ODS-FREE SUBSTITUTE FOR INSULATING FOAM
|
|
||||||||||||
| Overview: |
CFCs and HCFCs are common blowing agents used in the expansion of polymer foams, such as expanded polystyrene (STYROFOAM®). Most companies, however, have switched from using CFCs as blowing agents to using HCFCs or other alternative methods. Typically, most insulating foams use a CFC (Class I ODS) for the expansion of the polymer foam. However, the SNAP (Significant New Alternatives Policy) program that was implemented by the U.S. EPA established that under the Clean Air Act, CFC importation and production are prohibited in the U.S. effective January 1, 1996. CFC use, however, is still permitted as long as it complies with Section 610 of the Clean Air Act "Non-Essential Use Ban". Although the use is still permitted, the CFCs are becoming more expensive due to the decrease in availability due to the production ban. Several alternative chemicals and technologies have come on the market, which do not use CFCs in their mixture. HCFC (a Class II ODS) is a common substitute found for CFC insulating foams. However, HCFCs are currently becoming curtailed in both production and use due to their ozone depleting potential. One new alternative to gas induced expansion is "electroset" technology. Electrosetting materials are made up of ordinary resins mixed with an electrically polarizable aggregate that makes the resin semiconductive while in its liquid state. The fluid resin is then heated electrically until, at a certain temperature, one constituent of the resin changes phase from liquid to gas, thus creating bubbles. The rest of the resin then solidifies, resulting in an expanded foam. By altering the applied electrical energy, qualities such as foam density and compressibility can be controlled. Using alternating current in the process produces a homogeneous foam. Direct current causes a thermal gradient in the resin resulting in foam with properties that vary within the foam matrix. Molded items can also be produced. Below is a table excerpted from the U.S. EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/ozone, which lists several types of polyurethane foams, the targeted ODS, and the acceptable substitute:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Compliance Benefit: |
Use of an ODS-free substitute for insulating foam will help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class II ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, using ODS-free insulating foam decreases the possibility that the facility will meet reporting thresholds for ODSs under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of workload involved.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Materials Compatibility: |
No material compatibility issues were identified.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Safety and Health: |
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these technologies.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benefits: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Disadvantages: | None
identified.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Economic Analysis: |
The following economic analysis is based on information provided by vendors comparing an insulating foam which uses a CFC mixture in their formulation, with one that uses a substitute: Assumptions:
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Insulating Foam and CFC-free Insulating Foam
Economic Analysis Summary
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $29.85 Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 6 years Click Here to view an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Approving Authority: |
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NSN/MSDS: |
*There are multiple MSDSs for most NSNs. The MSDS (if shown above) is only meant to serve as an example.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Points of Contact: |
EPA:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Vendors: |
Macklanburg-Duncan Flexible Products
Co. RHH Foam Systems,
Inc. 3M Corporation U.S. Navy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sources: |
None listed |