Protecting the Ozone Layer · 2006-08-10 · Foreword When the Montreal Protocol on Substances that...

Foams

Protecting the

Ozone Layer

V o l u m e 4

UNEP

2 0 0 1U P DAT E

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The technical papers in this publication have not been peer-reviewed and are the sole opinion of the authors.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

Foams

Protecting the

Ozone Layer

V o l u m e 4

UNEP

2 0 0 1U P DAT E

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 32

• Economic drivers

• 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: 35

• Contact points

• Further reading

• Glossary

About the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme 40

About the UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics 42

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 up-

to-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 up-

to-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.

PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER • TECHNICAL BROCHURE UPDATES • FOAMS

3

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)

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


4

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

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


7

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.

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.

Effects of CFCs on stratoshperic ozone

UV radiation CFCl3

CFCl2

chlorineradical

chlorinemonoxide free

chlorineradical

ozone(O3)

series of reactions

oxygenmolecule

(O2)

+

When gases containing chlorine,

such as CFCs, are broken down

in the atmosphere, each chlorine

atom sets off a reaction that may

destroy hundreds of thousands

of ozone molecules.

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-ozone-

depleting 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.

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

number of carbon atoms minus one (omitted if 0)

CC

FF

FF

ClCl CFC 114

number of hydrogen atoms, plus one

number of flourine atoms in one molecule

Note: 1. All spare valencies filled by chlorine atoms2. Different isomers are indicated by a suffic of lower case letters3. Bromine atoms are indicated by a suffic B plus number of atoms4. Hundreds number = 4 or 5 for blends (e.g. R-502)

CFC numbers provide the information

needed to deduce the chemical structure

of the compound. The digit far right

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

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

directly.

How CFC Nomenclature Works

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.


9

Ozone-depleting Major uses Ozone-depletion substance (ODS) potential (ODP)

Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) covered by the Montreal Protocol and their ozone-depletion potential (ODP)*

* Where ranges of ODP are given, readers requiring the exact ODP for a given CFC, halon, HBFC or HCFCshould refer to the Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, published by theUNEP Ozone Secretariat, or other accredited sources.

Chlorofluorocarbons

(CFC)

Refrigerants; propellants for spray cans, inhalers, etc.;

solvents, blowing agents for foam manufacture

0.6-1

Halons Used in fire extinguishers 3-10

Carbon tetrachloride Feedstock for CFCs, pharmaceutical and agricultural

chemicals, solvent

1.1

1,1,1-trichlorethane

(methyl chloroform) Solvent 0.1

Hydrobromofluorocarbons

(HBFCs) Developed as ‘transitional’ replacement for CFCs. 0.01-0.52

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(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


10

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 hydrochloro-

fluorocarbons (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 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.


11

Requirements of the Montreal Protocol including amendments and adjustments to the end of 1999**

Controlled Substance Reduction in consumption Reduction in consumption and production for and production for developing developed countries (Article 5) countries

CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC- 113,

CFC-114, CFC-115

Base level: 1986

1989: Freeze

1994: 75 per cent

1996: 100 per cent

Base level: Average of 1995-1997

1999: Freeze

2005: 50 per cent

2007: 85 per cent

2010: 100 per cent

Halon 1211, halon 1301, halon

2402

Base level: 1986

1992: 20 per cent

1994: 100 per cent


2002: Freeze

2005: 50 per cent

2010: 100 per cent

Other fully halogenated CFCs Base level: 1989

1993: 20 per cent

1994: 75 per cent

1996: 100 per cent


2003: 20 per cent

2007: 85 per cent

2010: 100 per cent

Carbon tetrachloride Base level: 1989

1995: 85 per cent

1996: 100 per cent


2005: 85 per cent

2010: 100 per cent

1,1,1-trichloroethane

(methyl chloroform)

Base level: 1989

1993: Freeze

1994: 50 per cent

1996: 100 per cent


2003: Freeze

2005: 30 per cent

2010: 70 per cent

2015: 100 per cent

HCFCs Consumption

Base level: 1989 HCFC consumption +

2.8 per cent of 1989 CFC consumption

1996: Freeze

2004: 35 per cent

2010: 65 per cent

2015: 90 per cent

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

Consumption

Base level: 2015

2016: Freeze

2040: 100 per cent

Production

Base level: 2015

2001: Freeze


12

Requirements of the Montreal Protocol including amendments and adjustments to the end of 1999**

Controlled Substance Reduction in consumption Reduction in consumption and production for and production for developing developed countries (Article 5) countries

** The Protocol allows some exemptions, e.g. for "essential uses." Readers requiring full details of phase out for a given substanceshould refer to the Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, published by the UNEP OzoneSecretariat, or other accredited sources.

HBFCs 1996: 100 per cent 1996: 100 per cent

Bromochloromethane 2002: 100 per cent 2002: 100 per cent

Methyl bromide Base level: 1991

1995: Freeze

1999: 25 per cent

2001: 50 per cent

2003: 70 per cent

2005: 100 per cent


2002: Freeze

2005: 20 per cent

2003: review of reduction schedule

2015: 100 per cent

Progress in the ratification of the Montreal Protocol and its amendments

0

50

100

150

200

Beijing Amendment

Montreal Amendment

Copenhagen Amendment

London Amendment

Montreal Protocol

Vienna Convention

Agreement

No. of CountriesRatifying

Source: Caleb Management Services, UK

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:

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.


13

Blowing agent Ozone depletion potential

CFC-11 1.0

CFC-113 0.8

CFC-12 1.0

CFC-114 1.0

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

Flexible foams

Rigid foams

Year

Volume(tonnes)

Use of CFCs in foams (1976 - 1999)

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.

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


14

Developing countries

Japan

North America

Europe

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Ann

ual C

ons

ump

tion

(OD

P T

onn

es)

Year1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Phase out of CFC blowing agents in rigid foams

2 Development of a Global Emission Function for Blowing Agents Used in Closed Cell Foam - AFEAS (2000)


15

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)

Polyurethane 209400 (78%)

Polyolefin 19000 (7%)

Extruded Polystyrene 37600 (14%)

Phenolic 1400 (1%)


16

Types of foam and their typical applications

cushionsbeddingunderlay

vehicle seat cushions

appliance insulation

roof insulationwall insulation

building insulationrefrigerated transport

roof insulationwall insulation

building insulationpipe insulationrefrigerated transport

pipe insulation

building insulation

building insulationpipe insulation

food trayscontainersegg cartons

building insulation

packaging

protective packagingflotation devices

slabstock foam

moulded foam

injected foam

boardstock/flexible faced lamination

sandwich panels

spray foam insulation

slabstock

pipe-in-pipe/preformed pipe

one-component foam

sheet

board

extruded sheet/moulded

extruded sheet/extruded plank

thermosetting foams

thermoplastic foams

polyurethane

phenolic

polystyrene

polyolefin

rigid

flexible

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 cost-

effective 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

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.


18

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998

Year

Volume(tonnes)

Total HCFCs

Total CFCs

PU growth rate of ~6%per annum over period

CFC/HCFC blowing agents in use globally in rigid foams (1960-1999)

CFC/HCFC blowing agents in use globally in rigid foams (1960-1999)(ODP tonnes)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997

Total HCFCs

Total CFCs

Year

Volume (ODP

tonnes)

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.


19

Summary of technically viable CFC alternatives available to the foam industry

CFC ALTERNATIVES

Zero ODP

FOAM TYPE Low ODP Emerging, but Not

Yet Commercial

Polyurethane Rigid:Domestic Refrigerators HCFC-141b, HCFC 142b/22 blends HFC-134a, hydrocarbons HFC-245fa, -365mfcand Freezers

Other Appliances HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, HCFC- CO2 (water), HFC-134a, hydrocarbons, HFC-245fa, -365mfc22/HCFC-142b

Boardstock/Flexible HCFC-141b, HCFC-141b/-22 Hydrocarbons HFC-245fa, -365mfcFaced Lamination

Sandwich Panels HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, HCFC- HFC-134a, hydrocarbons HFC-245fa, -365mfc22/HCFC-142b

Spray HCFC-141b, HCFC-22 CO2 (water) HFC-245fa, -365mfc

Slabstock HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons HFC-245fa, -365mfc

Pipe HCFC-141b CO2 (water), cyclopentane HFC-245fa, -365mfc

One Component HCFC-22 HFC-134a or HFC-152a/Dimethyl ether/propane/butane

Polyurethane Flexible:Slabstock and Boxfoam HCFCs are not technically CO2 (water), methylene chloride, acetone,

necessary for this end use AB Technology, pentane, CO2 (LCD), extended-range polyols, additives,

accelerated cooling, variable pressure

Moulded HCFCs are not technically Extended range polyols, CO2necessary for this end use (water, LCD, GCD)

Integral Skin HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b/-22 CO2 (water), HFC-134a, -152a hydrocarbons HFC-245fa, -365mfc

Miscellaneous HCFC-141b, HCFC-22/CO2 (water) CO2 (water)

Phenolic HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons, 2-chloropropane HFC-245fa, -365mfc

Extruded Polystyrene:

Sheet HCFCs are not technically CO2 (LCD), hydrocarbons, atmosphericnecessary for this end use gases, HFC-134a, -152a

Boardstock HCFC-22, HCFC-142b HFC-134a, HFC-152a, CO2 (LCD) HFC-134

Polyolefin HCFC-22, HCFC-142b Hydrocarbons, HFC-152a, CO2 (LCD)

Commercially Available

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:

Slabstock Foam

Slabstock foam is produced in large blocks by both continuous and discontinuous technologies. The

various process types are shown below:


20

Polyurethaneflexible foam

Slabstockfoam

Mouldedfoam

Integral skin& others

Bedding

Furniture cushioning

Seats in public transport

Textile backing (sportswear)

Carpet linings

Packaging

Furniture seating

Seats, back & headrestsfor cars

Sound barriers

Composite in-fill

Flotation

Steering wheels and otherinterior parts

Bicycle saddles

Flotation

Shoe soles

Slabstock foam

Continuousprocesses

Maxfoam/varimax

Continuousprocesses Vertifoam

Discontinuousprocesses

“Moulded”slabstock

Box mould

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:

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, HFC-

134a/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.


21

3 Acetone, AB Technology, pentane, low index additives, accelerated cooling systems, E-max and use ofextended polyols are all technically feasible.

Share of world Applicationsproduction

Hot Cure 33% Exclusively automotiveseating & headrests

Cold Cure 67% Automotive and furniture

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.

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

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

Flexible foams

Rigid foams

Year

Volume(tonnes)

Use of CFCs in foams (1976-1999)

Rigid polyurethane foams

The rigid polyurethane foam sector divides into three major application areas, as shown below:

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

Rigidpolyurethane foam

Appliancefoams

Constructionfoams

Transportationfoams

Domestic refrigerators

Domestic freezers

Commercial refrigerators

Commercial freezers

Air-conditioning units

Cool boxes

Flasks

Lining boards

Roof boards

Pipe section

Pipe-in-pipe

Cold store panels

Doors

Food processing enclosures

Spray systems

Sandwich panels for trucks

Reefer boxes

Flotation

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 HFCF-

141b 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:

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:

PFCnucleation


24

CFC II

“Reduced”CFC II

Cyclopen-tane

HCFC 141b

HCFC 22HCFC 142b

HFC134a

HFC365mfc

HFC245fa

Vacuumpanels

Cyclopentane

Iso Butane

Cyclopentane/

Iso Pentane

X

Constructionfoam

In-situprocesses

Continuousprocesses


Continuouspanel manufacture

(rigid facings)

Continuouslamination

(flexible facings)

Closed Mould(panel manufacture)

Box mould(slab & pipe section)

In-situprocesses

Continuousprocesses


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:

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 in-

situ 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

Conveyor press

Dispenser

Facing rolls

Rising foam

Cross-cut saw

Cured panel

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.


26

Process/Application Low ODP Zero ODPCommercial Non-commercial

Domestic Appliances HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons HFC-245fa

HFC-134a HFC-365mfc

Continuous Lamination HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons HFC-245fa

HFC-365mfc

Continuous Panel HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons HFC-245fa

HFC-134a HFC-365mfc

Spray Foam HCFC-141b CO2 (water) HFC-245fa

HFC-365mfc

Block Foam HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons HFC-245fa

HFC-365mfc

One-component Foam HCFC-22 HFC/Dimethylether/ —

Propane/Butane


27

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:

Phenolicfoam

In-situprocesses

Continuousprocesses


Continuouslamination

(flexible facings)

Closed Mould(panel manufacture)

Box mould(slabstock, floral foam

& pipe section)

In-situinjection

Spray foam(developmental only)

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 HFC-

365mfc.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.


28

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.

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.

Extrudedpolystyrene foam

Sheet

Food packaging

Laminated sheet (art boards)

Roof insulation boards

Floor insulation

Wall insulation

Sandwich panels

Road & rail ground insulation

Board


29

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 HCFC-

142b 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.


30

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.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

TOTAL Demand

Producer's Sales

Europe DemandNorth America DemandJapan Demand

Producer's Sales

Tonn

es

Year1960 1970 1980 1990 1999

CFC-12 – closed-cell foam demand profile (1960-1999)


31

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.

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.

Polyolefinfoam

Sheet Tubular Board orplank

Protective packaging DIY pipe insulation Designed cushionpackaging


32

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


33

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 ClimateChange’, UNEP (2001)

6 Thermal Insulation and its Role in Carbon Dioxide Reduction’, Caleb Management Services (1997)


34

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:

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.

Fluorocarbon blowing agent recovery unit

Refrigerators

CFC/HCFC(refrigerant)

Oil

Compressor

Dismantling

Primary crusher

Secondary crusher

Rod and tube mill

Airseparator

Polyurethane mill

Polyurethane dust

Activatedcharcoalchamber

To atmosphere

Heater

Cooling machine

Crushed metal etc. Fluorocarbonblowing agent


35

Secretariats and Implementing Agencies

Multilateral Fund Secretariat

Dr. Omar El Arini

Chief Officer

Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for

the Montreal Protocol

27th Floor, Montreal Trust Building

1800 McGill College Avenue

Montreal, Quebec H3A 6J6

Canada

Tel: 1 514 282 1122

Fax: 1 514 282 0068

E-mail: [email protected]

Web site: www.unmfs.org

UNEP Ozone Secretariat

Mr. Michael Graber

Acting Executive Secretary

UNEP Ozone Secretariat

PO Box 30552

Gigiri, Nairobi

Kenya

Tel: 2542 623-855

Fax: 2542 623-913

Email: [email protected]

Web site: www.unep.org/ozone

UNEP

Mr. Rajendra M. Shende, Chief

Energy and OzonAction Unit

United Nations Environment Programme

Division of Technology, Industry and Economics

(UNEP DTIE)

39-43 quai Andre Citroen

75739 Paris Cedex 15

France

Tel: 33 1 44 3714 50

Fax: 33 1 44 3714 74


Web site: www.uneptie.org/ozonaction

UNDP

Dr. Suely Carvalho, Deputy Chief

Montreal Protocol Unit, EAP/SEED

United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP)

304 East 45th Street

Room FF-9116,New York, NY 10017

United States of America

Tel: 1 212 906 6687

Fax: 1 212 906 6947


Web site: www.undp.org/seed/eap/montreal

UNIDO

Mrs. H. Seniz Yalcindag, Chief

Industrial Sectors and Environment Division

United Nations Industrial Development

Organization (UNIDO)

Vienna International Centre

P.O. Box 300

A-1400 Vienna

Austria

Tel: (43) 1 26026 3782

Fax: (43) 1 26026 6804


Web site: www.unido.org

World Bank

Mr. Steve Gorman, Unit Chief

Montreal Protocol Operations Unit

World Bank, 1818 H Street NW

Washington DC 20433


Tel: 1 202 473 5865

Fax: 1 202 522 3258


Web site: www.esd.worldbank.org/mp/home.cfm

Resources


36

Industry Associations

Mr. Geert Strobbe

ISOPA

Ave. van Nieuwenhuyse 6

B-1160

Brussels

Belgium

Tel: 32 2 676 7475

Fax: 32 2 676 7479


Website: www.isopa.org

Ms. Fran Lichtenberg

Alliance for the Polyurethanes Industry

1300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 800

Arlington

Virginia (VA 22209)


Tel: 1 703 253 0656

Fax: 1 703 253 0658


Website: www.polyurethane.org

Mr. Russel Mills

Exiba

Ave. van Nieuwenhuyse 4

B-1160

Brussels

Belgium

Tel: 32 2 676 7211

Fax: 32 2 676 7301


Website: www.cefic.org/sector/profile/02-i.htm

Mr. John Fairley

European Phenolic Foam Association

Association House

235 Ash Road

Aldershot

Hampshire, GU12 4DD

United Kingdom

Tel: 44 1252 336318

Fax: 44 1252 333901


Website: www.epfa.org.uk

Mr. Kyoshi Hara

Japanese Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer

Protection (JICOP)

Hongo-Wakai Building

2-40-17, Hongo

Bunkyo-ku

Toyko 113

Japan

Tel: 81 3 5689 7981

Fax: 81 3 5689 7983


Contact Points


37

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)


38

Glossary

ABA auxiliary blowing agent

AB Technology process by which formic acid reacts with an isocyanate to produce carbondioxide and carbon monoxide for the expansion of flexible polyurethanefoam

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 technologycontaining 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


39

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


40

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


41

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


Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 50

Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74

www.uneptie.org/ozonaction.html

UNEP�


42

About the UNEP Division of Technology, Industryand 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.

www.unep.orgUnited Nations Environment Programme

P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, KenyaTel: (254 2) 621234Fax: (254 2) 623927

E-mail: [email protected]: www.unep.org

Protecting the Ozone Layer · 2006-08-10 · Foreword When the Montreal Protocol on Substances that...

Documents

Transcript of Protecting the Ozone Layer · 2006-08-10 · Foreword When the Montreal Protocol on Substances that...