Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### i Agreement No. 07 - 312 

# Developing a California Inventory for Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) and Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Foam Banks and Emissions from Foams

Prepared by: Arnie A. J. Vetter & Paul K. Ashford Caleb Management Services Limited

Wo odend Farm Woodend Lane Cromhall Wotton - Under - Edge Gloucestershire GL12 8AA United Kingdom 1 6 th 

### August 2010 Prepared for : T he California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection AgencyCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### ii

Disclaimer The statements and conclusions in the Report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Air Resources Board. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with the material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### iii Acknowledgments Caleb thank s Glenn Gallagher at the California Air Resources Board for his advice during this p roject and his commentary on its findings. Caleb also thanks the following individuals and organizations for being part of its project team and assisting with the delivery of this project: - Dr. Assaad Zoughaib Armines Kathy Smith Caleb Group Dr. Jason Yapp Caleb Group Bert Veenendaal Rappa Inc
. Robert Russell RJR Consulting Inc

. Nancy Woods Robert Pe nny Enterprises (RPE)

Robert H. Lee Survey Research Center University of California Berkeley (SRC) This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project 07 - 312: Developing a California Inventory for Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) and Hydrofluorocarbon ( HFC) Foam Banks and Emissions from Foams by Caleb Management Services Limited under the sponsorship of the California Air Resources Board. Work was completed as of 1 6 th 

### August 2010
.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### iv 

# Table of Contents 1. Introduction
................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 1.1. Background
................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 1.2. Problem Statement

................................ ................................ ....................... 1 1.3. Central Proposition

................................ ................................ ....................... 2 1.4. Project Purpose
................................ ................................ ............................ 2 1.5. Project Scope

................................ ................................ ............................... 3 1.6. Previous Research
................................ ................................ ....................... 4 1.7. Report Structure

................................ ................................ ........................... 4 2. Methods and Approaches
................................ ................................ .................... 5 2.1. Task 1: Literature Review
................................ ................................ ............. 5 2.2. Task 2: Revised Research Plan
................................ ................................ ... 5 2.3. Task 3: Compilation of Project Tools and Materials
................................ ...... 6 2.4. Tasks 4, 5 & 6: Interviews & Data Analysis
................................ .................. 8 2.4.1. Screening Interviews

................................ ................................ .............. 8 2.4.2. Technical Interviews
................................ ................................ ............... 9 2.5. Using existing and new literature
................................ ................................ 11 2.6. Bank and Emis sions Modeling
................................ ................................ .... 11 2.7. Rationale for the Project Design

................................ ................................ . 12 2.8. Project Limitations
................................ ................................ ...................... 12 2.9. Implementation Controls

................................ ................................ ............. 13 2.10. Summary of Data Quality

................................ ................................ ......... 13 3. Results
................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 18 3.1. Findings from the Literature Review

................................ ........................... 18 3.1.1. General Findings

................................ ................................ .................. 18 3.1.2. Foam Contain ing Applications
................................ .............................. 18 3.1.3. Foam Types & Uses
................................ ................................ ............. 19 3.1.4. Blowing Agent Use
................................ ................................ ............... 19 3.1.5. ODS/HFC Banks & Emissions

................................ .............................. 19 3.2. Findings from further Desk Research relating to Building Codes

............... 20 3.2.1. Bu ilding Energy Codes

................................ ................................ ......... 20 3.3. Findings & Analysis: In - State Foam Production

................................ .......... 22 3.3.1. Section Content

................................ ................................ .................... 22 3.3.2. In - State Foam Production

................................ ................................ ..... 22 3.4. Findings & Analysis: Buildings
................................ ................................ .... 24 3.4.1. Section Content

................................ ................................ .................... 24 3.4.2. Building Stock

................................ ................................ ....................... 24 3.4.3. Foam Types & Volumes
................................ ................................ ....... 25 3.4.4. Blowing Agent Use & Substitutions

................................ ...................... 27 3.4.5. Not - In - Kind (NIK) Alternatives

................................ .............................. 29 3.4.6. Current End - of - Life Practices

................................ ............................... 30 3.4.7. Alternative Options for managing construction & demolition waste

...... 33 3.5. Findings & Analysis: Appliances
................................ ................................ . 41Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### v

3.5.1. Section Content

................................ ................................ .................... 41 3.5.2. Domestic & Commercial Appliances Stock

................................ ........... 41 3. 5.3. 2008 Appliances Foam Stocks & Flows

................................ ................ 42 3.5.4. Blowing Agent Use & Substitutions

................................ ...................... 43 3.5.5. Not - In - Kind (NIK) Alternatives

................................ .............................. 46 3.5.6. End - of - Life Fate
– Appliances Foam & Blowing Agents
....................... 46 3.5.7. Further options for appliances recovery & recycling

............................. 49 3.6. Findings & Analysis: Transport Refrigerated Units (TRUs)

......................... 50 3.6.1. Estimated TRU Population
................................ ................................ ... 50 3.6.2. 2008 TRU Stocks & Flows

................................ ................................ .... 50 3.6.3. Blowing Agent Substitution

................................ ................................ ... 51 3.6.4. End - of - Life Fate for TRU Foams and Blowing Agents

.......................... 52 3.7. Findings & Analysis: Marine & Other Applications

................................ ...... 52 3.7.1. Section Content

................................ ................................ .................... 52 3.7.2. Marine & Other Application Population/Stock Data

.............................. 53 3.7.3. 2008 Marine & Other Application Foam Stocks & Flows

...................... 54 3.7.4. Marine & Other Application Blowing Agent Substitutions

...................... 55 3.7.5. End of Life Fate
– Marine & Other Foams & Blowing Agents

............... 56 3.8. ODS/HFC Banks & Emission Model Data Inputs

................................ ........ 57 3.8.1. Modeling Assumptions
................................ ................................ .......... 57 3.8.2. Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potentials

................................ ....... 58 3.9. ODS/HFC Banks & Emission Model Outputs

................................ ............. 59 3.9.1. Buildings related Banks & Emissions
................................ .................... 59 3.9.2. Comparison of Buildings with other Foam

– containing Sectors

........... 64 3.9.3. Appliance related Banks & Em issions
................................ .................. 66 3.9.4. Refrigerated Transport, Other Refrigeration, Marine and Other Applications
– Banks and Emissions
................................ ................................ .. 71 3.10. Miti gation Options Assessed within this Study

................................ ......... 75 3.10.1. End - of - Life Management

................................ ................................ ..... 75 3.10.2. Early Phase - out of HFCs

................................ ................................ ..... 75 3.10.3. Appliances and Other Refrigeration

................................ ..................... 76 3.10.4. Buildings
................................ ................................ .............................. 79 4. Discussi on ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 83 4.1. Review of the Central Proposition

................................ .............................. 83 4.1.1. End - of - Life Measures

................................ ................................ ........... 84 4.1.2. Early Phase - out of HFCs

................................ ................................ ...... 90 4.2. Implications on the relevance of Project Findings

................................ ....... 91 5. Summary and Conclu sions
................................ ................................ ................ 93 5.1. Purpose of the Project

................................ ................................ ................ 93 5.2. Project Method
................................ ................................ ........................... 93 5 .3. Project Findings
................................ ................................ .......................... 94 5.3.1. Summary of the ODS/HFC Bank

................................ .......................... 94 5.3.2. Summary of the ODS/HFC Emissions

................................ .................. 95 5.3.3. Summary of Emission Mitigation Scenarios

................................ .......... 95 5.3.4. Impact of Mitigation Scenarios

................................ .............................. 96Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### vi

5.4. Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ 98 6. Recommendations
................................ ................................ ............................. 99 6.1. Recommendations for further Research

................................ ..................... 99 6.2. Recommendations for Regulatory changes

................................ ................ 99 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 100 7. List of Inventions Reported and Pub lications Produced
................................ ... 102 7.1. Task 1 Report: Literature Review
................................ ............................. 102 7.2. Task 2 Report: Revised Research Plan
................................ .................... 102 7.3. Task 3 Report: Compendium Report: Data, Interview Database & Questionnaires

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 102 7.4. Tasks 4&5 Report: Screening & Technical Interview Repor t .................... 102 7.5. Preliminary Blowing Agent Banks & Emissions Model
............................. 102 7.6. Advanced Blowing Agent Banks & Emissions Model
............................... 102 7.6.
................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 103 8. Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

................................ .............. 103 9. Append ices
................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 105Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### vii List of Figures: Figure 2 - 1 INTERVIEWS BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE

................................ ..................... 8 Figure 2 - 2 INTERVIEWS BY APPL ICATION TYPE

................................ .................... 8 Figure 2 - 3 INTERVIEWS BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE

................................ ................... 10 Figure 2 - 4 INTERVIEWS BY APPLICATION TYPE

................................ .................. 10 Figure 3 - 1 2007 IN - STATE POLYURETHANE/POLYISOCYANURATE PRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 23 Figure 3 - 2 CALEB ESTIMATES OF BUILDING STOCK DISTRIBUTION

................. 24 Figure 3 - 3California Consumption by Type of Foam (1960 - 2009)

............................. 26 Figure 3 - 4 BANK ESTIMATES BY BUILDING TYPE

................................ ................ 59 Figure 3 - 5 TOTAL BANKS IN BUILDINGS BY BLOWING AGENT TYPE

................ 60 Figure 3 - 6 BANKS IN BUILDINGS & WASTE STREAMS BY BLOWING AGENT TYPE
................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 61 Figure 3 - 7 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2010 - BUILDINGS

....................... 62 Figure 3 - 8 BASELINE EMISSIONS BY SOURCE FOR BUILDINGS

........................ 63 Figure 3 - 9 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020 - BUILDINGS

....................... 63 Figure 3 - 10 CLIMATE IMPACT OF EMISSIONS FROM THE WASTE STREAM - BUILDINGS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 64 Figure 3 - 11 SUMMARY OF BANK DEVELOPMENT FOR HIGH GWP GASES IN CALIFORNIA

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 65 Figure 3 - 12 SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FOR HIGH GWP GASES IN CALIFORNIA

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 66 Figure 3 - 13 TOTAL BANK ESTIMATES FOR APPLIANCES IN CALIFORNIA

......... 67 Figure 3 - 14 TOTAL BANKS IN APPLIANCES

................................ .......................... 68 Figure 3 - 15 TOTAL BANKS IN APPLIANCES & WASTE STREAMS

....................... 68 Figure 3 - 16 BASELINE EMISSIONSS FOR APPLIANCES IN CALIFORNIA 1991 - 2020
................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 69 Figure 3 - 17 BASELINE FOR APPLIANCES RELATED EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020
................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 70 Figure 3 - 18 TOTAL BANKS IN OTHER REFRIGERATION & WASTE STREAMS

... 71 Figure 3 - 19 TOTAL BANKS IN TRUs & RELATED WASTE STREAMS

................... 72 Figure 3 - 20 TOTAL BANKS IN MARINE/OTHER APPLICATIONS & RELATED WASTE STREAMS

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 72 Figure 3 - 21 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020

– Other Refrigeration

......... 73 Figure 3 - 22 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020

–TRU
................................ . 74 Figure 3 - 23 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020

– Marine & Other

............... 74 Figure 3 - 24 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR APPLIANCES IN CALIFORNIA

.............. 77 Figure 3 - 25 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR OTHER REFRIGERATION IN CALIFORNIA

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 77 Figure 3 - 26 CLIMATE IMPACT OF MITIGATION OPTIONS IN APPLIANCES

........ 78 Figure 3 - 27 CLIMATE IMPACT OF MITIGATION OPTIONS IN OTHER REFRIGERATION

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 78 Figure 3 - 28 SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE BUILDING SECTOR FOR CALIFORNIA

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 79 Figure 3 - 29 EMISSION REDUCTION SCENARIOS FOR BUILDINGS

..................... 80Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### viii Figure 3 - 30 SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES IN ALL SECTORS FOR CAL IFORNIA

.... 81 Figure 3 - 31 MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE MITIGATION POTENTIAL FOR HIGH GWP GASES IN 2020

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 81 Figure 3 - 32 MAXIMUM ANNUAL MITIGATI ON POTENTIAL FOR HIGH GWP GASES AT 2020

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 82 FIGURE 4 - 1 POTENTIAL FOR RECOVERY VS COST EFFECTIVENESS

............. 88 Figure 4 - 2 COST ANALYSIS FOR RECOVERY & DESTRUCTION OF STEEL FACED PANELS

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 89 Figure 4 - 3 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SAVINGS AT 2020 BY SOURCE

...................... 91 Figure 5 - 1 SUMMARY 0F BLOWING AGENT BANKS (1996 - 2020)

......................... 9 4 Figure 5 - 2 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SAVINGS AT 2020 BY SOURCE

...................... 97Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### ix

L ist of Tables Table 2 - 1 Description of Contacts Database Scope

................................ .................... 7 Table 2 - 2 SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES & QUALITY

................................ ......... 14 Table 3 - 1 SUMMARY OF FOAM TYPES BY APPLICATION AREA

......................... 19 Table 3 - 2 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CHANGES 1998 - 2008
......................... 21 Table 3 - 3 IN - STATE EXTRUDED POLY STYRENE FOAM PRODUCTION

.............. 22 Table 3 - 4 2008 CALEB ESTIMATE OF BUILDING STOCK (NUMBER OF BUILDINGS)

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 25 Table 3 - 5 2008 - CALEB ESTIM ATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN BUILDINGS (m 3 

### )

.... 27 Table 3 - 6 POLYISO BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

................................ ...... 27 Table 3 - 7 BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

................................ ..................... 28 Table 3 - 8 PU PANEL BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

................................ .... 28 Table 3 - 9 PU SPRAY FOAM BLOWING AGENT SUBSITUTIONS

.......................... 29 Table 3 - 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF ODS ATTENUATION SCENARIOS

................ 37 Table 3 - 11 2001: FOAM DISPOSAL AT US LANDFILLS

................................ .......... 38 Table 3 - 12 2008 APPLIANCES STOCK

................................ ................................ .... 41 Table 3 - 13 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN APPLIANCES (m 3 

### )

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 42 Table 3 - 14 DOMESTIC REFRIGERATOR/FRREZER BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 44 Table 3 - 15 COMMERCIAL APPLIANCES BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

.... 44 Table 3 - 16 VENDING MACHINE BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

.................. 45 Table 3 - 17 WATER HEATER BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

....................... 45 Ta ble 3 - 18 2008 - FATE OF DOMESTIC REFRIGERATORS & FREEZERS AT END OF LIFE

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 Table 3 - 19 REFRIGERATOR DISPOSAL PATHWAYS

................................ ............ 47 Table 3 - 20 2008 TRU/REEFER POPULATION

................................ ........................ 50 Table 3 - 21 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN TRU'S (M 3 

### )

........... 51 Table 3 - 22 TRU/REEFER BLOWIN G AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

............................. 51 Table 3 - 23 SUMMARY OF MARINE REGISTRATION & OTHER APPLICATION STOCKS

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 53 Table 3 - 24 2008 NON STRUCTURAL COLD STORE STOCK

................................ . 54 Table 3 - 25 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN MARINE & OTHER APPLICATIONS (M 3 

### )

................................ ................................ ................................ . 54 Table 3 - 26 2008 - CA LEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN NON STRUCTURAL COLD STORES (M 3 

### )

................................ ................................ ................................ . 54 Table 3 - 27 : MARINE & OTHER BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

................... 55 Ta ble 3 - 28 : NON STRUCTURAL COLD STORE BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 55 Table 3 - 29 : KEY MODEL INPUT ASSUMPTIONS

................................ ................... 57 Table 3 - 30 : GLO BAL WARMING POTENTIAL VALUES PER BLOWING AGENT

.. 58 Table 4 - 1 LEVELS OF EFFORT REQUIRED TO MANAGE ODS BANKS

............... 85 Table 4 - 2 TEAP ANAL YSIS ON COST OF ODS RECOVERY & DESTRUCTION

... 87 Table 5 - 1 SUMMARY OF BLOWING AGENT EMISSIONS (1996 - 2020)

.................. 95Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### x

Abstract Caleb and its project team undertook the de velopment of an inventory of foams and their related blowing agents for California. This involved the development o f a comprehensive foam characterization requiring the following elements: 1. An understanding of the current building stock, appliance invento ries and other items containing foam and related blowing agent s in California by type and age profile 2. An historic picture of annual foam sales and installations in the State of California 3. An historic understanding of the blowing agents used in these foa ms and the timing of any transitions that may have occurred 4. A current inventory of foam processing activities being practiced in California A number of sources were consulted including foam manufacturers, blowing agent suppliers, specifiers, users a nd end - of - life operators such as refrigerator recyclers , demolition contractors and waste processors
. The project focused on characterizing the populations of these groups and, by means of pre - selection, screening interviews and in - depth follow - up interv iews with key sources, sought to establish the inputs required to generate a State - wide model. This was then used to assess current emissions and forecast future emissions from on going activity and existing banks. In addition, the model was used to assess the value of a number of mitigati on strategies.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### xi Executive Summary Background The central proposition behind this project is that it could make environmental sense from a climate policy perspective to mitigate emissions by either reducing current reli a nce on high - GWP blowing agents or by separating and diverting ODS and HFC containing foams out of the waste stream to be processed in ways that avoid ozone depletion and GHG emissions and that it is practicable to do so. The inventory and assessment of pot ential mitigation strategies are designed to help confirm or dismiss this proposition prior to a more in depth assessment of policy options which, in itself, is outside of the scope of this project. The outputs from this project will assist the California A ir Resources Board in developing and implementing strategies that contribute to the State of California reach ing its goal of CO 2 

### - eq greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Methods The project involved the surveying of 390 organ izations responsible for the production, installation, use, and end - of - life management of foams that contain ODS s or HFC s . Based on the survey findings, a foam b anks and emissions model was developed . The model characterized the distribution of foams and t heir greenhouse gas containing blowing agents across different end - use sectors and the foam life cycle. The model also helped identify potential greenhouse gas mi tigation options and their climate impact in 2020 . The project methodology involved the study of the existing literature, the development of a research plan, the development of tools and materials to be used in the survey process, the analysis of results and the development of the spreadsheet based blowing agent b ank s and emissions model
. Resul ts Th e ODS/HFC b ank peaked in 1996 at nearly 364 million tCO 2 

### - eq. and has been gradually reducing since then. In 2005 it was around 316 million tCO 2 

### - eq.The buildings end - use accounted for 85% and the appliances end - us e accounted for 9% of the 2005 b ank. O ther applications
– Transport Refrigerated Units and Marine buoyancy accounted for the remaining 6%. Greenhou se Gas emissions from the 2005 b ank were just over 6 million tCO 2 

### - eq. – with 66% arising from the buildings end - use and 20% from the appliances end - use. By 2020, the b ank is estimated to be 244 million tCO 2 

### - eq., but annual emissions are estimated at over 8 million tCO 2 

### - eq.Taking due account of the size and dynamics of banks and emissions, the project team identified six mitigation scenarios for hig h GWP gases in California. These fell into the two key categories of end - of - life management and early phase - out of HFC use. In the mitigation scenarios developed,Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### xii

it is assumed that end - of - life measures require the shortest lead - times and can be initiated as early as 2012, with full implementation in place by 2014. The end - of - life scenarios include a 100% (technical potential) and a 50% (realistic potential) management of all domestic & commercial appliances, polyurethane steel faced insulation panels and o ther insulating foams from buildings. Since there is no current federal constraint on the continued manufacture of products containing HFCs, it would be expected that any decision to introduce a phase - down or phase - out in HFC use, even at State level, wo uld need substantial consultation. It has therefore been assumed that any such measure could only commence in 2014 and would not be fully achieved before 2017. The phase - out should apply to all domestic and commercial appliances, extruded polystyrene insul ation foam and polyurethane spray foam. Conclusions There is technical potential to save 27 - 37% of the baseline annual emissions of high GWP gas emissions from the foam sector in 2020 equating to up to 3 million tCO 2 

### - eq. or 1.73% of the overall target of the California Air Resources Board’s Climate Action Plan. The absolute potential will be influenced by the average life - cycles of the products and equipment involved, many of which will be contained in buildings and therefore influenced by the variation i n age profiles and lifecycles of the buildings themselves. The Central Proposition that it could make environmental sense from a climate policy perspective to mitigate emissions by either reducing current reliance on high - GWP blowing agents or by separat ing and diverting ODS and HFC containing foams out of the waste stream is met in some instances. Major short - term and medium - term opportunities exist in the accelerated phase - out of HFCs in the foam sector and the potential for end - of - life management of ap pliances. In other instances, meeting the Central Proposition could be more challenging. As an example, the management of building foams at end - of - life provides a significant opportunity (>35%) for mitigation even at 2020, but the cost may be prohibitive w hen compared with other options available to the Climate Action Plan. One key recommendation from this project is for a further evaluation of the potential for leveraging vo luntary carbon finance for ODS b ank management. There should be a particular focu s on the underpinning of the climate value of these savings and a commitment to promot e the sound practices specified by the current C limate A ction R eserve protocol.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 1

1. 

# Introduction 1.1. Background The Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) established the California Air Resources Board’s responsibility for developing and implementing strategies to enable the State of California to reach its goal of CO 2 

### - eq greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Climate Action Team ( C - CAT) initia lly examined h ydrofluorocarbon (HFC) reduction strategies, but also realized that greater GHG reductions would be possible if Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) were considered in addition to HFCs. ODSs are greenhouse gases with a high global warming pote ntial (GWP), and while not included in the Kyoto Protocol , nor in AB32, have a large and ongoing impact because large banks of these chemicals still exist in the building stock and elsewhere. These banks will eventually be emitted into the atmosphere durin g use or at end - of life or thereafter if not properly recovered and destroyed. National estimates of banked and emitted ODSs and HFCs were made available by the US EPA for 2005, indicating that ODSs and HFCs from foam applications account for 61% of the total (ODS and HFC) banks in the USA. Significant emission reductions may be possible if emissions during foam production, installation, and use phases are controlled, or if the GWPs of blowing agents used in foams are reduced where feasible . E nd - of - life management (EOL) measures also offer a substantial savings opportunity when applied to demolition material and to all appliances
. This necessitates the identification and quantification in California of foam banks and emissions arising from applications such as buildings, appliances, other stationary refrigeration units, transport refrigerated units ( TRUs) and marine buoyancy uses. The foam banks and emissions quantification and the exploration of management options are the purpose of this project. 

## 1.2. Prob lem Statement As Caleb has pointed out in its project proposal, the worldwide bank of blowing agents contained in foams was estimated to exceed 11 billion tons CO 2 

### - eq in 2002 and is likely to remain above 9 billion tons CO 2 

### - eq in 2015 under most business - as - usual scenarios. However, following the phase - out of the more emissive foam applications that were still using CFCs in the late 1990s, the emissions from foam banks areCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 2 expected to settle in the range of 180 million tons CO 2 

### - eq annually over the next fe w decades
– i.e. 2% of banked quantities per year. This means that losses from foams could continue well into the future
– perhaps for in excess of 100 years
– particularly if some of those foams are land - filled. However, because the annual baseline loss r ate is relatively low, attention typically switches to preventing emissions from more emissive banks
– e.g. refrigerants, where loss rates are often well in excess of 20% of banked quantities annually. This trend persists despite the fact that the foam ba nks are larger overall. It reflects the fact that measures can be more cost - effective and easier to introduce when preventing refrigerant emissions. Nevertheless, the opportunity for the mitigation of emissions from foams remains highly significant, partic ularly at end - of - life. Based on the US EPA model data, a 5 billion metric ton CO 2 

### - eq bank from ODS/HFC sources could be estimated for the USA in 2005, with annual emissions in the region of 92 million metric tons CO 2 

### - eq. By appl ying a population factor o f 12.8 % for California, based on the US census, the California ODS/HF C banks could be estimated at 64 0 million tons CO 2 

### - eq with 12 million tons CO 2 

### - eq being emitted per annum from ODS & HFC foam sources. Approximately 60% of the total bank is from foam sou rces, accounting for some 385 million tons CO 2 

### - eq and generating annual emissions of approximately 9 million tons CO 2 

### - eq. 1 

## 1.3. Central Proposition The central proposition behind this project is that it could make environmental sense from a climate policy per spective to mitigate emissions by either reducing current reli ance on high - GWP blowing agents or by separating and diverting ODS and HFC containing foams out of the waste stream to be processed in ways that avoid ozone depletion and GHG emissions and that it is practicable to do so. The inventory and assessment of potential mitigation strategies are designed to help confirm or dismiss this proposition prior to a more in depth assessment of policy options which, in itself, is outside of the scope of this pro ject.


## 1.4. Project Purpose The project purpose is as follows: -

 Characterize foams blowing agent banks according to product/application

1 ARB Draft Concept Paper

– Foam Recovery & Destruction Program; CARB, 2007 ( based on extrapolations from the US EPA’s Vintaging Model )Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 3

 Characterize current foam production, use and end - of - life fate according to the main foam using sectors

 Characterize ODS phase - out, replacement and not - in - kind technology trends according to product/application

 Develop a emissions model based on collected blowing agent, foam and phase - out data to indicate emissions now & in 2020 under BAU and other scenarios The key pr oject outputs will be draft and final reports including discussions and analyses, as well as a bank and emissions model based on a life cycle assessment showing BAU and the impacts of potential control strategies in 2020. The project will culminate in a te chnical seminar for key stakeholders upon the completion of the Project Report. 

## 1.5. Project Scope The project should identify, for each product/ application, average product or insulation system lifetimes, the ir emission rates (during foam production, instal lation and lifetime), the stock turnover rates, the end - of - life disposal options , the sector - growth rates, and the historic blowing agent substitution trends. The project should assess and document bank development rates, showing t he timescales associated with emissions from foams during lifetimes and at end - of - life. The project should examine mitigating strategies in terms of their potential for reducing ODS/HFC banks and emissions as well as the climate impact or a range of control strategies, including : - a) e mission reductions associated with foam production, installation and lifetimes; b) low - global warming potential (GWP) blowing agents and not - in - kind (NIK) alternatives to use instead of high GWP blowing agents in specific foam applications; c) end - of - life recovery of blowing agent and /or thermal destruction of high GWP foams The project should examine e missions scenarios based on business - as - usual (BAU) as well as those incorporating various control strategies in the year 2020 to estimate possible CO 2 

### equivalent GHG reductions and the associated costs , based on Life Cycle Assessments

.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 4



## 1.6. Previous Research A variety of research has been published over the last ten years on foam and blowing agent usage, characteristics and impacts, but onl y a very few were specific to California, and none have taken a holistic ‘bottom - up’ approach to the identification of foam based emissions in the State. Caleb has taken account of California specific research by CARB 2 

### on estimated foam bank size & distrib ution, on estimated emissions from foam banks, on Appliances end - of - life fate and on In - State TRU/Reefer populations. Beyond California, there have been a variety of studies in the USA relevant to foam blowing agent use, banks & emissions, such as on Pol yurethane blowing agents, (SKEIST Inc. 2004), and on a US high GWP inventory (US - EPA 2001). Internationally, there have been a series of studies completed for UNEP/IPCC/TEAP on characterizing banks, emissions and management options, on defining a global em ission function for blowing agents (AFEAS 2000) and on the collection and treatment of unwanted ODS (ICF International 2008). There have also been studies specific to the European situation, including on regulatory options (Milieu 2007), on characterizing building foam banks & emissions in the United Kingdom (BRE 2010). Caleb was, in whole or in part, responsible for much of this research and has reviewed and drawn upon the work as part of the Literature Review process. This review process has continued thr oughout this project in order to keep updated with the latest findings.


## 1.7. Report Structure In Section 2 of this draft report, Caleb sets out the methodology, tools and work stages used to determine the blowing agent banks and emissions arising from a va riety of foam applications. In Section 3 the report explains the project’s findings and how these are used to develop the banks and emissions model. In Sections 4 Caleb explores how the findings support or fail to support the central proposition that contr olling the HFC and ODS emissions from the foam banks in California is practicable and environmentally beneficial. In Sections 5&6, Caleb sets out its conclusions on potential mitigation strategies that might be employed to reduce the ODS and HFC emissions associated with business as usual practices and makes recommendations on the next steps. The Appendices contain the list of respondents to screening interviews and the list of respondents to technical interviews.

2 Foam Recovery & Destruction: CARB A B32 Climate Change Early Action Measure

– Background for the Working Group Pre - Meeting; May 2008 (for example)Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 5

2. 

# Methods and Approaches The Project was i mplemented in a series of stages including a review of the literature; the completion of a project research plan taking account of literature review findings; preparation of survey tools and materials; a survey process and a data analysis process . This was then followed by an emission modeling process & finally this current reporting process. The individual stages are briefly outlined below: - 

## 2.1. Task 1: Literature Review Caleb assembled literature that might be of relevance to the Foams Invent ory Project fr om the time of completing the project RFP. This literature was supplemented with materials from Caleb’s archives. From this collection, a master list was created and Caleb then ‘mapped’ the sources against key rese arch themes (Applications, Foam Insulation , Blowing Agents, high GWP GHG Banks & Emissions ). In this way, a quick overview could be created as to the are as where there were data gaps. Areas where data gaps were identified received special attention during the project’s research stages. All sourc es were also filtered for geographical relevance (e.g. California specific; USA & International sources). Following a more detailed scanning of the literature, Caleb filtered source ma terials according to ‘to be cited ’; ‘not cited ’ and ‘for contact inform ation’ categories and then placed contact details into ou r database, placed the ‘not cited ’ in our archives . Caleb then concentrat ed on reviewing the ‘to be cited’ sources for the literature review report on the basis of their potential relevance for this Project. Caleb prepared and submitted the Literature Review Report to California Air Resources Board in February 2009.


## 2.2. Task 2: Revised Research Plan The research plan took account of the outcomes from a ‘kick - off’ meeting held in Sacramento at the end of July 2008 plus the negotiated work agreements with sub contractors Armines, Robert Penny Enterprises (RPE), Survey Research Center (SRC), RJR Inc. & Rappa Inc. It also took account of findings from Caleb’s Literature Review.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 6 The p lan, budget and proje ct schedule underpinned the delivery of the Foams Inventory Project. Among other factors, the plan elaborate d the approach to identifying research questions, development of questionnaires, identifying interview targets and the logistics for obtaining the n ecessary data for the project

. Caleb prepared and submitted the Revised Research Plan to California Air Resources Board in April 2009. 

## 2.3. Task 3: Compilation of Project Tools and Materials The project team completed further background research to better ch aracterize foam based applications in the State of California. The work provided some of the required input data for Caleb’s ongoing work. It also provides important background information that helped to eff ectively frame screening and technical interview questionnaires and scripts. RPE completed telephone research with building standard/code professionals to a) obtain interviewee details and b) make a basic determination of Title 24 building energy performance code influences in California. The project t eam obtained background information from web - based research and spent time transforming available research findings into data relevant for California. Data gaps for non - domestic appliances, water heaters and the lesser application of marine buoyancy were i dentified. These were subsequently filled by a combination of interviews and additional desk research as necessary. One essential ingredient of Caleb’s preparation work was the identification of possible interviewees and the development of a comprehensive contacts database. The database that was assembled consisted of around 1 , 360 individual records covering Californian and US organizations from different parts of the foams life cycle. In many instances it was possible to pool resources with delivery partn ers to generate application - specific lists. In other instances, the records were obtained from public directories and from private directories (Dun & Bradstreet). In instances where records were incomplete, RPE completed telephone follow - ups to determine c ontact names and details for senior personnel in targeted organizations. The contacts database remained a ‘live’ document in the sense that Caleb was able to continuously update it during the remainder of the interview/data gathering stages of the proje ct. Caleb made these updates and kept project team members informed of changes & additions. SRC also reviewed the database and made recommendations for changes that led to improvements. In the lead - up to the interview stages, Caleb made a determination o n how the call lists were allocated within the project team. It was important that individual teamCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 7 members took responsibility for managing the calls from ‘their’ part of the list, and that they kept Caleb informed of any difficulties or inconsistencies in volving the database. Caleb prepared an Excel contacts database structured around the life - cycle stages of the main applications as follows: - Table 2 - 1 Description of Contacts Database Scope LCA STAGE APPLI CATIONS DESCRIPTIONS

CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS Incl. Blowing Agent Suppliers SYSTEMS HOUSES FOAM MANUFACTURERS Incl. Foam Insulation Producers PRODUCTION OEM MANUFACTURERS Incl. Modular Building Manufacturers

PRODUCT/SYSTEMS SPECIFIERS Incl. Architects; Property Developers PRODUCT/SYSTEM INSTALLERS & DISTRIBUTORS Incl. Builders; General Contractors INSTALLATION

REGULATORY/ADVOCACY Incl. Building Code officials; Appliance Code agencies; Governmental & non governmental bodies; Trade Associations; Commis sioning Utilities USE USERS/MAINTENANCE/REFURB Incl. Property Managers; Landlords; Institutional Owners; Refurbishment Contractors DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS RECYCLERS WASTE TREATMENT Incl. Waste to Energy Sites; Waste Incinerato rs END - OF - LIFE MANAGEMENT WASTE DISPOSAL Incl. MSW & other Landfill Sites; 

### In sourcing its lists, Caleb tried to make the database representative in terms of applications, sectors and life cycle stages. In the event, most of the contacts were found in buildings related sect ors, among product & systems specifiers and for the end - of - life parts of the foam life - cycle. This reflected Caleb’s understanding that most of the foam/blowing agent banks were in the built environment, and that the largest opportunity for mitigation was likely to occur at a product’s or building’s decommissioning. Other important ingredients were the questionnaires, supporting scripts and materials that were prepared and used during the interviewing stages. These were also helpful in the post - interview assessment of findings. These documents proved particularly useful in guiding the conversations between the project team and the interviewees during the screening interview process and beyond. Caleb updated the implementation timetable for the interview , data analysis and data modeling to reflect a revised project schedule following a temporary project stoppage while the California budget was confirmed.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 8 Caleb prepared and submitted a draft Compendium Report: Data, Interview Database & Questionnaires to California Air Resources Board in August 2009. The final report was submitted in November 2009. 

## 2.4. Tasks 4

, 5 & 6: Interviews & Data Analysis 2.4.1. Screening Interviews Screening and technical interviews were designed to provide bottom - up data inputs to the proj ect, from which a model could be developed to illustrate the foam related banks, emissions and control strategies
. 302 screening interviews were completed with respondents across the foam containing applications and life cycle
– summarized as follows: - Figure 2 - 1 INTERVIEWS BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE Screening interviews by life-cycle stage (n=302)

14%

39% 8% 39% Suppliers Installers Users EOL

Figure 2 - 2 INTERVIEWS BY APPLICATION TYPE Screening interviews by application type (n=302)

76% 4% 19% 1% Buildings Appliances TRU Marine & otherCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 9 Prior to the completion of the bulk of the screening interview s , t he project plan called for the completion of 30 orientation interviews by SRC. In the event, SRC provided a detailed commentary on the Compendium Report, with particular reference to the flow and consistency of the questionnaires. Caleb made a number of c hanges to the questionnaires on the basis of this helpful input. Due to the technical nature of the questionnaires, Caleb and SRC concluded that the more appropriate approach was for Caleb to conduct these 30 interviews as part of the wider screening inter view process. The project team initially carried out screening interviews across all the main applications & life cycle stages, but eventually began to focus on buildings and end of - life management aspects. See Appe ndix 1 for a list of respondents Along side the telephone interviews, the project team also conducted face to face interviews with groups that were more generic in nature
– as opposed to technically based. In its database, Caleb had defined these as ‘Regulatory & Advocacy’ respondents, and many of these were interviewed in order to obtain relevant background information. It became clear quite quickly that it was also relevant for the project team to conduct technical interviews in parallel with the screening interviews. Candidates for technica l interviews became available fairly early on and it therefore made sense for time and logistical reasons to pursue these interviews directly. Wherever possible, detailed summaries of interviews were provided by the project team – especially for building s at the demolition stage. There was also focus on appliances across the life - cycle and for both building & appliance applications at waste processing and disposal stages. In other instances, such as foam production & supply, specification of foam products by architects, presence of foam in landfills, the transport refrigerated units and the marine applications, the data were aggregated in the form of summary reports to Caleb. All inputs were reviewed for data gaps to be addressed via more targeted technica l interviews. 

## 2.4.2. Technical Interviews One of the purposes of the screening interviews was to identify potential contacts for more in - depth interviews later. Most of these were face - to - face, but there was also a provision for conducting longer technical inte rviews by phone where this was preferable. This was in fact often the case
– especially with chemicals suppliers, foam producers and systems houses. The screening interview scripts, questionnaires and templates contained standard questions on follow - up in terviews and the team members asked for follow - ups where they found an informative and approachable respondent. Team members also asked interviewees for their opinions on likely further contacts and/or data sources that the project team could then pursue.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 10

The project team completed 88 technical interviews. Project team members Armines, Caleb, RAPPA Inc and RJR Inc. were able to pursue contacts in their own networks to arrange technical interviews where appropriate and other targets emerged from screening i nterviews. See Appendix 2 for a list of interviewees These interviews went into more depth on buildings, refrigeration and other fo am using sectors and to filled data gaps identified previously

. The results from these interviews were combined with the r ecords generated from the screening interviews and assessed for quality. Key data were prepared for inputs into the emissions model that was completed by Caleb. The technical i nterviews are distributed as s ummarized below: - Figure 2 - 3 INTERVIEWS BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE Technical interviews by life-cycle stage (n=88)

45%

32% 2% 21% Suppliers Installers Users EOL

Figure 2 - 4 INTERVIEWS BY APPLICATION TYPE Technical interviews by application type (n=88)

80% 8% 9% 3% Buildings Appliances TRU Marine & otherCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 11


## 2.5. Using existing and new literature In addition to the initial literature search, Caleb also comp leted further on - line research on the key foam containing appli cations. The main focus was on sourcing essential data on buildings, appliances, structural and non - structural cold stores, and Transport Refriger ated Units. Most of the data were for sto ck and production, but there were instances where the project team obtained data for other life - cycle stages. Project team member Armines was able to provide many data on appliances and non structural cold stores. The project team continued to contribute infor mation from web - based research and Caleb also spent time transforming available research findings into data relevant for California. There were data gaps for non - domestic appliances, water heaters and the lesser application of marine buoyancy. These were f illed by a combination of interviews and additional research as necessary. During the interview stages Caleb also came across additional literature, either specific to California, the USA or North America. 3 4 

### Where appropriate, we have referred to data and findings from these sources. Since starting this project, Caleb has also been actively involved in characterizing building - related foam & ODS data, plus the evaluation of management options in Europe, and especially the United Kingdom. While findings the re are not directly relevant to California, the methodology for characterizing the foam bank and the modeling approach taken to identify the bank and emissions plus possible mitigation strategies has proved relevant to this project. In particular, the UK p roject provided an important opportunity for peer review of the Caleb approach prior to the completion of the California model. Caleb prepare d and submitted the Screening & Technical Interview Report to California Air Resources Board in May 2010. 

## 2.6. Bank and Emissions Modeling Preparing the California foam banks and emissions model was a two - part process. In the first instance, a Preliminary model was prepared and submitted to the California Air Resources Board in April 2010. In this model Caleb was able to ascertain ODS/HFC/HC volumes in metric tons per main application, and offer segmentation by

3 2006 End - Use Market Survey of Polyurethanes Industry in the US, Canada & Mexico; American Chemistry Council 4 Polyurethane Recycling; PURRC, 20 05Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 12 banks and various sources of emissions. The model was based on ‘bottom up’ stock dat a and provided average foam & blowing agent content per unit in stock over ti me. The outputs from Caleb’s Full model are provided as part of this draft final report. This further disaggregates the stock, foam and blowing agent volumes, and adds a distribution by blowing agent species and product type. It also adds a more up to dat e set of values for leakage rates across the foam life cycle. The combination of additions and improvements assist in ascertaining GHG emi ssions in terms of CO 2 

### - eq. from BAU and the potential control strategies
. 

## 2.7. Rationale for the Project Design There w as a clear need for a ‘bottom - up’ assessment of the potential impacts and opportunities arising from better management of California’s foam ODS/HFC banks as a cou nterpoint to the 2005 US EPA’s V intaging model 5 

### , which was essentially a ‘top down’ tool. Th e foam and ODS/HFC inventories had to be characterized from available industry data. Where these data were not available or inconclusive, the survey/interview process was needed to fill the gaps

. Specifically, this required a better understanding of key a pplications (buildings , appliances etc. ) and key management options (EOL separation) that could only be identified through original research

. The combined data from literature evaluations and survey/interview results enabled Caleb to prepare a more detaile d bank and emissions model and explore the impact associated with Business As Usual (BAU) as well as the impact of potential mitigation strategies
. 

## 2.8. Project Limitations The main challenge in gaining a better quantitative understanding of the sources of G HG emissions and the potential options to mitigate impacts arises from the diffuse nature of the ODS/HFC bank sources. This applies to all the foam containing applications reviewed by this project, but was particularly challenging for transport refrigerate d units and the lesser applications of marine buoyancy and consumer products like cooler boxes. As a consequence, the project team did need to make assumptions on historical stock development. Theses assumptions are shown in the

5 Analysis of Costs to Abate International Ozone Depleting Substance Substitute Emissions; US EPA, 2005Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 13 main body of the report whe re relevant, and also i n a summary table in Section 3.8 , Page 57
. Apart from obtaining stock data from the 1960’s onward, the project also had to capture foam & blowing agent content and changes over the decades. Many of the screening interview respondent s were unable to be specific on stock and insulation volumes or changes within their sectors. Neither were they well informed about the impact of underlying drivers (such as Title 24 for building insulation content) affecting foam use over time. Nor was th is information always available from foam producers. As a consequence, the project team had to rely on published data combined with assumptions on foam consumption growth rates. As noted in Section 2.3, following the ‘kick - off’ meeting in July 2008, the California Air Resources Board was obliged to place a temporary stoppage on the project while the State budget was being confirmed. As a result of this delay there was a subsequent scheduling conflict involving one of our project team members. This meant that the contractor could not complete the allocated tasks which were then reallocated back to Caleb for later delivery. This had additional impacts on the delivery timetable but these were minimized to the extent possible. 

## 2.9. Implementation Controls With in the project team there were regular teleconferences and email exchanges to communicate about project progress and content, including the quality & reliability of data. The project team was also invited to comment on the draft reports and draft models pr epared by Caleb. Caleb provided regular written reports to California Air Resources Board together with updated budgets as required. Team members traveling to California to complete field work and technical interviews completed four meetings with the Cali fornia Air Resources Board contract manager to discuss the project delivery in detail. 

## 2.10. Summary of Data Quality The project team was able to arrive at high quality data for the buildings and appliances applications which are understood to be the predomin ant sources of the California ODS/HFC banks and emissions. Data were less robust for the TRU application, on account of the potentially high volume of ‘stored’ reefers at California ports. Data were also less robust in the minor applications (marine leisur e; consumer products
– cooler boxes). This has resulted in the project team making assumptions on stock turn over, foam and ODS content, leakage rates and end - of - life fate for theseCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 14 applications. A list of assumptions and relevant references, if available can be found in Section 3.8 later in this Report
. In the table below, Caleb sets out an assessment of data quality by data source: - Key: 1) A = Official Statistics; B = Survey & mode ling inputs from research institutes; universities; consultancy reports; C = Project survey results , emission modeling results and Project Team estimates 2) 1 = good quality; 2 = medium quality; 3 = poor quality

Table 2 - 2 SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES & QUALITY Data Type Application

Type Data Sources Assessment of Data Quality Data Source 1 Quality of

Data 2 Stock & Population Data Building Types Buildings Non - Residential Compliance Manual; CEC 2005 B 1 Building Stock Number s, Floor Area & Stock Additions Buildings California State - Wi de Appliance Saturation Study California Energy Commission 2009 Forecast Floor Space Data US Census Bureau http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html US Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Table 1.1.1 Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real GDP (1960 - 2008) 6 A A

A A 1

1

1 1 Building Vintage Buildings Construction Statistics Data User’s Conference; US Bureau of the Census; 1979 A 1 Building C odes Buildings BCAP

– http://bcap - energy.org Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non - Residential Buildings, 1998, 2005, 2008; California Energy Commission B A 2

1 Construction market Build ings Polystyrene and Polyurethane Foam Products in US Building & Construction; SBI, 2008 B 1 Insulation market Buildings Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews C 1

6 National I ncome and Product Accounts http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place= N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear =1960&LastYear=2008&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no (last accessed 07/25/10)Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 15

Data Type Application

Type Data Sources Assessment of Data Quality Data Source 1 Quality of

Data 2 Demolition market & rates Buildings Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings; J. O’Connor; Forintek Canada Corp.; 2004 Findings from interviews B

C 2

2 Building Useful Life Buildings 20 01 California Non - Residential Energy Standards; CEC 2000 B 2 Building End - of Life Management Buildings End of Life Options for Steel based Building Envelope Systems; Kingspan Insulated Panels; 2006 B 1 Appliance Types Appliances Data & estimates from de livery team members; findings from interviews C 1 Appliance Numbers Appliances Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews C 1 Appliance Codes Appliances Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews C 2 Appliance market Appliances Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews C 2 Appliance Useful Life & turnover Appliances Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews C 1 End - of - Life Appliance management Appliances How Electric Customers Dispose of Used Refrigerators and Why they Choose a Utility Program: S. Westberg, et.al. 2007

– Energy Program Evaluation Conference,Chicago http://www.cee1.org/eval /db_pdf/652.pdf B 2

TRU Types TRU Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reason for Proposed Rulemaking: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for the In - Use Diesel Fueled Transport Refrigerated Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities where TRUs Operate; CARB, 2003 B 2

TRU Numbers TRU Defining & Determining Emissions for Refrigerated Shipping Containers and the Total Re - generation process in the vicinity of Shipping Ports; CARB White Paper, 2009 B 2

TRU market TRU Data & estimates from delivery team me mbers; findings from interviews C 2 TRU Useful Life & turnover TRU Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews C 2 Marine & Other Registrations or Stocks Marine 2005 US Recreational Boating Registration Statistics 2006 Recreati onal Boating: Statistical Abstract; NMMA A A 1

1Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 16

Data Type Application

Type Data Sources Assessment of Data Quality Data Source 1 Quality of

Data 2 Marine & Other markets Marine Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interv iews C 2 Marine & Other Useful Life & turnover Marine SKEIST Inc. 7 , B 2

7 Blowing Agents for Polyurethane Rigid Foam; SKEIST Inc., 2004 Foam Data Foam Types & Applications All SKEIST Inc., 2004 Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews B C 2

2 Foam Volumes by Application All SKEIST Inc., 2004 Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews B C 2

2 Foam Volumes in Waste Stream All California 2008 State - Wide Waste Characterization Study; CIWMB, 2009 Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings fr om interviews A C 1

2 Foam End - of - Life management options All IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System; UNEP/TEAP, 2005 Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews B

C 1

2 Blowing Agents Blowing Agents by Application All SKEIST Inc., 2004 Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews B C 2

2 Blowing Agents by Product type All SKEIST Inc., 2004 Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews B C 2

2Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 17

Data Type Application

Type Data Sources Assessment of Data Quality Data Source 1 Quality of

Data 2 Blowing Agent substitutions All SKEIST Inc., 2004 Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews B C 2

2 Blowing Agent disposal & treatment All Attenuation of Fluorocarbons Released from Foam Insulation in Landfills; Technical University of Denmark, 2007 Disposal of Refrigerators - Freezers in the US: State of the Practice; L.R. Wethj e, P/E.; Appliance Research Consortium, 2005 B

B 2

2 Blowing Agent Banks by Application All Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews; data modeling C 1 Blowing Agent Emissions by Application All Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews; data modeling C 1 GHG Banks & Emissions GHG banks by Applications All Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews; data modeling C 1 GHG emissions by Applications All Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews; data modeling C 1 GHG emissions by Life Cycle All Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews; data modeling C 2 GHG Banks & emissions under BAU All Developing a C alifornia Inventory for ODS and HFC Banks and Emissions from Foams; CARB 2006 Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions; US EPA, 2005 Cost & emission reduction analysis of HFC emissions from foams in the USA; US EPA, 2001 B

A B 1

1 2 GHG Banks & emissions under Control Strategies All Data & estimates from delivery team members; findings from interviews; data modeling C 2Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 18

3. 

# Results In the following Sections 3.1 to 3.7 , Caleb describe s its findings from the Literatu re Review, from further Desk Research on California Building Codes and from the Interview process. This is followed by a summary of inputs to the Banks & Emissions Model in Section 3.8 , before Caleb describes the model outputs in Section 3.9 and concludes with mitigation options in Section 3.10

. 

## 3.1. Findings from the Literature Review 3.1.1. General Findings The most important conclusion was that there were considerable data gaps at various levels that needed to be filled in order to successfully characterize and qua ntify California’s foam insulation high GWP GHG banks & emissions and management options . The following sections provide an outline of our main findings by key areas of research. 

## 3.1.2. Foam Containing Applications There was a lack of California specific literat ure on foam containing applications, which was one of the reasons for ARB commissioning ‘bottom - up’ foams inventory in the first place. Buildings, appliances & other, smaller applications were fully researched & characterized as part of the project. The m ain aim of this part of the project was to ‘map’ and quantify foam containing products and infrastructure in California, in order to then help determine the likely foam banks the emissions that arise from these banks over the life - cycle. While Caleb unde rstand s some of the underlying factors that affect the prevalence of and market - place for foam based insulation in its wider con text, the project team had to find out more about the California specific situati on. The literature offered no comprehensive det ails on foam production, use and disposal volumes or the dist ribution of these across the applications. The project therefore needed to generate data in these a reas. There were no specific data on the impact s of buildings & appliances codes on the foam ins ulation market - place. The project team develop ed an understanding of the se potential impact s a nd Caleb has taken them into consideration when developing the banks and emissions model under Task 7. In terms of end - of - life fate, it was clear that the majori ty of insulation foams that arise from the buildings sector were being land - filled. The project team needed to identify specific volumes and the factors that underpinned these data. It also needed to identify the extent to which any existing voluntary prog rams already addressed foams end - of - life. The literature suggested that there were efforts underway in the U nited K ingdom and elsewhere to better understand voluntary options for managingCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 19 buildings based foams at end - of - life. Lessons from these efforts inc luded the value of having a pre - existing infrastructure capable of handling foams; the need for clear guidance on the management and handling of foams at the end - of - life and the need to optimize transportation logistics to deal with waste foam.


## 3.1.3. Foam Typ es & Uses Polyurethane (PUR), Polyisocyanurate (PIR) and Extruded Polystyrene (XPS ) foams created with ODS or HFC blowing agents are used in a variety of forms and application areas as shown in the table below. By far the most common use for these closed cell foams is for thermal insulation, but they are also used as structural cores t hat provide buoyancy within marine applications
.

Table 3 - 1 SUMMARY OF FOAM TYPES BY APPLICATION AREA Foam Type Transport Other Wall Roof Floor Pipe Cold Stores Domestic Appliances Other

Appliances Reefers Marine & Leisure Injected/PiP X X X X X X Boardstock X X X Continuous Panel X X X Discontinuous Panel X X X X Continuous Block X X X Discontinuous Block X X X Spray Foam X X X Extruded Polystyrene Board X X X X X X Polyurethane; Polyisocyanurate Buildings & Building Services Appliances Application Areas



## 3.1.4. Blowing Agent Use Th e literature on current production and use of blowing agents is fairly extensive, but there are limited data that are specific to California. The Foams Inventory project needed to substantiate the position that applies to California. The Literature on alte rnatives and substitutes is also fairly extensive & the project was able to build on these data to develop a California specific picture that helped to fully characterize the bank. 

## 3.1.5. ODS/HFC Banks & Emissions There is considerable literature on global and US high GWP GHG foam banks and emissions. The California data on banks and emissions are currently ‘top - down’
– being mainly derived from the US EPA Vintaging model by means of applying a population share factor. The Foams Inventory Project was designed to approach the subject from a ‘bottom up’ vantage point, thereby providing an alternative view grounded in California specific data. The project arrived at a California bank andCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 20 emissions profile for 2020 by virtue of building up a detailed picture of appli cations containing foams. From this emerged a characterization of insulation foams and a quantification of blowing agent use. The project built up a detailed profile of ODS and HFC banks and emissions plus the factors that impact on these data. From this, a furthe r series of steps allowed the characterization & quantification of high GWP GHG banks and emissions for California and the exploration of the greenhouse gas reduct ion potential of various mitigation options. 

## 3.2. Findings from further Desk Research r elating to Building Codes 3.2.1. Building Energy Codes 

## 3.2.1.1. Building Code changes The first state - wide energy requirements were established in 1975 by the Department of Housing and Community Development for all low - rise residential buildings. In 1974 the California legislature passed the Warren - Alquist Act establishing the California Energy Commission and authorizing the Commission to establish energy requirements for both residential and commercial buildings
. 

### The so - called “First Generation” Standards for non - resi dential buildings took effect in 1978, and remained in effect for all non - residential occupancies until the late 1980s, when the “Second Generation” Standards took effect for offices, retail and wholesale stores. The next major revision occurred in 1992 wh en the requirements were simplified and consolidated for all building types. At this time, major changes were made to the lighting requirements, the bui lding envelope and fenestration requirements, as well as the HVAC and mechanical r equirements. Structura l changes made in 1992 set the way for federal standards and other states. The Standards went through minor revisions in 1995, but in 1998, the lighting power limits were reduced significantly, because at that time, electronic ballasts and T - 8 lamps were cost effective and becoming common practice in non - residential buildings. The California electricity crisis of 2000 resulted in rolling blackouts through much of the State and escalating energy prices at the wholesale market, and in some areas of the State in the retail market as well. The Legislature responded with AB 970, which required the Energy Commission to update the Energy Efficiency Standards through an emergency rulemaking. This was achieved within the 120 days prescribed by the Legislature and th e 2001 Standards (or the AB 970 Standards) took effect mid - year 2001. The 2001 Standards included requirements for high performance windowsCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 21 throughout the State, more stringent lighting requirements and miscellaneous other changes 8



### . Executive Order S - 20 - 04 was issued in 2004, and is known as the Green Building Initiative. It laid out a comprehensive set of actions for California to take in order to improve energy efficiency in non - residential buildings. The California Energy Commission was directed to und ertake all actions within its authority to increase the efficiency requirements in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for non residential buildings by 20% by 2015. The California Energy Commission (CEC) has completed the rulemaking proce ss for the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non - residential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). The Energy Commission adopted the 2008 Standards in April 2008, and the Building Standards Commission appro ved them for publication in September 2008. A first analysis of the 2008 code by Building Codes Assistance Project 9 

### r evealed an average energy performance at least 21% more efficient than ASHRAE 90.1 - 2004. Even better results are likely after more defin itive testing, and they are anticipated to be more stringent than the 2009 IECC an d ASHRAE Standard 90.1 - 2007. The effective dat e for the new standards was pushed back from August 2009 to January 2010 . This was largely due to the fact that the California En ergy Commission experienced delays in completing the public domain compliance software. 

## 3.2.1.2. Relevance of Building Code changes Caleb’s assessment based on a comparison between the 1998, 2005 & 2008 prescriptive requirements for High Rise Residential Buildings & Guest Rooms in Climate Zones 1 & 16 ( for example ) shows an improvement of thermal c onductivity values as follows: -

Table 3 - 2 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CHANGES 1998 - 2008 10



### YEAR ROOFS/

CEILINGS WOOD

FRAMED WALLS METAL

FRAMED WALLS FLOORS

& SOFITS 1998 0.037 0.063 0.14 0.05 2005 0.036 0.074 0.183 0.048 2008 0.034 0.059 0.105 0.034 u-values (W/m 2 K)

8 Non - Residential Compliance Manual; C alifornia E nergy C ommission ; 2005 9 B uilding C odes A ssistance P roject
– http://bcap - energy.org 10 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non - Residential Buildings; California Energy Commission, 1998, 2005, 2008Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 22

Changes in prescribed insulat ion levels from building code improvements since the 1970s will have an impact on the size of foam banks and emissions. Typically, insulation improvements present themselves via increased material thicknesses as well as a further penetration of insulation into the existing building stock. In compiling the banks and emissions model under Task 7, the project team has factored in changes in insulation thicknesses arising from building code improvements. 

## 3.3. Findings & Analysis : In - State Foam Production 3.3.1. Section C ontent In this Section, Caleb briefly outlines findings on In - State foam production related to Extruded Polystyrene board stock, Polyurethane Panels, Polyurethane Spray Foam and Polyurethane board stock & Pour - In - Place (PiP). This is for background inform ation only, and a more detailed breakdown of production emissions for foams consumed in California will be provided later in this Report in Section 3.9

. 

## 3.3.2. In - State Foam Production 

## 3.3.2.1. Extruded Polystyrene This category involves estimating ODS emissions over t he studied timeframe for foam products actually produced in the state of California. There was one known manufacturing plant producing extruded polystyrene sheathing in Torrance. California and owned by Dow Chemical. The plant operated between 1960 and 200 9. During this period it produced 11 million cubic meters of foam and used over 35,500 tons of blowing agents. From 1960 to 1989, it used CFC - 12 and thereafter an 80/20 HCFC 142b and HCFC - 22 share. An estimated 2,500 tons of blowing agent was emitted over this period . Based on an average 25% XPS market share in the buildings application, the Torrance plant would have met practically all of California’s XPS demand over the period 1960 to 2009.

Table 3 - 3 IN - STAT E EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM PRODUCTION Total Estimated Emissions from Torrance, CA plant (1960 – 2009) = 5.51 MM lbs BA emissions. (2500 tons)
PERIOD FOAM

PRODUCTION FOAM

PRODUCTION ANNUAL

GROWTH BA USED BA USED BA EMITTED BA EMITTED BA EMITTED/YR BA EMITTED/YR mm cu. Ft 000 cu. Mtr % mm lb tons mm lb tons 000 lb tons 1960 - 1969 72.5 2,051.75 0.00 14.5 6,591 1.01 459 101.5 46 1970 - 1979 75 2,122.50 3 15 6,818 1.05 477 105 48 1980 - 1989 79.2 2,241.36 6 15.8 7,182 1.11 505 110.8 50 1990 - 1999 83.3 2,357.39 5 16.6 7,545 1.17 532 116.6 53 2000 - 2009 83.3 2,357.39 0 16.6 7,545 1.17 532 116.6 53 TOTAL 393.3 11,130.4 78.5 35,681.4 5.5 2,505 550.5 250Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 23


## 3.3.2.2. Polyurethane Throughout the years, there have been a number of small foam manufacturing operations in California

– largely in packaging foam

. Companies have come and gone in this sector making it difficult to gai n a consistent picture of activity for the foam sector . There is no record of collective foam volume produced across a multiple product mix, but emissions would be relatively small. The majority of these products switched to hydrocarbons as early as 20 yea rs ago. There is no bank to be considered here
. At this time, there are 2 PU panel producers in California and there are at least 20 spray - foam contractors, together producing an estimated 9,800 tons of PUR/PIR foam/year 11 

### . PUR Spray foam is using HFC - 245f a and PUR panels use pentane blends. They all changed from HCFC - 141b around 2005. Polyisocyanurate (PIR) formulations have historically used CFC - 11, before switching to HCFC - 141b and the n eventually converted to hydrocarbons about 10 years ago. The total emissions are relatively insignificant for a boardstock plant running continuou sly. Figure 3 - 1 2007 IN - STATE POLYURETHANE/POLYISOCYANURATE PRODUCTION

2007 Estimated PUR/PIR Foam Production in California (Total = 9,800 tons ODS)

20%

8%

72% Spray Foam Composite Panels Boardstock; PiP



### Production for the period 196 0 – 1969 grew by 8%/year , and for 1970
– 1979 it grew by 5%/year, as it did for the period 1980 to 1989. For the period 1990 to 2009, production grew by around 3%/year (rounded down for no growth from 2007)

11 Caleb calculation based on: Polystyrene and Polyurethane F oam Products in US Building & Construction; SBI, 2008 ( 2007 estimate based on a 10% share of US PU construction foam shipments worth $492 million, and PU foam cost at $5/kg)Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 24



## 3.4. Findings & Analysis: Buildings 3.4.1. Section Content In this Section, Caleb reviews building stock data and describes building related foam and blowing agen t consumption, before identifying blowing agent substitutions for the different foam categories. Caleb also briefly describes not - in - kind alternatives, before reviewing current and alternative end - of - life practices. 

## 3.4.2. Building Stock Caleb has obtained detailed buildings stock data for residential, non - residential and commercial buildings from a variety of sources including the California State - wide Appliance Saturation Study (RA SS) 12 

### , the US Census Bureau 13 

### and the California Energy Commission 14 

### . Building stock, stock turnover, stock additions and vintage data have been integrated and further developed in Caleb’s banks and emissions model. There were over 16 million buildings in Cal ifornia in 2008, of which the majority was residential single - family dwellings. The table below gives a breakdown of the stock by type of use.

Figure 3 - 2 CALEB ESTIMATES OF BUILDING STOCK DISTRIBUTION



### California Building Stock 2008 (Total Stock = 16,576,621)

6%

56% 38% Commercial & Industrial Residential - single Residential - multi-family

12 California State - Wide Appliance Saturation Study; http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASSWEB/DesktopDefault.aspx (last accessed 7/16/10) 13 Construction Statistics Data User’s Conference; US Bureau of the Census; 1997 14 California Energy Commission 2009 Forecast Floor Spa ce DataCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 25

Table 3 - 4 2008 CALEB ESTIMATE OF BUILDING STOCK (NUMBER OF BUILDINGS) Building Use Existing Stock New Starts Demolition Revised Stock Single Family Homes 9,179,595 224,798 91,796 9,312,597 Multi Family Homes 6,100,700 237,743 61,007 6,277,436 Commercial 944,436 61,041 18,889 986,588 Total 16,224,730 523,583 171,692 16,576,621 

### For low rise residential, the building life was assumed to be 30 years 15



### . The useful life of Non - Residential buildings can range from 25 years for steel framed buildings to 70 for wood framed buildings 16



### . Caleb estimates an average 30 year life time for Non Residential buildings. 

## 3.4.3. Foam Types & Volumes In California insulation foams occur in a wide range of building products. For example, they occur as the core material of panels in cold stores or refrigerated warehouses, or as the primary insulation materials contained within brickwork or steel, or spray applied in retrofit internal and external insulation. The use of these foams began in the 1960s and became commonplace in the 1970s and 1980s, largely in response to the energy crisis of that period. A variety of foam types are used in building insulation, including Polyisocyanurate, & Extruded Polystyrene board stock, Polyurethane Panel s and Polyurethane Spray Foam. The relative market shares of these foams in California building insulation have altered over the years, driven by building code changes as well as wider supply, demand and cost factors. The figure below shows the average per cent share of total insulation foam consumption for the period 1960 to 2009 for new building and refurbishment efforts in California: -

15 2001 California Non - Residential Energy Standards, Task 1 Report: Measure Identification of Analysis Plan; California Energy Commission; 2000 16 Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings; J. O’Connor, Forintek Canada Corp. ; 2004Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 26

Figure 3 - 3 California Consumption by Type of Foam (1960 - 2009) 

### % Foam Consumption in California - by Type

(1960 - 2009)

29%

55% 6% 10% XPS Polyiso PU Panel Pu Spray



### Board stock is prominently used in roof and wall insulation in commercial buildings. Sandwich panels, where the foam is sandwiched between facing materials such as steel and aluminum, are used for insulating cold stores, cold rooms and doors. Spray foams are ma de at the point of use and are literally sprayed into place. They are highly suitable for the insulation of uneven or inaccessible surfaces and are used in pipe work and roof spaces. Increasingly, companies are using pentane -- a hydrocarbon -- as an alterna tive blowing agent for both board stock and sandwich panels. In order to determine the flow of total foam through the Building Stock in any given year, Caleb calculated the foam content (in m 3 

### ) in the existing stock (Foam in Buildings). By adding the vol ume of new foams and refurbishment foams and then subtracting the decommissioned foam, Caleb could estimate a revised volume for the total foam banked in buildings for the following year (Revised Foam in Buildings). In the table below the calculation shows the volume change between 2007 and 2008.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 27

Table 3 - 5 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN BUILDINGS (m 3 )

Building Use Foam in Buildings New Foam Refurbishment Foam Decommissioned Foam Foam in Buildings -

Revised Single Family Homes 9,802,172 513,816 20,982 162,726 10,499,696 Multi Family Homes 12,763,393 905,673 23,240 161,976 13,854,282 Commercial 12,338,548 985,537 30,488 120,298 13,474,871 Total 34,904,113 2,405,026 74,710 445,000 37,828,849 

### Caleb estimates that, in 2008, the proportion of California newly built and refurbished buil dings that use insulation foam ranges from around 16% for Multi - Family Homes to 78% for Structural Cold Stores. This proportion has grown substantially in the last few decades and will continue to grow as energy codes are strengthened. 

## 3.4.4. Blowing Agent Use & Substitutions Major US building insulation producing companies, such as Atlas Roofing, Firestone, RM AX, Johns Manville have shifted from HCFC - 141b to using pentane. They have concluded that pentane is less costl y than HFC - 245fa and that given the high G WP of these substances pentane is environmentally more sustainable
. Substitution rates are specific to foam types and Caleb has summarized the changes over time, as can be seen in the tables below.

Table 3 - 6 POLYISO BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS BUILDINGS: - SUMMARY OF POLYISO B.A SUBSTITUTIONS YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0% 0% 0% 1993 75% 25% 0% 0% 1994 50% 50% 0% 0% 1995 25% 75% 0% 0% 1996 0% 100% 0% 0% 1997 0% 100% 0% 0% 1998 0% 100% 0% 0% 1999 0% 100% 0% 0% 2000 0% 95% 5% 0% 2001 0% 80% 10% 10% 2002 0% 70% 20% 10% 2003 0% 30% 10% 60% 2004 0% 15% 5% 80% 2005 0% 0% 5% 95% 2006 0% 0% 5% 95% 2007 0% 0% 5% 95% 2008 0% 0% 5% 95% 2009 0% 0% 5% 95% 2010 0% 0% 5% 95%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 28

Table 3 - 7 BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS BUILDINGS: - SUMMARY OF XPS B.A SUBSTITUTIONS YEAR CFC 12 HCFC 142b HCFC 22 HFC 134a 1992 100% 0% 0% 0% 1993 75% 16% 9% 0% 1994 50% 33% 18% 0% 1995 25% 49% 26% 0% 1996 0% 65% 35% 0% 1997 0% 65% 35% 0% 1998 0% 65% 35% 0% 1999 0% 65% 35% 0% 2000 0% 65% 35% 0% 2001 0% 65% 35% 0% 2002 0% 65% 35% 0% 2003 0% 65% 35% 0% 2004 0% 65% 35% 0% 2005 0% 65% 35% 0% 2006 0% 65% 35% 0% 2007 0% 65% 35% 0% 2008 0% 49% 26% 25% 2009 0% 16% 9% 75% 2010 0% 0% 0% 100% Table 3 - 8 PU PANEL BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS BUILDINGS: - SUMMARY OF PU PANEL B.A SUBSTITUTIONS YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0% 0% 0% 1993 75% 25% 0% 0% 1994 50% 50% 0% 0% 1995 25% 75% 0% 0% 1996 0% 100% 0% 0% 1997 0% 100% 0% 0% 1998 0% 100% 0% 0% 1999 0% 100% 0% 0% 2000 0% 95% 5% 0% 2001 0% 80% 15% 5% 2002 0% 70% 20% 10% 2003 0% 30% 40% 30% 2004 0% 15% 45% 40% 2005 0% 0% 50% 50% 2006 0% 0% 50% 50% 2007 0% 0% 50% 50% 2008 0% 0% 50% 50% 2009 0% 0% 50% 50% 2010 0% 0% 50% 50%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 29

Table 3 - 9 PU SPRAY FOAM BLOWING AGENT SUBSITUTIONS BUILDINGS: - SUMMARY OF PU SPRAY B.A SUBSTITUTIONS YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0% 0% 0% 1993 75% 25% 0% 0% 1994 50% 50% 0% 0% 1995 25% 75% 0% 0% 1996 0% 100% 0% 0% 1997 0% 100% 0% 0% 1998 0% 100% 0% 0% 1999 0% 100% 0% 0% 2000 0% 95% 5% 0% 2001 0% 80% 20% 0% 2002 0% 70% 30% 0% 2003 0% 30% 70% 0% 2004 0% 15% 85% 0% 2005 0% 0% 100% 0% 2006 0% 0% 100% 0% 2007 0% 0% 100% 0% 2008 0% 0% 100% 0% 2009 0% 0% 100% 0% 2010 0% 0% 100% 0%


## 3.4.5. Not - In - Kind (NIK) Alternatives For thermal insulation applications (the majority of rigid foam use), mineral fiber alternatives (e.g. glass fiber and mineral wool) have been, and continue to be, major not - in - kind alternatives. Their relative benefits and limitations vary substantially, both between products within a category and between applications. This makes a generic conclusion about preferences impossible. The curren t thermal insulation market supports a variety of solutions (at least 15 major product types), and this reflects the range of requirements demand ed for the applications served. 17

17 IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, 2005Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 30



## 3.4.6. Current End - of - Life Practices 

## 3.4.6.1. Waste Characterization In terms of th e California Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste stream, foam insulation is an extremely small piece of the pie. It doesn't have a special designation and is seen as non - hazardous. Typically it is land - filled without prior diversion. California has a t otal waste arising of 40 million tons/year. 16% of this is Construction & Demolition (C&D) 18 

### waste – i.e.
– 6.4mt/year with the largest part being demolition waste. Asbestos gets separated at the demolition site for special disposal, although roofing asbest os is now a declining issue. Demolition cycles would be in the region of 30 years for residential, a nd one might expect a least one re - roof during that period. The commercial cycle is faster, especially for smaller buildings that get 'repurposed'. 19 

### Some foam may end up as municipal solid waste (MSW) delivered to waste to energy plants, but C&D waste typically gets separated at waste transfer stations and therefore would not end up in the MSW waste stream. The small amount of foam that is seen at landfill sites usually comes in with C&D mixed waste loads, and is not segregated in any way or disposed off in any different way to other C&D waste. There aren’t many data available on foam waste. The 2008 Waste Characterization Study identifies fiberglass insula tion separately in the waste stream (0.2% or 6,025 tons/year applied to four metropolitan areas covered by the waste characterization study . If scaled for California, then this waste stream would be approximately 12,700 tons/year

. Foam insulation is not tr acked separately, but is likely to be contained in the ‘Remainder/Composite Plastics’ category (0.2 3 % of C&D waste stream; 7,174 tons/year in four metropolitan areas
– or up to 15,13 0 tons/year state - wide).This is broadly consistent with Caleb’s assessment of decommissioned foam, where 445,000 m 3 

### of foam waste per year equates to 15,575 tons 20



### . 

## 3.4.6.2. End - of

- Life Practices A wide variety of responses were received from demolition contractors. Estimated demolition rate/year is 1% for residential and 2% for commer cial buildings. About 47% of the decommissioned foam is from residential buildings and the remainder from commercial and industrial buildings
.

18 California 2008 State - wide Waste Characterization Study; CIWMB/ Cascadia, 2009 19 Interview w. Greg Dick; CIWMB, September 2009 20 Caleb calculation: (foam volume) *(avg. foam density)/1000; therefore (445,000)* (35)/1000 = 15,575Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 31 At this time, the most prevalent practice for demolition foam is for it to be land filled together with other mi xed C&D waste. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future for a variety of reasons including: -

 land fill space appearing to be readily accessible in most instances

 general failure to segregate demolition waste unless there is a specific mandat e

 appearing to be the least cost option ($39

– 60/ton)

 the complexities of separating foams from other C&D waste fractions While there are a series of better practices (from an ozone and climate perspective), there is currently no requirement to make ch anges. There is a countywide waste diversion goal away from Land fill of 75% (either weight or volume) for Alameda County - but this is not typical for California. Other parts also have strong policies

– e.g. – Los Angeles County has a zero waste goal. Ind ividual cities in Alameda also have zero waste goals. The typical diversion goal is 50% of the waste, but this does not tend to cover insulation foams. Contractors will respond to the recycling ordinances from cities, but nobody is mandating the removal of foams. The sorts of waste fractions that get diverted would be asbestos (legal requirement) and anything that has secondary value (wood, steel). Waste is crushed and broken up before going to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) - so even if there were any foam, the damage would be substantial, potentially leading to significant emissions, although rarely total loss at the processing stage. Insulation foam remains a minute waste stream, and right now it mostly goes to landfill because it has no intrin sic value out of the building. A further complication with foam waste is its relatively low weight to volume ratio, making the economics of handling and transportation less attractive than is the case for many other waste materials. The cost of disposal t o landfill remains relatively low. The gate fee for C&D waste in an unsorted state is $60/ton, while public garbage is $115/ton and public wood waste is $26/cubic yard, or $60/ton. Older buildings from the early 1970’s typically don't contain foam insulat ion, although there could be large quantities of foam in cold storage structures. According to a number of respondents there used to be many cold stores (especially in the Oakland area), but many have already been demolished. According to one respondent, m uch of the insulation they see is at sites is of the spray on foam variety and also fiberglass in residential and commercial buildings. By their estimate, not even 2% of what theyCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 32 find is rigid foam when compared with other insulation. When they do find it , it tends to be 2 - 4 inches thick - typically contained in co mmercial steel framed buildings. Another respondent sees blown fiber in residential properties and sees foam sometimes in exterior type panels in built up systems (as opposed to sandwich panel s ystems). Another one reckoned that in a 100 buildings plus wrecked, about 50% will have some type of closed cell insulation, often in roofs. Their work is concentrated on commercial buildings in southern California. In a 10000 sq ft demolition job, they mi ght have 2 truck loads of this material. It is light and doesn't compact well because of its rigidity. Rigid insulation in a typical 6 - 7000 sq ft factory might be found in the roof

– where there typically are 2 inches of foam. Rigid foams in walls are fair ly uncommon. Yet another respondent saw rigid foam maybe 4 to 5 times per year. They do 500 to 600 projects per year - always commercial and industrial buildings that were started in the 1970s. Typically, they find 2 inches of solid foam. These foams are in the larger buildings over 20 ,000 sq ft . They do buildings ranging from 5000 to 100,000 sq ft. The foam is always land filled and it costs $40/ton to dispose of as a mixed load. The weight of insulation might be 8 - 10 tons in each mixed load
. Less than 1% of the total business of another respondent is foam insulation. This is mostly in roofs & in commercial buildings around 20,000 sq ft. They see 2 to 3 inches of foam in buildings from the 1970s and 80s. The foam ends up in Landfill. Buildings from the 1960s contain fiberglass insulation, and buildings from before then don't have much, if any, insulation. Another respondent found that they only came across rigid foam when they demolished distribution centers or cold rooms. Most of the time they saw fib erglass & drywall. In residential buildings, they mostly saw blown paper product. In commercial buildings they saw rolled insulation/mineral wool. 95% of their business was commercial, with 5% being residential. Another respondent was involved in the d emolition of large industrial and commercial buildings. As an example of a recent building they were involved with, they mentioned a 387,000 sq ft building with 4 inches equivalent of foam = 4740 cubic yards of foam. They reckoned that 155 tons of the mate rial out of that building would have been foam. The insulation weight (estimate 1lb/ sq ft) was low when compared to the asphalt shingles it was attached to. One might expect 5 - 7 lb/ sq ft for asphalt shingles and foams together. It would be very costly t o separate, when one reckons on $12 - $14/hour labor cost - or up to 3x that amount for public projects. They reckon that there is plenty of foam in commercial buildings from the 1960s onwards, and that older buildings from the 1920s that had re - roofs done from the 1960s shouldn’t be ignored.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 33

Estimated Building Foam Disposal Routes - 2009 Building Demolition Foams 92% direct to landfill 8% to shredder, followed by landfill


## 3.4.7. Alternative Options for managing construction & demolition waste Th e physical characteristics of the ODS - containing foam wastes that affect possible treatment/disposal options include the weight, volume and material composition. The demolition processes and segregation of wastes on demolition sites will impact on, for ins tance, the size of individual pieces of waste and its level of contamination. From a waste management perspective, these different ODS - containing foam wastes are unlikely to be handled as separate waste streams. There may be some exceptions to this if t here are potential reuse opportunities for specific high quality products. However, in considering future waste management scenarios, we have assumed that the waste will generally be handled as one waste stream or possibly two streams; namely ‘PU Panels’ a nd ‘all other products’. PU Panels comprising foam cores between rigid facings. Facing materials are typically steel, aluminum or glass fiber reinforced plastic sheet s . PU Panels which are faced with steel or aluminum are more attractive to recyclers owi ng to the metal content. PU Panels are typically c omprised of 80% metal by weight

. “All other products” will predominately consist of foam material. In terms of waste handling and transport of wastes, it is important to recognize that these wastes are vol uminous, low density materials. As a result, transportation will be relatively expensive per ton of material handled. The average density of this collective waste stream (PU Panels and all other products) is estimated at 0.0354 ton/m 3 

### . Losses from demoliti on process are fairly high, ranging from 25 to 35% of the remaining blowing agent charge
. While foam waste represents a challenge (& opportunity) in terms of its impact on the stratospheric ozone layer and the atmosphere, it does not currently present a p roblem for the California waste management sector

. The only foam that is being recovered and treated in California is appliances foam via fridge recyclers. This is paid for by the Utilities and achieves a diversion of about 12% to 15%/year as proportion of total units discarded
.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 34 The general consensus amongst demolition interview respondents was that at the moment only those materials that are practical to recover from the general demolition waste stream or those which have a value or are required to be seg regated as a result of Regulation (Asbestos) or City ordinances (wood, steel) would be segregated. The segregation of ODS - containing foam is only likely to happen if it is policed or the demolition contractors see financial benefits for the recovery. Demo lition contractors prefer fiscal incentives to encourage them to recover ODS containing foams as opposed to regulatory options. The cost premiums involved in alternative treatment approaches to end - of - life foam across the main applications are not insigni ficant. In instances where foam recovery and destruction programs are already in place, e.g. for refrigerators/freezers, additional stimulation would be needed to achieve a higher diversion rate. This could be via expanded utility funding or the carbon mar ket. In the buildings application, the cost and practicalities of diversion would be a significant impediment to improvements within the context of relatively low landfill disposal costs

. Nevertheless, it may be possible to create the conditions whereby i t becomes viable to separate and remove C&D foams for further treatment at waste to Energy (WTE) plant, co - combustion facilities like cement kilns or via fridge recyclers. One way forward may be to generate carbon credits from certified foam blowing agent destruction which already happens with appliances foam. These carbon credits would have to be sufficiently high (and stable) to stimulate recovery & destruction in the face of the on - costs that are involved in foam separation, transportation and disposa l at plant that may need to re - orient their combustion cycles to accommodate an increased quantity of foam. Alternatively, landfill may be considered a better option, particularly if it can be shown that landfill gas combustion plant can achieve ODS dest ruction, or if the conditions for natural attenuation of the ODS within the site can be created and sustained.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 35



## 3.4.7.1. Description of potential options Combustion in Waste To Energy (WTE) Facilities Polymer - based insulation (e.g. polyurethane foams) can be in cinerated in order to recover energy and to reduce its volume (to approx. <1%). Polymers have a high calorific value and can be burned with energy recovery, without giving off toxic or environmentally damaging fumes (if managed properly). It is also expe nsive to transport these lightweight wastes over long distances, also possibly negating environmental benefit of recovery. However, it may ultimately be one of the most favorable solutions for polymer - based insulation waste, particularly in the short - to - me dium term. The material would still need to be recovered and segregated at end of life, but issues of contamination are likely to be of less importance. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County operate a WTE facility in Commerce and have share of anoth er facility also. The Commerce facility can handle up to 500 tons/day and they already take foam from appliances recyclers

– typically 1 - 2 tons/day. They could do segregated C&D foam waste provided it wasn’t patched through at more than about 30 tons/day. Volumes over this level would create problems with the combustion cycle in the plant. They offer guaranteed ODS destruction certificates for clients who use these to generate carbon credits
– which acts as a stimulus for such efforts. The cost of disposing waste through this WTE plant is $65/ton (slightly more than landfill, but not by a wide margin). Certified destruction would cost in the region of $220/ton. Foam can be considered a residual waste only, because it has no value once the wood and other va luables have been stripped out. The City of Commerce facility in Los Angeles took 140 tons of appliance foams in 2007 and 185 tons in 2008. That unit does 500 tons/per day of MSW waste and maybe 1 or 2 tons of foam per day - so a very small part. By compar ison, another facility in Spokane took 30 tons of appliance foam in 2007 and 90 tons in 2008. Covanta in Stanislaus has an 800 tons/day capacity, and did 170 tons of appliances foam in 2007 and 100 tons in 2008. There are larger plants in the north - easter n US, handling 2 - 3000 tons/day - so they may be able to handle more foam, although the transport costs and impacts would probably make this unviable from economic and environmental perspectives. Other operators were less positive about the prospect of ta king foam waste in anything other than very small quantities. WTE plants are listed by heat input. One ton of foam would displace 3 tons of garbage. Halogens attached to the foam are freed in the combustion process, and are corrosive to the MSW plant. This has to be paid forCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 36 and would therefore be reflected in the pricing. It would not be possible to take all the foam currently in California’s banks. Given that nobody can guarantee the foam volumes coming out of the bank, it would be difficult to justify bu ilding 'merchant plants'. According to one respondent, the C&D waste stream doesn’t really work with the California and US plant structure. The chances for getting new facilities set up are very low. Some plants - like Covanta Stanislaus - could build mo re capacity, but it would be difficult to get permits from the local Air Quality Panel. Additionally, if AB32 takes organics out of the waste stream, then this would raise the heat value of the remainder - making it more difficult to manage foam disposal w ithout exceeding licensed BTU unit limits
. Dealing with foam is essentially a legacy issue and it would be necessary to take account of current service agreements between plants and communities when evaluating the potential for handing foam through waste to energy facilities. The capacity may simply not be there for anything other than a marginal uptake

. In summary, the technical possibility is there to use this and other WTE facilities for foam based waste, but the cost of separation, transportation and certificated destruction would be substantially higher than standard disposal via landfill. Any carbon credit or other stimulus would have to be of a sufficient level to stimulate such an effort. Any demolition load heavier than 30 tons would need to be he ld separately, either at the demolition site or at the combustion site and this could incur additional storage, handling and transportation costs. Managed Attenuation Two studies conducted by the Technical University of Denmark investigated the potentia l for microbial attenuation of ODS blowing agents in landfills These studies analyzed soil samples from landfill to see how effective the microbes in the soil are to break down CFC - 11 and HCFC - 141b. A Danish study 21 

### reported a nearly 100% breakdown of the CFC - 11 within 10 to 14 days in the soil sample, although the breakdown of the HCFC - 141b was much slower. Attenuation has only been observed in landfills under anaerobic conditions in the presence of methanogenic bacteria. There is a limited evidence base that anaerobic conditions can develop in hazardous waste cells at present and it is likely that methanogenic bacteria are unlikely to be present in large numbers in a hazardous waste landfill. Managed attenuation may have the potential to destroy ODS in l andfill to 90% efficiency. Further studies are required to confirm the properties of the specific microbes responsible for the

21 Attenuation of Fluorocarbons Released from Foam Insulation in Landfills; Technical University of Denmark, 2007Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 37 degradation. Another study 22 

### identified two foam disposal scenarios that explore landfill foam handling options. In this second study, the calculations of the fate of the released CFC after disposal at landfill were evaluated via two different scenarios. The first scenario represented the existing situation where the shredded foam waste was stockpiled for a short period prior to la nd - filling. After land - filling the foam waste was driven over by a landfill compactor to reduce volume of the foam waste and other wastes disposed of together with the foam waste. This could be expected to lead to an additional instantaneous release which will lead to CFC release entering un - attenuated into the atmosphere. After final disposal using normal procedures it is well - known that the onset of straight anaerobic conditions would take a few months. In this period the CFC destruction by micro organism s was not very likely due to too high redox potentials within the waste layers. The second scenario represented the situation where the instantaneous landfill release was reduced by avoiding working the foam waste with landfill compactors and where anaero bic waste was mixed with the foam to speed up the onset of the microbial destruction of the CFC (Managed attenuation). Table 3.6 gives details for the two scenarios in respect to the above mentioned factors. For both scenarios laboratory determined degrada tion rates were used together with a value ten times lower representing the fact that degradation in full scale may not be as efficient as in a small scale lab test. Also the effect of having a ten times higher diffusion coefficient than the lab determined long term diffusion in intact closed cell foam was evaluated, representing a scenario where hammer milling and landfill compacting activities have led to a more open foam structure. In the calculations the model MOCLA - FOAM was used. The only difference wa s the foam volume to landfill volume ratio. Based on information on total units disposed of yearly and the total mass of waste being disposed of at US landfills, a more representative ratio was calculated ( Table 3.7 ) for Scenario 1. For Scenario 2 special cells of the landfill might be constructed for the managed attenuation with higher foam volume to waste volume. The following tables are adapted from Wethje L.R. (2005)

Table 3 - 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF ODS ATT ENUATION SCENARIOS 

### Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Time before disposal of foam at landfill 1 week 1 week Time before onset of microbially active period 6 months 0 months Instantaneous release due to landfill compaction 15% of content at disposal 5% of content at

disposal

22 Disposal of Refrigerators - Freezers in the US: State of the Practice; L.R. Wethje, P/E.; Appliance Research Consortium, 2005Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 38

Table 3 - 11 2001: FOAM DISPOSAL AT US LANDFILLS 

### Units disposed of annually in USA (million units 1 

### ) 10 Foam volume in one unit (L) 283 Foam volume for USA (million m 3 

### ) 2.83 Mass of MSW disposed of in USA, 2001 (million tons per year 2 

### ) 128 Estimated total waste mass disposed of in USA (million tons per year 3 

### ) 192 Landfilled volume (million m 3

### /year 4 

### ) 213 Average foam content (m 3 

### foam/m 3 

### landfill) 0.013 Number of landfills in USA** 1858 Averag e annual waste volume on one landfill (million m 3 

### ) 0.115 Number of units disposed of annually on one landfill 5,400 Foam volume disposed of annually on one landfill (m 3 

### ) 1,520 1. Scheutz & Kjelsden (2002) 2. reference US EPA (2001) 3. non - MSW disposal mass estmi mated to be 50% of MSW mass 4. using a wet bulk density of 0.9 tons/m 3 

### The inventory project did not identify any California specific studies or research pertaining to managed attenuation. One respondent operating WTE facilities in California suggested tha t, given current practice relating to foam waste, a better handling of such waste at landfill sites to stimulate attenuation, might yet be the best solution. Full scale field testing would be required to confirm whether this approach represents an effecti ve mitigation option. Landfill Gas Combustion While continued land filling may emerge as a possible option, there is a need for gas profiles at landfill sites in order to determine whether there are ODS emission losses. This could be tested by finding 3 or 4 landfills that take C&D waste and doing an evaluation of emissions. California MSW landfills are equipped with landfill gas plant, and there could be an opportunity to test the raw gas and the combustion exhaust gas. Waste Management Inc. 23 

### is current ly involved in research on gas species out of landfill sites, but there are no conclusions as yet.

23 Interview with Brian Bowen , Waste Management Inc. : September 2009Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 39

Co - Incineration A possible management route is the co - incineration of ODS - containing foam in cement kilns. However, the chlorine content of ODS - contai ning foam waste may be considered too high for their facilities. This can result in contamination of the cement products or operational problems in relation to control of atmospheric emissions. Cement kilns prefer a consistent and secure supply of waste m aterials to avoid any re - incurring costs associated with running trials for burning waste materials. ODS containing foam waste from demolition activities may not be able to meet this requirement. Processing through Appliance Recycling Facilities Based on European experience, the processing of building demolition waste foams via appliances recycling facilities has only really been relevant in case of composite panels containing ODS. European Regulations have required the recovery and treatment of Applian ces Foam for some time, and this has led to the presence of an infrastructure that is also potentially available for the recovery and treatment of ODS blown demolition composite panel foams. In Europe, commercially viable end of life solutions are now av ailable using existing refrigerator recycling plants for the recovery of ODS blowing agents from steel - faced insulated panels manufactured prior to 2004. At present, due to the excellent long term thermal and structural performance properties of insulated panels, the waste stream levels for pre - 2004 products are very low. It is also important to recognize that the majority of these panels are less than 50 mm in thickness with a correspondingly low ODS content. However, in the United Kingdom, the Panel Indus try has carried out trials to assess suitable options for ODS disposal 24 

### . This has led to the development of a simple process where panels are easily cut into the right size (2 meters maximum length) and fed into existing refrigerator recycling plants. Tria ls have successfully been carried out where panels have been processed in this way to meet European Regulations. As a result of this procedure any ODS gases are captured, shredded metals are collected for recycling and the foam dust is bagged for further u se or landfill. Trials indicated that the destruction cost is under $8 per m 2 

### , but approximately $32

– 45/kg blowing agent. There are currently no facilities in California able to process ODS containing composite panels in this way. Currently, these pane ls are shredded in conventional shredders, allowing for the removal of metals, with the residue land filled or used as Alternative Daily Cover. Most of the ODS cont ained in the insulation core is released

24 End of Life Options for Steel based Building Envelope Systems; Kingspan Insulated Panels, 2006Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 40 to atmosphere. Non - ODS containing panels produced s ince 2004 are unlikely to be in the waste stream any time soon, but would be treated in the same way. Non
– composite panel foams that contain ODS (demolition foams) are currently land filled, typically as part of a mixed Construction & Demolition waste stream. Much of the ODS contained in the insulation is released to atmosphere during processing at demolition sites and at landfill sites. While no specific research has been done in California on the processing of rigid demolition PU insulation, the tec hnology for such a process may now be available in the State. JACO Environmental Inc. (an appliance recycler) has built an appliance recycling plant in Hayward, California that could handle composite panel and non panel foam waste from construction or demo lition sites. JACO operates a new degassing system that can process 250 kg of PU foam every 2 hours thereby yielding 25 kg of CFC - 11 or approximately 100 metric tons of CO 2 

### – e q. for each batch. These systems can be built & manned according to the amount of foam available in each area. The cost per installation is approximately $520,000 & requires a small space (465 m 2 

### ) with 2 operators per shift. Currently, foam is manually removed from appliances, then put into their recovery unit, where it is milled and c rushed in negative atmospheric conditions to extract the ODS using nitrogen as carrier. The residue from their milling and crushing unit (very fine fluffy powder) is used by carpet producers as a backing product (probably co - mingled with virgin PU). A simi lar process could be used for composite panels, with the metal recovered for sale and the foam core processed in a similar fashion to appliances foam. Non - panel foams could also be processed, but would be less cost - effective on account of not having the va lue of metals to help defray the treatment costs. While the main foam supply for this facility is in the form of appliances, it could also be used to process construction and demolition foam waste, provided a cost effective means for separation at demoli tion sites and transportation to Hayward are identified.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 41



## 3.5. Findings & Analysis: Appliances 3.5.1. Section Content In this Section, Caleb reviews appliances s tock data and describes appliance related foam and blowing agent consumption, before identifying blowin g agent subst itutions for different appliance categories . Caleb also briefly describes not - in - kind alternatives, before reviewing current and alternative end - of - life practices

. 

## 3.5.2. Domestic & Commercial Appliances Stock The project team identified detailed s tock data for domestic appliances, commercial appliances, vending machines and water heaters variously from Armines archives and substantiated by interviews. One of the largest appliances groups is domestic refrigerators/freezers, for which the project tea m could determine disposal and treatment figures for California using Armines data. Table 3 - 12 2008 APPLIANCES STOCK Estimated Appliances Stock Existing Stock New Additions Decommissioned Revised Stock Refrigerators/Freezers 22,142,686 2,129,442 973,422 23,298,707 Commercial Appliances 7,802 556 450 7,908 Refrigerated Vending Machines 527,641 38,055 32,779 532,917 Water Heaters 16,138,571 1,062,559 916,794 16,284,336 

### Based on these appliance stock data, Caleb determined the foam content (in m 3 

### ) in the e xi sting 2007 stock (In - Appliance Foam ). By adding the volume of new foams and subtracting the decommissioned foam, Caleb could estimate a revised volume for the total foam banked in appliances in 2008 (Revised In - Appliance Foam )
– as shown in Table 3.9 be low
.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 42



## 3.5.3. 2008 Appliances Foam Stocks & Flows

Table 3 - 13 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN APPLIANCES (m 3 )


### Appliance Type In-Appliance Foam New Foam Decommissioned Foam Revised inAppliance Foam Domestic Refirgerators 7,689,229 946,955 205,441 8,430,743 Domestic Freezers 3,253,289 367,158 108,169 3,512,278 Commercial Refrigeration 546,134 38,917 31,487 553,565 Refrigerated Vending Machines 175,422 16,917 7,215 184,901 Water Heaters 1,203,505 113,199 49,917 1,266,787 Total 12,867,579 1,483,146 402,229 13,948,274



## 3.5.3.1. Domestic Refrigerators & Freezers Refrigerators are insulated with unclassified polyure thane rigid foam whose density is 2 lb/ f t 3 

### (30kg/m 3 

### ), by injecting the liquid reactants between the inner and the outer casing of the refrigerator cabinet and doors. By 2003, most producers of residential refrigerators and freezers had switched polyurethan e foam blowing agent fro m HCFC 141b to mostly HFC - 245fa. 

## 3.5.3.2. Commercial Refrigerators These comprise of display cases (DC) and stand - alone equipment (SA) include low temperature single - deck, low temperature multi - deck, low and medium temperature glass door, medium temperature single - deck, medium temperature multi - deck, service cases, and specialty cases. This market increased at 5 - 7%/year during the 1990s, boosted by continued proliferation of large grocery stores such as Wal - Mart and Super Kmart. Display refrigerators and freezers for supermarkets are usually 8 ft. high, 40 - 45 inches deep and 10 ft. long, and are equipped with four doors. They have built - in cooling systems to maintain a temperature of 40 - 42°F or down to - 10°F for frozen food and - 20°F for ice cream. Reach - in units are typically 8 - 12 ft. long, 3 - 3 1/2 ft. wide and 3 ft. deep and cooled by a remote system.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 43 Hussmann, which accounts for 50% of all commercial refrigerators built in the US, makes them from metal panels produced from galvanized steel with polyurethane core. The panels are 1 1/5 inches thick, 1 - 4 ft. wide and 2 - 12 ft. long and are pre engineered to be assembled into the finished products.


## 3.5.3.3. Ice Makers/Vending Machines The installed base of all vending machines was 13 million for the US (2 004) among them 1.47 million were estimated to be in California - based on NAMA (National Automated Merchandising Association) data. The refrigerated vending machines are estimated to be 30% of this number, therefore 470,000 units Caleb’s other research with the industry in California leads to an estimate that is broadly similar (500,000 refrigerated vending machines). There are two types of vending machines - a) glass door and b) closed door, but Caleb could not find any data on the respective s hares. 

## 3.5.3.4. Water Heaters In 2008 approximately 1.3 million water heaters were produced in California (AHRI/SKEIST) based on US data per - capita adjusted and scaled for 3% growth from 2003. Half of these were gas and half electric. Less than 1.5% (21,000) was commercial water heaters. The heaters are insulated, mostly with unclassified polyurethane foam, about 8 lbs. (3.64kg) per electric heater and 5.5 lbs (2.5kg) per gas heater, which uses some fiberglass around the combustion chamber. The foam is applied by frothing and density is about 30 - 35kg/m 3 

### . The blowing agents are mostly pentane isomers. 

## 3.5.4. Blowing Agent Use & Substitutions Polyurethane foam insulation has been used in refrigerator - freezer applications for more than 30 years. The process of applying the polyurethane foam requires the use of a low thermal conductivity blowing agent to facilitate the flow and expansion of the chemicals as they are injected into the refrigerator - freezer casing. For many years, the almost universal blowing agent used in r efrigerator - freezer applications was CFC 11. Because CFCs were linked to stratospheric ozone depletion, the decision to replace them in all products worldwide was made under the Montreal Protocol in the late 1980s. The phase - out of ozone depleting substanc es (ODS) in the USA was assisted by the Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) initiative. SNAPCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 44 approves chemicals that can be used to replace ODS. During 1994, most manufacturers of refrigerator - freezers in the U.S. converted to foams using HCFC - 141 b as the blowing agent. Although HCFCs are an ODS, their ozone depleting potential is significantly less than CFCs, so they were identified as the best transition blowing agent on a path leading to the total phase - out of all ozone depleting substances with emphasis on improved energy efficiency. These HCFC conversions were considered interim solutions until energy - efficient zero ODS options could be developed and implemented. The table below shows Caleb’s estimation of the substitution timetable. Table 3 - 14 DOMESTIC REFRIGERATOR/FRREZER BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0% 0% 0% 1993 75% 25% 0% 0% 1994 50% 50% 0% 0% 1995 0% 100% 0% 0% 1996 0% 100% 0% 0% 1997 0% 100% 0% 0% 1998 0% 100% 0% 0% 1999 0% 100% 0% 0% 2000 0% 95% 5% 0% 2001 0% 80% 20% 0% 2002 0% 70% 25% 5% 2003 0% 30% 65% 5% 2004 0% 15% 80% 5% 2005 0% 0% 95% 5% 2006 0% 0% 95% 5% 2007 0% 0% 95% 5% 2008 0% 0% 95% 5% 2009 0% 0% 95% 5% 2010 0% 0% 95% 5% DOMESTIC APPLIANCES: - B.A. SUBSTITUTIONS

Table 3 - 15 COMMERCIAL APPLIANCES BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS COMMERCIAL APPLIANCES: - B.A. SUBSTITUTIONS YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0% 0% 0.00% 1993 75% 25% 0% 0.00% 1994 50% 50% 0% 0.00% 1995 0% 100% 0% 0.00% 1996 0% 100% 0% 0.00% 1997 0% 100% 0% 0.00% 1998 0% 100% 0% 0.00% 1999 0% 100% 0% 0.00% 2000 0% 95% 5% 0.00% 2001 0% 80% 20% 0.00% 2002 0% 70% 30% 0.00% 2003 0% 30% 70% 0.00% 2004 0% 15% 85% 0.00% 2005 0% 0% 100% 0.00% 2006 0% 0% 100% 0.00% 2007 0% 0% 100% 0.00% 2008 0% 0% 100% 0.00% 2009 0% 0% 100% 0.00% 2010 0% 0% 100% 0.00%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 45

Table 3 - 16 VENDING MACHINE BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0% 0% 0% 1993 75% 25% 0% 0% 1994 50% 50% 0% 0% 1995 0% 100% 0% 0% 1996 0% 100% 0% 0% 1997 0% 100% 0% 0% 1998 0% 100% 0% 0% 1999 0% 100% 0% 0% 2000 0% 95% 5% 0% 2001 0% 80% 20% 0% 2002 0% 70% 30% 0% 2003 0% 30% 70% 0% 2004 0% 15% 85% 0% 2005 0% 0% 100% 0% 2006 0% 0% 100% 0% 2007 0% 0% 100% 0% 2008 0% 0% 100% 0% 2009 0% 0% 100% 0% 2010 0% 0% 100% 0% VENDING MACHINES: - B.A. SUBSTITUTIONS

Table 3 - 17 WATER HEATER BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

WATER HEATERS: - SUMMARY OF B.A. SUBSTITUIONS YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0% 0% 0% 1993 75% 25% 0% 0% 1994 50% 50% 0% 0% 1995 0% 100% 0% 0% 1996 0% 100% 0% 0% 1997 0% 100% 0% 0% 1998 0% 100% 0% 0% 1999 0% 100% 0% 0% 2000 0% 95% 0% 5% 2001 0% 80% 5% 15% 2002 0% 70% 5% 25% 2003 0% 30% 10% 60% 2004 0% 15% 10% 75% 2005 0% 0% 10% 90% 2006 0% 0% 10% 90% 2007 0% 0% 10% 90% 2008 0% 0% 10% 90% 2009 0% 0% 10% 90% 2010 0% 0% 10% 90%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 46



## 3.5.5. Not - In - Kind (NIK) Alternatives The SNAP list includes fluorocarbon, hydr o carbon, and several not - in - kind technologies. Most of the US appliance industry has adopted fluorocarbon replacements for CFC’s

. In Appliances - b ecause of the challenging insulation and structural characteristics required for refrigerator and freezer in sulation, no proven not - in - kind technologies are available at present that can meet all the requirements. Vacuum insulation panels have been used (as a supplement to the insulating foam) in limited quantities and are increasingly being used in critical loc ations in cabinets in Japan. However, high costs continue to limit their use.


## 3.5.6. End - of - Life Fate – Appliances Foam & Blowing Agents 

## 3.5.6.1. Current recovery & recycling practices for domestic

r efrigerators & freezers Over 1 million refrigerators and freez ers r each their end - of - life in California every year . Waste foams from these appliances are concentrated at the point of appliance recycling locations. In the U.S., Section 608 of the Clean Air Act does not allow any refrigerant to be vented into the atmosphere during installation, service, or retirement of equipment (e.g., appliances). Therefore, when an appliance is disposed of or repaired, all of the refrigerant must be recovered and recycled (for reuse in the same system), reclaimed (reprocessed to the same purity levels as new), or destroyed. There are no regulations about the recovery of blowing agent from foam. An appliance recycling program is in force since 2006 and concerns all the major appliances. Appliances have to be discarded by a certified recycl er who removes toxic materials from the appliance before re - injecting it into a metal scrubber circuit. The toxic materials to be removed are: mercury, compressor oil, refrigerant gas but there is no requirement to include the foam from these appliances. T he metal scrubbers shred the appliances and recover the metal from it before land - filling the residual materials including foam. Most waste foam is land filled, with the exception of the foam recovered from appliances under the US EPA’s voluntary Respons ible Appliance Disposal (RAD) program, which includes utilities, municipalities, retailers, manufacturers, and otherCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 47

interested parties. The goal of RAD is to promote best practices for appliance recycling, which includes refrigerant recovery and foam reco very and destruction. Domestic Appliance disposal at End - of - Life The table below shows the b est estimate for 2008 in terms of units discarded
– for reuse, for recycling with foam recovery and for recycling without foam recovery - typically via shredder facilities, with residues brought to Landfill. Table 3 - 18 2008 - FATE OF DOMESTIC REFRIGERATORS & FREEZERS AT END - OF LIFE

Year Stock Discarded 2nd life Recycled - foam recovery Recycled - no foam

recovery; residue Disposed 2008 23,398,708 1,020,601 398,034 145,000 477,567 100.00% 39.00% 14.00% 47.00% 

### Project data indicates that the re - use rate is approximately 39%, which is consist ent with CARB and US EPA estimates. Project data furthermore indicates that the recycled share through utility programs is approximately 13%, which is consistent with analysis prepared by CARB 25 

### based on an article published by S. Westerberg

. Table 3 - 19 REFRIGERATOR DISPOSAL PATHWAYS

Used Refrigerator Disposal Path Percent of total Portion re used (not recycled) of specific path Re - Used and Not

Scrapped % of total disposal ( Percent of total * Portion re - use d) Recycled % of

specific disposal path Portion

recycled (of total disposed) Dealer receives old appliance (5% are re - used) 25% 5% 1% 95% 24% Given away (presumed to be re - used) 24% 100% 24% 0% 0% Taken to recycle 22% 0% 0% 100% 22% CPUC or utility - spo nsored Residential Appliance Recycling Program (RARP) 12% 0% 0% 100% 12% Sold (presumed to be re used) 11% 100% 11% 0% 0% Unknown (half re - used) 6% 50% 3% 50% 3% Totals 100% 39% 61%

25 CARB interpretation of findings: How E lectric Customers Dispose of Used Refrigerators and Why They Choose a Utility Program; S. Westberg, et.al.; 2007 Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Chicago; (also see for paper http://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf/652.pdf )
– (last accessed 7/16/10)Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 48

Domestic Appliance Recycling with Foam Recovery California has two a ppliance recycling facilities operated by JACO Environmental, and two facilities operated by Appliance Recycling Centers of America (ARCA). They handle about 145,000 to 150 000 units per year. JACO and ARCA handle 80,000 units for Southern California Edison, 40,000 units for PG&E and a further 25,000 units for SMUD. Therefore about 12 - 13% of what reaches End - of - Live is properly processed. The RAD scheme does not cover other types of appliances. The processing of that number of units equates to pr ev enting the emission of between 67 – 70 ODP - weighted ton s of CFC - 11 blowing agent to the atmospher e. The cost of recovery per ODS ton varies greatly, depending on the type of operation. Currently , neither method is self - sustaining in California and requires sponsorship. It is assumed that only 5 to 10% of the blowing agent is lost in this operation. Where ‘closed system’ automated recycling facilities are used to process appliances, t he collected gases from waste foam are condensed and sent to a permitted facility where they are destroyed through high - temperature incineration. Where foam is removed from appliance carcasses in a manual process, the waste foam is bagged and destroyed in MSW incinerators. JACO process 2000 fridges/week at the Fullerton Plant in a manual process that assumes 5% ODS losses. At Fullerton, foam is stripped, bagged and then goes to a waste to energy plant where it is handled/processed in a negative atmosphere environment. JACO has 17 facilities altogether. Hayward is in an 85,000 sq ft facility and Fullerton is a 55,000 sq ft facility; other facilities are a lot smaller - typically around 20,000 sq ft. In California, the only thing that drives appliances recovery and recycling is the Utilities program. JACO has started a new foam r ecycling operation in Hayward (late 2009) which crushes the foam and extracts/captures the ODS in a negative atmosphere chamber. The aim is to stop sending foam in bags to waste to energy plant, and to process the foam in - house. The facility covers the Bay Area, and could be in the market for C&D foam. The system at Hayward handles 550lb (250kg) of foam every two hours and should be able to handle C&D foam, provided it was brought to them. ARCA uses a n automated process that crushes the foam and captures t he gas at between 95 - 98% efficiency using SEG equipment 

## 3.5.6.2. Current disposal practices for other Appliances Other appliances, such as water heaters, commercial refrigeration equipment and vending machines are typically decommissioned before being channeledCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 49 

## for disposal via shredders for metals recovery, with residue waste going to land fill. 

## 3.5.6.3. Estimated Appliance Foam Disposal Routes - 2009 Domestic Refrigerators/Freezers 12 - 15% recovered
– fully recycled; ODS processed 39% Second Life 47% Partial Recyclin g only; Degassed; Metals recovered; Residue incl. Foam land filled 

### Commercial Appliances 100% processed via shredder; Degassed; Metals recovered; Residue incl. Foam land filled 

### Vending Machines 100% processed via shredder; Degassed; Metals recovered; Residue incl. Foam land filled


### Water Heaters 100% processed via shredder; Metals recovered; Residue incl. Foam land filled



## 3.5.7. Further options for appliances recovery & recycling To increase volume there needs to be more of an incentive. The best wa y forward may be the carbon market. Carbon at $8.50/ton CO 2 

### - eq. could work, with each appliance being 5 tons of CO 2 

### - eq . This generates a credit of $42.50 which, when combined with the utility subsidies, may help stimulate a higher volume of throughput at e xisting plant
.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 50


## 3.6. Findings & Analysis: Transport Refrigerated Units (TRUs) 3.6.1. Estimated TRU Population Total in use TRU units in California during 2003 to 2009 have ranged from 30,000 to 38,000 units depending on the fate of the state economy. The ave rage TRU life - cycle is 15 years and there has been a steady build - up of units over the years. Previous estimates identified a stock of 27,087 TRU units in California 26 

### , of which 90% are truck based units. Separately from this stock, there may be a build - up of ‘parked’ TRU’s
– apparently held at the major ports (San Diego, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland) for disposal in California. 27 

### This could not be substantiated by Caleb, and is therefore not included in our analysis.
Table 3 - 20 2008 TRU/REEFER POPULATION TRU Type 2007 Stock New Stock Decomissioned Stock 2008Stock Road/Trailer 32,056 4,362 3,206 33,212 Rail 2,167 303 217 2,253 Sea/Reefers 1,189 150 119 1,220 Total 35,412 4,815 3,541 36,686



## 3.6.2. 2008 TRU Stocks & Flows Rigid foam is used in refrigerated vans (trailers and tucks), rail refrigerated units and ship reefers for the transportation of perishable staples such as meat, vegetables , ice cream, etc., and also for repair and maintenance of these units. During the mid 1990s, the market increased at an average rate of 19%/year owing to increased production of refrigerated vans following the great economic expansion of the 1990s. Based on TRU stock data, Caleb determined the foam content (in m 3 

### ) in the existing 2007 stock (Foam in TRUs). By adding the volume of new foams and subtracting the decommissioned foam, Caleb could estimate a revised volume for the total foam banked in Transport Refrigerated Units in 2008 (Revised Foam in TRUs).

26 Analysis of Impact of California Truck Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Regulation; Martin Labbe LLB; 2005 27 Defining & Determining Emissions for Refrigerated Shipping Containers and the Total Re - generation process in the Vicinity of Shipping Ports; CARB White Paper, 2009Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 51

Table 3 - 21 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN TRU'S (M 3 )
TRU Type Foam in TRUs New Foam Decomissioned Foam Revised Foam

in TRUs Road/Trailer 297,956 27,262 14,164 311,054 Rail 24,329 2,271 1,256 25,344 Sea/Reefers 8,061 675 433 8,303 Total 330,346 30,208 15,853 344,701


## 3.6.3. Blowing Agent Substitution The table below shows Caleb’s assessment of TRU/Reefer blo wing agent substitutions over time and forms an important input to the banks and emissions model which will be described later.

Table 3 - 22 TRU/REEFER BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS
YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1993 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1994 80% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1995 60% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1996 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1997 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1998 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1999 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2000 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2001 0% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 2002 0% 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 2003 0% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 2004 0% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 2005 0% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 2006 0% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 2007 0% 0.00% 70.00% 30.00% 2008 0% 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 2009 0% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2010 0% 0.00% 40.00% 60.00% TRU/REEFER: - B.A. SUBSTITUTIONSCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 52



## 3.6.4. End - of - Life Fate for TRU Foams and Blowing Agents 

## 3.6.4.1. Current Recovery & Recycling Practices There is some uncertainty about the quantity of reefers that reach their end - of - life in California. Approximately 25% experience a ‘second life’ at the point of disposal, and we assume a ‘first life’ lifespan of around 15 years. According to respondents from the scrap metal recycling sector, virtually all transport refrigerated units that reach end of life are recycled in scrap metal yards. They are treated similar ly to vehicles, where in accordance with US Clean Air Act Regulation Sections 608 and 609, all refrigerant must be recovered prior to recycling by Certified Technicians

. As enforcement is sometime difficult, it is uncertain how much of the ref rigerant s are recovered and how m uch are vented in the atmosphere. However, it is not mandatory to recover the blowing agent from the insulating foam from TRUs. It is shredded along with the rest of the unit. The metal and mercury from switches are recovered, and the remaining insulati on is aggregated with other non ferrous wastes and land filled as Assorted Shredded Residues (ASR). 

## 3.6.4.2. Estimated TRU/Reefer Foam Disposal Route

– 2009 TRU/Reefers 25% Second Life, some of which are exported 75% Shredded; metals recovered; residue, incl. foam land filled



## 3.7. Findings & Analysis: Marine & Other Applications 3.7.1. Section Content In this Section, Caleb reviews s tock data for marine (leisure boats, canoes, buoys) and other applications (cool boxes, walk - in cold stores) and describes foam stocks and flows for 2007 and 2008 before identifying blowing agent subst itutions for these applications
. Caleb also briefly describes not - in - kind alternatives, before reviewing current and alternative end - of - life practices.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 53



## 3.7.2. Marine & Other Application Populati on/Stock Data After buildings, appliances & TRU’s the main other applications for foams are in the leisure marine sectors, including leisure boats, canoes and buoyancy aids. The project team also reviewed the relevance of surf boards and wind surfers, sin ce both product types have been constructed around a Polyurethane (PU) foam core since the 1960s. The team concluded that these types of products can be discounted because they are relatively short - lived applications (typically 1 to 3 years for surf boards and under 15 years for wind surfers), thus not presenting a ODS bank. Over 77% of surf boards and wind surf boards are produced within the USA (mainly Southern California) and since the late 1980’s board blanks have been water blown 28



### . Approximately 23% of boards used in California are imports from Asia and from Central/South America and these too are water blown. Other short - lived applications include cooler boxes. These are sold in large numbers and may have an average life cycle of 10 years , but have a lso been made with water blown foam since the 1980s. In order to determine Blowing Agent and ODS content in existing hulls, we need to concentrate on the Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics/Glass Reinforced Plastics (FRP/GRP) hull type, which typically has a structural foam core that contains PU or Polystyrene foam. Other hull types do not contain foam cores and are therefore excluded from our analysis. The table below shows stock or registration data for the leisure boat, canoe and buoy & cooler sub - sectors . Table 3 - 23 SUMMARY OF MARINE REGISTRATION & OTHER APPLICATION STOCKS Estimated Product Stock Existing Stock New Additions Decommissioned Revised Stock Leisure Boats 635,057 48,471 35,930 647,599 Canoes 207,446 15,899 11,374 211,971 Other -incl. Cooler boxes;buoys 10,944,373 836,179 618,565 11,161,986 Total 11,786,876 900,549 665,869 12,021,556 

### The project team identified detailed stock data for non - structural walk in cold stores from Armines archives and substantiated by in terviews.

28 Resurf Recycling, www.resurf.org Joey SantleyCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 5 4

Table 3 - 24 2008 NON STRUCTURAL COLD STORE STOCK Estimated Product Stock Existing Stock New Additions Decommissioned Revised Stock Walk-In Cold Stores 11,048 700 485 11,262


## 3.7.3. 2008 Marine & Other Application Foam Stocks & Flows Marine applications
– Recreational Boats, Buoys and marine repair and retrofitting acco unt for 54% of foam use, with coolers estimated to account for the balance. Foam charge volumes for boats range from 4kg/unit (canoes) to 25kg/unit (inboard boats). Charge volume for buoys range from as low as 0.45kg/unit to 180kg/unit. Charge volumes for coolers average at 2kg/unit. Blowing Agents used fo r these applications are HCFC 141b for boats and coolers to a broader range (HFC - 245fa; H 2 

### O/CO 2 

### ) for buoys as well as Methyl Formate. Buoyancy aids and picnic coolers & thermoses have been grouped togeth er in our stock calculations on the basis of foam usage data from SKEIST 2003. The average foam charge per unit is estimated at 2 kg. We have estimated a stock turnover of 2%/year for leisure boats, 5%/year for canoes, and 10%/year for buoyancy aids and co olers. Table 3 - 25 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN MARINE & OTHER APPLICATIONS (M 3 ) Appliance Type Foam in Equipment New Foam Decommissioned Foam Revised Foam

in Equipment Leisure Boats 444,654 34,622 25,664 453,612 Canoes 23,191 1,817 1,300 23,708 Other - incl. Cooler boxes; buoys 612,958 47,782 35,347 625,393 

### The estimated foam content and changes therein for Walk - in Cold Stores are shown separately in the table below
. Table 3 - 26 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN NON STRUCTURAL COLD STORES (M 3 ) Product Type Foam in Equipment New Foam Decommissioned Foam Revised Foam

in Equipment Walk-In Cold Stores 105,628 6,996 4,955 107,669Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 55



## 3.7.4. Marine & Other Application Blowing Agent Substitutions The following table shows the blowing agent substitution hi story for the Marine & Other applications.

Table 3 - 27 : MARINE & OTHER BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS

MARINE & OTHER: - SUMMARY OF B.A. SUBSTITUTIONS YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1993 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1994 80% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1995 60% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1996 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1997 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1998 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1999 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2000 0% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2001 0% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 2002 0% 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 2003 0% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 2004 0% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 2005 0% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 2006 0% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 2007 0% 0.00% 70.00% 30.00% 2008 0% 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 2009 0% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2010 0% 0.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Table 3 - 28 : NON STRUCTURAL COLD STORE BLOWING AGENT SUBST ITUTIONS COLD STORES: - SUMMARY OF B.A. SUBSTITUIONS YEAR CFC 11 HCFC 141b HFC 245fa HC 1992 100% 0% 0% 0% 1993 100% 0% 0% 0% 1994 80% 20% 0% 0% 1995 60% 40% 0% 0% 1996 0% 100% 0% 0% 1997 0% 100% 0% 0% 1998 0% 100% 0% 0% 1999 0% 100% 0% 0% 2000 0% 100% 0% 0% 2001 0% 80% 20% 0% 2002 0% 40% 60% 0% 2003 0% 0% 80% 20% 2004 0% 0% 80% 20% 2005 0% 0% 80% 20% 2006 0% 0% 80% 20% 2007 0% 0% 70% 30% 2008 0% 0% 60% 40% 2009 0% 0% 50% 50% 2010 0% 0% 40% 60%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 56



## 3.7.5. End of Life Fate – Marine & Other Foams & Blowing Agents 

## 3.7.5.1. Current recovery & disposal practices Hulls could have an average 25 - 30 year life cycle and the estimated/anticipated hull retirement rate is 2.0% pa 29 

### .There are no specific programs t o recover and recycle hulls in California and the retired boats tend to end up at Landfill Sites following mechanical destruction in Auto shredders. Following the break - up of leisure boats in auto shredders or scrap metal yards, the non - reusable material s, including hull pieces containing PU foam, are land filled. If the unit has been processed through a shredder, then insulation is aggregated with other non ferrous waste and land filled as ASR

– similarly to TRU’s. Caleb assumes that 5% of canoes are d iscarded per year as proportion of the stock and that 10% of coolers are assumed to be discarded every year. Caleb also assumes that 5% of leisure boats are exported 

## 3.7.5.2. Estimated Marine & Other Application Disposal Routes

–

2009 Leisure/Recreational Boats 5 % exported 95% shredded & residue including foam land filled 

### Canoes 100% shredded & residue including foam land filled 

### Buoys/Coolers 100% land filled; possibility of larger buoys being shredded first 

### Non - Structural Cold Stores 100% land filled; possi bility of larger units being shredded first

29 2006 Recreational Boating: Statistical Abstract; NMMACaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 57



## 3.8. ODS/HFC Banks & Emission Model Data Inputs 3.8.1. Modeling Assumptions The table below summarizes the modeling assumptions Caleb has applied and identifies which source has been used, or on what basis the assumpt ions are made
Table 3 - 29 : KEY MODEL INPUT ASSUMPTIONS Factor Units Buildings Appliances TRUs Marine & Other Comments Growth Rate - market % 1.5 - 5 0.95 - 7.2 0.95 - 5.5 1.5 - 5 Source: Published Rates & Caleb Growth Rate - Building Insulation % 0.5 N/A N/A N/A Source: Caleb Growth Rate - Building Foams % 1-2 N/A N/A N/A Source: Caleb Buildings Demolition Rate % 1-2 N/A N/A N/A 1% = Residential; 2% = Commercial; Source: Interviewees Buildings Refurbishment Rate % 1-2 N/A N/A N/A 1% = Residential; 2% = Commercial; Source: Interviewees

Average foam life time Years 30 14-15 15 10-30 Sources: CEC & Forintek Corp. (Buildings); Armines &ICF International (Appliances); CARB-ISOR (TRUs); NMMA (Marine) Average re-use Rate % N/A 25 25 N/A Sources: Armines (Appliances); CARB-ISOR

(TRU) Foam Density kg/m 3 32-40 30-32 40 30-35 Source: Caleb Blowing Agent content % 5-10 7 10 7-10 Source: Caleb End-of-Life practices Export % 0 5 Source: Caleb Re-use % 0 0 Sources: Armines (Appliances); CARB-ISOR

(TRU) Direct Landfill % 100 0 0 0 Source: Interviewees Open Shredding, then Landfill % 0 60 75 95 Source: Interviewees Direct Destruction % 0 15 0 0 Source: Interviewees 25 25Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 58



## 3.8.2. Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potentials

Table 3 - 30 : GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL VALUES PER BLOWING AGENT 30 BLOWING AGENT GWP CFC-11 4,680 CFC-12 10,720 HCFC-141b 713 HCFC-142b 2,270 HCFC-22 1,780 HFC-134a 1,410 HFC-152a 122 HFC-245fa 1,020 HCs 25

30 Caleb Group, based on TEAP XX/7 Task ForceCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 59


## 3.9. ODS/HFC Banks & Emission Model Outputs 3.9.1. Buildings related Banks & Emissions 

## 3.9.1.1. High GWP Greenhouse Gas Banks in Buildings As CFCs have been used in insulation foams since their introduction in the 1960s and product lifec ycles are generally in the order of 30 years on average, banks of high GWP gases have accumulated significantly in buildings, reaching a peak of approximately 286 million tCO 2 

### - eq in 1996. Since then, they have reduced by around 40 million tCO 2 

### - eq to date a nd are expected to reduce by a further 60 million tCO 2 

### - eq by 2020, as products containing high GWP gases are partially replaced by those blown with low GWP alternatives in the typical buildi ng replacement cycle. Figure 3 - 4 illus trates that these accumulations are relatively equally spread between single - family residences, multi - family residences and commercial/public buildings. The contribution from stand - alone old - storage buildings is very limited, although foams are also used f or walk - in cold stores within existing buildings. Figure 3 - 4 BANK ESTIMATES BY BUILDING TYPE 

### Bank Estimates by Building Type within current Buildings (million tCO 2 -eq.)

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00

1 9 6 0 1 9 6 2 1 9 6 4 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 8 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 8 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 8 2 0 2 0 YearBankSize(MilliontonnesCO2-eq)

Cold Stores Commercial Multi-Family Single Family



### This set of figures can be re - appraised by blowing age nt type as shown in Figure 3 - 5
. It can be seen that the high global warming potential of CFCs is the primary cause for the overall reduction in the bank size over the next 10 years, even though newCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 60 buildings will continue to use some high GWP gases (e.g. HFCs) as ODS replacements. This rapid decline in the CFC bank within buildings points to the significant opportunity that exists to avoid emissions at end - of - life.

Figure 3 - 5 TOTAL BANKS IN BUILDINGS BY BLOWING AGENT TYPE 

### Total Banks in Buildings by Blowing Agent Type

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3501960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020 YearQuantities(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

HFC Banks in Buildings HCFC Banks in Buildings CFC Banks in Buildings



### However, in the baseline scenario, not all CFCs will be directly emitted, particularly where landfill and other less destructive end - of - life strat egies are employed . Figure 3 - 6 illustrates the likely accumulation of CFCs already occurring in the waste stream. This is currently estimated at 59 million tCO 2 

### - eq. and is expected to increase with time unless there is further intervention, with banks in waste streams reaching around 110 million tCO 2 

### - eq. by 2020.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 61

Figure 3 - 6 BANKS IN BUILDINGS & WASTE STREAMS BY BLOWING AGENT TYPE 

### Banks in Buildings and Waste Streams by Blowing Agent Type

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1 9 6 0 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 7 2 0 2 0 YearQuantities(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

HFC Banks in Waste Stream HCFC Banks in Waste Stream CFC Banks in Waste Stream HFC Banks in Buildings HCFC Banks in Buildings CFC Banks in Buildings



### It is noticeable that no significant HCFCs or HFCs are yet entering the waste stream under the assumption of an average 30 year life - time for most, if not all, b uilding types.


## 3.9.1.2. Emissions from the Buildings Bank Emissions arise from the manufacture of foams intended for use in California, from the foams already installed in buildings and from the decommissioning of buildings as they reach their end - of - life. Figure 3 - 7 below illustrates Caleb’s estimates of current emissions from the various sources contributing to these three life - cycle stages at 4.48 million tCO 2 

### - eq.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 62

Figure 3 - 7 B ASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2010 - BUILDINGS 

### Baseline Emission Sources in 2010 - (4.48 million tonnes CO 2 

### -eq.)

PU Spray - Emissions after Decommissioning 0.00% PU Panel Emissions after Decommissioning 0.00%

XPS - Emissions after Decommissioning 16.20%

Polyiso - Emissions after Decommissioning 33.37% Polyiso - Manufacturing Emissions 0.44% XPS - Manufacturing Emissions 9.36% PU Panel - Manufacturing Emissions 0.45% PU Spray - Manufacturing Emissions 2.66%

Cold Store - Emissions in Use

0.07% Commercial - Emissions in Use 12.19% Multi-Family - Emissions in Use

13.74% Single-Family - Emissions in

Use 11.51%



### M anufacturing emissions ma ke up around 12.9% of the total. A nnual emissions in the use phase account for just over 37.5% and emissions arising from decommissioning and waste stream sources are understood to represent 49.6%. It is interesting to note that both PU Spray Foams and PU Panels are not expected to contribute emissions after decommissioning, reflecting the fact that their introduction as products in the construction sector is understood to have ta ken place after 1980. The trends of blowing agent emission from the building sector wit h time are shown in Figure 3 - 8 . These reveal that emissions after decommis sioning are thought to have beco me the largest single source of em ission in around 2007 and are increasing on a relatively steep curve. By 2020 they are expected to exceed 4 million tCO 2 

### - eq. annually under the baseline scenario.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 63
Figure 3 - 8 BASELINE EMISSIONS BY S OURCE FOR BUILDINGS Baseline Emissions by Source for Buildings

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 9 YearQuantities('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

Manufacturing Emissions Use-Phase Emissions Emissions after Decommissioning

There is also expected to be some increase in the climate impact of manufacturing emissions as higher GWP HFCs replace HCFCs in a number of key applications, the most notable of which is extruded polystyrene (XPS). Total emissions a re expected to grow to 6.46 million tCO 2 - eq by 2020 as detailed in 

### Figure 3 - 9 : Figure 3 - 9 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020 - BUILDINGS

Baseline Emission Sources in 2020 - (6.46 million tonnes CO 2 -eq.)

Cold Store - Emissions in Use

0.05% Commercial - Emissions in Use

7.85% Multi-Family - Emissions in Use

7.76% Single-Family - Emissions in

Use 5.41% PU Spray - Manufacturing Emissions 3.44% PU Panel - Manufacturing Emissions 0.63% XPS - Manufacturing Emissions

11.97% Polyiso - Manufacturing Emissions 0.57% PU Spray - Emissions after Decommissioning 2.15%

PU Panel - Emissions after Decommissioning 0.03%

XPS - Emissions after Decommissioning 20.54%

Polyiso - Emissions after Decommissioning 39.60%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 64

It is important to note that actual emis sions from products after decommissioning are considerably lower than the flows into the waste stream, as shown in 

### Figure 3 - 10
. Figure 3 - 10 CLIMATE IMPACT OF EMISSIONS FROM THE WA STE STREAM - BUILDINGS



### Climate Impact of Emissions from Waste Streams in Buildings

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 9 YearQuantities('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

BA Entering Waste Stream BA Emissions from Waste Stream



### It can be seen that actual flows into the waste stream are roughly three times as great as the annual emissions arising from them. This means that intervention at the point that foams reach the waste stream could have significant ly greater impact than is reflected in this report. The primary reason for this is that many of the avoided emissions will be in the post - 2020 period and therefore beyond the scope of this work. This matter is picked up again later in this Section and in S ection 4. 

## 3.9.2. Comparison of Buildings with other Foam – containing Sectors Buildings constitute by far the biggest single location for ODS Banks, with refrigerated equipment such as appliances, refrigerated containers (also known as TRUs or reefers) and walk - in cold - rooms containing smaller, although potentially more emissive, banks themselves. A further use of ODS - containing foam has taken place in the marine and leisure sect or but, as shown by Figure 3 - 11 , this represents a very sm all proportion of the ODS banks in California overall. A number of the banks in the other sectors are showing rapid decline, based on the early move out of ozone depleting substances to low - GWP alternatives and also theCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 65 relatively short life - cycle (when compared with buildings) of the products and equipment involved. An exception to this is the market for domestic appliances, where the widespread adoption of HFC - 245fa as a substitute for HCFC - 141b has resulted in a continued growth in bank size since 2005 . This is covered in more detail in the next section. Nonetheless, it is of interest that the banks of all other sources combined never exceed 25% of the total. Figure 3 - 11 SUMMARY OF BANK DEVELOPMENT FOR H IGH GWP GASES IN CALIFORNIA



### Summary of Bank Development for High GWP Gases in California

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

1 9 7 5 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 9 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 9 YearBankSize(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

Marine & Other TRUs Other Refrigeration Appliances Buildings



### Figure 3 - 12 illustrates that a similar story exists for emissions, despite the shorter lifetimes associated with many of the products and equipment containing ODS - banks. At their peak, the emissions from sources other than buildings reach 34% of the total annual emissions. This is broadly as a result of the decommissioning of ODS containing appliances during the period from 1990 to around 2010.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 66

Figure 3 - 12 SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FOR HIGH GWP GASES IN CALIFORNIA 

### Summary of Emissions for High GWP Gases in California

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

1 9 7 5 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 9 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 9 YearAnnualEmissions(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

Marine/Other TRUs Other Refrigeration Appliances Buildings



### This analysis tends to indicate that the buildings sector should be the focus of most attention in policy terms, although, as will be seen later, there could be some cost effective win - wins where significant banks of high GWP greenhouse gases still remain. 

## 3.9.3. Appliance related Banks & Emissions 

## 3.9.3.1. High GWP Greenhouse Gas Banks in Appliances The assessment of the development of banks in the appliance sector has been based on the assumption that the average lifetime of these units is 14 - 15 years. This is consistent with global averages taken for modeling by TEAP and the IPCC. However, it should be recognized that average lifetimes as short as 10 years (Japan) and as long as 25 years (in area s of high re - use) can be justified. The outcome of the current assumption on bank d ynamics is shown in Figure 3 - 13 

### .Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 67

Figure 3 - 13 TOTAL BANK ESTIMATES FOR APPLIANCES IN CALIFORNIA



### Total Bank Estimates for Appliances in California

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.001960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020 YearBankSize(MilliontonnesCO2-eq)

Electric Water Heaters Gas Water Heaters Domestic Freezers Domestic Refrigerators



### The graph illustrates the importance of the uptake of HFCs in the domestic refrigerator and freezer products and also shows the impact of previous transitions out of high GWP gases in the wa ter heater sector. Figure 3 - 14 provid es the same basic information by blowing agent type and illustrates the fact that HFCs are forecast to be the only significant component of the appliances bank by 2020. This is consistent with a 15 year average lifetime assumption and the phase - out of HCFC - 141b in the United States in 2005.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 68

Figure 3 - 14 TOTAL BA NKS IN APPLIANCES Total Banks in Appliances and Waste Streams

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1 9 6 0 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 7 2 0 2 0 YearQuantities(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

HFC Banks in Appliances HCFC Banks in Appliances CFC Banks in Appliances

The shorter lifetimes in the appliance sector also mean that the quantity of high GWP blowing agents in the wast e stream is a significantly greater component than it is in the buildings sector. Figure 3 - 15 illustrates this point:

Figure 3 - 15 TOTAL BANKS IN APPLIANCES & WASTE STREAMS

Total Banks in Appliances and Waste Streams

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1 9 6 0 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 7 2 0 2 0 YearQuantities(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

HFC Banks in Waste Stream HCFC Banks in Waste Stream CFC Banks in Waste Stream HFC Banks in Appliances HCFC Banks in Appliances CFC Banks in AppliancesCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 69



## 3.9.3.2. Emis sions from the Appliances Bank With respect to emissions, the peak emission to date is likely to have taken place in around 2007 at the point where the largest number of CFC - containing refrigerators was believed to have been decommissioned. The sensitivit y of annual emissions to waste flows is, in large part, due to the continued use of auto - shredders for the end of - life management of appliances. A relatively steep fall was projected through to around 2010, but this could be deferred, or more widely spread , in practice depending on the real average lifetime and statistical spread surro unding that average
. Figure 3 - 16 shows the emissions from appliances predicted by the Caleb model. Figure 3 - 16 BASELINE EMISSIONSS FOR APPLIANCES IN CALIFORNIA 1991 - 2020 

### Baseline Emissions for Appliances in California (1991-2020)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 YearAnnualEmissions('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

Baseline - BAU



### Growth in emissions for appliances was then forecast based on growth in demand for HFC - containing appliances. It should be noted that much of this emission would probably tak e place out - of - State in view of the fact that California is a significant net importer of appliances. Nonetheless, they are included in the analysis in order to capture the emissions for which Californian consumer habits are responsible. Figure 3 - 17 illustrates the projected proportion of emissions by source at 2020 and highlights the fact that, unless measures are taken to curb emissions, the emissions in the period after decommissioning will remain the dominant factor (~75% of total). In -Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 70 use losses are predictably low, but the relatively significant share (above 15%) ascribed to manufacturing losses highlights the on - going importance of blowing agent choice in the domestic refrigerator and freezer sector. This is a subject that is returned to when mitigation options are reviewed in Section 3.10
. Figure 3 - 17 BASELINE FOR APPLIANCES RELATED EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020 

### Baseline Emission Sources in 2020 - (1.31 million tonnes CO 2 

### -eq.)

PU Inject - Emissions after Decommissioning 74.95% Water Heater (Elec) 0.47% Water Heater (Gas) - Use

Phase 0.36% Freezer - Use Phase 3.08% Refrigerator - Use Phase

7.95% PU Inject - Manufacturing

Losses 15.65%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 71



## 3.9.4. Refrigerated Transport, Other Refrigeration , Marine and Other

Applications – Banks and Emissions In view of their relatively small contribution to both banks and emissions of high GWP gases, these sources are taken together in one section. ‘Other Refrigeration’ includes vending machines and other commercial refrigeration applications such as supermarket display cabinets. TRUs are typically refrigerated containers which have been foam insulated using injected polyurethane systems. Marine and other leisure uses are typically for buoyancy purposes . Figure 3 - 18 to 3 - 20 provide basic information on the development of banks.

Figure 3 - 18 TOTAL BANKS IN OTHER REFRIGERATION & WASTE STREAMS Total Banks in Other Refrigeration and Waste Streams

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

1 9 6 0 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 7 2 0 2 0 YearQuantities(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

HFC Banks in Waste Stream HCFC Banks in Waste Stream CFC Banks in Waste Stream HFC Banks in Other Refrigeration HCFC Banks in Other Refrigeration CFC Banks in Other RefrigerationCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 72

Figure 3 - 19 TOTAL BANKS IN TRUs & RELATED WASTE STREAMS 

### Total Banks in TRUs and related Waste Streams

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

1 9 6 0 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 7 2 0 2 0 YearQuantities(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

HFC Banks in Waste Stream HCFC Banks in Waste Stream CFC Banks in Waste Stream HFC Banks in TRUs HCFC Banks in TRUs CFC Banks in TRUs

Figure 3 - 20 TOTAL BANKS IN MARINE/OTHER APPLICATIONS & RELATED WASTE STREAMS



### Total Banks in Marine/Other and related Waste Streams

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

1 9 6 0 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 7 2 0 2 0 YearQuantities(MilliontonnesCO2-eq.)

HFC Banks in Waste Stream HCFC Banks in Waste Stream CFC Banks in Waste Stream HFC Banks in Marine/Other HCFC Banks in Marine/Other CFC Banks in Marine/OtherCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 73

The overall decrease in t he bank sizes for all three sectors shows that HFCs have been a less favored alternative than for the domestic refrigerator and freezer sectors. Even in 2010, the most significant banks of high GWP gases are already in the waste stream, making these less f avorable options for mitigation strategies, although the bulk of vending machines and commerc ial refrigeration applications could potentially be captured by any measures taken in the appliance sector. With respect to emissions, those emanating after d ecommissioning (e.g. from banks in waste stream s) will dominate

. Figure 3 - 21 , Figure 3 - 22 illustrate the point:

Figure 3 - 21 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2 020 – Other Refrigeration 

### Baseline Emission Sources in 2020 - (0.08 million tonnes CO 2 

### -eq.)

PU Inject -Emissions after decommissioning 86.1% PU Inject - Manufacturing 7.5% Vending Machine Refrigerated Use Phase 1.8%Vending Machine NonRefrigerated Use Phase

0.7% Commercial-New - Use Phase

0.9% Commerical-Refurb - Use

Phase 3.0%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 74
Figure 3 - 22 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020 – TRU 

### Baseline Emission Sources in 2020 - (0.05 million tonnes CO 2 

### -eq.)

PU Inject - Emissions after decommissioning 88.5% PU Inject - Manufacturing Losses 7.1%

TRU-Sea - Use Phase 0.1% TRU-Rail - Use Phase

0.4% TRU-Road - Use Phase

4.0%

For marine and leisure activities, the emissions after decommissioning are equally domi nant as shown in Figure 3 - 23 . Figure 3 - 23 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020 – Marine & Other

Baseline Emission Sources in 2020 - (0.15 million tonnes CO 2 -eq.)

PU Inject - Emissions from Waste Stream 89.03% PU Inject - Manufacturing

6.50% Boats - Use Phase 1.69% Canoes - Use Phase 0.09% Other Applications - Use Phase

2.33% Cold Stores (Non-Struct.) - Use Phase 0.36%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 75



## 3.10. Mitigation Options Assessed within this Study Taking due account of the size and dynamics of banks and emission s, the project team identified the six key mitigation scenarios for high GWP gases in California. These fell into the two key categories of end - of - life management and early phase - out of HFC use. 

## 3.10.1. End - of - Life Management In the mitigation scenarios deve loped, it is assumed that end - of - life measures require the shortest lead - times and can be initiated as early as 2012, with full implementation in place by 2014. The products and equipment targeted are as follows:

 All appliances (domestic refrigerators, f reezers and water heaters)

 Vending machines and commercial refrigeration equipment

 PU Steel - Faced Panels

 Other insulating foams used in buildings. For the appliances, vending machines and commercial refrigeration sectors, two scenarios have been assu med, one in which 100% of units are successfully managed (the technical potential) and one in which 50% of appliances are successfully managed. The latter is seen as the more realistic worst - case scenario, although something between the two should be achie vable based on European and Japanese experience. For building insulation, the PU Steel - Faced Panel scenario evaluates 100% recovery and destruction (the technical potential) in isolation. This is then combined with 50% recovery from other insulating foam s used in buildings. Finally, a more realistic worst case is modeled where 25% of general building insulation and 50% of panels are assumed to be managed at end - of - life. 

## 3.10.2. Early Phase - out of HFCs Since there is no current federal constraint on the contin ued manufacture of products containing HFCs, it would be expected that any decision to introduce a phase - down or phase - out in HFC use, even at State level, would need substantial consultation. It hasCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 76 therefore been assumed that any such measure could only commence in 2014 and would not be fully achieved before 2017. This is therefore the basis on which these scenarios have been assessed. The four sectors identified for analysis were:

 All appliances (domestic refrigerators, freezers and water heaters)

 Ve nding machines and commercial refrigeration equipment

 Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)

 PU Spray Foam The following sections describe the various impacts of these mitigation scenarios by product type. 

## 3.10.3. Appliances and Other Refrigeration As noted in th e earlier sections, both classes of mitigation option can be applied to this sector. Since the HFC phase - out measures will only impact equipment that will be decommissioned well after 2020, the measures can be considered as totally complementary to one ano ther. For this reason, the analysis evaluates each measure in isolation and does not evaluate combinations. If the assessment period were to be extended to encompass the end - of - life of HFC - containing products manufactured after 2010 (e.g. out to 2040), the n the early phase - out of HFCs would result in a reduced business - as - usual scenario later in the lifecycle. Figure 3 - 24 and Figure 3 - 25 

### show the reduc tions achieved a gainst baseline emissions for the appliances and other refrigeration sectors. These are then summarized cumulatively and ‘as at 2020’ in Figure 3 - 26 and Figure 3 - 27
.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 77

Figure 3 - 24 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR APPLIANCES IN CALIFORNIA

Mitigation Options for Appliances in California

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 9 YearAnnualEmissions('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

Early Phase-out of HFCs BA Recovery/Destruction - 50% BA Recovery/Destruction - 100% Baseline - BAU

Figure 3 - 25 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR OTHER REFRIGERATION IN CALIFORNIA

Mitigation Options for Other Refrigeration in California

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 9 YearAnnualEmissions('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

Early Phase-out of HFCs BA Recovery/Destruction - 50% BA Recovery/Destruction - 100% Baseline - BAU



### The impact of early HFC phase - out in ‘Other Refrigeration’ is slightly lower proportionately than for the Appliance sector because the uptake of HFCs in vending machines and foams contained in commercial refrigeration equipment has generally been lower.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 78

Figure 3 - 26 CLIMATE IMPACT OF MITIGATION OPTIONS IN APPLIANCES Climate Impact of Mitigation Options in Appliances

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Early HFC Phase-out 'Appliance' 50% Appliance E-o-L 100% Appliance E-o-L Mitigation OptionPotentialSavings('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

Cumulative Saving to 2020 Annual Saving at 2020

Figure 3 - 27 CLIMATE IMPACT OF MITIGATION OPTIONS IN OTHER REFRIGERATION 

### Climate Impact of Mitigation Options in Other Refrigeration

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Early HFC Phase-out 50% Appl. E-o-L 100% Appl.E-o-L Mitigation OptionPotentialSavings('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

Cumulative Saving to 2020 Annual Saving at 2020



### Although these graphs appear similar i n scale, it should be noted that each measure in the appliance sector delivers a cumulative saving in excess of 1 million tCO 2 

### - eq. by 2020 while no measure in the Other Refrigeration sector delivers more than 0.14Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 79

million tCO 2 

### - eq. in the same period. That said, it would be unusual to enact a policy for appliances that would not spill over into the ‘Other Refrigeration’ sector, so it is probably reasonable to take these emissions savings as additive for the same policy instrument. 

## 3.10.4. Buildings One of the i nteresting outcomes of the analysis involving PU Panels is that there are no significant savings from end - of - life action on PU Panels alone. This arises from the fact that most of the uptake in the use of steel - faced PU Panels has taken place since 1990, w ith the exception of structural cold stores, which are a very small and specialist use. The conse quence is shown in Figure 3 - 28 : Figure 3 - 28 SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE BUILDING S ECTOR FOR CALIFORNIA 

### Savings Opportunities in the Buildings Sector for California

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

HFC-XPS HFC-Spray Panel EoL 50%/100% Buildings EoL 25%/50% Buildings EoL Proposed MeasurePotentialSavings('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

Cumulative Saving by 2020 Annual Saving at 2020



### This fact also extends into the scenarios on other end - of - life measures, but despite this, the potential cumulative emissions savings range from 8.5 million tCO 2 

### - eq. to 11.5 million tCO 2 

### - eq. indicating the potential importance of end - of - life measures in this sector. However, the cost - effectiveness of these measures is still in question and is discussed further in Section 4.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 80 The impact of early HFC phase - out measures in the XPS sector could exceed 4 million tCO 2 

### - eq. by 2020, with the PU Spray sector potentially contributing a further 1 million tCO 2 

### - eq.. This relates to the fact that both are fairly emissive processes in the manufacturing stage. The scheduled phase - outs are very similar in both cases, but the differentiation of the two scenarios is relatively easy in Figure 3 - 29 as projection based solely on XPS emissions reductions quickly exceeds that for PU Spray Foam.

Figure 3 - 29 EMISSION REDUCTION SC ENARIOS FOR BUILDINGS

Emission Reduction Scenarios for Buildings

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 9 YearQuantities('000stonnesCO2-eq.) Early HFC Phase-out in XPS Early HFC Phase-out in PU Spray PU Panel E-o-L 50%/100% E-o-L 25%/50% E-o-L Baseline Emissions



### Summary of Mitigation Options The analysis shows that cumulative emissions savings of between 11.04 and 15.16 million tCO 2 

### - eq. could be achieved by a suite of measures in the period to 2020, with annual savings at th at stage ranging from 2.22 - 2.99 million tCO 2 

### - eq. Figure 3 - 30 illustrates the range of savings:Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 81

Figure 3 - 30 SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES IN ALL SECTORS FOR CALIFORNIA

Savings Opportunities in all Sectors for California

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

HFC-XPS HFC-Spray Panel EoL 50%/100% Buildings EoL 25%/50%

Buildings EoL Early HFC

Phase-out 'Appliance' 50%

Appliance E-o-L 100%

Appliance E-o-L Proposed MeasurePotentialSavings('000stonnesCO2-eq.)

Cumulative Saving by 2020 Annual Saving at 2020



### Figure 3 - 31 and Figure 3 - 32 , show the distributions of these cumulative and annual savings based on the maximum achievable technical potential. Figure 3 - 31 MAXIMUM CUMUL ATIVE MITIGATION POTENTIAL FOR HIGH GWP GASES IN 2020

Max. Cumulative Mitigation Potential for High GWP Gases to 2020

(15.16 million tonnes CO 2 -eq.)

Early HFC Phase-Out - XPS -

Buildings 26.50%

Early HFC Phase-Out - PU Spray - Buildings 7.55%

50%/100% E-o-L - Buildings

42.01% Early HFC Phase-Out - Appliances 7.42% 100% E-o-L - Appliances 15.32% Early HFC Phase-Out - Other Refrigeration 0.25% 100% E-o-L - Other Refrigeration 0.94%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 82
Figure 3 - 32 MAXIMUM ANNUAL MITIGATION POTENTIAL FOR HIGH GWP GASES AT 2020

Max. Annual Mitigation Potential for High GWP Gases at 2020 (2.99 million tonnes CO 2 -eq./annum: ~36.7% against BAU)

Early HFC Phase-Out - XPS -

Buildings 30.12%

Early HFC Phase-Out - PU Spray - Buildings 8.60% 50%/100% E-o-L - Buildings

35.84% Early HFC Phase-Out - Appliances 7.97% 100% E-o-L - Appliances 16.35% Early HFC Phase-Out - Other Refrigeration 0.26% 100% E-o-L - Other Refrigeration 0.86%Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 83

4. 

# Discussion 4.1. Review of the Central Proposition Section 1.3 sets out a paraphrase of the objectives of this project in the form of a Central Proposition. This is set out again below in italics. The central proposition behind this project is that it could make environmental sense from a climate policy perspective to mitig ate emissions by either reducing current reliance on high - GWP blowing agents or by separating and diverting ODS and HFC containing foams out of the waste stream to be processed in ways that avoid ozone depletion and GHG emissions and that it is practicable to do so. The inventory and assessment of potential mitigation strategies are designed to help confirm or dismiss this proposition prior to a more in depth assessment of policy options which, in itself, is outside of the scope of this project. This propo sition is then used in the subsequent sub - sections to assess the value of the findings of this work in context. However, before doing so, it is appropriate to reflect for a moment on the proposition itself. Following the passing of Assembly Bill 32 in 20 06, CARB published a Staff Report in November 2007 31 

### quantifying the baseline emissions in 1990 and, thereby, establishing the target for emissions from the State in 2020. The total agreed was 427 million tCO 2 

### - eq. That target was seen to be a 25% reduction against the levels existing in 2006 when AB32 was passed, but is now seen as a 15% reduction in 2010

– indicating the impact of the recession on emissions in the interim. The Business - as Usual projections contained in the Staff Report suggested that emissi ons would reach 600 million tCO 2 

### - eq. per annum in 2020, making a reduction of 40% necessary. Clearly, per capita targets would depend on changes in population in the intervening period. With real savings of 173 million tCO 2 

### - eq. required annually by 2020, it was clear that a number of measures would be required. These have been set out in California’s Climate Action Plan which is being continually updated as new policy initiatives are evaluated and agreed upon. High Global Warming Potential Gases are alrea dy part of that Plan, particularly where HFCs have been replacements for ODS. However, there has been more debate about the inclusion of ODSs themselves. These were not included in the baseline plotted in the Staff Report of 2007, but it was acknowledged t hat HFC use in 1990 was at its very early stages because the transition away from ODSs had only just begun at that point.

31 California Air Resources Board

– Staff Report ‘California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit’
– November 16, 2007Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 84

Irrespective of the ultimate policy treatment, it is meaningful to evaluate the potential avoided emissions from ODS recovery and de structive in the light of the 173 million tCO 2 

### - eq. annual target in 2020. The mitigation scenarios selected during this project have already been outlined in Section 3.10

. However, it is worth reviewing the global context for the selection of these spe cific measures. 

## 4.1.1. End - of - Life Measures The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol has been actively quantifying and locating banks of ODS in a series of studies responding to decisions of the Parties. The latest of these was Dec ision XX/7 which initiated the most comprehensive review of banks and potential mitigation options yet. The Task Force convened by the TEAP to complete this work reported in two separate reports: Phase 1 in June 2009 and Phase 2 in October 2009. The second of these reports focused particularly on the quantification of savings that could be achieved, the timing at which recovery and destruction would be required and the cost of so doing. As had been the case in earlier studies, the TEAP Task Force divided th e ODS Banks into three major categories of ‘effort’: low, medium and high. Although ‘effort’ is partially a synonym for ‘cost’, this is not completely the case, since there is some adjustment for the fact that the relative costs of some sectors, such as fo ams, will always be higher than other sectors, such as refrigeration. Rather than having all refrigerant recovery in the ‘low’ category and all foam in the ‘high’ category, there is some offsetting to allow a level of differentiation within each sector. The TEAP analysis also recognized that recovery from densely populated (urban) areas would be easier than from sparsely populated (rural) areas. Its full analysis is summarized in the following table 4.1 :Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 85

Table 4 - 1 LEVELS OF EFFORT REQUIRED TO MANAGE ODS BANKS



### This table underlined the fact that, even when cost elements were not explicitly addressed, the management of existing ODS banks, in foams, was seen as representing the most significant challenge (l argely high effort). Indeed, in some instances (e.g. PU Spray Foams) it was acknowledged that recovery and destruction of blowing agents from those sources was still globally unproven technically. This reflects the fact that flows of ODS into building demo lition waste streams are still in their infancy and there is little global experience as yet in managing such materials. Even in Japan, where the regulation of demolition processes attracts high levels of compliance, a study on ODS Bank Management in the b uilt environment conducted by the Japan Technical Committee on Construction Materials (JTCCM) in the period 2002 - 2005 concluded that it was not possible to mandate the recovery and destruction of ODS in buildings because of continuing uncertainties about t echnical feasibility and economic impacts. Of course, this is not to rule out the likelihood that experience will spawn innovation and technological development in this area. However, the Japanese view was that this is best achieved by voluntary action, of ten supported by incentives, rather than unenforceable legislation. Against this background, the TEAP analysis decided to exclude those ODS banks in the high effort category from further consideration, since neither technical feasibility nor economic via bility could be established from the available data. However, there were a few foam sectors which fell into the medium effort category, at least in the densely populated urban areas, and these were identified as follows:Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 86

 Appliances

 Commercial Refrigera tion

 Steel - faced Panels

 Block Pipe Section and Slab In practice, the quantity of block (bun 32 

### ) manufactured and used globally is relatively small as a proportion of the total. Where pipe section is produced from block (or, indeed, extruded from thermopl astic foams), there is a potential for recovery during decommissioning. This may also be the case for block (bun) foam prefabricated for use in composite panels. Cost estimates were therefore produced only for these areas of foam use

. Table 4 - 2 shows the outcome of the TEAP analysis on costs of recovery and destruction based per kilogram of blowing agent destroyed. For steel - faced panels there is also some relevant experience, since these products tend to be used on buildings in Europe with shorter average life - times than traditional constructions (typically 30 years). Although these are only now reaching the waste stream in any number, the potential to use existing refrigerator de - manufacturing equipment or even direct incineration exists. In most cases, the presence of the steel facings also adds to the economic case since these can be recovered and recycled. Nevertheless, across the EU - 27 there is a large range of demolition waste practice. Only where waste segr egation is already highly advanced (e.g. Austria) does the economics of recovery and destruction stack - up. There is therefore some reticence within some Member States to see any move towards a mandated recovery and destruction requirement for ODS in steel - faced panels. However, the potential of an incentive - led approach, perhaps based on carbon valuation, may prove a more mutually acceptable way forward. In contrast to the challenges of the building sector, there is considerably more experience in mana ging foams from appliances and commercial refrigeration equipment. In several regions of the world, including Europe and Japan the recovery of blowing agents from domestic refrigerators and freezers has been required. This has been extended over time t o cover other types of appliance. In the case of Europe this has been driven by product lifecycle legislation such as the WEEE 33 

### Regulation rather than the ozone regulations per se, although efforts have been made to ensure that both regulatory strands are complementary to one another. This said, there have been on - going concerns in Europe about the percentage of end of - life appliances being de - manufactured in line with the legislative requirements as well as the maintenance of adequate standards for recove ry and destruction within those operations designated to manage the process. Even in Germany, a recent study uncovered a number of failures to uphold the existing standards. Further

32 Often called ‘bun’ foam in North America. 33 WEEE
– ‘Waste Electrical and E lectronic Equipment’Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 87 investigation revealed that the most likely cause of these malpractices ha s been the over - capacity in the sector, with prices for the de - manufacture of domestic

Table 4 - 2 TEAP ANALYSIS ON COST OF ODS RECOVERY & DESTRUCTIONCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 88 refrigerators dropping f rom their initial levels in excess of $25 /unit to values as low as $8 /unit

. Another factor to consider here is that voluntary carbon finance cannot be leveraged in the region, even though the relevant methodologies (V oluntary C arbon S tandard (VCS) and C li mate A ction R eserve (CAR) ) apply to these recovery and destruction operations. This is because the market sees no ‘additionality’ from ODS recovery and destruction in regions where the measure is already mandated. Even if such funding were to be available , its contribution would be less substantial for HCFC recovery and destruction than for CFC recovery and destruction. This observation arises from the lower GWP of HCFCs in comparison with CFCs. An additional piece of analysis of the TEAP data for developi ng countries, as presented at the recent Geneva Workshop on ODS Bank Management, illustrated that even the recovery of foam from appliances can be costly in climate terms as Figure FIGURE 4 - 1 shows:

FIGURE 4 - 1 POTENTIAL FOR RECOVERY VS COST EFFECTIVENESS

Average Cost Effectiveness of Climate Savings

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cost Effectiveness ($ per tonne CO2 saved)TotalPotentialSaving(MtonnesCO2saved)

CFC HCFC 

# Potential for Recovery vs. Cost Effectiveness The Impact of Dealing with Appliances (2010 - 2030)

Refrigerant only Refrigerant & CFC Foam HCFC Foam in Appliances



### Depending on location (urban or rural) the cost of recovery and destruction of HCFCs in foam can range from $ 50 - 90 per tCO 2 

### - eq. saved. This compares to a figure of $10 per tC O 2 

### - eq. saved for CFCs when recovered from both the refrigerant and foam at the same time. The analysis doesn’t take into account the recovery of HFC - 134a, which can, of course, provide additional climate benefit for a given investment under appropriate cir cumstances.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 89

Even at these relatively inflated costs for ODS bank management, the recovery and destruction of appliance foam is more cost effective in climate terms than building foams. The Milieu Study in 2007 34 

### initiated by the European Commission ahead of its review of the existing Ozone Regulation was assisted by Caleb in identifying costs for recovery and destruction of blowing agents from steel - faced panels, when compared with appliance foams

. Figure 4 - 2 illustrates this information in $ per kg of blo wing agent destroyed. Figure 4 - 2 COST ANALYSIS FOR RECOVERY & DESTRUCTION OF STEEL - FACED PANELS

PER KILOGRAM BLOWING

AGENT 

# Cost analysis – various sources

€ 25 - 35 ) ($32 - 45) € 20 - 25 ($26 - 32) € 40 - 50 ($51 - 64) Destruction € 20 - 30 ($32 - 38) (based on steel - faced panels @ € 200/te) ($ 256/te ) € 5 - 10 ($6 - 13) € 20 - 25 ($26 - 32) € 25 - 35 ($32 - 45) Transport Discounted! € 4 - 6 ($5 - 8) € 3 - 4 ($4 - 5) 

## ------- Sorting Discounted! € 65 - 90 ($83 - 115) € 55 - 65 ($70 - 83) 

## ------- Dismantling Austria Study Kingspan Panels ( trial projects ) JTCCM (Japan) Domestic Appliance Tonnage Band



### The information suggests that kilo - for - kilo; blowing agent from insulation in steel - faced panels would be approximately twice as expensive to recovery and destroy as blowing agent from appliances, with a large proportion of the additional cost being associated with dismantling and segregation. In the most recent study 35 

### completed by the Building Research Esta blishment (BRE) in the U nited K ingdom , the assessment of cost associated with the management of ODS in buildings was in the order of £200 ($300) per tCO 2 

### - eq. saved. It should be stressed that the prime purpose of this study was not to review costs in detai l, but it is interesting to note that this assessment supports the view that average recovery costs
34 Review of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the Ozone Layer: Regulatory Options; Milieu Environmental Law & Policy; 2007 35 Assessment of building foams containing ozone
– depleting substa nces in the UK Building Stock; BRE, 2007Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 90 from the wider building sector would be proportionately higher than those associated with steel - faced panels.



## 4.1.2. Early Phase - out of HFCs The three mai n areas of HFC use identified in this study are those associated with the manufacture of PU foams in appliances, PU Spray Foam and extruded polystyrene (XPS). Again, taking a global perspective to the challenge of early HFC phase - out, it is self evident that a large proportion of the world’s appliances are already being manufactured with hydrocarbons, both in their cooling circuits (where present) and their foams. The US appliance industry has staunchly defended its need for HFCs and, in particular, HFC - 2 45fa on the basis of ever - tightening energy regulations and also on the basis of the particularity of US domestic refrigerator design. The PU Spray Foam industry globally is in a much more difficult situation, with current hydrocarbons ruled out on safet y grounds. Efforts are being deployed to evaluate alternatives such as super - critical CO 2 

### and methyl formate, to name but two. However, there is no obvious alternative at this stage. For the XPS sector, world production is split between the use of liquid CO 2 

### (albeit with high capital cost and some product limitations), hydrocarbon (particularly in the Far East where flammability seems to be a less significant issue) and HFCs

– particularly for the smaller producers. The role of HFCs in the field is univer sally recognized and there are no immediate alternatives. Some European manufacturers are experimenting with blends containing di - methyl ether, but these are not yet in commercial use. The North American XPS industry was able to mount a powerful argument in the early part of the decade, to make the case that the use of XPS for sheathing was unique and that the product requirements were totally different than for other parts of the globe. This led to the extension of the period for use of HCFC - 142b/22 blen ds until 1 st 

### January 2010. Therefore, transition to HFC - 134a and related blowing agents has been relatively recent. In all three sectors, it is clear that there are still gaps in the available alternatives. Much hope is therefore placed on a new generati on of unsaturated HFCs (also referred to as hydro - fluoro - olefins or HFOs). These typically have GWPs below 10. If the cost structure can be pitched correctly, these could play a large role in the XPS and PU Spray sectors, in particular, and potentially as a means of maintaining and/or improving energy performance in the appliance sector. Since the United States is well placed to take early advantage of these potential blowing agents (because they are being developed there), there is a legitimate prospect th at early HFC phase - out canCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 91 become a reality. This will be even more the case if transitions from high GWP HFCs to these new low GWP unsaturated HFCs can be incentivized through monetization of the carbon emission saving. Bearing in mind the uncertainties r emaining, the modeled phase - out has been scheduled from 2014 with completion in 2017. Costs associated with such transitions are not yet established. However, an, as yet, unpublished report for DEFRA in the UK suggests that the capital costs for a trans ition to unsaturated HFCs (HFOs) could be modest, although the operating cost increments could be significant. 

## 4.2. Implications on the relevance of Project Findings The assessment of mitigatio n options set out in Section 3.10 indicates that savings up to 2. 99 million tCO 2 

### - eq. per annum can be achieved by 2020. Against the total target of 173 million tCO 2 

### - eq. per annum this represents a small (1.73%), but still a significant, potential saving. The breakdown of the annual saving by source is as follows: Figu re 4 - 3 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SAVINGS AT 2020 BY SOURCE



### Maximum Potential Savings at 2020 by Source (2.99 million tonnes CO 2 

### -eq. @ 2020)

HFC-based measures 46.95%

Appliance End-of-Life Measures 17.21% Building End-of-Life Measures 35.84%



### It can be seen that end - of - life savings are slightly in the majority overall but that these are split between two very different sectors, buildings and a ppliances.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 92 One of the challenges of assessing the end - of - life benefits arising from measures in the building sector is that those benefits often occur well into the future and can be spread over many years. Since this study is limited to evaluations up to 2020, many of the end - of - life measures are only just taking effect in the latter part of the next decade. Even then, end - of - life measures in buildings could account for over 35% of the annual savings by 2020, highlighting the significance of the sector
– a significance that will only grow further in the following decade. This assessment is also based on the assumption of a 30 year average lifetime for all buildings in California. If that average is, in fact, significantly longer than assumed, the impac t of building end - of - life measures will become smaller when measured at 2020, although the savings will still be potentially equivalent in the post - 2020 era on a cumulative basis, assuming that measures are deployed to manage building foams at end - of - life over that period. As explained in Section 4.1, the opportunities for appliance de - manufacture at end - of life are better understood and established globally. However, even at their maximum potential, they would only deliver around 17.2% of the savings tha t are believed to be available. One of the challenges that would need to be addressed is achieving widespread uptake of end - of - life appliance schemes. The authors believe that California is in a better position than other regions of the world in this regar d, since it has not legislated on the matter so far. This leaves the way open for the leverage of carbon finance in an area in which such finance has already been shown to sway behavior . This is likely to be less likely the case for building end - of - life, w here indicative costs suggest that carbon finance will have little impact in the short - term. However, since there is little direct information on the cost structure of activities to manage foams at end - of - life in the buildings structure in California, it i s not known whether the early indications of cost from the UK and elsewhere will play out in the Californian environment. The contribution to savings in 2020 arising from the potential early phase - out of HFCs in foam - based products is both realizable and economically attractive as a mitigation option. Although all foam manufacturing sectors using HFCs would be potential targets for this activity, it is clear that XPS is the most lucrative sector from a mitigation perspective. The challenge for California is now that all XPS used in the State is manufactured outside of its borders. This implies that any steps taken to curb the use of HFC - containing XPS foam would need to be applied at the product level rather than the process level. A progressive product ban would be one option, although the use of a progressive taxation might be another. Either way, the regulators would need to be sure that they had a reliable means of distinguishing between HFC and non - HFC containing foams. They would also need to give d ue consideration to ensuring that unsaturated HFCs (HFOs) were either completely excluded from such a provision or where only taxed at a level commensurate with their respective GWPs.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 93

5. 

# Summary and Conclusions 5.1. Purpose of the Project The ce ntral proposition behind this project is that it could make environmental sense from a climate policy perspective to mitigate emissions by either reducing current reli ance on high - GWP blowing agents or by separating and diverting ODS and HFC containing foa ms out of the waste stream to be processed in ways that avoid ozone depletion and GHG emissions and that it is practicable to do so. The inventory and assessment of potential mitigation strategies are designed to help confirm or dismiss this proposition pr ior to a more in depth assessment of policy options which, in itself, is outside of the scope of this project. The outputs from this project will assist the California Air Resources Board in developing and implementing strategies that contribute to the Sta te of California reaching its goal of CO 2 

### - eq greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions to 1990 levels by 2020. The specific project purpose was as follows: -

 Characterize foams blowing agent banks according to product/application

 Characterize current foam production, use and end - of - life fate according to the main foam using sectors

 Characterize ODS phase - out, replacement and not - in - kind technology trends according to product/application

 Develop a emissions model based on collected blowing agent, foam and phase - out data to indicate emissions now & in 2020 under BAU and other scenarios 

## 5.2. Project Method The project involved the surveying of 390 organizations responsible for the production, installation, use, and end - of - life management of foams that conta in ODS or HFC. Based on the survey findings, a foam Banks and emissions model was developed. The model characterized the distribution of foams and their greenhouse gas containing blowing agents across different end - use sectors and the foam life cycle. The model also helped identify potential greenhouse gas mitigation options and their climate impact in 2020. The project methodology involved the study of the existing literature, the development of a research plan, the development of tools andCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 94

materials to be used in the survey process, the analysis of results and the development of the spreadsheet based blowing agent Banks and emissions model. 

## 5.3. Project Findings 5.3.1. Summary of the ODS/HFC Bank The ODS/HFC Bank peaked in 1996 at nearly 364 million tCO 2 

### - eq. and h as been gradually reducing since then. In 2005 it was around 316 million tCO 2 

### - eq.The buildings end - use accounted for 85% and the appliances end - use accounted for 9% of the 2005 Bank. Other applications

– Transport Refrigerated Units and Marine buoyancy acc ounted for the remaining 6%. By 2020, the Bank is estimated to be 244 million tCO 2 

### - eq.

Figure 5 - 1 SUMMARY 0F BLOWING AGENT BANKS (1996 - 2020)



### Year Buildings Appliances Other Refrigeration TRUs Marine + Other Totals 1996 286.37 41.28 6.08 15.01 15.01 363.76 2005 268.32 29.09 2.85 7.88 7.88 316.03 2010 246.05 28.16 1.66 3.80 3.80 283.48 2020 187.17 49.25 2.16 2.67 2.67 243.92 Banks per Application/End-Use Category (million tCO2 -eq.)Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 95


## 5.3.2. Summary of the ODS/HFC Emissions Greenhouse G as emissions from the 2005 Bank were just over 6 million tCO 2 

### - eq. – with 66% arising from the buildings end - use and 20% from the appliances end - use. By 2020, an nual emissions are estimated to be over 8 million tCO 2 

### - eq.

Table 5 - 1 SUMMARY OF BLOWING AGENT EMISSIONS (1996 - 2020)



### Year Buildings Appliances Other Refrigeration TRUs Marine + Other Totals 1996 3.37 0.83 0.16 0.30 0.30 4.95 2005 3.99 1.24 0.17 0.33 0.33 6.07 2010 4.48 0.70 0.07 0.27 0.27 5.79 2020 6.46 1.31 0.08 0.15 0.15 8.15 Emissions per Application/End-Use Category (million tCO 2 

### -eq.)



## 5.3.3. Summary of Emission Mitigation Scenarios Taking due account of the size and dynamics of banks and emissions, the project team identified six mitigation scenarios for high GWP gases in California. These fell into the two key categories of end - of - life management and early phase - out of HFC use. In the mitigation scenarios developed, it is assumed that end - of - life measures require the shortest lead - times and can be initiated as early as 2012, with full implementation in place by 2014. The products and equipment targeted in the end - of - life scenarios are as follows:

 All appliances (domestic refrigerators, freezers and water heaters)

 V ending machines and commercial refrigeration equipm ent

 PU Steel - Faced Panels

 Other insulating foams used in buildings. For the appliances, vending machines and commercial refrigeration sectors, two scenarios have been assumed, one in which 100% of units are successfully managed (the technical potential ) and one in which 50% of appliances are successfully managed. The latter is seen as the more realistic worst - case scenario, althoughCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 96 something between the two should be achievable based on European and Japanese experience. For building insulation, the P U Steel - Faced Panel scenario evaluates 100% recovery and destruction (the technical potential) in isolation. This is then combined with 50% recovery from other insulating foams used in buildings. Finally, a more realistic worst case is modeled where 25% of general building insulation and 50% of panels are assumed to be managed at end - of - life. Since there is no current federal constraint on the continued manufacture of products containing HFCs, it would be expected that any decision to introduce a phase - do wn or phase - out in HFC use, even at State level, would need substantial consultation. It has therefore been assumed that any such measure could only commence in 2014 and would not be fully achieved before 2017. The phase - out should apply to all domestic an d commercial appliances, extruded polystyrene insulation foam and polyurethane spray foam. The four sectors identified for HFC phase - out analysis were:

 All appliances (domestic refrigerators, freezers and water heaters)

 Vending machines and commercial refrigeration equipment

 Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)

 PU Spray Foam The following sections describe the various impacts of these mitigation scenarios by product type.


## 5.3.4. Impact of Mitigation Scenarios Caleb’s assessment of mitigation options shows that savings up to 2.99 million tCO 2 

### - eq. per annum can be achieved by 2020. Against the total target of 173 million tCO 2 

### - eq. per annum contained in the Climate Action Plan, published by the California Air Resources Board, this represents a small (1.73%), but still a significant, potential saving. The breakdown of the annual saving by source is as follows:Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 97
Figure 5 - 2 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SAVINGS AT 2020 BY SOURCE 

### Maximum Potential Savings at 2020 by Source (2.99 million tonnes CO 2 

### -eq. @ 2020)

HFC-based measures 46.95%

Appliance End-of-Life Measures 17.21% Building End-of-Life Measures 35.84%



### It can be seen that end - of - life savings are slightly in the majority overall but that these are split between two very different sectors, buildings and appliances. One of the challenges of assessing the end - of - life benefits arising from measures in the building sector is that those benefits ofte n occur well into the future and can be spread over many years. Since this study is limited to evaluations up to 2020, many of the end - of - life measures are only just taking effect in the latter part of the next decade. Even then, end - of - life measures in bu ildings could account for over 35% of the annual savings by 2020, highlighting the significance of the sector
– a significance that will only grow further in the following decade.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 98


## 5.4. Conclusions When comparing the text of the Central Proposition in Section 5.1 with Caleb’s analysis , the following conclusions can be drawn: I. There is technical potential to save 27 - 37% of the baseline annual emissions of high GWP gas emissions from the foam sector in 2020 equating to up to 3 million tCO 2 

### - eq. or 1.73 % of the overall target of the Climate Action Plan II. The absolute potential will be influenced by the average life - cycles of the products and equipment involved, many of which will be contained in buildings and therefore influenced by the variation in age profiles and lifecycles of the buildings themselves. III. The major short - term and medium - term opportunities exist in the accelerated phase - out of HFCs in the foam sector and the potential for end - of - life management of appliances IV. Although the management of building foams at end - of - life provides a significant opportunity (>35%) for mitigation even at 2020, the cost may be prohibitive when compared with other options available to the Climate Action Plan.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 99

6. 

# Recommendations 6.1. Recommendations for further R esearch I. To commission further research into the actual variation of building life - cycles by use and construction type II. To stimulate research into the development of innovative end - of - life treatment options for foams emanating from buildings III. To maintai n a watching brief on the approach of other regions and jurisdictions to the management of building foams at end - of - life and to monitor the cost structure of any activities being taken in California for comparison. 

## 6.2. Recommendations for Regulatory changes I. To seek early dialogue with those foam sectors continuing to rely on HFC use for their products in order to agree a schedule for the phase - out of products containing high - GWP HFCs II. To further evaluate the potential for leveraging voluntary carbon finance for ODS Bank management with particular focus on the underpinning of the climate value of these savings and promotion of the sound practices specified by the current CAR protocol.Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 100



## References 1. ARB Draft Concept Paper

– Foam Recovery & Destruction Progra m; CARB, 2007 2. Foam Recovery & Destruction: CARB AB32 Climate Change Early Action Measure
– Background for the Working Group Pre - Meeting; May 2008 3. 2006 End - Use Market Survey of Polyurethanes Industry in the US, Canada & Mexico; American Chemistry Council 4. Polyurethane Recycling; PURRC, 2005 5. Analysis of Costs to Abate International Ozone Depleting Substance Substitute Emissions; US EPA, 2005 6. National Income & Product Accounts Database: US Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Table 1.1.1 Pe rcent Change from Preceding Period in Real GDP (1960 - 2008 ) 7. Blowing Agents for Polyurethane Rigid Foam; SKEIST Inc., 2004 8. Non - Residential Compliance Manual; California Energy Commission; 2005 9. Building Code Assistance Project

– http://bcap - energy.org (last accessed 7/26/10) 10. Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non - Residential Buildings; California Energy Commission, 1998, 2005, 2008 11. Polystyrene and Polyurethane Foam Products in US Building & Co nstruction; SBI, 2008 12. California State - Wide Appliance Saturation Study; http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASSWEB/DesktopDefault.aspx 13. Construction Statistics Data User’s Conference; US Bure au of the Census; 1997 14. California Energy Commission 2009 Forecast Floor Space Data 15. 2001 California Non - Residential Energy Standards, Task 1 Report: Measure Identification of Analysis Plan; California Energy Commission; 2000Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 101

16. Survey on actual service live s for North American buildings; J. O’Connor, Forintek Canada Corp. ; 2004 17. IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, 2005 18. California 2008 State - wide Waste Characterization Study; CIWMB/ Cascadia, 2009 19. Attenuati on of Fluorocarbons Released from Foam Insulation in Landfills; Technical University of Denmark, 2007 20. Disposal of Refrigerators - Freezers in the US: State of the Practice; L.R. Wethje, P/E.; Appliance Research Consortium, 2005 21. End of Life Options for Stee l based Building Envelope Systems; Kingspan Insulated Panels, 2006 22. How Electric Customers Dispose of Used Refrigerators and Why They Choose a Utility Program; S. Westberg, et.al.; 2007 Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Chicago; (also see for paper http://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf/652.pdf ) 23. Analysis of Impact of California Truck Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Regulation; Martin Labbe LLB; 2005 24. Defining & Dete rmining Emissions for Refrigerated Shipping Containers and the Total Re - generation process in the Vicinity of Shipping Ports; CARB White Paper, 2009 25. 2006 Recreational Boating: Statistical Abstract; NMMA 26. California Air Resources Board

– Staff Report ‘Cali fornia 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit’

– November 16, 2007 27. Review of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the Ozone Layer: Regulatory Options; Milieu Environmental Law & Policy; 2007 28. Assessment of building foams containing ozone
– depleting substances in the UK Building Stock; BRE, 2007Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 102

7. 

# List of Inventions Reported and Publications Produced

7.1. Task 1 Report: Literature Review
7.2. Task 2 Report: Revised Research Plan 7.3. Task 3 Report: Compe ndium Report: Data, Interview Database & Questionnaires
7.4. Tasks 4&5 Report: Screening & Technical Interview Report
7.5. Preliminary Blowing Agent Banks & Emissions Model 7.6. Advanced Blowing Agent Banks & Emissions ModelCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 103

8. 

# Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symb ols AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 The bill establishes a timetable to bring California into near compliance with the

provisions of the Kyoto Protocol AB 970 AB 970 requires the California Public Utilities Commission to identify constraints in California's

transmission and distribution system and to take actions to remove them. AFEAS Alternative Fluorocarbon Environmental Acceptability Study AHRI Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute Anaerobic requiring the absence of or not dependent on the presence of oxygen ARCA Appliance Recycling Centers of America ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Engineers ASR Assorted Shredder Residues A

Armines ARMINES is the research branch of the Ecole des Mines, one of t he "grandes écoles" (great engineering schools) of France (part of project delivery team) B.A. Blowing Agents BAU Business As Usual B BTU British Thermal Units (C) CAT (California) Climate Action Team CAR Climate Action Reserve C & D Constructi on & Demolition (Waste) CEC California Energy Commission CFC Chlorofluorocarbon C

Composite Panel a.k.a. Sandwich Panels or PU Panels: Insulating panels with steel or aluminum facings and a polyurethane foam core D DEFRA Department of Environment, Far ming & Rural Affairs E EOL End - of - Life F FRP Fiber Reinforced Plastic GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Green House Gas GRP Glass Reinforced Plastic G GWP Global Warming Potential HC Hydrocarbon HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon HFC Hydrofluorocar bon HFO Hydrofluoroolefins H

HVAC Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning IECC I IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change J K LCA Life Cycle Assessment L LCCP Life Cycle Carbon Performance Methanogenic A process whereby micro - organ isms give off methane gas as a by - product of their metabolism.

Methanogenesis is the final step in the decay of organic matter MOCLA - FOAM Spreadsheet model showing distribution and fate of foam based organic chemicals in land - fills;

created by Kjeldsen P . & Christensen T.H., 2001 MRF Materials Recovery Facility M

MSW(I) Municipal Solid Waste (Incineration)Caleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 104

NAMA National Automated Merchandising Association N NIK Not - In - Kind O ODS Ozone Depleting Substance PIP Pour - In - Place (Foam) PIR Polyisocyan urate (Foam) PUR Polyurethane (Foam) PURRC Polyurethane Recycle & Recovery Council P

PU Panel a.k.a. Composite or sandwich Panel: Insulating panels with steel or aluminum facings and a polyurethane foam core Q RAD Responsible Appliances Disposal: The US - EPA's Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD) Program is a voluntary partnership program that began in 2006 to help protect the ozone layer and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases Redox Potentials Reduction potential (also known as redox potential , oxidation / reduction potential or ORP ) is a

measure of the tendency of a chemical species to acquire electrons and thereby be reduced

. RFP Request for Proposals R

RPE Robert Penny Enterprises (part of project delivery team) S Sandwich Panel a.k.a. Com posite or PU Panel: Insulating panels with steel or aluminum facings and a polyurethane foam core SEG equipment Appliances de - manufacturing/recycling equipment made in Germany by SEG Umwelt Service

GmbH SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy: The Sig nificant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program is

a US - EPA's program to evaluate and regulate substitutes for the ozone - depleting chemicals that are being phased out under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) SPF Spra y Polyurethane Foam SRC Survey Research Center, University of California, Berkeley (part of project delivery team) T TEAP Technical & Economic Assessment Panel: The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) provides, at the request of Parties to t he Montreal Protocol, technical information related to the alternative technologies that have been investigated and employed to make it possible to virtually eliminate use of Ozone Depleting Substances (CFCs, Halons etc), that harm the ozone layer 

### . Title 24 California’s Building Standards Code TRU Transport Refrigerated Unit T - 8 Lamp T he T8 fluorescent lamp is the standard for new construction in the USA and is a popular

replacement for 34 - watt T12 lamps ( National Lighting Product Information Program
– NLPIP ) U UNEP United Nations Environment Programme V Vintaging Model Published by US - EPA in 2005
– provides a dynamic inventory of US ODS banks and emissions VCS Voluntary Carbon Standard W WTE Waste To Energy (Combustion/Incineration Facility) WEEE Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment X XPS Extruded Polystyrene (Foam) Y ZCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 105

9. 

# Appendices Appendix 1 for a list of respondents SCREENING INTERVIEWS BUILDINGS REF ORGANISATION TYPE STAGE 1 BKI BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 2 Home Furnishing & Thermal Insulation Institute BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 3 California Building Industry Association BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 4 Chitwood Energy BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 5 Palacios Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 6 Peikert Group Architects BUILDIN GS INSTALLATION 7 Perkowitz & Ruth Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 8 Peruzzi Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 9 Peteris Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 10 Pleskow & Rael BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 11 Pizzulli Associates Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 12 The Practice Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 13 RLB Architecture BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 14 RNL Design BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 15 RRM Design Group BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 16 Reed & Reed Associates BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 17 Reveal Studio Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 18 Rivers & Christian BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 19 Rockefeller Architecture Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 20 Roschen VanCleve Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 21 Rossetti Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 22 Saito Design Group BUILDINGS INSTAL LATION 23 Milano Group BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 24 Salerno Livingston Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 25 Schucard Associates BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 26 Signature Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 27 Sprotte & Watson Architecture & Planning BUILDINGS IN STALLATION 28 Studio E Architects Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 29 Two Corporation Architects & Builders BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 30 Ware - Malcomb BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 31 Westberg & White Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 32 Saunders & Wiant Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 33 Sky View Design BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 34 Solberg & Associates Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 35 South West Concepts BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 36 Stearns Architecture BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 37 TR Design Group Architecture BUILDINGS IN STALLATION 38 Tarlos & Associates Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 39 Jerry Tucker & Associates Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 40 Vanderhoek Architects Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 41 WD Partners Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATIONCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 106

42 The Woodley Group BUILDINGS INSTALLAT ION 43 Jonathan L Zane Architecture BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 44 T - Square Consulting Gp BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 45 Paulett Taggard Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 46 Tannerhecht Architecture BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 47 Team Seven International BUILDINGS I NSTALLATION 48 Thatcher & Thompson BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 49 360 Architecture BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 50 Transpacific Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 51 Tsao Design Group BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 52 Tulloch Construction Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 53 U pwall Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 54 VBN Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 55 Watry Design Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 56 Weir Andrewson & Associates BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 57 Paul Welschmeyer Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 58 Lawson Willard A rchitects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 59 Woodring & Associates BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 60 Michael Zucker & Associates BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 61 Zwick Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 62 Shlemmer, kamus & Algaze BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 63 Stern Architects In c BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 64 Sumich Design Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 65 Teale Architecture BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 66 Thirtieth Street Architecture BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 67 AEC Services BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 68 Carlson Architecture Inc BUILDINGS INST ALLATION 69 Lex Coffroth & Associates BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 70 Glenn County Resource Planning and Development Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 71 Humboldt County Planning and Building Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 72 Imperial County Planning an d Building Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 73 Inyo County Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 74 Kern County Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 75 Kings County Planning Agency BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 76 Lake County Community Develop ment Department, Planning Division BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 77 Lassen County Department of Community Development BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 78 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 79 Madera County Planning Department B UILDINGS INSTALLATION 80 Marin County Community Development Agency, Planning Division BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 81 Mariposa County Planning and Building Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 82 Mendocino County Planning & Building Services Department BUILDI NGS INSTALLATION 83 Merced County Planning and Community Development Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 84 Modoc County Planning BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 85 Mono County Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 86 Monterey County Planning & Building, Inspection Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 87 Napa County Conservation Development and Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 88 Nevada County Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 89 Orange County Planning and Development Services Departm ent BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 90 Placer County Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 91 Plumas County Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 92 Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency/Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATI ON 93 Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 94 San Benito County Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATIONCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 107

95 San Bernardino Land Use Services Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 96 San Diego County De partment of Planning and Land Use BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 97 San Francisco Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 98 San Joaquin County Community Development Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 99 San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Bu ilding BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 100 San Mateo County Environmental Services Agency, Planning and Building Division BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 101 Santa Barbara County Planning and Development BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 102 JVB Construction Management Inc BUILD INGS INSTALLATION 103 Lincolne - Scott Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 104 Waler & Opsal Consulting BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 105 ANOVA Architects Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 106 AP Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 107 Akiyama Architects Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLAT ION 109 Architectural Design West BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 110 Arktegraf Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 111 BFGS Architects & Planners Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 112 BJY Bethseda Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 113 C. Douglas Barnes BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 114 B eals Alliance BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 115 Berteaux Architecture Collaborative BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 116 Blackbird Associates BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 117 Blue Design Group BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 118 Borges Architectural Group BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 119 Carillo Architects Group BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 120 Christiansen Group BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 121 Commercial Architecture BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 122 DC Architects BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 123 DLP Associates BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 124 Darden Architects I nc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 125 ALB Designs BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 126 ATI Architects & Engineers BUILDINGS INSTALLATION 127 Selsor Construction & Demolition BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 128 Henningsen Construction Co BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 129 ISRI - Ins titute of Scrap Recycling Industries BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 130 Snitzer BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 131 Brinkmann Demolition & Recycling BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 132 American Wrecking BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 133 Urban Renovations BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEME NT 134 US Demolition Inc BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 135 Heil Demolition BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 136 Gabels Haulage & demolition BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 137 Samson Demolition BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENTCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 108

138 Full Scale Demolition BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 139 Specialized Environmental BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 140 Penhall Company BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 141 Campanella Corp. Building Demolitions BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 142 Demolition Services Inc BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 143 SALINAS DISPOSAL BUILDINGS E OL MANAGEMENT 144 WM SOUTH GATE TRANSFER STATION BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 145 SUNSET ENVIRONMENTAL T/S BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 146 UNIVERSAL REFUSE REMOVAL BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 147 RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS TS BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 148 NORTH V ALLEY DISPOSAL T/S BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 149 STOCKTON SCAVENGER ASSOC. T/S BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 150 CENTRAL VALLEY WASTE SERVICES T/S BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 151 HEALTH SANITATION SERVICE T/S BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 152 EASTE QUINCY TRANSFER S TATION BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 153 CHESTER TRANSFER STATION BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 154 GREENVILLE TRANSFER STATION BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 155 EAST VALLEY DIVERSION BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 156 DOWNTOWN DIVERSION BUILDINGS EOL MANAGEMENT 157 Smart and Final GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 158 Loyalton Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 159 Yreka Solid Waste Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 160 Hay Road Landfill, Inc. (B + J Landfill) GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 161 Potrero Hills Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 162 Central Disposal Site GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 163 Drilling Mud Disposal Facility GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 164 Santa Rosa Geothermal Co. L.P. GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENTCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 109

165 Korbel Maintenance Disposal Site GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 166 Fink Road Landfill GENE RIC EOL MANAGEMENT 167 Bonzi Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 168 Tehama County/Red Bluff Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 169 Weaverville Solid Waste TS & Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 170 Teapot Dome Disposal Site GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 171 Woodville Disposal Site GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 172 Visalia Disposal Site GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 173 Blue Mountain Minerals GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 174 Toland Road Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 175 Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center GENERIC EOL M ANAGEMENT 176 Yolo County Central Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 177 Univ Of Calif Davis Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 178 Recology (Norcal) Ostrom Road LF Inc. GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 179 All American Asphalt Inert Fill Operation GENERIC EO L MANAGEMENT 180 Sam Jones Landfill (and Mine) GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 181 Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer) GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 182 L and D Landfill Co GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 183 John Smith Road Class III Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 184 Calif ornia Street Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 185 California Street Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 186 Agua Mansa Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 187 Oro Grande Kiln Waste Dust Dump GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 188 Victorville Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL M ANAGEMENT 189 Barstow Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 190 Colton Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 191 Mid - Valley Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENTCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 110

192 Landers Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 193 Holliday Inertwaste Sit e GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 194 USMC - 29 Palms Disposal Facility GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 195 Fort Irwin Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 196 Mitsubishi Cement Plant Cushenbury L.F. GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 197 San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill GENERIC E OL MANAGEMENT 198 City Of Upland Street Sweeping Debris GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 199 Ramona Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 200 Borrego Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 201 Otay Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 202 West Miramar Sanitary Landfill GENERIC E OL MANAGEMENT 203 Sycamore Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 204 San Onofre Landfill (Area 52) GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 205 Las Pulgas Landfill (Area 43) GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 206 Vulcan Materials Company Carrol Cyn. Sit GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 2 07 Foothill Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 208 Forward Landfill, Inc. GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 209 North County Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 210 City Of Paso Robles Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 211 Cold Canyon Landfill Solid Waste DS GENE RIC EOL MANAGEMENT 212 Chicago Grade Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 213 Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 214 Vandenberg AFB Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 215 Tajiguas Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 216 Santa Maria Land fill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 217 City Of Lompoc Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 218 Pacheco Pass Landfill Recology (Norcal) GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENTCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 111

219 City Of Sunnyvale Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 220 City of Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Site GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 221 Zanker Material Processing Facility GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 222 Newby Island Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 223 Zanker Road Class III Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 224 Kirby Canyon Recycl.& Disp. Facility GENERIC E OL MANAGEMENT 225 Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 226 City Of Santa Cruz Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 227 City Of Watsonville Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 228 Buena Vista Drive Sanitary Landfill GENERIC EOL MANAGEMENT 229 Gercon Construction Inc BUILDINGS USE 230 Gracier Construction Group BUILDINGS USE APPLIANCES 231 Department of Toxic Substances Control APPLIANCES INSTALLATION 232 Refrigeration and thermal Test APPLIANCES INSTALLATION 233 Sand en Vendo America Inc. APPLIANCES INSTALLATION 234 Appliance Magazine APPLIANCES INSTALLATION 235 AHAM/ US Bureau of Mines APPLIANCES INSTALLATION 236 DTU APPLIANCES INSTALLATION 237 AHAM 2 APPLIANCES INSTALLATION 238 ACC Centre for the Polyurethane In dustry APPLIANCES INSTALLATION 239 Rainbow Grocery APPLIANCES USE 240 California Energy Commission APPLIANCES USE 241 Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) APPLIANCES EOL MANAGEMENT 242 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) APPLIANCES E OL MANAGEMENT 243 Southern California Edison APPLIANCES EOL MANAGEMENT TRU 244 Trailer Body Magazine TRU - ALL TYPES INSTALLATION 245 Recyling Today TRU - ALL TYPES INSTALLATION 246 FleetSeek TRU - ALL TYPES INSTALLATION 247 Califor nia Environmental Rights Alliance TRU - ALL TYPES INSTALLATIONCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 112

248 Association of American Railroads TRU - Rail INSTALLATION 249 National Association of Trailer Manufacturers TRU - ALL TYPES INSTALLATION 250 ACC Centre for the Polyurethane Industry TRU - ALL TYPES INSTALLATION 251 California Resources Recovery Association TRU - ALL TYPES INSTALLATION 252 Drake Truck Bodies TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 253 Stoughton Trailer Inc TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 254 Fruehauf TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 255 Triple - B T ruck Body Company TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 256 Kidron TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 257 Johnson Refrigerated Truck Bodies TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 258 Hercules Manufacturing TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 259 Wabash National TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 260 Great Dane TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 261 ModSpace TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 262 Utility Trailer Mfg. TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 263 Thermo King TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 264 Thermo King of Southern California TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 265 Allied Container System s TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 266 Nucold Inc TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 267 Hyundai Translead TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 268 California Trucking Association TRU - ALL TYPES INSTALLATION 269 Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 270 R L Polk & Co TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 271 Pat Brecht TRU - TRUCK INSTALLATION 272 Truckload Carriers Association TRU - TRUCK USE 273 Northern refrigerated TRU - TRUCK USE 274 Container Outlet TRU - TRUCK USE 275 GE Trailer Fleet services TRU - TRUC K USE 276 Container Outlet2 TRU - TRUCK USE 277 National Private Trucking Council TRU - TRUCK USE 278 Transportation Logistics Co. TRU - TRUCK USE 279 XTRA Lease TRU - TRUCK USE 280 XTRA Lease2 TRU - TRUCK USE 281 PHILLIP'S FREIGHT TRANSPORT TRU - TRUCK USE 282 Davis Express TRU - TRUCK USE 283 3PL Solutions, LLC TRU - TRUCK USE 284 Southwest Truck Service Company TRU - TRUCK USE 285 Harbor Services Company TRU - TRUCK USE 286 Central Refrigerated Service, Inc TRU - TRUCK USE 287 Heitz Truck ing Inc TRU - TRUCK USE 288 Port of Los Angeles TRU - RAIL USE 289 American Association of Port Authorities TRU - Rail USE 290 Port of Long Beach TRU - Rail USE 291 Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc. TRU - TRUCK RECYCLERS 292 ARCA Recycling TRU - TRUCK RECYCLERS 293 ARCA Recycling2 TRU - TRUCK RECYCLERS 294 Refrigerant Exchange TRU - TRUCK RECYCLERS 295 Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc. TRU - TRUCK RECYCLERS 296 ARCA Recycling TRU - TRUCK RECYCLERS 297 P&T METALS, INC. TRU - T RUCK RECYCLERSCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 113

298 The Sutta Company TRU - TRUCK RECYCLERS 299 Rincon Recycling TRU - TRUCK RECYCLERS MARINE & OTHER 300 Westport Pacific Boats MARINE/OTHER EOL MANAGEMENT 301 Wragg Inc MARINE/OTHER EOL MANAGEMENT 302 Vitesse Yachts MARI NE/OTHER EOL MANAGEMENTCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 114

Appendix 2 for a list of interviewees TECHNICAL INTERVIEWS TYPE REF ORGANISATION RESPONDENT LOCATION Suppliers building/supply 1 

### Arkema 1 Thomas Werkema Philadelphia PA building/supply 2 

### BASF1 Roy Pask Wyandotte MI building/supply 3 

### Uerthane Technologies John McNeill Orange CA building/supply 4 

### Carpenter1 Richard Jehu Richmond VA building/supply 5 

### Huntsman1 Daniel Rosenvasser Auburn Hills MI building/supply 6 

### Honeywell1 Ken Gayer Morristown NJ building/supply 7 

### Foam Supplies (FSI)1 Todd Keske Earth City MO building/supply 8 Dow Chemicals Mark Weick Midland MI building/supply 9 Owens Corning Allen Zhang Tallmadge OH building/supply 10 Pactiv Building Products Daniel Partrich Lake Forrest IL building/supply 11 Dow Roofing Systems Bill Lion Holyoke MA building/supply 12 R - Max Operating, LLC John Nerbit Dallas TX building/supply 13 Johns Manville Steve Hochhauser Denver CO building/supply 14 Firestone Building Product Co. Mike Gorey Indianapo lis IN building/supply 15 Dyplast Ted Berglund Atlanta GA building/supply 16 Pacific Polymers Michael Claus San Jose CA building/supply 17 Honeywell2 Steve Bernhardt Morristown NJ building/supply 18 Dupont Mark Baunschalk Wilmington DE building/supply 19 Honeywell3 David Williams Buffalo NJ building/supply 20 Huntsman polyurethanes2 Rafael Camargo West Deptford NJ building/supply 21 Carpenter Co.2 Jim Hardeman Richmond VA building/supply 22 SWD Steve Perkins Mesa AZ building/supply 23 Dow Chemicals Mark Wick Midland MI building/supply 24 BASF2 Dave Elliott Florham Park NJ building/supply 25 Rutherford Chemicals Laurence Slovin Bayonie NJ building/supply 26 Foam Supplies2 Tim Kalinowski Earth City MO building/supply 27 Stepan Brad Beauchamp North field IL building/supply 28 Resin Technologies Wil Lorenz Ontario CA building/supply 29 GACO western System Houses Tukwila WA building/supply 30 Foam Enterprises Dennis Holbert Minneapolis MN building/supply 31 Kysor Panel Systems Marian Brown Ft. Wort h TX building/supply 32 American Panel Pam Falanga Ocala FL building/supply 33 Metalspan Karl Heilscher Lewisville TX building/supply 34 Alumashield Peter Martin Daytona Beach FL building/supply 35 Centria Arch. Systems Tom Zombek Sheridan PA building /supply 36 Huntsman3 Jian Huang Wu Auburn Hills MI building/supply 37 BASF3 Ted Smiecinski Wyandotte MI building/supply 38 Arkema 2 Thomas Werkema Philadelphia PA marine/supply 39 Boston Whaler Chuck Bennett Edgewater FLCaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 115

marine/supply 40 Brunswick Corp

. Brent Dahl Lake Forest IL Installers building/install 41 Pacific Valley Roofing Ron Reed Ceres CA building/install 42 Quality Foam James Barrett Lake Elsinore CA building/install 43 Williams Foam William Ramirez Sylmar CA building/instal l 44 Atlas Foam products Jeff Naples Sylmar CA building/install 45 Califoam products Javeir Juarec Montclair CA building/install 46 Good Works Inc. Susan Saucedo - King Redwood Valley CA building/install 47 SPFA Eri Banks Fairfax VA building/install 48 D R Horton Dan Turpin Woodland Hills CA building/install 49 Lennar Homes Tanya Parker Sacramento CA building/install 50 Centex Homes Samantha Fenn San Diego CA building/install 51 Ryland Homes Donna Revita Calabasas CA building/install 52 William Lyon Ho mes Mike Costello Sacramento CA building/install 53 Brookfield Homes Kelly - Rae Rahm Contra Costa CA building/install 54 California Bldg. Officials Matt Wheeler Sacramento CA building/install 55 Nat'l Assn. of Home Builders Gerald Howard Washington DC b uilding/install 56 NAHB Research Center Vladimir Kochkin Washington DC building/install 57 James Hardie Bldg. Products Rusty Pittman Mission Viejo CA building/install 58 NAHB Linda Marceller Washington DC building/install 59 Building Standards Commissi on Thomas Morrison Sacramento CA building/install 60 Absolute Urethanes Inc Eric Plaza Fresno CA building/install 61 Roofco Inc Jerome Schrader Rancho Cordova CA building/install 62 Zumwalt & Associates John Zumwalt Sacramento CA building/install 63 E agle Ridge Roofing Jim Lance Carmichael CA building/install 64 Elite Roofing Co Tim Morten Manteca CA tru/install 65 South Coast Air Quality Mgt Jill Whynot Diamond Bar CA tru/install 66 California Energy Commission Glen Sharp Sacramento CA tru/instal l 67 CEC Robert Hudler Sacramento CA tru/install 68 CARB Steve Yee Sacramento CA Users tru/users 69 Central Refrigerated Services Inc Brad Curly Fontana CA tru/users 70 Transport Logistics Jill Quin Santa Ana CA EOL bui ldings/eol 71 CIWMB Gregory Dick Sacramento CA buildings/eol 72 Covanta Energy Douglas Tomison Long Beach CA buildings/eol 73 WM - Davis Street Transfer Stn. Rebecca Jewell San Leandro CA buildings/eol 74 Waste Management Brian Bowen Sacramanto CA bu ildings/eol 75 Sanitation Districts Los Angles Counties Matt Eaton Commerce CA buildings/eol 76 Covanta Energy Jeffrey Hahn Sacramanto CA building/eol 77 Reuse People of America Ted Reiff Oakland CA building/eol 78 CIWMB TWO Edgar Rojas Sacramento CA appliances/eol 79 JACO Environmental Michael Dunham Hayward CA appl/eol 80 JACO Michael Dunham Fullerton CACaleb Management Services Ltd Agreement No. 07 - 312

Page 

### 116

appl/eol 81 Zanker Road Resource Management Ltd Michael Gross San Jose CA appl/eol 82 Waste Management Chuck White Sacramento CA appl/eol 83 ARC A Rachel Holmes Minneapolis MN appl/eol 84 WM - Davis Street Transfer Stn. Rebecca Jewell San Leandro CA appl/eol 85 Waste Management Brian Bowen Sacramento CA tru/eol 86 SA Recycling George Caamano Anaheim CA tru/eol 87 BW Metals Recycling James Bandy Anaheim CA marine/eol 88 Surf Board Recycling Joey Santley Laguna Niguel CA