams

,

often used for non

‐ insulating purposes, because they emit most or all of the blowing agent within the

4 40 CFR 82.62 defines foam insulation products as those “containing closed cell rigid polyurethane; closed cell

rigid polystyrene boardstock foam; closed cell rigid phenolic foam; or closed cell rigid polyethylene foam when

such foam is suitable in shape, thickness, and design to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation

around pipes used in heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial process systems.”15 first year. Flexible slabstock and moulded foam, which represent the greatest blowing agent use of all

flexible foam types, transitioned from CFCs to hydrocarbons (HCs). Integral skin foams, however,

transitioned briefly to HCFC

‐ 141b, and then to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and HFC

‐ 134a. One component

foams (OCF) also transitioned briefly to HCFCs, namely HCFC

‐ 22 and HCFC

‐ 141b, before fully

transitioning to HFC

‐ 134a, HFC

‐ 152a, and HCs.

In the early 1990s many closed

‐ cell foams transitioned largely to HCFCs—particularly HCFC

‐ 141b and

HCFC

‐ 142b, and to a lesser extent, HCFC

‐ 22. Nearly a decade later, in 2003, the United States phased

out production and import of HCFC

‐ 141b and in November 2004, the use of HCFC

‐ 141b became

unacceptable under the SNAP Program. In 2008, use of HCFC

‐ 22 and HCFC

‐ 142b was no longer

acceptable in the manufacture of commercial refrigeration, sandwich panel, slabstock, and other "pour"

foams. Use of HCFC

‐ 22 and HCFC

‐ 142b was found unacceptable in the manufacture of foam for marine

applications in September 2009, and then across all other foam applications in January 2010. Following

the phaseout of HCFCs, these applications transitioned largely to HFCs—primarily HFC

‐ 134a, HFC

‐ 152a,

HFC

‐ 245fa, HFC

‐ 365mfc, and blends of HFC

‐ 227ea and HFC

‐ 365mfc. A number of closed cell foam

applications also transitioned from CFCs directly to alternatives that are both non

‐ ozone depleting and

low

‐ GWP—namely to HCs (cyclo

‐ pentane and n

‐ pentane) and CO 2 (with water). The United States’

transition from the use of ODS to other blowing agent types is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5. United States Blowing Agent Use from 1985 to 2013 (MT)

Source: U.S. EPA Vintaging Model, VM IO file_v4.4_3.23.14.



## 4 Climate

‐ Friendly Alternatives

A range of alternatives have been found to be acceptable under the SNAP program including

hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, and methyl formate. Other acceptable low

‐ GWP fluorinated

compounds in use include HFO

‐ 1234ze and Solstice 1233zd(E). Also, additional alternatives are under

development such as Formacel

‐ 1100.

The U.S. foam industry has made significant progress in adopting climate

‐ friendly alternatives. HCs and

to a lesser extent carbon dioxide, have been almost fully adopted in most foam end

‐ uses. However,

there are some foam applications, such as spray foam, where transition is been slower due to specific

concerns such as safety considerations specific to the particular application.16 Over 65% of the U.S. market today already uses climate

‐ friendly blowing agent alternatives. Additional

climate

‐ friendly options are expected to be available in the near

‐ term for end

‐ uses which have thus far

encountered barriers for transition (e.g., flammability, insulation performance). Table 6, summarizes

available information on the status of use and SNAP listing of each alternative blowing agent by end

‐ use.

One component foam is part of the flexible foam end

‐ use under the SNAP program and is not

recognized as a separate end

‐ use; thus, it is not included in the table.

Table 6. Overview of Climate-Friendly Altern atives and SNAP Listing Status by Foam Type*

Foam End-use HCs CO 2 Unsaturated HFCs and

HCFCs Methyl Formate

Flexible

Polyurethane:

Slabstock and

Moulded  SNAP-approved (2010)

 Widely in use  SNAPapproved

(1999)  NA  SNAP- approved

(2000)

 Under industry

evaluation; trials

in progress

Rigid Polyurethane

and

Polyisocyanurate:

Boardstock  SNAP- approved (2000)

 Widely in use  SNAPapproved

(1999)  Solstice 1233zd(E)

SNAP- approved

(2012)

 Under regulatory

and/or industry

evaluation; trials in

progress  SNAP- approved

(2000)

Rigid Polyurethane:

Appliance  SNAP- approved (2010)

 Widely in use  SNAPapproved

(1999)  Solstice 1233zd(E)

SNAP- approved

(2012); gaining market

share

 HFO-1234ze SNAPapproved (2009); no

known use  SNAP- approved

(2000)

 No known use

Extruded

Polystyrene: Sheet  SNAP- approved (2010)

 Widely in use  SNAPapproved

(1999)

 Some use  NA  NA

Rigid Polyurethane:

Spray  Not SNAP- approved

 Not appropriate for enduse  SNAPapproved

(1999)

 Some use  Solstice 1233zd(E)

SNAP- approved

(2012); gaining market

share

 HFO-1234ze SNAPapproved (2009); no

known use  NA

Polyolefin  SNAP- approved (2000)

 Widely in use  SNAPapproved

(1999)  HFO-1234ze SNAPapproved (2010)  NA

Extruded

Polystyrene:

Boardstock and

Billet  SNAP- approved (2000)  SNAPapproved

(1999)

 Some use  HFO-1234ze SNAPapproved (2009)  NA

Rigid Polyurethane:

Slabstock and

Other  SNAP- approved (2000)  SNAPapproved

(1999)

 Some use  HFO-1234ze SNAPapproved (2010)

 Solstice 1233zd(E)

SNAP-approved (2012)  SNAP-approved

(2000)17 Foam End-use HCs CO 2 Unsaturated HFCs and

HCFCs Methyl Formate

Rigid Polyurethane:

Commercial

Refrigeration  SNAP- approved (2000)

 Widely in use  SNAPapproved

(1999)  HFO-1234ze SNAPlisted (2009)

 Solstice 1233zd(E)

SNAP-listed (2012)  SNAP-approved

(2000)

Phenolic Insulation

Board and

Bunstock c  SNAP- approved (2000)

 Widely in use  SNAPapproved

(1999)  HFO-1234ze SNAPapproved (2009)  NA

Flexible

Polyurethane:

Integral Skin d  SNAP- approved (2010)

 No known use  SNAPapproved

(1999)

 Widely in use  HFO-1234ze SNAPapproved (2010)

 Solstice 1233zd(E)

SNAP-approved (2012)  SNAP-approved

(2000)

Rigid Polyurethane:

Sandwich Panels

(Continuous and

Discontinuous)  SNAP- approved (2010)

 Widely in use  SNAPapproved

(1999)

 Some use  Solstice 1233zd(E)

SNAP-approved (2012)

 HFO-1234ze SNAPapproved (2009)  SNAP-approved

(2000)

NA = Not applicable. The U.S. EPA SNAP Program has not re ceived a submission and/or made a determination on for the

alternative for the specified end-use.

*Earliest SNAP listing dates are indicated in this table. Approv als of alternatives are subject to the ODS being replaced, and thus

may have multiple listing dates.18 

## 5 References

American Chemistry Council (ACC). 2012. The Economic Impact of the Polyurethanes Industry in 2010.

Bayer. Undated. Bayer Business Area: Polyurethane.

http://www.bayermaterialsciencenafta. com/businesses/pur/applications.html

. Accessed

February 20, 2013.

BASF. 2010. Contact Us

– What is SPF? http://spf.basf.com/. Accessed February 20, 2013.

Barnes Reports. 2010. U.S. Urethane & Other Foam Product Manufacturing Industry.

Barnes Reports. 2012. Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing Industry.

Barnes Reports. 2013a. Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing Industry.

Barnes Reports. 2013b. U.S. Urethane & Other Foam Product Manufacturing Industry.

BCC Research. 2010. Polymeric Foams. August 2010.

Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC). 2010. “2010 Rigid and Flexible Foams

Report.”Reports for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Available online at

http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/assessment_docs.php?committee_id=6&body_id=3&body_

full=Flexible%20and%20Rigid%20Foams%20Tec hnical%20Options%20Committee&body_acrony

m=FTOC

. Accessed June 1, 2012.

IBIS World. 2012a. IBIS World Industry Report 32615: Urethane Foam Manufacturing in the US.

IBIS World. 2012b. IBIS World Industry Report 32164: Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing in the US.

Insulation Corporation of America (ICA). 2014. Expanded Polystyrene EPS: What is EPS? Available online

at: http://insulationcorp.com/eps/.

ICF International. 2003. Memorandum to EPA, "Industry Responses from Flame Retardant

Manufacturers."

Jeffs, Mike. 2013. Personal communications between Pamela Mathis and Jenny Tanphanich, ICF

International, and Mike Jeffs. January

– May 2013.

Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA). 2013. Environment Product Declaration: Spray Polyurethane

Foam for Insulation and Roofing Systems. UL Environment. October 10, 2013.

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). 2012. Decision XXIII/9 Task Force Report: Additional

Information on Alternatives to Ozone

‐ Depleting Substances. UNEP Report of the Technological

and Economic Assessment Panel. Volume II. May 2012.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2013a. Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of

the Montreal Protocol (2013), Report of the Sixty

‐ eighth Meeting of the Executive Committee,

UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/68/53/Corr.1,

http://www.multilateralfund.or g/68/English/1/6853_and_Corr.1.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2013b. Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of

the Montreal Protocol (2013), Project Proposal: China, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/69/23

http://www.multilateralfu nd.org/69/English/1/6923.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2012. Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the

Montreal Protocol (2012), Project Proposal: Thailand,

UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/68/41 http://www.multilateralfund.org/68/English/1/6841.pdf19 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011a. Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of

the Montreal Protocol (2011), Project Proposal: Egypt, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/65/32,

http://www.multilateralfu nd.org/65/English/1/6532.pdf

.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011b. Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of

the Montreal Protocol (2011), Project Proposal: China, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/64/29,

http://www.multilateralfund.or g/MeetingsandDocuments/curre ntmeeting/64/English/1/6429.p

df.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010a. “Guidance on the Process for Selecting

Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams Sourcebook on Technology Options for Safeguarding the Ozone

Layer and the Global Climate System.” Prepared by Caleb Management Services.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010b. Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of

the Montreal Protocol (2011), Project Proposal: China, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/62/26,

http://www.multilateralfund.or g/62/English%20Document/1/6226.pdf

.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2009. Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the

Montreal Protocol (2009), Project Proposal: China, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/59/23,

http://www.multilateralfund.org/si tes/59/Document%20Library2/1/5923.pdf

.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Economic Census. Data accessed via the Industry Statistics Portal, available at:

http://www.census.gov/econ/isp/

.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. Personal Communication with NAICS Subject Expert on April 16 th

, 2014.

Contact information available online at: http://www.census.gov/a boutus/subjects.html

.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. International Marginal Abatement Cost Curve

Analysis for Reduction of HFCs in Ozone Depleting Substance Sectors. Prepared for US EPA by

ICF International. February 2013. Available online at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downlo ads/EPAactivities/MAC_Report_2013.pdf.