UP20
D A0 1
TE
UNEP
Protecting the
Ozone Layer
V o l u m e
4
Foams
This booklet is one of a series of reports prepared by the OzonAction Programme of the United Nations Environment
Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP DTIE). UNEP DTIE would like to give special thanks
to the following organizations and individuals for their work in contributing to this project:
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Ms. Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Director, UNEP DTIE
Mr. Rajendra M. Shende, Chief, UNEP DTIE Energy and OzonAction Unit
Ms. Cecilia Mercado, Information Officer, UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme
Mr. Andrew Robinson, Programme Assistant, UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme
Editor: Geoffrey Bird
Design and layout: ampersand graphic design, inc.
© 2001 UNEP
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational and non-profit purposes
without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would
appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior
permission in writing from UNEP.
The technical papers in this publication have not been peer-reviewed and are the sole opinion of the authors. The
designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication therefore do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the
views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment
Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
ISBN: 92-807-2161-5
UP20
D A0 1
TE
UNEP
Protecting the
Ozone Layer
V o l u m e
4
Foams
Contents
Foreword
3
Acknowledgements
4
Executive summary
5
Ozone depletion: an overview
7
The Montreal Protocol
9
Achievements to date in the foam sector
13
CFC phase out by foam type
20
•
•
•
•
•
Flexible polyurethane foams
Rigid polyurethane foams
Phenolic foams
Extruded polystyrene foams
Polyolefin foams
Cross-cutting issues
•
•
•
•
•
Specific problems facing small producers
Availability and regulatory framework of HFCs
Development of more stringent fire codes
Management of blowing agents at end-of-life
Resources:
•
•
•
32
Economic drivers
35
Contact points
Further reading
Glossary
About the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme
40
About the UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
42
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Foreword
When the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer came into force, in 1989, it
had been ratified by 29 countries and the EEC, and set limits on the production of eight man-made
chemicals identified as ozone depleting substances (ODS). By July 2001 there were more than 170
Parties (i.e. signatories) to the Protocol, both developed and developing countries, and production
and consumption of over 90 substances were controlled.
Linking these two sets of figures, which attest to the success of the Montreal Protocol, is a process of
elimination of ODS in which ratification of the Protocol was only a first step. It was recognized from
the start that the Protocol must be a flexible instrument and that it should be revised and extended to
keep pace with scientific progress. It was also recognized that developing countries would face
special problems with phase out and would need assistance if their development was not to be
hindered. To level the playing field, the developing countries were given extra time to adjust
economically and to equip. A Multilateral Fund (MLF) was also set up early in the process to provide
financial and technical support for their phase out efforts.
Exchanges of information and mutual support among the Parties to the Montreal Protocol – via the
mechanisms of the MLF – have been crucial to the Protocol’s success so far. They will continue to be
so in the future. Even though many industries and manufacturers have successfully replaced ODS
with substances that are less damaging to the ozone layer or with ODS-free technology, lack of upto-date, accurate information on issues surrounding ODS substitutes continues to be a major
obstacle for many Parties, especially developing country Parties.
To help stimulate and support the process of ODS phase out, UNEP DTIE’s OzonAction Programme
provides information exchange and training, and acts as a clearinghouse for ozone related
information. One of the most important jobs of the OzonAction programme is to ensure that all those
who need to understand the issues surrounding replacement of ODS can obtain the information and
assistance they require. Hence this series of plain language reports – based on the reports of UNEP’s
Technical Options Committees (TOC) – summarizing the major ODS replacement issues for decision
makers in government and industry. The reports, first published in 1992, have now been updated to
keep abreast of technological progress and to better reflect the present situation in the sectors they
cover: refrigerants; solvents, coatings and adhesives; fire extinguishing substances; foams; aerosols,
sterilants, carbon tetrachloride and miscellaneous uses; and methyl bromide. Updating is based on
the 1998 reports from the TOCs and includes further information from the TOCs until 2000.
Updating of the reports at this point is particularly timely. The ‘grace period’ granted to developing
countries under the Montreal Protocol before their introduction of a freeze on CFCs came to an end in
July 1999. As developing countries now move to meet their Protocol commitments, accurate and upto-date information on available and appropriate technologies will be more important than ever if the
final goal of effective global protection of the ozone layer is to be achieved.
The publications in this series summarize the current uses of ODS in each sector, the availability of
substitutes and the technological and economic implications of converting to ODS-free technology.
Readers requiring more detailed information should refer to the original reports of the UNEP Technical
Options Committees (see Further Reading) on which the series is based.
3
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Acknowledgements
This report, written by Caleb Management Services, Bristol, UK, is based on the UNEP Flexible and
Rigid Foams Technical Options Report (Nairobi, UNEP, 1998). Many members of the Technical
Options Committee (see list below) gave freely of their time to accumulate data and provide text for
the Technical Options Report, without which this publication would not have been possible. Special
thanks are due to Ms. Lalitha Singh, Mr. Bert Veenendaal and Dr. Mike Jeffs who have peer reviewed
this publication and ensured that, while written in plain language, it accurately reflects the much more
detailed information available in the original report.
MEMBERS OF THE UNEP FLEXIBLE AND RIGID FOAMS
TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (1998)
4
Mr. Godfrey Abbott
Dow Europe/Exiba
Switzerland
Mr. Kuninari Araki
Hitachi
Japan
Mr. Paul Ashford
Caleb Management Services/EPFA
United Kingdom
Dr. Pierre Barthelemy
Solvay Fluor und Derivate
Germany
Dr. Ted Biermann
BASF Corporation
United States
Mr. Michael J. Cartmell
Huntsman Polyurethanes
United States
Mr. John Clinton
Intech Consulting
United States
Mr. Seiji Ishii
Bridgestone Corporation
Japan
Dr. Mike Jeffs
Huntsman Polyurethanes
Belgium
Dr. Robert Johnson
Whirpool Corporation
United States
Mr. Akihide Katata
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Japan
Mr. Ko Swee Hee
Jumaya Industries
Malaysia
Mr. Kee-Bong Lee
KLG Electronics
Korea
Mr. Candido Lomba
Insituto Nacional Do Plastico
Brazil
Mr. Yehia Lotfi
Technocom
Egypt
Mr. Heinz Meloth
Cannon
Italy
Mr. Risto Ojala
United Nations Development Programme
Finland
Ms. Sally Rand (co-chair)
US Environmental Protection Agency
United States
Mr. Robert Russell
The Dow Chemical Company
United States
Mr. Mudumbai Sarangapani
Polyurethane Council of India
India
Ms. Lalitha Singh (co-chair)
Independent Expert
India
Mr. Shigeru Tomita
Kurabo Industries
Japan
Mr. Bert Veenendaal
RAPPA Inc.
United States
Mr. Dave Williams
Honeywell
United States
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Executive summary
In the 1998 report on the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, scientists concluded that, while
the total combined abundance of ozone depleting compounds in the lower atmosphere peaked in
1994, the springtime Antarctic ozone hole was continuing unabated. In addition, the late-winter/spring
ozone values in the Arctic were unusually low for six out of the nine years from 1989 to 1998 – the six
being years characterized by unusually cold and protracted stratospheric winters. At the time of the
report, it was expected that combined abundance of chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere would
peak before the year 2000, indicating that actions under the Montreal Protocol were beginning to take
effect.
In the light of these observations and predictions, the global community has been under no illusions
that efforts to reduce and eliminate the use of CFCs – and ultimately all ozone depleting substances
(ODS) – must be maintained and, where necessary, intensified. The Montreal Protocol has provided a
strong focus for this effort and, to date, over 170 Parties from both developed and developing
countries are signatories. The aims of the Protocol are first to limit and then to completely phase out
the production and consumption of all ODS. While this will not be achieved for hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) until 2040, the early introduction of HCFCs and other non-CFC substitutes means that the
Montreal Protocol is still on course to achieve the phase out of CFC use globally by 2010. Recovery
of the ozone layer is not expected until the second half of the 21st century, but it is expected that the
rate of decline of chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere will accelerate over the next decade as the
Montreal Protocol takes full effect.
In the foam sector, fully halogenated CFCs were used extensively in the manufacture of polyurethane
(PU), phenolic, polystyrene and polyolefin foam polymers, used in many different products. Common
blowing agents included CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and CFC-114. In 1990, building and appliance
insulation applications accounted for approximately 140,000 metric tonnes (80 per cent) of the CFCs
used in foamed polymers. Cushioning, packaging, flotation and microcellular foams accounted for the
remaining 34,000 tonnes where CFCs were often used as auxiliary blowing agents.
Since the early 1990s, great strides have been made in phasing out CFC use in foams in many parts
of the world and all developed country usage was halted by 1996. This was achieved by product
reformulation, direct substitution of CFCs with other blowing agents and, in some cases, the use of
new manufacturing technologies. While CFC use continues to a degree in developing countries, it is
expected that, broadly, this will cease by around 2008, provided that funds can be made available for
the conversion of smaller users.
A number of important factors affect reductions in CFC use, including: concerns over the levels of
toxicity of CFC alternatives; flammability; and environmental effects such as residual stratospheric
ozone depletion, ground level air pollution, global warming and tropospheric degradation.
Furthermore, diverse national and regional legislation has, in some cases, affected the ability to
achieve a smooth transition to CFC substitutes.
The role of HCFCs in achieving a rapid phase out of CFC usage should not be under-estimated.
However, the optimization of technologies using hydrocarbons and other ozone benign solutions has
increasingly enabled many foam manufacturers to achieve ‘one-step’ solutions. As many of the
developed countries are now reaching the point where phase out of HCFC use is required, the ozone
5
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
benign solutions are the focus of even greater attention. Among these are the so-called ‘liquid’ HFCs,
which may play a significant role in retaining the foam properties previously achieved by CFCs and
HCFCs, if not in isolation, then as an important component of blends.
Although progress towards CFC phase out has been substantial, the various sectors of the global
foam industry still face significant cross-cutting issues. These include the cost-effective funding of
transitions in small businesses and other low volume consuming organizations, the ever-changing
regulatory framework for product parameters affected by blowing agent selection (e.g. fire
performance), and the need to manage the disposal of retained ozone-depleting blowing agents
when a foam reaches the end of its service life. All of these issues ensure that attention will continue
to focus on the response of the foam sector during the next phase of the Montreal Protocol.
6
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Ozone depletion: an overview
Most of the oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere is in the form of molecules containing two oxygen atoms,
known by the familiar chemical symbol O2. In certain circumstances, three atoms of oxygen can bond
together to form ozone, a gas with the chemical symbol O3. Ozone occurs naturally in the Earth’s
atmosphere where its concentration varies with altitude. Concentration peaks in the stratosphere at around
25-30 kilometres from the Earth’s surface and this region of concentration of the gas is known as the ozone
layer.
The ozone layer is important because it absorbs certain wavelengths of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the
Sun, reducing their intensity at the Earth’s surface. High doses of UV radiation at these wavelengths can
damage eyes and cause skin cancer, reduce the efficiency of the body’s immune system, reduce plant
growth rates, upset the balance of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and accelerate degradation of some
plastics and other materials.
Effects of CFCs on stratoshperic ozone
UV radiation
series of reactions
CFCl3
chlorine
monoxide
free
chlorine
radical
When gases containing chlorine,
such as CFCs, are broken down
in the atmosphere, each chlorine
+
chlorine
radical
CFCl2
atom sets off a reaction that may
destroy hundreds of thousands
ozone
(O3)
of ozone molecules.
oxygen
molecule
(O2)
A number of man-made chemicals are known to be harmful to the ozone layer. They all have two common
properties: they are stable in the lower atmosphere and they contain chlorine or bromine. Their stability
allows them to diffuse gradually up to the stratosphere where they can be broken down by solar radiation.
This releases chlorine and bromine radicals that can set off destructive chain reactions breaking down other
gases, including ozone, and thus reducing the atmospheric concentration of ozone. This is what is meant
by ozone depletion. The chlorine or bromine radical is left intact after this reaction and may take part in as
many as 100,000 similar reactions before eventually being washed out of the stratosphere into the
troposphere.
7
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Another important environmental impact of a gas is its contribution to global warming. Global
Warming Potential (GWP) is an estimate of the warming of the atmosphere resulting from release of
a unit mass of gas in relation to the warming that would be caused by release of the same amount
of carbon dioxide. Some ODS and some of the chemicals being developed to replace them are
known to have significant GWPs. For example, CFCs have high GWPs and the non-ozonedepleting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) developed to replace CFCs also contribute to global warming.
GWP is an increasingly important parameter when considering substances as candidates to replace
ODS.
During past decades, sufficient quantities of ODS have been released into the atmosphere to
damage the ozone layer significantly. The largest losses of stratospheric ozone occur regularly over
the Antarctic every spring, resulting in substantial increases in UV levels over Antarctica. A similar
though weaker effect has been observed over the Arctic.
How CFC Nomenclature Works
F
F
CFC numbers provide the information
needed to deduce the chemical structure
of the compound. The digit far right
Cl
C
C
Cl
CFC 114
provides information on the number of
fluorine atoms, the digit second from the
right provides information on hydrogen
atoms, and the digit on the left provides
F
F
number of carbon atoms minus one (omitted if 0)
number of hydrogen atoms, plus one
number of flourine atoms in one molecule
information on carbon atoms. Vacant
valencies are filled with chlorine atoms.
Adding 90 to the number reveals the
numbers of C, H and F atoms more
Note: 1. All spare valencies filled by chlorine atoms
2. Different isomers are indicated by a suffic of lower case letters
3. Bromine atoms are indicated by a suffic B plus number of atoms
4. Hundreds number = 4 or 5 for blends (e.g. R-502)
directly.
At present, scientists predict that, provided the Montreal Protocol is implemented in full, ozone
depletion will reach its peak during the next few years and will then gradually decline until the ozone
layer returns to normal around 2050.
8
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
The Montreal Protocol
The Montreal Protocol, developed under the management of the United Nations Environment
Programme in 1987, came into force on 1 January 1989. The Protocol defines measures that Parties
must introduce to limit production and consumption of substances that deplete the ozone layer. The
Montreal Protocol and the Vienna Convention – the framework agreement from which the Protocol
was born – were the first global agreements to protect the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Protocol originally introduced phase out schedules for five CFCs and three halons. However, it
was designed so that it could be revised on the basis of periodic scientific and technical
assessments. The first revisions were made at a meeting of the Parties in London, in 1990, when
controls were extended to additional CFCs and halons as well as to carbon tetrachloride and methyl
chloroform. At the Copenhagen meeting, in 1992, the Protocol was amended to include methyl
bromide and to control HBFCs and HCFCs. A schedule for phase out of methyl bromide was
adopted at the Vienna meeting in 1995, and this was later revised in 1997, in Montreal. In 1999, the
Parties met in Beijing, where they extended control to bromochloromethane (CBM). By July 2001,
there were 177 Parties to the Montreal Protocol and more than 90 chemicals are now controlled.
Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) covered by the Montreal Protocol
and their ozone-depletion potential (ODP)*
Ozone-depleting
substance (ODS)
Major uses
Ozone-depletion
potential (ODP)
Chlorofluorocarbons
Refrigerants; propellants for spray cans, inhalers, etc.;
0.6-1
(CFC)
solvents, blowing agents for foam manufacture
Halons
Used in fire extinguishers
3-10
Carbon tetrachloride
Feedstock for CFCs, pharmaceutical and agricultural
1.1
chemicals, solvent
1,1,1-trichlorethane
Solvent
0.1
Developed as ‘transitional’ replacement for CFCs.
0.01-0.52
(HCFCs)
Developed as ‘transitional’ replacement for CFCs.
0.02-7.5
Methyl bromide
Fumigant, widely used for pest control
0.6
Bromochloromethane (CBM)
Solvent
0.12
(methyl chloroform)
Hydrobromofluorocarbons
(HBFCs)
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
* Where ranges of ODP are given, readers requiring the exact ODP for a given CFC, halon, HBFC or HCFC
should refer to the Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, published by the
UNEP Ozone Secretariat, or other accredited sources.
9
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
How regulation works
All ODS do not inflict equal amounts of damage on the ozone layer. Substances that contain only
carbon, fluorine, chlorine, and/or bromine – referred to as fully halogenated – have the highest
potential for damage. They include CFCs and halons. Other substances, including the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), developed as replacements for CFCs, also contain hydrogen. This reduces
their persistence in the atmosphere and makes them less damaging for the ozone layer. For the
purposes of control under the Montreal Protocol, ODS are assigned an ozone-depletion potential
(ODP).
Each controlled chemical is assigned an ODP in relation to CFC-11 which is given an ODP of 1.
These values are used to calculate an indicator of the damage being inflicted on the ozone layer by
each country’s production and consumption of controlled substances. Consumption is defined as
total production plus imports less exports, and therefore excludes recycled substances. The relative
ozone-depleting effect of production of a controlled ODS is calculated by multiplying its annual
production by its ODP, results are given in ODP tonnes, a unit used in this series of publications and
elsewhere. The ODS currently covered by the Montreal Protocol are shown, with their ODPs, in the
table on page 9.
Developing countries and the Montreal Protocol
From the outset, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol recognized that developing countries could face
special difficulties with phase out and that additional time and financial and technical support would
be needed by what came to be known as ‘Article 5’ countries. Article 5 countries are developing
countries that consume less than 0.3 kg per capita per year of controlled substances in a certain
base year. They are so called because their status is defined in Article 5 of the Protocol1.
Financial and technical assistance was provided under the 1990 London Amendment which set up
the Multilateral Fund (MLF). Activities and projects under the MLF are implemented by four
implementing agencies: UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO and the World Bank.
Article 5 countries were also granted a ‘grace period’ of 10 years to prepare for phase out. 1999
marked the end of that period for production and consumption of CFCs. Article 5 countries have,
since 1999, entered the ‘compliance’ period in which they will have to achieve specific reduction
targets.
The requirements of the Montreal Protocol as of December 2000 for both developed and Article 5
countries are shown in the table opposite.
1
10
This is often written Article 5(1), indicating that status is defined in paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol.
‘Article 5 Parties’ is also used.
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Requirements of the Montreal Protocol including amendments
and adjustments to the end of 1999**
Controlled Substance
Reduction in consumption
and production for
developed countries
Reduction in consumption
and production for developing
(Article 5) countries
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC- 113,
Base level: 1986
Base level: Average of 1995-1997
CFC-114, CFC-115
1989: Freeze
1999: Freeze
1994: 75 per cent
2005: 50 per cent
1996: 100 per cent
2007: 85 per cent
2010: 100 per cent
Halon 1211, halon 1301, halon
Base level: 1986
Base level: Average of 1995-1997
2402
1992: 20 per cent
2002: Freeze
1994: 100 per cent
2005: 50 per cent
2010: 100 per cent
Base level: 1989
Base level: Average of 1998-2000
1993: 20 per cent
2003: 20 per cent
1994: 75 per cent
2007: 85 per cent
1996: 100 per cent
2010: 100 per cent
Base level: 1989
Base level: Average of 1998-2000
1995: 85 per cent
2005: 85 per cent
1996: 100 per cent
2010: 100 per cent
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Base level: 1989
Base level: Average of 1998-2000
(methyl chloroform)
1993: Freeze
2003: Freeze
1994: 50 per cent
2005: 30 per cent
1996: 100 per cent
2010: 70 per cent
Other fully halogenated CFCs
Carbon tetrachloride
2015: 100 per cent
HCFCs
Consumption
Consumption
Base level: 1989 HCFC consumption +
Base level: 2015
2.8 per cent of 1989 CFC consumption
2016: Freeze
1996: Freeze
2040: 100 per cent
2004: 35 per cent
Production
2010: 65 per cent
Base level: 2015
2015: 90 per cent
2001: Freeze
2020: 99.5 per cent
2030: 100 per cent
Production
Base level: 1989 HCFC consumption +
2.8 per cent of 1989 CFC consumption
2004: Freeze
11
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Requirements of the Montreal Protocol including amendments
and adjustments to the end of 1999**
Controlled Substance
Reduction in consumption
and production for
developed countries
Reduction in consumption
and production for developing
(Article 5) countries
HBFCs
1996: 100 per cent
1996: 100 per cent
Bromochloromethane
2002: 100 per cent
2002: 100 per cent
Methyl bromide
Base level: 1991
Base level: Average of 1995-1998
1995: Freeze
2002: Freeze
1999: 25 per cent
2005: 20 per cent
2001: 50 per cent
2003: review of reduction schedule
2003: 70 per cent
2015: 100 per cent
2005: 100 per cent
**
The Protocol allows some exemptions, e.g. for "essential uses." Readers requiring full details of phase out for a given substance
should refer to the Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, published by the UNEP Ozone
Secretariat, or other accredited sources.
Progress in the ratification of the Montreal Protocol and its amendments
200
150
No. of Countries
Ratifying 100
50
0
Vienna
Convention
Montreal
Protocol
London
Copenhagen
Amendment Amendment
Agreement
Source: Caleb Management Services, UK
12
Montreal
Beijing
Amendment Amendment
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Achievements to date in the foam sector
Cellular polymers (foams) are manufactured in many different forms for many different applications.
They are made by introducing a gas, or a volatile liquid, into a liquid polymer or pre-polymer. The gas
forms bubbles in the polymer and, when the polymer hardens, a cellular structure remains. The gas
used to form the cells is called a blowing agent. In some cellular polymers the cells are closed,
trapping the blowing agent inside (closed cell foam), while in others the cells are produced open and
the blowing agent escapes (open cell foam).
A number of materials can be used as blowing agents, including carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbons
and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The primary requirements for a good blowing agent are that it should
not react with the polymer matrix, should have appropriate solubility characteristics for the process
envisaged (either solution or emulsion), and should have a suitable boiling point and vapour pressure.
Historically, CFCs have provided a relatively inexpensive solution. The major CFCs used in the industry
have been CFC-11, CFC-113, CFC-12 and CFC-114. The respective ozone depletion potentials of
these chemicals are as follows:
Blowing agent
Ozone depletion potential
CFC-11
1.0
CFC-113
0.8
CFC-12
1.0
CFC-114
1.0
The Alternative Fluorocarbon Environmental Assessment Study (AFEAS) has been collecting
production and sales data for these CFCs in the foam sector for a number of years. The growth and
subsequent decline of CFC use are shown in the graph below.
Use of CFCs in foams (1976 - 1999)
350000
Flexible foams
300000
Rigid foams
250000
Volume
(tonnes)
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
Year
13
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
However, a limitation of the AFEAS data collection process is that it only focuses on CFC producers
who are member companies. This approach was adequate when the bulk of CFCs were
manufactured in developed countries. However, as CFC manufacture has shifted to developing
countries such as India and China, AFEAS data has, in recent years, tended to under-report supply to
the foam sector. The graph below shows CFC consumption in the rigid foam sector and illustrates the
continuing ‘rump’ of demand in developing countries predicted to remain until around 2008.
Phase out of CFC blowing agents in rigid foams
Annual Consumption (ODP Tonnes)
250000
Developing countries
Japan
200000
North America
Europe
150000
100000
50000
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
Whichever data set is used, it is clear that the foam sector has responded dramatically to the
requirements of the Montreal Protocol and has managed a rapid reduction in consumption. The pace
of change was most rapid in the flexible foam sector where CFCs only fulfilled an auxiliary blowing
agent function and were, therefore, less difficult to substitute. In the rigid (closed cell) foam sector,
substitution was more difficult because of the need to maintain physical foam properties, flammability
characteristics and thermal insulation values.
Despite this success, the problem of CFC use in foams is not yet entirely resolved. As we shall see,
some of the major challenges are with small users of the blowing agents in developing countries. In
addition, there is the serious issue of the on-going release of the CFCs still remaining in closed cell
insulation foams installed over the past 50 years. Since blowing agent release rates are slower for
closed cell foams (open celled foams tend to lose most of their blowing agent during manufacture or
shortly afterwards), the focus of attention is on closed cell insulation foam applications such as
domestic refrigerators and building insulation. Unless measures are introduced to limit the release of
blowing agents at end-of-life, releases of CFC-11 alone are expected to continue at a rate of 40,000
to 70,000 tonnes annually until 20102. In response to these potential sources of release, the wording
of the Montreal Protocol and various regional regulations resulting from it has been consistently
tightened in an effort to control and reduce the release of CFCs into the atmosphere. It is recognized
that if the flow of releases can be stemmed sufficiently in the short-term, the spread of releases over a
2
14
Development of a Global Emission Function for Blowing Agents Used in Closed Cell Foam - AFEAS (2000)
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
longer period could be less damaging. Accordingly, care has had to be taken to avoid inadvertent
acceleration of releases by use of unproven or inefficient means of recovery and destruction from
systems that would otherwise have contained the CFCs for many more years.
Spread of applications
The foam industry covers a wide range of applications, each of which has its own range of technical
requirements and life-cycle issues. For example, blowing agent release rates from foams can vary
substantially depending on foam type and degree of encapsulation. This publication covers four
chemically distinct foam types. These are:
• polyurethane (both rigid and flexible);
• extruded polystyrene (both board and sheet);
• phenolic;
• polyolefin (including polyethylene and polypropylene foams).
It should be noted that expanded polystyrene foam (sometimes known as EPS or ‘bead board’) is not
included in the scope of this document because the product has always been blown with pentane or
other hydrocarbons.
The applications to which foams are put are many and varied. The graphic on the following page
shows the way in which the four basic product types are used for a variety of end applications. As
can be seen, there is not always ‘one best way’ of meeting the needs of a given application and
different solutions have different benefits and limitations. This graphic hides an even more complex
sub-set of applications and performance requirements. The challenge of finding replacement blowing
agents with the ability to meet the range of demands is therefore a significant one.
In 1986, the base year for the Montreal Protocol, the distribution of CFC blowing agent use among
these foam types was as follows:
CFC usage by product type in the foam sector (1986)
(total 287,400 tonnes)
Extruded Polystyrene
37600 (14%)
Phenolic
1400 (1%)
Polyolefin
19000 (7%)
Polyurethane
209400 (78%)
15
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Types of foam and their typical applications
slabstock foam
cushions
bedding
underlay
moulded foam
vehicle seat cushions
injected foam
appliance insulation
flexible
boardstock/
flexible faced lamination
sandwich panels
polyurethane
spray foam insulation
rigid
slabstock
roof insulation
wall insulation
building insulation
refrigerated transport
roof insulation
wall insulation
building insulation
pipe insulation
refrigerated transport
thermosetting
foams
pipe-in-pipe/
preformed pipe
one-component foam
pipe insulation
building insulation
building insulation
pipe insulation
phenolic
sheet
food trays
containers
egg cartons
board
building insulation
polystyrene
thermoplastic
foams
extruded sheet/
moulded
packaging
extruded sheet/
extruded plank
protective packaging
flotation devices
polyolefin
16
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Options for the replacement of CFC use
As noted previously, the technical options to reduce CFCs in foam polymer products are different for
each foam application and market sector. The three basic methods of reducing dependence on CFCs
are as follows:
• substitution of CFCs by alternative blowing agents;
• modification of production processes to avoid the need for external chemical blowing agents;
• adoption of technologies not requiring use of foamed polymers.
While options have been pursued in all three categories, the bulk of activity has been in identifying
alternative blowing agents and bringing them into use. The reasons for this focus are fairly obvious.
The costs of process modification can be substantial and the action may affect other foam
parameters. In the case of alternative ‘not-in-kind’ technologies, it is rarely in the interest of an existing
foam producer to make its product obsolete! Since most of the momentum for change under the
Montreal Protocol has come from the foam industry itself, it is hardly surprising that the solutions
continue to be in the form of foamed products.
Alternative blowing agent options include partially-halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrocarbons (HCs) and inert gases. These alternative blowing agents
have similar properties to CFCs in many respects, but often have significantly shorter atmospheric
lifetimes than their CFC counterparts and are therefore much less damaging to the ozone layer. While
HFCs do not deplete ozone at all, they are significant greenhouse gases. They should therefore be
used responsibly where benefits from safety and wider energy efficiency can be identified. This is
often the case for many insulation foam applications. Whichever alternative is selected, efforts to
reduce emissions during production and use are worthwhile and should be pursued where
practicable.
Actual selection of replacements
In all sectors of former CFC use, the desire of the industry in question has been for ‘drop-in’ or close
to ‘drop-in’ solutions in order to minimize cost and disruption. This has tended to increase focus on
HCFCs as the initial substitute choice for many foam producers. However, noting that HCFCs were
likely to be considered as ‘transitional substances’, several of the larger, more capital-intensive users
of foam (e.g. the European appliance industry) decided that a one-step strategy would be more costeffective and environmentally sound. Accordingly, these industries invested significantly in the
necessary safety controls and product designs to meet the requirements of new systems. In spite of
this, a large proportion of the industry took up HCFCs as their first step, as the graph on the following
page shows.
17
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
CFC/HCFC blowing agents in use globally in rigid foams (1960-1999)
Total HCFCs
250000
200000
Total CFCs
PU growth rate of ~6%
per annum over period
Volume
150000
(tonnes)
100000
50000
0
1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
Year
On-going CFC reduction and elimination programme
While CFC use in developed countries has already been eliminated, the drive for elimination of CFCs
in developing countries is maintained by the Multilateral Fund (MLF), under the Montreal Protocol. This
Fund is coordinated by an Executive Committee which reports periodically on progress. While the
MLF prefers to support non-HCFC projects where possible, the size and scope of remaining projects
sometimes means that the only cost-effective solution that can be found is based on HCFCs.
Even with a substantial uptake of HCFCs in the foam sector, the additional effect of HCFC use on the
overall impact of the sector is small, as can be seen from the graph below.
CFC/HCFC blowing agents in use globally in rigid foams (1960-1999)
(ODP tonnes)
250000
Total HCFCs
Total CFCs
200000
150000
Volume
(ODP
tonnes)
100000
50000
0
1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997
Year
18
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
It can be seen that the remaining CFC use in developing countries must continue to be a priority.
Nevertheless, developed countries are now reaching the point at which they too are actively seeking
to eliminate HCFC usage. In Europe, all HCFC use in foams will be eliminated by 1 January 2004,
while in the United States, HCFC-141b consumption will be banned in foams from 1 January 2003.
Summary of technically viable CFC alternatives available to the foam industry
CFC ALTERNATIVES
Zero ODP
FOAM TYPE
Low ODP
Emerging, but Not
Commercially Available
Polyurethane Rigid:
Domestic Refrigerators
and Freezers
Other Appliances
Boardstock/Flexible
Faced Lamination
Sandwich Panels
Spray
HCFC-141b, HCFC 142b/22 blends
HFC-134a, hydrocarbons
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, HCFC22/HCFC-142b
CO2 (water), HFC-134a, hydrocarbons,
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
HCFC-141b, HCFC-141b/-22
Hydrocarbons
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, HCFC22/HCFC-142b
HFC-134a, hydrocarbons
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
HCFC-141b, HCFC-22
CO2 (water)
Hydrocarbons
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
CO2 (water), cyclopentane
HFC-134a or HFC-152a/Dimethyl
ether/propane/butane
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
Slabstock
HCFC-141b
Pipe
HCFC-141b
One Component
Polyurethane Flexible:
Slabstock and Boxfoam
Moulded
Integral Skin
Miscellaneous
Phenolic
Yet Commercial
HCFC-22
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
HCFCs are not technically
necessary for this end use
CO2 (water), methylene chloride, acetone,
AB Technology, pentane, CO2 (LCD),
extended-range polyols, additives,
accelerated cooling, variable pressure
HCFCs are not technically
necessary for this end use
Extended range polyols, CO2
(water, LCD, GCD)
HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b/-22
CO2 (water), HFC-134a, -152a hydrocarbons
CO2 (water)
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
HCFC-141b, HCFC-22/CO2 (water)
HCFC-141b
Hydrocarbons, 2-chloropropane
HFC-245fa, -365mfc
HCFCs are not technically
necessary for this end use
CO2 (LCD), hydrocarbons, atmospheric
gases, HFC-134a, -152a
Extruded Polystyrene:
Sheet
Boardstock
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b
HFC-134a, HFC-152a, CO2 (LCD)
Polyolefin
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b
Hydrocarbons, HFC-152a, CO2 (LCD)
HFC-134
19
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
CFC phase out by foam type
Flexible polyurethane foams
Flexible polyurethane foams are manufactured in three main forms: flexible slabstock foam, moulded
foam, and integral skin foam. The applications are summarized in the chart below:
Polyurethane
flexible foam
Moulded
foam
Slabstock
foam
Integral skin
& others
Bedding
Furniture seating
Furniture cushioning
Seats, back & headrests
for cars
Seats in public transport
Textile backing (sportswear)
Carpet linings
Packaging
Steering wheels and other
interior parts
Bicycle saddles
Sound barriers
Flotation
Composite in-fill
Shoe soles
Flotation
Slabstock Foam
Slabstock foam is produced in large blocks by both continuous and discontinuous technologies. The
various process types are shown below:
Slabstock foam
Continuous
processes
Continuous
processes
Maxfoam/
varimax
Vertifoam
Discontinuous
processes
Box mould
20
“Moulded”
slabstock
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
In the slabstock sector, methylene chloride was a key blowing agent choice in the early stages of
CFC phase out; it continues to be a significant option today. However, health risks associated with
the chemical have forced a more measured consideration of the engineering required for conversion.
The emergence of liquid CO2 and variable pressure options for both continuous and discontinuous
processes has tended to drive the CFC phase out in recent years and, although other technologies
exist3, the bulk of current conversions are focusing around these options.
Moulded foam
Auxiliary blowing agents (ABA) are used in the moulded foam sector, primarily to provide increased
softening to the products, particularly for Hot Cure processes. In Cold Cure processes, the ABA can
also be used to influence density. The selection of process is broadly as indicated below:
Share of world
production
Applications
Hot Cure
33%
Exclusively automotive
seating & headrests
Cold Cure
67%
Automotive and furniture
For Hot Cure moulded PU foams the main technology choices are methylene chloride and CO2
(water). In the latter case, an additive is usually required. For Cold Cure processes, the options are a
little broader, with HCFCs and auxiliary CO2 also being considered. Since CO2 (water) systems can
lead to higher densities, liquid CO2 (LCD) is now becoming more popular for the remaining transitions
from CFCs. Gaseous CO2 (GCD) has also been explored but is more difficult to manage. Only one
such plant is known to be in operation. With the emergence of liquid CO2 (LCD), HCFCs are not
expected to play any significant part in future transitions.
Integral skin
Integral skin foams are moulded foams. They are manufactured either by injection into closed, vented
moulds (as in the case of steering wheels) or into open moulds (as is the case with shoe soles). These
foams are characterized by a high-density outer skin and a low density, softer core. The density
gradation results from a combination of:
• blowing agent condensation at the mould surface; and
• over-packing of the mould.
Parts with tight dimensional tolerances can be produced when high density, micro-cellular foams are
moulded. In this case, the micro-cells are formed from nucleated air and also from small amounts of
CO2; they are not therefore considered under the Montreal Protocol. Most flexible integral skin foams
are open cell. However, where rigid foam formulations are used, closed cell products can result.
Alternatives for use of CFCs have included HCFC-141b and are now focusing on HFC-134a, HFC134a/HFC-152a blends, pentanes and CO2 (water). However, the latter usually requires the prior
application of an in-mould coating, with the additional cost involved. Uptake is nevertheless growing
as concerns over flammability of pentanes and the potential future regulation of HFCs in open-celled
foam persist.
3
Acetone, AB Technology, pentane, low index additives, accelerated cooling systems, E-max and use of
extended polyols are all technically feasible.
21
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
HCFC-141b has had a specific place in the integral skin story because of its unique properties for
safety applications, particularly in the automotive sector. However, in several developed countries, this
usage was considered necessary only until other alternatives had been proven. Phase out of HCFCs
for these applications was mandated in the United States in 1996 and in the European Union in 2000.
It is expected that HCFC selection and use will therefore continue to decline globally in the next five
years.
Summary
The graph below, reproduced from the “Achievments to date in the foam sector” section, clearly
demonstrates the great strides made by the flexible foam sector in phasing out CFC usage.
Use of CFCs in foams (1976-1999)
350000
Flexible foams
300000
Rigid foams
250000
Volume
(tonnes)
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
Year
CFC usage never predominated in the flexible foam sector and it is now clearly only a very small part
of the remaining problem (although slightly greater than shown here, because of the limitations of
AFEAS data collection in developing countries). The fact that HCFCs have only been a very limited
part of the substitution strategy is also a strong testimony to the resolve and commitment of the
flexible PU foam industry. All remaining use of CFCs in flexible foam is expected to be eliminated by
2006.
22
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Rigid polyurethane foams
The rigid polyurethane foam sector divides into three major application areas, as shown below:
Rigid
polyurethane foam
Construction
foams
Appliance
foams
Transportation
foams
Domestic refrigerators
Lining boards
Sandwich panels for trucks
Domestic freezers
Roof boards
Reefer boxes
Commercial refrigerators
Pipe section
Flotation
Commercial freezers
Pipe-in-pipe
Air-conditioning units
Cold store panels
Cool boxes
Doors
Flasks
Food processing enclosures
Spray systems
Appliance foams
Rigid polyurethane foams are the dominant type of insulation used in home appliances such as
refrigerators and freezers. The foam is also used in display cabinets, vending machines and other
commercial refrigeration applications. Liquid chemicals are injected into the appliance cabinet and
react in-situ to create rigid PU foam throughout the cavity. The foamed product not only offers
excellent thermal efficiency, it also brings structural integrity to the unit. CFCs, especially CFC-11,
brought specific characteristics to the application, including:
• optimized thermal performance;
• very good strength-to-weight ratio;
• excellent flow characteristics;
• low reactivity with plastic liners and other equipment parts.
It was always difficult for alternative blowing agents to match such immaculate performance
characteristics, and this has become even more difficult as energy performance requirements have
increased steadily over the last ten years and will continue to do so for at least another decade.
Bearing in mind that refrigerators are sold on the basis of their internal storage capacity and are, in
many cases, required to fit into prescribed kitchen designs, it was always clear that foams blown with
alternative blowing agents would have to perform at least as well as CFCs. This looked difficult
originally, since few (if any) blowing agents demonstrated comparable gaseous thermal conductivity.
However, improvements in foam structure (particularly with cell size) have led to foams with equivalent
or even better performance than the CFC-11 based systems they replaced. This structural
improvement also increased the number of blowing agents that could be considered as
replacements. Options have included HCFCs, HFCs and, most notably, hydro-carbons. For high
throughput processes of this type, the engineering requirements to handle hydrocarbons have proved
23
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
cost-effective in many parts of the world and the majority of the domestic appliance industry has
moved this way. The main exception is the United States, where HCFCs currently dominate and
HFCs (particularly HFC-245fa) are likely to be the prime replacement once the consumption of HFCF141b is phased out in 2003.
While the transition in the appliance sector looks fairly smooth with hindsight, it is worth reflecting for
a moment on the complexity of the transition path followed by the industry. The chart below illustrates
this graphically:
CFC II
“Reduced”
CFC II
PFC
nucleation
HCFC 22
HCFC 142b
HCFC
141b
X
Vacuum
panels
Cyclopentane
HFC
134a
HFC
245fa
HFC
365mfc
Cyclopentane/
Cyclopentane
Iso Pentane
Iso Butane
Source: Huntsman
It can be seen that, even in the use of hydrocarbon, there have been on-going developments. The
move to cyclopentane blends with either iso-pentane or iso-butane has been driven by the need to
optimize process economics.
Construction foams
The production of rigid insulation foams for the construction sector can follow many routes, as shown
below:
Construction
foam
Continuous
processes
Continuous
lamination
Continuous
panel manufacture
(flexible facings)
(rigid facings)
Continuous
processes
24
In-situ
processes
Discontinuous
processes
Box mould
Closed Mould
(slab & pipe section)
(panel manufacture)
In-situ
processes
Discontinuous
processes
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
At present, the single most widely used production technique for rigid polyurethane is continuous
lamination, although continuous panel manufacture is growing very rapidly, particularly in Europe.
The continuous lamination process can be shown schematically as follows:
Conveyor press
Facing rolls
Cross-cut saw
Dispenser
Rising foam
Cured panel
Continuous lamination processes use flexible facings and generate products that are collectively
referred to in the United States as boardstock. Much of the production in the United States utilizes
poly-isocyanurate (PIR or ‘polyiso’) chemistry, whereas in Europe more than 80 per cent of production
is based on more traditional polyurethane systems. Poly-isocyanate chemistry helps to maintain better
fire properties for the construction sector and this is becoming a factor of increasing importance
globally. For flexibly faced products, typical facings are aluminium foil, paper or glass fibre. In contrast,
rigid faced panel products are typically faced with steel or plasterboard.
For all continuous processes, throughput levels have been sufficient to support the engineering of
hydrocarbon solutions in both North America and Europe. The only issue that prevents wider scale
adoption of hydrocarbon blowing agents is product fire performance. For discontinuous panel and insitu processes, however, hydrocarbons are considered much less viable because of processing risks.
The majority of such processes therefore use HCFCs. A good example of this is found in the spray
foam sector. Transitions from CFCs under the MLF are also finding that the cost of engineering
hydrocarbon solutions for small consumers is prohibitive – HCFC-based technologies are accordingly
being supported. Where HCFC usage is shortly to be phased out (United States and Europe), the
smaller consumers will be highly reliant on the so-called liquid HFCs (HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc).
Both of these are due for commercialization in the second half of 2002, in time to meet the demand
created by the phase out of HCFCs. In developing countries, HCFCs will continue to be available for
use until 2040.
Transportation foams
Transportation foams have particular requirements. They are used primarily for refrigerated transport
by road and rail, and for containers (also known as ‘reefers’). One of the specific constraints
governing such applications is the need to maintain both external and internal dimensions to comply
with global road usage laws and standard pallet sizes. These constraints put very specific demands
on the insulation used in terms of insulating efficiency. In addition, the materials must be capable of
withstanding repeated vibration.
25
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Polyurethane foams (along with extruded polystyrene foams) have, historically, met these
requirements well and, faced with the challenge of CFC phase out, the transportation sector was
keen not to lose out on access to these products in the process. Polyurethane transportation panels
are typically produced both continuously and discontinuously. The bulk of panels for this application in
developed countries are currently blown with HCFC-141b (in the case of PU) and HCFC-142b/22 (in
the case of XPS) to optimize the thermal performance of the panels when there are thickness
constraints. Recognizing this fact, the end-use controls on HCFCs written into the current European
Regulation (EC 2000/2037) have a specific provision to extend the use of HCFCs until 1 January
2004 in order to allow smooth transition to liquid-HFCs where required. In view of the trans-boundary
nature of the industry, this is one market where technology choices in both developed and developing
countries have had to be aligned and the MLF has taken due note of this in its funding decisions.
Summary
The rigid polyurethane foam sector has made significant strides in the phase out of CFCs in
developed countries. There has, however, been significant reliance on HCFCs as an interim step in
order to maintain important foam characteristics such as thermal efficiency and fire performance,
although the polyurethane industry in Europe has been able to reach hydrocarbon usage levels as
high as 70 per cent. The absence of substantial thermal insulation markets in the construction sectors
of developing countries (primarily because of climate) means that remaining CFC use in these regions
is limited to small appliances (particularly thermo-ware), transport insulation and other process-related
requirements.
The table below singles out the processes and applications covered in this section, and provides a
simplified overview of the main blowing agent contenders.
Process/Application
Low ODP
Commercial
Domestic Appliances
Continuous Lamination
HCFC-141b
HCFC-141b
Zero ODP
Non-commercial
Hydrocarbons
HFC-245fa
HFC-134a
HFC-365mfc
Hydrocarbons
HFC-245fa
HFC-365mfc
Continuous Panel
Spray Foam
HCFC-141b
HCFC-141b
Hydrocarbons
HFC-245fa
HFC-134a
HFC-365mfc
CO2 (water)
HFC-245fa
HFC-365mfc
Block Foam
HCFC-141b
Hydrocarbons
HFC-245fa
HFC-365mfc
One-component Foam
HCFC-22
HFC/Dimethylether/
Propane/Butane
26
—
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Phenolic foams
Phenolic foam products are highly thermally efficient, fire resistant, closed cell products that have
become established for several applications for which polyurethane and extruded polystyrene foams
are already used. The main products are flexibly faced laminates and pre-fabricated pipe section.
Less thermally efficient, open cell phenolic foams have been used as prime insulation in some
countries, most notably in Russia, but these products are now being superseded by closed cell
products. A further application for open celled phenolic foam is as floral foam. However, neither of the
open celled products has typically used CFCs as a blowing agent. They are therefore not discussed
further here.
The available processes for phenolic foams are as follows:
Phenolic
foam
Continuous
processes
Continuous
lamination
(flexible facings)
Spray foam
(developmental only)
In-situ
processes
Discontinuous
processes
Box mould
(slabstock, floral foam
& pipe section)
In-situ
injection
Closed Mould
(panel manufacture)
Pipe-in-pipe
Historically, these processes have used either CFC-11 or a blend of CFC-11 and CFC-113 (or
occasionally CFC-114) depending on the boiling point requirement. Some hydrocarbons (particularly
pentane) have also been used, but this has meant some sacrifice of product fire properties. Since fire
performance and low smoke emission are key points of differentiation, it is unlikely that use of
hydrocarbons will grow in the future. Equipment used for foam manufacture is usually similar to that
for polyurethane foam, except for variations in mixing head configuration and chemical resistance
requirements.
In the first stage of transition most global production of phenolic foam moved to HCFC-141b,
although this had to be used with an additive to maintain the low solubility of the blowing agent
required for emulsion-based processes. The phenolic foam sector is possibly more dependent on the
introduction of ‘liquid’ HFCs than any other foam sector because hydrocarbons do not present a valid
option except where fire properties are less critical. As the phase out of HCFC-141b availability and
use approaches, the phenolic foam industry is already carrying out extended field trials on HFC365mfc.4
Summary
The global phenolic foam industry faces particular challenges in selecting blowing agents because of
the unique package of foam properties currently available to the market. The relatively small size of
the industry makes producers of blowing agent substitutes less inclined to develop specific products
for the sector, but this has not significantly disadvantaged the industry as yet, because of similarities
with requirements in the PU sector.
4
This experience is described in UNEP's recent brochure on 'Win-Win' technologies. See Further Reading.
27
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Extruded polystyrene foams
Extruded polystyrene is produced in two forms: sheet and board. Sheet is 6 mm or less thick, with
a density of 20–40 kg/m3. Board is typically in the range of 15 mm to 120 mm thick with densities
ranging from 20–70 kg/m3. The primary applications for each type are shown here. They are
discussed individually below.
Extruded
polystyrene foam
Sheet
Board
Food packaging
Roof insulation boards
Laminated sheet (art boards)
Floor insulation
Wall insulation
Sandwich panels
Road & rail ground insulation
XPS sheet
The use of CFCs in XPS sheet was recognized as unsustainable in the very early stages of the fight
against ozone depletion. In the first instance, the additional insulation value, if any, arising from CFCs
was not considered significant in the performance of the product. Perhaps more importantly, the
application was very close to the consumer (as with aerosols) and created a high profile for food
vendors continuing to use CFC-blown XPS sheet.
Replacement blowing agents include CO2 (LCD), nitrogen, hydrocarbons (butane, isobutene, pentane
and isopentane), HFCs (HFC-134a and HFC-152a) and hydrocarbon/CO2 blends. The most favoured
choices have been CO2 (LCD) and hydrocarbons, depending on the outlook of the producer.
Hydrocarbons provide a significant cost advantage but require significant investment in safety
provisions to overcome the problem of flammability of the blowing agent. This is a particular challenge
because of the high temperature required at the extrusion die. CO2 (LCD) is believed to be a higher
cost option when licensing costs are taken into account, but some consider the additional price worth
paying for peace of mind.
In any event, it is clear that HCFCs have never been a requirement for XPS sheet foam and many
regions of the world have formally de-listed sheet packaging as a justified application for these
blowing agents. While no such restraint currently exists with HFCs, most feel that similar arguments
will apply because of the global warming impacts of the chemicals and their likely early release. This
may eventually be written into responsible-use guidance for HFCs in foams.
28
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
XPS board
XPS board is primarily used for thermal insulation applications and relies on the retention of the
blowing agent for this purpose. Historically, XPS board has used CFC-12 as its prime blowing agent.
However, because HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 were readily available substitutes, most producers
were able to instigate a switch to non-CFC technologies by the mid-1990s. Since most of global
production is based in developed countries, there has been little on-going use of CFCs in this
application since then.
HCFC usage in the XPS board sector has either been in the form of HCFC-142b on its own, or as
blends with HCFC-22. Because HCFC-22 migrates out of the cell relatively quickly, it is the HCFC142b that provides the thermal properties of the product. Interestingly, the choice of blowing agent
blend has varied between North America and Europe. Producers in the United States and Canada
have tended to use blends that are rich in HCFC-142b, while European producers have favoured
more balanced blends. This trend arises from the fact that North American products tend to be
extruded in wide, thick sections, while European products tend to involve narrower extrusions
(typically 600 mm) but thicker sections. With the wide and thin extrusions of North America, the
migration rate of HCFC-22 would be so fast as to create dimensional stability problems in the product
– hence the concentration on HCFC-142b.
This difference in market requirements between North America and Europe has also been the
backdrop to the differing strategies for HCFC phase out. In Europe, the XPS board industry was able
to commit to an early phase out of HCFC use in the industry (1 January 2002) because the
dimensions of the product range allowed the use of alternatives such as HFCs (HFC-134a and blends
with HFC-152a) , HFC/CO2 (LCD) blends, CO2/ethanol blends and pure CO2. Although each of these
options has its constraints, most producers have been able to fashion a solution for their product
range. Problems still persist with the dimensional stability of CO2 based solutions at high product
thicknesses and the industry is continuing to work on this issue. Emissions levels of HFCs during
production will also have to be controlled to minimize global warming impact.
In North America, the use of HFC-134a and CO2 based systems is nowhere near as easy to
implement because of the product geometry. The market continues to require wide and thin products
as sheathing for the domestic and commercial construction sectors and this has made early phase
out of HCFCs impossible. Currently, producers in the United States expect to be using HCFC-142b
and blends thereof until 2010, and even then there may not be replacement technologies for the full
range of products currently supplied.
In both Europe and North America, applications of XPS board in buildings are coming under
increasing regulatory pressure over their fire performance. This is making the parameters for
replacement technologies even tighter.
29
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Summary
The contribution of XPS products to the phase out of CFCs has been substantial, as shown in the
graph below. The total CFC-12 consumption of 60,000 tonnes has effectively been eradicated in less
than ten years. The predominant CFC substitutes in the sheet sector have been hydrocarbons. CO2
(LCD) has also been used. In the board sector, HCFCs have dominated and continue to be used at
present.
HCFC phase-out strategies are more complex than those for CFC-12 and there is considerable
regional variation depending on the product mix required for the market. Where HFC-based solutions
are adopted, there is likely to be a need to minimize sources of emission throughout the life cycle of
products.
CFC-12 – closed-cell foam demand profile (1960-1999)
45000
Producer's Sales
Europe Demand
North America Demand
Japan Demand
40000
35000
Producer's Sales
TOTAL Demand
30000
Tonnes
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1960
1970
1980
Year
30
1990
1999
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Polyolefin foams
The group of cellular polymers known as polyolefin foams include both polyethylene and
polypropylene types. The products manufactured are split into three categories: sheet; board (known
also as plank); and tubular. The following diagram illustrates this.
Polyolefin
foam
Protective packaging
Board or
plank
Tubular
Sheet
DIY pipe insulation
Designed cushion
packaging
There is a fourth type of technical grade, cross-linked polyethylene foam. However, this has never
used CFC as a blowing agent (typically nitrogen) and is not mentioned further here.
As with XPS products, extrusion of polyolefin foams has, historically, been carried out with CFC-12.
However, since most applications were in the packaging area and the foam could not retain its
blowing agent in any event, the natural successors to CFC-12 were hydrocarbons rather than
HCFCs. Nonetheless, many polyolefin foam producers have preferred to use HCFCs as an interim
measure in order to assess the implications on both product and process safety arising from the use
of hydrocarbons. Indeed, those that moved to hydrocarbons immediately have encountered problems
both in the manufacture of hydrocarbon-based foams and, more significantly, in their storage and
distribution. For thicker product profiles, it has been necessary, in some cases, to perforate the
product before shipping to ensure that all flammable blowing agents are released prior to shipment.
There have been isolated cases of explosions in vehicles transporting these foams when isobutane (or
possibly pentane) has diffused from the foam and become concentrated in the enclosed vehicle
space.
The poor solubility of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases makes them difficult to use. Even
where CO2 has initially been processed successfully, the rate of loss of the blowing agent is so high
that it creates major problems of dimensional stability, since air cannot readily permeate back into the
foam sufficiently quickly to retain the cell pressure. The only other alternative to hydrocarbons is
therefore HFCs. However, neither HFC-134a nor HFC-152a are easy to use in isolation and, where
they are used, they are typically used in conjunction with hydrocarbons as a way of keeping the VOC
emission levels down in non-attainment areas.
Summary
The future blowing agent choices for polyolefin foams are still not absolutely clear. HCFCs have been
used as interim blowing agents while the safety ramifications of hydrocarbons have been assessed.
Although engineered solutions seem to permit the on-going adoption of hydrocarbons, and have
therefore permitted the phase out of HCFC use in some developed countries, the solution is not ideal
and some producers are still considering further alternatives, including HFCs.
31
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Cross-cutting issues
Although we have been able to describe the phase out experiences of each product type in isolation,
it is clear that several cross-cutting issues emerge that require further attention in this review of CFC
phase out in the foam sector. These are addressed in the following sections.
Economic drivers
Although the Montreal Protocol and other legally binding regulations under it have been the primary
driving force behind the implementation of CFC phase out, further voluntary acceleration has been
dependent on the following:
• market pressures;
• investment costs for transition; and
• comparative running costs of old and new technologies.
In some cases, the effects of the above factors have been so significant that they have inevitably
affected the development of regulations themselves.
In the foam sector, the relative costs of CFCs and their alternatives have a significant bearing on both
the speed and timing of transition in all sub-sectors, since blowing agents represent a substantial
element of overall cost. The MLF has taken some of this pressure away by funding differential blowing
agent costs for the first two years of transition, under its Incremental Operating Costs (IOC) provision.
However, this has had an odd psychological effect in that an increase in the price of CFCs (e.g. by a
local tax on CFCs) decreases the amount granted under the MLF project fund.
Nonetheless, the MLF initiative has assisted in providing support in this key area and, while the IOC
has not eradicated the effects of blowing agent pricing on foam transitions, it has considerably
assisted in facilitating transition.
Specific problems facing small producers
It is important to recognize that for smaller foam producers, in both developed and developing
countries, the cost effectiveness of blowing agent transition decreases with reducing production
levels. This is simply because the capital costs of transition are not directly related to the volume of
foam produced. The MLF recognizes this fact by setting a threshold value for the amount of funds
that can be advanced per kilogram of ODS phased out. This means that smaller operations are less
likely to be able to be fully funded for transitions to the more capital-intensive technologies such as
those based on hydrocarbons. Accordingly, there is an increasing trend towards CFC-to-HCFC
transitions under the MLF for developing countries. This is in stark contrast to the political will of many
Parties represented on the Executive Committee of the MLF, but it represents the inevitable
expediency which has had to be applied as phase out of CFCs moves towards completion.
The problem for small volume producers in developed countries is even more severe. These
companies were usually able to ‘self-fund’ their transitions to HCFCs in the early and mid 1990s.
However, they now face the prospect of having to phase out HCFC use in many cases by 2004 at
the latest. The economics of conversion are no less burdensome than they are in developing
countries and, in this case, there is no MLF support. This has led many producers to await the
32
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
availability of liquid HFCs since – even though running costs will be higher – capital costs will be
contained.
Companies currently making the switch from CFC-based technologies to HCFC technologies will face
a similar issue over the next few decades, as the second step of the transition to zero-ODP solutions
will not be funded under the MLF. Since the reason for selecting HCFCs as a first step has often been
to achieve a more cost-effective transition, the cost implications for small companies in developing
countries could be substantial unless new cost-effective technologies emerge in the interim.
Availability and regulatory framework of HFCs
Even decisions on the selection of HFCs are not without risk. In Europe, the process of evaluating
future policy on HFCs via the European Climate Change Programme has led to the development of a
proposal for a Framework Directive on Fluorinated Gases. Although this is likely to be limited to
defining responsible use and identifying clear emission reduction measures in the foam sector, it is
obviously a process that could lead to tighter controls on HFC use, to the exclusion of some potential
users. In some member states the situation is even more progressive with the consideration of
product bans (with exemptions) and the potential of a tax. Taxation would be particularly damaging
for the foam sector because of the high proportion of costs represented by the blowing agent in
standard formulations.
It is clear that suppliers of HFCs are continually reviewing their business strategies in the light of these
on-going regulatory developments. Both Honeywell (HFC-245fa) and Solvay (HFC-365mfc) are
committed to commercial start-up in the second half of 2002. However, their on-going strategies
could be significantly influenced by these regulatory factors and their effects on blowing agent
selection. This is not to say that these are the only issues involved. The price of ‘liquid’ HFCs is
significantly higher than other alternatives and this is also driving the industry to look at blends of
HFCs with other blowing agents such as hydrocarbons to get the advantages of both options without
too many of the disadvantages. The irony of this issue is the fact that HFCs could offer significant
advantages in overall climate change impacts based on incremental contributions to energy efficiency,
as several case studies testify.5,6
Development of more stringent fire codes
Another factor in the mix of issues to be considered in blowing agent selection is the development of
more stringent fire codes within buildings. There has already been considerable activity in both the
United States and Europe to harmonize classifications and this is likely to continue. In general, the
effect of this harmonization has been to increase standards overall. Although the effect of blowing
agents on product performance is influenced substantially by the choice of facing material used, there
are numerous applications where blowing agent selection is important. Again, this can have an
influence on choices – between HFCs and hydrocarbons, for example.
5
‘Two challenges, One solution: Case Studies of Technologies that Protect the Ozone Layer and Mitigate Climate
Change’, UNEP (2001)
6
Thermal Insulation and its Role in Carbon Dioxide Reduction’, Caleb Management Services (1997)
33
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Management of blowing agents at end-of-life
Management of the impact of previous choices is an issue that is as important as the selection of
blowing agents for future products. Although the Montreal Protocol primarily regulates production and
consumption, increasing attention has been paid to minimizing emissions from closed cell foam
products at end-of-life. Although the cost-effectiveness of such measures is questionable for the
traditional building products of the last 40 years, the opportunity is greatest in the domestic appliance
sector since, in many cases, the appliances are being collected in order to facilitate the extraction of
refrigerants and to recycle other components. Several initiatives are already underway around the
world, including:
• a mandatory take-back scheme for appliance manufacturers in Japan, introduced in April 2001;
• the introduction in the European Union of compulsory recovery and/or destruction of blowing
agents in domestic refrigerators from January 2002.
The approach to the recovery and/or destruction of blowing agents varies between direct incineration
(practised in Denmark and Austria) and mechanical recovery (practised in Germany and Japan). Much
depends on the requirement to recover other materials under parallel recovery and recycling
regulations. A typical mechanical recovery unit is as follows:
Primary crusher
Refrigerators
Dismantling
Polyurethane mill
Polyurethane dust
Secondary crusher
Air
separator
CFC/HCFC
(refrigerant)
Oil
Rod and tube mill
Compressor
Activated
charcoal
chamber
To atmosphere
Heater
Cooling machine
Fluorocarbon blowing agent recovery unit
Crushed metal etc.
Fluorocarbon
blowing agent
These trends are expected to continue in coming years and the foam industry expects to see further
requirements to manage its products at end-of-life. This is not an approach that the industry is shying
away from, since consideration of the full life cycle of many products only serves to underline their
critical contribution to society.
34
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Resources
Secretariats and
Implementing Agencies
Multilateral Fund Secretariat
UNDP
Dr. Omar El Arini
Dr. Suely Carvalho, Deputy Chief
Chief Officer
Montreal Protocol Unit, EAP/SEED
Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for
United Nations Development Programme
the Montreal Protocol
(UNDP)
27th Floor, Montreal Trust Building
304 East 45th Street
1800 McGill College Avenue
Room FF-9116,New York, NY 10017
Montreal, Quebec H3A 6J6
United States of America
Canada
Tel: 1 212 906 6687
Tel: 1 514 282 1122
Fax: 1 212 906 6947
Fax: 1 514 282 0068
Email: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.undp.org/seed/eap/montreal
Web site: www.unmfs.org
UNIDO
UNEP Ozone Secretariat
Mrs. H. Seniz Yalcindag, Chief
Mr. Michael Graber
Industrial Sectors and Environment Division
Acting Executive Secretary
United Nations Industrial Development
UNEP Ozone Secretariat
Organization (UNIDO)
PO Box 30552
Vienna International Centre
Gigiri, Nairobi
P.O. Box 300
Kenya
A-1400 Vienna
Tel: 2542 623-855
Austria
Fax: 2542 623-913
Tel: (43) 1 26026 3782
Email: [email protected]
Fax: (43) 1 26026 6804
Web site: www.unep.org/ozone
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.unido.org
UNEP
Mr. Rajendra M. Shende, Chief
World Bank
Energy and OzonAction Unit
Mr. Steve Gorman, Unit Chief
United Nations Environment Programme
Montreal Protocol Operations Unit
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
World Bank, 1818 H Street NW
(UNEP DTIE)
Washington DC 20433
39-43 quai Andre Citroen
United States of America
75739 Paris Cedex 15
Tel: 1 202 473 5865
France
Fax: 1 202 522 3258
Tel: 33 1 44 3714 50
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 33 1 44 3714 74
Web site: www.esd.worldbank.org/mp/home.cfm
Email: [email protected]
Web site: www.uneptie.org/ozonaction
35
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Contact Points
Industry Associations
Mr. John Fairley
Mr. Geert Strobbe
European Phenolic Foam Association
ISOPA
Association House
Ave. van Nieuwenhuyse 6
235 Ash Road
B-1160
Aldershot
Brussels
Hampshire, GU12 4DD
Belgium
United Kingdom
Tel: 32 2 676 7475
Tel: 44 1252 336318
Fax: 32 2 676 7479
Fax: 44 1252 333901
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.isopa.org
Website: www.epfa.org.uk
Ms. Fran Lichtenberg
Mr. Kyoshi Hara
Alliance for the Polyurethanes Industry
Japanese Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer
1300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 800
Protection (JICOP)
Arlington
Hongo-Wakai Building
Virginia (VA 22209)
2-40-17, Hongo
United States of America
Bunkyo-ku
Tel: 1 703 253 0656
Toyko 113
Fax: 1 703 253 0658
Japan
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 81 3 5689 7981
Website: www.polyurethane.org
Fax: 81 3 5689 7983
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Russel Mills
Exiba
Ave. van Nieuwenhuyse 4
B-1160
Brussels
Belgium
Tel: 32 2 676 7211
Fax: 32 2 676 7301
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.cefic.org/sector/profile/02-i.htm
36
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Further reading
UNEP, Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee Report, UNEP (1998)
UNEP, Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel – April 2001, UNEP (2001)
UNEP, Sourcebook of Technologies for Protecting the Ozone Layer – Flexible and Rigid Foams,
UNEP (1996)
UNEP HFC and PFC Task Force of the TEAP, The Implications to the Montreal Protocol of the
Inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol, UNEP (1999)
UNEP/IPCC, Report of the Joint Experts Group Meeting under the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols held
in Petten in May 1999, UNEP/WMO (1999)
IPCC, IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Report of the Good
Practice in Inventory Preparation for Industrial Processes and the New Gases Meeting held in
Washington DC, January 1999, UNEP/WMO (1999)
AFEAS, Development of a Global Emission Function for Blowing Agents Used in Closed Cell Foam,
AFEAS (2000)
UNEP DTIE, Two Challenges, One Solution: Case Studies of Technologies that Protect the Ozone
Layer and Mitigate Climate Change, UNEP (2001)
UNEP DTIE, Case Studies of Foams Sector Technologies in Use, UNEP (1995)
37
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Glossary
38
ABA
auxiliary blowing agent
AB Technology
process by which formic acid reacts with an isocyanate to produce carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide for the expansion of flexible polyurethane
foam
Adsorption
surface phenomenon in which substances form physiochemical bonds with
other materials
Acetone
an organic solvent which has zero ODP, CH3COCH3
Ambient boiling
the boiling point of a substance at normal pressure point
Blowing agent
a gas or volatile liquid used to create ‘bubbles’ or cells in foam plastics
Butane
A gaseous hydrocarbon of the alkane series, C4H10
Carbon monoxide
a toxic gas formed by the incomplete burning of carbon, CO
CFC
Chlorofluorocarbon
CO2 (GCD)
foaming systems using gaseous carbon dioxide
CO2 (LCD)
foaming systems using liquid carbon dioxide
CO2 (water)
foaming systems using the isocyanate/water reaction to generate additional
carbon dioxide
Dimethylether
molecule formed by elimination of water from two molecules of methyl
CH3-O-CH3 alcohol,
E-max technology
a process by which CFCs can be recovered during manufacture of flexible
polyurethane foams
Fluorinated ethers
ether in which one or more hydrogen atoms has been replaced by fluorine
Formic acid
a volatile acid, HCOOH
GWP
global warming potential
HCFC
hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC
hydrofluorocarbon
HR
high resilience
Hydrocarbon
organic substance made of hydrogen and carbon
Isocyanate
chemical used in polyurethane foam production and AB technology
containing the isocyanate group, -NCO
Methyl chloroform
alternative blowing agent, CH3CCl3
Methylene chloride
alternative blowing agent, CH2Cl2
ODP
ozone depletion potential
Ozone
gas formed from three oxygen atoms
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
Pentane
a low-boiling hydrocarbon of the alkane series, C5H12
Perfluoralkanes
member of the alkane series in which a pair of hydrogen atoms has been
replaced by fluorine
Phenolic
derivative of benzene, from phenol, C6H5OH
Polyethylene
a polymer of ethylene, C2H4
Polyisocyanurate
a polymer containing a majority of isocyanurate groups in its molecule
Polyolefin
a polymer of one of the alkene series, CnH2n
Polypropylene
polymerized propylene, a plastic with similar properties to polyethylene
Polystyrene
a thermoplastic polymer of styrene
Polyurethane
any polymer containing the urethane group
Propane
a gaseous hydrocarbon of the alkane series, C3H8
Propylene
a member of the alkene series, C3H6
Reduced CFC-11
technology featuring a high CO2 (water) formulation to partially replace
previously used CFC
Softening agent
additive which lowers foam hardness and reduces the need for an auxiliary
blowing agent
Stratosphere
a layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere extending to about 50 km
above the Earth’s surface
Thermoplastic
becomes plastic on heating and hardens on cooling, and can repeat these
processes
Thermosetting
sets permanently when heated
Troposphere
layer of the atmosphere extending to about 10 km above the Earth
Vapour pressure
the pressure of a vapour in contact with its liquid or solid form
39
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
About the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme
Nations around the world are taking concrete actions to reduce and eliminate production and
consumption of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide and HCFCs.
When released into the atmosphere these substances damage the stratospheric ozone layer – a
shield that protects life on Earth from the dangerous effects of solar ultraviolet radiation. Nearly every
country in the world has committed itself under the Montreal Protocol to phase out the use and
production of ODS. Recognizing that developing countries require special technical and financial
assistance in order to meet their commitments under the Montreal Protocol, the Parties established
the Multilateral Fund and requested UNEP, along with UNDP, UNIDO and the World Bank, to provide
the necessary support. In addition, UNEP supports ozone protection activities in Countries with
Economies in Transition (CEITs) as an implementing agency of the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
Since 1991, the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme has strengthened the capacity of governments
(particularly National Ozone Units or “NOUs”) and industry in developing countries to make informed
decisions about technology choices and to develop the policies required to implement the Montreal
Protocol. By delivering the following services to developing countries, tailored to their individual needs,
the OzonAction Programme has helped promote cost-effective phase out activities at the national and
regional levels:
Information Exchange
Provides information tools and services to encourage and enable decision makers to make informed
decisions on policies and investments required to phase out ODS. Since 1991, the Programme has
developed and disseminated to NOUs over 100 individual publications, videos, and databases that
include public awareness materials, a quarterly newsletter, a web site, sector-specific technical
publications for identifying and selecting alternative technologies and guidelines to help governments
establish policies and regulations.
Training
Builds the capacity of policy makers, customs officials and local industry to implement national ODS
phase out activities. The Programme promotes the involvement of local experts from industry and
academia in training workshops and brings together local stakeholders with experts from the global
ozone protection community. UNEP conducts training at the regional level and also supports national
training activities (including providing training manuals and other materials).
Networking
Provides a regular forum for officers in NOUs to meet to exchange experiences, develop skills, and
share knowledge and ideas with counterparts from both developing and developed countries.
Networking helps ensure that NOUs have the information, skills and contacts required for managing
national ODS phase out activities successfully. UNEP currently operates 8 regional/sub-regional
Networks involving 109 developing and 8 developed countries, which have resulted in member
countries taking early steps to implement the Montreal Protocol.
Refrigerant Management Plans (RMPs)
Provide countries with an integrated, cost-effective strategy for ODS phase out in the refrigeration and
air conditioning sectors. RMPs have to assist developing countries (especially those that consume
low volumes of ODS) to overcome the numerous obstacles to phase out ODS in the critical
40
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
refrigeration sector. UNEP DTIE is currently providing specific expertise, information and guidance to
support the development of RMPs in 60 countries.
Country Programmes and Institutional Strengthening
Support the development and implementation of national ODS phase out strategies especially for
low-volume ODS-consuming countries. The Programme is currently assisting 90 countries to develop
their Country Programmes and 76 countries to implement their Institutional-Strengthening projects.
For more information about these services please contact:
Mr. Rajendra Shende, Chief, Energy and OzonAction Unit
UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
OzonAction Programme
39-43, quai André Citroën
75739 Paris Cedex 15 France
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 50
UNEP
Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74
www.uneptie.org/ozonaction.html
41
PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS
About the UNEP Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics
The mission of the UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics is to help decision-makers
in government, local authorities, and industry develop and adopt policies and practices that:
• are cleaner and safer;
• make efficient use of natural resources;
• ensure adequate management of chemicals;
• incorporate environmental costs;
• reduce pollution and risks for humans and the environment.
The UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP DTIE), with its head office in Paris,
is composed of one centre and four units:
• The International Environmental Technology Centre (Osaka), which promotes the adoption and use
of environmentally sound technologies with a focus on the environmental management of cities
and freshwater basins, in developing countries and countries in transition.
• Production and Consumption (Paris), which fosters the development of cleaner and safer
production and consumption patterns that lead to increased efficiency in the use of natural
resources and reductions in pollution.
• Chemicals (Geneva), which promotes sustainable development by catalysing global actions and
building national capacities for the sound management of chemicals and the improvement of
chemical safety world-wide, with a priority on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and Prior
Informed Consent (PIC, jointly with FAO).
• Energy and OzonAction (Paris), which supports the phase out of ozone depleting substances in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition, and promotes good management
practices and use of energy, with a focus on atmospheric impacts. The UNEP/RISØ Collaborating
Centre on Energy and Environment supports the work of the Unit.
• Economics and Trade (Geneva), which promotes the use and application of assessment and
incentive tools for environmental policy and helps improve the understanding of linkages between
trade and environment and the role of financial institutions in promoting sustainable development.
UNEP DTIE activities focus on raising awareness, improving the transfer of information, building
capacity, fostering technology cooperation, partnerships and transfer, improving understanding of
environmental impacts of trade issues, promoting integration of environmental considerations into
economic policies, and catalysing global chemical safety.
42
www.unep.org
United Nations Environment Programme
P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 2) 621234
Fax: (254 2) 623927
E-mail: [email protected]
web: www.unep.org