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

Woodend Farm

Woodend Lane

Cromhall

Wotton-Under-Edge

Gloucestershire

GL12 8AA

United Kingdom

16

th August 2010

Prepared for:

The California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental

Protection Agency
Caleb 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 thanks Glenn Gallagher at the California Air Resources Board for his advice

during this project 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 Penny 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 16

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 Emissions 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 Containing 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. Building 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................................................................. 41
Caleb 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 & Emissions .................................................. 66

3.9.4. Refrigerated Transport, Other Refrigeration, Marine and Other

Applications – Banks and Emissions.................................................................. 71

3.10. Mitigation 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. Discussion.......................................................................................................... 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 Conclusions ................................................................................ 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.............................................................. 96
Caleb 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 Publications 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 Report .................... 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. Appendices ...................................................................................................... 105
Caleb 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 APPLICATION 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..................... 80
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page viii

Figure 3-30 SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES IN ALL SECTORS FOR CALIFORNIA.... 81

Figure 3-31 MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE MITIGATION POTENTIAL FOR HIGH GWP

GASES IN 2020 ........................................................................................................ 81

Figure 3-32 MAXIMUM ANNUAL MITIGATION 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 STEELFACED PANELS ....................................................................................................... 89

Figure 4-3 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SAVINGS AT 2020 BY SOURCE...................... 91

Figure 5-1 SUMMARY 0F BLOWING AGENT BANKS (1996-2020)......................... 94

Figure 5-2 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SAVINGS AT 2020 BY SOURCE...................... 97
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page ix

List 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 POLYSTYRENE FOAM PRODUCTION.............. 22

Table 3-4 2008 CALEB ESTIMATE OF BUILDING STOCK (NUMBER OF

BUILDINGS).............................................................................................................. 25

Table 3-5 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN BUILDINGS (m3) .... 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 (m3)

.................................................................................................................................. 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

Table 3-18 2008 - FATE OF DOMESTIC REFRIGERATORS & FREEZERS AT ENDOF 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 (M3) ........... 51

Table 3-22 TRU/REEFER BLOWING 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 (M3)................................................................................................. 54

Table 3-26 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN NON STRUCTURAL

COLD STORES (M3)................................................................................................. 54

Table 3-27 : MARINE & OTHER BLOWING AGENT SUBSTITUTIONS................... 55

Table 3-28 : NON STRUCTURAL COLD STORE BLOWING AGENT

SUBSTITUTIONS...................................................................................................... 55

Table 3-29 : KEY MODEL INPUT ASSUMPTIONS................................................... 57

Table 3-30 : GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL VALUES PER BLOWING AGENT.. 58

Table 4-1 LEVELS OF EFFORT REQUIRED TO MANAGE ODS BANKS ............... 85

Table 4-2 TEAP ANALYSIS ON COST OF ODS RECOVERY & DESTRUCTION ... 87

Table 5-1 SUMMARY OF BLOWING AGENT EMISSIONS (1996-2020).................. 95
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page x

Abstract

Caleb and its project team undertook the development of an inventory of foams and

their related blowing agents for California. This involved the development of a

comprehensive foam characterization requiring the following elements:

1. An understanding of the current building stock, appliance inventories and other

items containing foam and related blowing agents 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 foams 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 and 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 interviews 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 ongoing activity and existing banks. In addition, the model was used to assess the value

of a number of mitigation 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

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.The outputs from this project will assist the

California Air Resources Board in developing and implementing strategies that

contribute to the State of California reaching its goal of CO2-eq greenhouse gas

(GHG) emission reductions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Methods

The project involved the surveying of 390 organizations responsible for the

production, installation, use, and end-of-life management of foams that contain ODSs

or HFCs. 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 lifecycle. 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 and

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.

Results

The ODS/HFC bank peaked in 1996 at nearly 364 million tCO2-eq. and has been

gradually reducing since then. In 2005 it was around 316 million tCO2-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 accounted for the remaining 6%. Greenhouse Gas emissions from the

2005 bank were just over 6 million tCO2-eq. – with 66% arising from the buildings

end-use and 20% from the appliances end-use.

By 2020, the bank is estimated to be 244 million tCO2-eq., but annual emissions are

estimated at over 8 million tCO2-eq.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,
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 other 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, 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 and commercial appliances, extruded polystyrene insulation 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 tCO2-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 in 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 separating 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 appliances. 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 when 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 voluntary carbon finance for ODS bank management. There should be

a particular focus on the underpinning of the climate value of these savings and a

commitment to promote the sound practices specified by the current Climate Action

Reserve 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 CO2-eq greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions to

1990 levels by 2020. The California Climate Action Team (C-CAT) initially examined

hydrofluorocarbon (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 potential (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 during use or at end-oflife 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. End-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. Problem 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 CO2-eq in 2002 and is

likely to remain above 9 billion tons CO2-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 are
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 2

expected to settle in the range of 180 million tons CO2-eq annually over the next few

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 rate

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 banks

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,

particularly at end-of-life.

Based on the US EPA model data, a 5 billion metric ton CO2-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 CO2-eq. By applying a population factor of 12.8% for

California, based on the US census, the California ODS/HFC banks could be

estimated at 640 million tons CO2-eq with 12 million tons CO2-eq being emitted per

annum from ODS & HFC foam sources. Approximately 60% of the total bank is from

foam sources, accounting for some 385 million tons CO2-eq and generating annual

emissions of approximately 9 million tons CO2-eq.1

1.3. Central Proposition

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

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.

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 project 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 technical 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, their emission rates (during foam production, installation 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 the

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) emission 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 emissions scenarios based on business-as-usual (BAU)

as well as those incorporating various control strategies in the year 2020 to estimate

possible CO2 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 only 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 CARB2on estimated foam bank size & distribution, 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 Polyurethane 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

emission 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 throughout 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

variety 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

controlling 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 AB32 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 implemented 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 Inventory Project

from 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 research themes (Applications, Foam

Insulation, Blowing Agents, high GWP GHG Banks & Emissions).

In this way, a quick overview could be created as to the areas where there were data

gaps. Areas where data gaps were identified received special attention during the

project’s research stages. All sources were also filtered for geographical relevance

(e.g. California specific; USA & International sources).

Following a more detailed scanning of the literature, Caleb filtered source materials

according to ‘to be cited’; ‘not cited’ and ‘for contact information’ categories and then

placed contact details into our database, placed the ‘not cited’ in our archives. Caleb

then concentrated 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 subcontractors 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 plan, budget and project schedule underpinned the delivery of the Foams

Inventory Project. Among other factors, the plan elaborated the approach to

identifying research questions, development of questionnaires, identifying interview

targets and the logistics for obtaining the necessary 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 characterize 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 effectively 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 team 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 identified. 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 partners 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 contact

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 project. 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 on how the call

lists were allocated within the project team. It was important that individual team
Caleb 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 involving 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 APPLICATIONS 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 & nongovernmental bodies; Trade Associations;

Commissioning Utilities

USE USERS/MAINTENANCE/REFURB Incl. Property Managers; Landlords;

Institutional Owners; Refurbishment

Contractors

DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS

RECYCLERS

WASTE TREATMENT Incl. Waste to Energy Sites; Waste

Incinerators

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 sectors, 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 project, 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 & other
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 9

Prior to the completion of the bulk of the screening interviews, the 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 changes 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 interview

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 endof-life management aspects. See Appendix 1 for a list of respondents

Alongside 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 technical

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 buildings 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 technical 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 interviews 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 interviews 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 interviews. See Appendix 2 for a list of interviewees

These interviews went into more depth on buildings, refrigeration and other foam

using sectors and to filled data gaps identified previously.

The results from these interviews were combined with the records 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 interviews are distributed as summarized 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 & other
Caleb 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 completed further on-line

research on the key foam containing applications. The main focus was on sourcing

essential data on buildings, appliances, structural and non-structural cold stores, and

Transport Refrigerated Units. Most of the data were for stock 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 nonstructural cold stores.

The project team continued to contribute information 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 filled 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 4Where 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 there 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 project provided an

important opportunity for peer review of the Caleb approach prior to the completion of

the California model.

Caleb prepared 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, 2005
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 12

banks and various sources of emissions. The model was based on ‘bottom up’ stock

data and provided average foam & blowing agent content per unit in stock over time.

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 date

set of values for leakage rates across the foam life cycle. The combination of

additions and improvements assist in ascertaining GHG emissions in terms of CO2-

eq. from BAU and the potential control strategies.

2.7. Rationale for the Project Design

There was 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 counterpoint to the 2005 US EPA’s Vintaging model5, which was essentially a

‘top down’ tool.

The 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 applications (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 detailed 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

GHG 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

refrigerated 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,

2005
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 13

main body of the report where relevant, and also in 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 respondents 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 this 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

Within 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 prepared 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 California 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 predominant 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 leisure; 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 these
Caleb 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 & modeling 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

Source1

Quality of

Data2

Stock & Population Data

Building Types Buildings Non-Residential Compliance Manual; CEC 2005 B 1

Building Stock

Numbers, Floor

Area & Stock

Additions

Buildings California State-Wide 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 Codes 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

Buildings 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 Income 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

Source1

Quality of

Data2

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 2001 California Non-Residential Energy

Standards; CEC 2000

B 2

Building End-ofLife ManagementBuildings End of Life Options for Steel based Building

Envelope Systems; Kingspan Insulated Panels;

2006

B 1

Appliance Types Appliances Data & estimates from delivery 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 members;

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 Recreational Boating: Statistical Abstract;

NMMA

A

A

1

1
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 16

Data Type Application

Type

Data Sources Assessment of Data

Quality

Data

Source1

Quality of

Data2

Marine & Other

markets

Marine Data & estimates from delivery team members;

findings from interviews

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 from 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

2
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 17

Data Type Application

Type

Data Sources Assessment of Data

Quality

Data

Source1

Quality of

Data2

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. Wethje, 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 California 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 2
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 18

3. Results

In the following Sections 3.1 to 3.7, Caleb describes its findings from the Literature

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 quantify

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 literature 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 main 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 understands some of the underlying factors that affect the prevalence of

and market-place for foam based insulation in its wider context, the project team had

to find out more about the California specific situation. The literature offered no

comprehensive details on foam production, use and disposal volumes or the

distribution of these across the applications. The project therefore needed to generate

data in these areas. There were no specific data on the impacts of buildings &

appliances codes on the foam insulation market-place. The project team developed

an understanding of these potential impacts and 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 majority 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 programs already addressed foams

end-of-life. The literature suggested that there were efforts underway in the United

Kingdom and elsewhere to better understand voluntary options for managing
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 19

buildings based foams at end-of-life. Lessons from these efforts included 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 Types & 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

that 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

The 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

alternatives 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 and
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 20

emissions profile for 2020 by virtue of building up a detailed picture of applications

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

further series of steps allowed the characterization & quantification of high GWP GHG

banks and emissions for California and the exploration of the greenhouse gas

reduction potential of various mitigation options.

3.2. Findings from further Desk Research relating 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-residential 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 when the requirements were

simplified and consolidated for all building types. At this time, major changes were

made to the lighting requirements, the building envelope and fenestration

requirements, as well as the HVAC and mechanical requirements. Structural 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 the 2001 Standards (or the AB 970 Standards) took effect mid-year

2001. The 2001 Standards included requirements for high performance windows
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 21

throughout the State, more stringent lighting requirements and miscellaneous other

changes8.

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 undertake all actions within its authority to increase the

efficiency requirements in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for nonresidential buildings by 20% by 2015.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) has completed the rulemaking process 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

approved them for publication in September 2008.

A first analysis of the 2008 code by Building Codes Assistance Project9revealed an

average energy performance at least 21% more efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-2004.

Even better results are likely after more definitive testing, and they are anticipated to

be more stringent than the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007.The

effective date for the new standards was pushed back from August 2009 to January

2010. This was largely due to the fact that the California Energy 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 conductivity

values as follows: -

Table 3-2 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CHANGES 1998 - 200810

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/m2K)

8 Non-Residential Compliance Manual; California Energy Commission; 2005

9

Building Codes Assistance Project – http://bcap-energy.org

10 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings; California

Energy Commission, 1998, 2005, 2008
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 22

Changes in prescribed insulation 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 Content

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

information 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 the 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 2009. 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 HCFC142b 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-STATE 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 2,505 550.5 250
Caleb 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 gain 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 years 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/year11. PUR Spray foam is using HFC-245fa 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 then

eventually converted to hydrocarbons about 10 years ago. The total emissions are

relatively insignificant for a boardstock plant running continuously.

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 1960 – 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 Foam 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 agent 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 (RASS)12, the US Census Bureau13 and the California

Energy Commission14. 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 California 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 Space Data
Caleb 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 years15. The useful life

of Non-Residential buildings can range from 25 years for steel framed buildings to 70

for wood framed buildings16. Caleb estimates an average 30 year life time for NonResidential 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 sprayapplied 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 Panels 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 percent 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. ;

2004
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 26

Figure 3-3California 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 made 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 alternative 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 m3) in the existing stock (Foam in

Buildings). By adding the volume 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 (m3)

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

buildings 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,

RMAX, Johns Manville have shifted from HCFC-141b to using pentane. They have

concluded that pentane is less costly than HFC-245fa and that given the high GWP 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 current thermal insulation market

supports a variety of solutions (at least 15 major product types), and this reflects the

range of requirements demanded for the applications served.17

17 IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, 2005
Caleb 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 the 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 total 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 asbestos is now a declining issue. Demolition cycles would be in the region of

30 years for residential, and 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 insulation 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 tracked separately, but is

likely to be contained in the ‘Remainder/Composite Plastics’ category (0.23% of C&D

waste stream; 7,174 tons/year in four metropolitan areas – or up to 15,130 tons/year

state-wide).This is broadly consistent with Caleb’s assessment of decommissioned

foam, where 445,000 m3of foam waste per year equates to 15,575 tons20.

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 commercial 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 = 15,575
Caleb 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 mixed 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

mandate

 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 changes. 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. Individual 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 intrinsic 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 to 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 insulation, 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, much

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 they
Caleb 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 commercial 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

systems). 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

might 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 fairly

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 fiberglass &

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 demolition 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 material 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 to 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

The 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

instance, 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 there 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’ and ‘all other products’.

PU Panels comprising foam cores between rigid facings. Facing materials are

typically steel, aluminum or glass fiber reinforced plastic sheets. PU Panels which are

faced with steel or aluminum are more attractive to recyclers owing to the metal

content. PU Panels are typically comprised 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

voluminous, 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/m3. Losses from

demolition 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 problem

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 segregated 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.

Demolition contractors prefer fiscal incentives to encourage them to recover ODScontaining 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 insignificant. 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 market. 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 it 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 disposal 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 destruction, 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 incinerated 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 expensive 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-medium 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 another 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 valuables 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 comparison, 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-eastern 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 taking 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 for
Caleb 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 building '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 more 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 without 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 held 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

potential 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 study21 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 landfill 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, 2007
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 37

degradation. Another study22 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 land-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 organisms 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 anaerobic 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 degradation 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 was 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 ATTENUATION 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, 2005
Caleb 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 units1) 10

Foam volume in one unit (L) 283

Foam volume for USA (million m3) 2.83

Mass of MSW disposed of in USA, 2001 (million tons per year2) 128

Estimated total waste mass disposed of in USA (million tons per

year3)

192

Landfilled volume (million m3/year4) 213

Average foam content (m3foam/m3landfill) 0.013

Number of landfills in USA** 1858

Average annual waste volume on one landfill (million m3) 0.115

Number of units disposed of annually on one landfill 5,400

Foam volume disposed of annually on one landfill (m3) 1,520

1. Scheutz & Kjelsden (2002)

2. reference US EPA (2001)

3. non-MSW disposal mass estmimated to be 50% of MSW mass

4. using a wet bulk density of 0.9 tons/m3

The inventory project did not identify any California specific studies or research

pertaining to managed attenuation. One respondent operating WTE facilities in

California suggested that, 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 effective 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 currently 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 2009
Caleb 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-containing 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 materials 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 Appliances 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 available 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 longterm 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 Industry has carried out

trials to assess suitable options for ODS disposal24. 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. Trials 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 use or

landfill. Trials indicated that the destruction cost is under $8 per m2, 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 panels 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 contained in the insulation core is released

24 End of Life Options for Steel based Building Envelope Systems; Kingspan Insulated Panels, 2006
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 40

to atmosphere. Non-ODS containing panels produced since 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 technology 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 nonpanel foam waste from construction or demolition 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 CO2 –eq. 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 m2) with 2 operators per shift. Currently, foam is manually removed from

appliances, then put into their recovery unit, where it is milled and crushed 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 similar 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 value 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 demolition 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 stock data and describes appliance related

foam and blowing agent consumption, before identifying blowing agent substitutions

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 stock 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 team 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 m3) in

the existing 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 below.
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 (m3)

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 polyurethane rigid foam whose density is

2 lb/ft

3

(30kg/m3), 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 polyurethane foam blowing agent from HCFC141b 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 preengineered 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 (2004) 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 shares.

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/m3. 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 refrigerator-freezer applications was CFC11. 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 substances (ODS) in the USA was

assisted by the Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) initiative. SNAP
Caleb 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-141b 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, hydrocarbon, and several not-in-kind

technologies. Most of the US appliance industry has adopted fluorocarbon

replacements for CFC’s.

In Appliances - because of the challenging insulation and structural characteristics

required for refrigerator and freezer insulation, 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 locations 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

refrigerators & freezers

Over 1 million refrigerators and freezers reach 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 recycler 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. The 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 Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD)

program, which includes utilities, municipalities, retailers, manufacturers, and other
Caleb 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 recovery and destruction.

Domestic Appliance disposal at End-of-Life

The table below shows the best 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 consistent

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 CARB25 based on an article published by S. Westerberg.

Table 3-19 REFRIGERATOR DISPOSAL PATHWAYS

Used Refrigerator Disposal

Path

Percent of

total

Portion reused (not

recycled) of

specific path

Re-Used and Not

Scrapped % of

total disposal

( Percent of total *

Portion re-used)

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-sponsored

Residential Appliance

Recycling Program (RARP) 12% 0% 0% 100% 12%

Sold (presumed to be reused) 11% 100% 11% 0% 0%

Unknown (half re-used) 6% 50% 3% 50% 3%

Totals 100% 39% 61%

25 CARB interpretation of findings: 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) – (last accessed 7/16/10)
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 48

Domestic Appliance Recycling with Foam Recovery

California has two appliance 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 preventing the emission of between

67 – 70 ODP-weighted tons of CFC-11 blowing agent to the atmosphere. 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, the

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 recycling 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 an automated process that crushes the foam and captures the 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 channeled
Caleb 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 Recycling 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 way forward

may be the carbon market. Carbon at $8.50/ton CO2-eq. could work, with each

appliance being 5 tons of CO2-eq. This generates a credit of $42.50 which, when

combined with the utility subsidies, may help stimulate a higher volume of throughput

at existing 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 average 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 California26, 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 m3) 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, 2009
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 51

Table 3-21 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN TRU'S (M3)

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 blowing 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. SUBSTITUTIONS
Caleb 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 similarly 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 refrigerants are recovered and how

much 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 insulation 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 stock 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 substitutions 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 Population/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, since 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 blown28.

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 also 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 interviews.

28 Resurf Recycling, www.resurf.org Joey Santley
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 54

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

account 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 for these applications

are HCFC 141b for boats and coolers to a broader range (HFC-245fa; H2O/CO2) for

buoys as well as Methyl Formate.

Buoyancy aids and picnic coolers & thermoses have been grouped together 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

coolers.

Table 3-25 2008 - CALEB ESTIMATES OF FOAM VOLUME IN MARINE & OTHER APPLICATIONS

(M3)

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

(M3)

Product Type

Foam in

Equipment New Foam

Decommissioned

Foam

Revised Foam

in Equipment

Walk-In Cold Stores 105,628 6,996 4,955 107,669
Caleb 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 history 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 SUBSTITUTIONS

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% pa29 .There are no specific programs to 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 materials, 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 discarded 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; possibility of larger units being shredded first

29 2006 Recreational Boating: Statistical Abstract; NMMA
Caleb 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 assumptions 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/m332-40 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 25
Caleb 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 AGENT30

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 Force
Caleb 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 lifecycles 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 tCO2-eq in 1996. Since then, they have reduced by around

40 million tCO2-eq to date and are expected to reduce by a further 60 million tCO2-eq

by 2020, as products containing high GWP gases are partially replaced by those

blown with low GWP alternatives in the typical building replacement cycle.

Figure 3-4 illustrates 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 for walk-in cold stores within existing buildings.

Figure 3-4 BANK ESTIMATES BY BUILDING TYPE

Bank Estimates by Building Type within current Buildings

(million tCO2-eq.)

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020

Year

Bank Size (Million tonnes CO2

-eq)

Cold Stores

Commercial

Multi-Family

Single Family

This set of figures can be re-appraised by blowing agent 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 new
Caleb 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

350

1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020

Year

Quantities (Million tonnes CO2

-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 strategies are employed. Figure

3-6 illustrates the likely accumulation of CFCs already occurring in the waste stream.

This is currently estimated at 59 million tCO2-eq. and is expected to increase with time

unless there is further intervention, with banks in waste streams reaching around 110

million tCO2-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

196019631966196919721975197819811984198719901993199619992002200520082011201420172020

Year

Quantities (Million tonnes CO2

-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, building

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 tCO2-eq.
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 62

Figure 3-7 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2010 - BUILDINGS

Baseline Emission Sources in 2010 - (4.48 million tonnes CO2-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%

Manufacturing emissions make up around 12.9% of the total. Annual 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 taken place after 1980.

The trends of blowing agent emission from the building sector with time are shown in

Figure 3-8. These reveal that emissions after decommissioning are thought to have

become the largest single source of emission in around 2007 and are increasing on a

relatively steep curve. By 2020 they are expected to exceed 4 million tCO2-eq.

annually under the baseline scenario.
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 63

Figure 3-8 BASELINE EMISSIONS BY SOURCE 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

199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013201520172019

Year

Quantities ('000s tonnes CO2

-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 are expected to grow to 6.46 million tCO2-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 CO2-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

PU Spray - Emissions after 0.57%

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 emissions 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 WASTE 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

199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013201520172019

Year

Quantities ('000s tonnes CO2

-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 significantly 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 Section 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 sector but, as shown by Figure 3-11, this represents a very

small 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 the
Caleb 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 HIGH GWP GASES IN CALIFORNIA

Summary of Bank Development for High GWP Gases in California

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

19751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013201520172019

Year

Bank Size (Million tonnes CO2

-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 ODScontaining 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

19751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013201520172019

Year

Annual Emissions (Million tonnes CO2

-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 costeffective 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 areas of high re-use) can be justified. The outcome of the current

assumption on bank dynamics 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

60.00

1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020

Year

Bank Size (Million tonnes CO2

-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 water heater sector. Figure 3-14 provides 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 BANKS IN APPLIANCES

Total Banks in Appliances and Waste Streams

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

196019631966196919721975197819811984198719901993199619992002200520082011201420172020

Year

Quantities (Million tonnes CO2

-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 waste 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

196019631966196919721975197819811984198719901993199619992002200520082011201420172020

Year

Quantities (Million tonnes CO2

-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 Appliances
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 69

3.9.3.2. Emissions 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 sensitivity of annual emissions to

waste flows is, in large part, due to the continued use of auto-shredders for the endof-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 surrounding 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

199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020

Year

Annual Emissions ('000s tonnes CO2

-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 take 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 CO2-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

196019631966196919721975197819811984198719901993199619992002200520082011201420172020

Year

Quantities (Million tonnes CO2

-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 Refrigeration
Caleb 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

196019631966196919721975197819811984198719901993199619992002200520082011201420172020

Year

Quantities (Million tonnes CO2

-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

196019631966196919721975197819811984198719901993199619992002200520082011201420172020

Year

Quantities (Million tonnes CO2

-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/Other
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 73

The overall decrease in the 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 favorable options for mitigation strategies, although the

bulk of vending machines and commercial refrigeration applications could potentially

be captured by any measures taken in the appliance sector.

With respect to emissions, those emanating after decommissioning (e.g. from banks

in waste streams) will dominate. Figure 3-21,Figure 3-22 illustrate the point:

Figure 3-21 BASELINE EMISSION SOURCES IN 2020 – Other Refrigeration

Baseline Emission Sources in 2020 - (0.08 million tonnes CO2-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

Commerical-Refurb - Use 0.9%

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 CO2-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 dominant 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 emissions, 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 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 are as follows:

 All appliances (domestic refrigerators, freezers 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 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, although

something between the two should be achievable 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 foams used in buildings. Finally, a more realistic worstcase 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 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, would need substantial consultation. It has
Caleb 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)

 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.

3.10.3. Appliances and Other Refrigeration

As noted in the 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 another. 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), then 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 reductions achieved against 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

199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013201520172019

Year

Annual Emissions ('000s tonnes CO2

-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

199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013201520172019

Year

Annual Emissions ('000s tonnes CO2

-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 Option

Potential Savings('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 Option

Potential Savings ('000s tonnes CO2

-eq.)

Cumulative Saving to 2020

Annual Saving at 2020

Although these graphs appear similar in scale, it should be noted that each measure

in the appliance sector delivers a cumulative saving in excess of 1 million tCO2-eq. by

2020 while no measure in the Other Refrigeration sector delivers more than 0.14
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 79

million tCO2-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 interesting 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, with the exception of structural cold stores, which are a very small and

specialist use. The consequence is shown in Figure 3-28:

Figure 3-28 SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE BUILDING SECTOR 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 Measure

Potential Savings ('000s tonnes CO2

-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 tCO2-eq. to

11.5 million tCO2-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 tCO2-eq. by 2020, with the PU Spray sector potentially contributing a further 1

million tCO2-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 SCENARIOS FOR BUILDINGS

Emission Reduction Scenarios for Buildings

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013201520172019

Year

Quantities ('000s tonnes CO2-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 tCO2-eq. could be achieved by a suite of measures in the period to 2020, with

annual savings at that stage ranging from 2.22-2.99 million tCO2-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 Measure

Potential Savings ('000s tonnes CO2-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 CUMULATIVE MITIGATION POTENTIAL FOR HIGH GWP GASES IN 2020

Max. Cumulative Mitigation Potential for High GWP Gases to 2020

(15.16 million tonnes CO2-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 CO2-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 mitigate 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 proposition 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 2006, CARB published a Staff Report in

November 200731 quantifying the baseline emissions in 1990 and, thereby,

establishing the target for emissions from the State in 2020. The total agreed was 427

million tCO2-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-asUsual projections contained in the Staff Report suggested that emissions would reach

600 million tCO2-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 tCO2-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 already 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

that 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, 2007
Caleb 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 destructive in the light of the 173 million

tCO2-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 specific 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 Decision 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 the 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 foams, 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 (largely 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 demolition 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 built 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 technical

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, often

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 viability 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 Refrigeration

 Steel-faced Panels

 Block Pipe Section and Slab

In practice, the quantity of block (bun32) manufactured and used globally is relatively

small as a proportion of the total. Where pipe section is produced from block (or,

indeed, extruded from thermoplastic 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 segregation 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 managing 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 to cover other types of appliance. In the case of Europe

this has been driven by product lifecycle legislation such as the WEEE33 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 endof-life appliances being de-manufactured in line with the legislative requirements as

well as the maintenance of adequate standards for recovery 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 Electronic Equipment’
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 87

investigation revealed that the most likely cause of these malpractices has 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 & DESTRUCTION
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 88

refrigerators dropping from 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 (Voluntary Carbon Standard

(VCS) and Climate Action Reserve (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 developing 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)

Total Potential Saving (Mtonnes CO2 saved)

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 tCO2-eq. saved. This compares to a figure of $10

per tCO2-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 circumstances.
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 200734 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 blowing

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 study35 completed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE)

in the United Kingdom, the assessment of cost associated with the management of

ODS in buildings was in the order of £200 ($300) per tCO2-eq. saved. It should be

stressed that the prime purpose of this study was not to review costs in detail, 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 substances in the UK Building Stock;

BRE, 2007
Caleb 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 main 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 selfevident 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-245fa 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 safety grounds. Efforts are being deployed to evaluate

alternatives such as super-critical CO2 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 CO2 (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 universally 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 blends until 1st

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 generation 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 that early HFC phase-out can
Caleb 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 remaining, 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 transition

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 mitigation options set out in Section 3.10 indicates that savings up

to 2.99 million tCO2-eq. per annum can be achieved by 2020. Against the total target

of 173 million tCO2-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:

Figure 4-3 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SAVINGS AT 2020 BY SOURCE

Maximum Potential Savings at 2020 by Source

(2.99 million tonnes CO2-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.
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

impact 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-oflife are better understood and established globally. However, even at their maximum

potential, they would only deliver around 17.2% of the savings that 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 regard, 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, where

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 is 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 due 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 central proposition behind this project is 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 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. The outputs from this project will assist the

California Air Resources Board in developing and implementing strategies that

contribute to the State of California reaching its goal of CO2-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 contain 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 lifecycle. 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 and
Caleb 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 tCO2-eq. and has been

gradually reducing since then. In 2005 it was around 316 million tCO2-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 accounted for the remaining 6%. By 2020, the Bank is estimated to be 244

million tCO2-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 Gas emissions from the 2005 Bank were just over 6 million tCO2-eq. –

with 66% arising from the buildings end-use and 20% from the appliances end-use.

By 2020, annual emissions are estimated to be over 8 million tCO2-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 tCO2-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)

 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 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, although
Caleb 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 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 foams used in buildings. Finally, a more realistic worstcase 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-down 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

and 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 tCO2-

eq. per annum can be achieved by 2020. Against the total target of 173 million tCO2-

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 CO2-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 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.
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 tCO2-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 Research

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 maintain 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 Program; 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 Percent 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 & Construction;

SBI, 2008

12.California State-Wide Appliance Saturation Study;

http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASSWEB/DesktopDefault.aspx

13.Construction Statistics Data User’s Conference; US Bureau 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; 2000
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 101

16.Survey on actual service lives 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.Attenuation 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 Steel 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 & Determining 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 ‘California 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, 2007
Caleb 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: Compendium 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 Model
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 103

8. Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

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 the "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 Construction & 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, Farming & 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 Hydrofluorocarbon

HFO Hydrofluoroolefins

H

HVAC Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning

I IECC

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

J

K

L LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCCP Life Cycle Carbon Performance

Methanogenic A process whereby micro-organisms 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

N NAMA National Automated Merchandising Association

NIK Not-In-Kind

O ODS Ozone Depleting Substance

PIP Pour-In-Place (Foam)

PIR Polyisocyanurate (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. Composite 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 Significant 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 Spray 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 the 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 The 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

Z
Caleb 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 BUILDINGS 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 INSTALLATION

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 INSTALLATION

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 INSTALLATION

38 Tarlos & Associates Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION

39 Jerry Tucker & Associates Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION

40 Vanderhoek Architects Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION

41 WD Partners Inc BUILDINGS INSTALLATION
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 106

42 The Woodley Group BUILDINGS INSTALLATION

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 INSTALLATION

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 Upwall 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 Architects 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 Inc 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 INSTALLATION

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 and 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 Development 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 BUILDINGS 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 BUILDINGS 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 Department 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 INSTALLATION

93 Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION

94 San Benito County Planning Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 107

95 San Bernardino Land Use Services Department BUILDINGS INSTALLATION

96 San Diego County Department 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 Building 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 BUILDINGS 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 INSTALLATION

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 Beals 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 Inc 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 - Institute 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

MANAGEMENT

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

MANAGEMENT
Caleb 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 EOL

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 VALLEY 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 STATION

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

MANAGEMENT
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 109

165 Korbel Maintenance Disposal Site GENERIC

EOL

MANAGEMENT

166 Fink Road Landfill GENERIC

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

MANAGEMENT

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

EOL

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 California 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

MANAGEMENT

189 Barstow Sanitary Landfill GENERIC

EOL

MANAGEMENT

190 Colton Sanitary Landfill GENERIC

EOL

MANAGEMENT

191 Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill GENERIC

EOL

MANAGEMENT
Caleb Management Services Ltd

Agreement No. 07-312

Page 110

192 Landers Sanitary Landfill GENERIC

EOL

MANAGEMENT

193 Holliday Inertwaste Site 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

EOL

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

EOL

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

207 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 GENERIC

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 Landfill GENERIC

EOL

MANAGEMENT

217 City Of Lompoc Sanitary Landfill GENERIC

EOL

MANAGEMENT

218 Pacheco Pass Landfill Recology (Norcal) GENERIC

EOL

MANAGEMENT
Caleb 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

EOL

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 Sanden 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 Industry 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

EOL

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 California Environmental Rights Alliance

TRU - ALL

TYPES INSTALLATION
Caleb 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 Truck 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 Systems 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 - TRUCK 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 Trucking 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 - TRUCK RECYCLERS
Caleb 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 MARINE/OTHER

EOL

MANAGEMENT
Caleb 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 Indianapolis 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 Northfield 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. Worth 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 FL
Caleb 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/install 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 DR 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 Homes 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

building/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 Commission 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 Eagle 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/install 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

buildings/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

buildings/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 CA
Caleb 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 ARCA 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