Here are some comments that I provided to UPSCO Inc.? Note that the price is 
$375 per kit.? UPSCO is the service firm in New York state that asked Dow to 
reformulate an insulation polyurethane foam product that they marketed.? The 
new product had a pressure of up to 260 psi and a retarded set time.? Both 
factors allowed better fill of pipe being abandoned.? Dow and UPSCO seem to 
have partnered on this product.

In addition, here is the MSDS for the product.? The exposure of employees is 
negligible, however, since there are tight fitting connections to the pipe 
being filled.

Attached is also a photo of nozzles used. 

Ralph Komai 
Ralph Y. Komai, Ph.D. 
Sempra Energy 
Principal Environmental Specialist 
Phone: (213) 244-5860 FAX: (213) 244-8046 
Pager: (213) 287-2091 
E-mail: RYKomai@sempra.com 



-----Original Message----- 
From: Komai, Ralph - TPRYK 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:17 AM 
To: 'Dan Pajak' 
Cc: ABOOS; Jim Bean; Chuck Lang V; Gary Grunauer; John Cahill; Ron 
Rockett; Razzak, Shahid - TP5SXR; Haines, Deanna - TP1DRH; Fernandez, 
David F. - TPDFF; Zubiate, Armando - TPAXZ; Padleschat, Joyce; Alex 
Barrios; Carey Downs; John Groot; Meraz, Delia - TP2DXM; William Huleis; 
William Jollie 
Subject: Comments to UPSCO Inc. 

Dan, I have copied your questions and have responded in capital letters.? 
Please realize that this is my reaction as of today, and that may change as 
we gain experience with the Froth Paks.

Did we meet your expectations?? 

YES.? YOU MET MY EXPECTATIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR PRODUCT.? MY 
EXPECTATIONS WERE INFLUENCED BY THE POSITIVE DEMONSTRATION THAT I OBSERVED IN 
ALBANY.? WHAT I WANTED TO ASSESS WAS ACTUAL USE IN THE FIELD, THE NECESSITY 
TO HAVE A TIGHT FITTING CONNECTION TO THE SERVICE AND WHETHER THAT WAS A 
SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO USING THIS PRODUCT, THE TIME REQUIRED TO SET UP, AND 
THE OVERALL REACTION OF OPERATING MANAGEMENT AND FIELD CREWS.? THE REACTION 
TO THE PRODUCT WAS VERY POSITIVE.

Do we have any challenges that need to be addressed?? 

1.????? COST IS A BIG ONE.? IF WE CAN FILL 10 SERVICES (I BELIEVE THAT THIS 
WAS JOHN CAHILL'S GUESS FOR 50 FOOT SERVICES) PER FROTH PAK AT A COST OF 
$375, THAT HAS A UNIT ABANDONMENT COST OF $37.50 COMPARED WITH THE $5 WE ARE 
SPENDING FOR AN AEROSOL CAN.? CLEARLY THE FROTH PAK FILLS THE SERVICES OVER 
LONGER DISTANCES, CONSISTENTLY, RAPIDLY, AND MORE RELIABLY.? AS JOHN CAHILL 
AND I DISCUSSED, INCREASED SALES WILL BRING THE COST DOWN.? 

??????? -- IT MAY BE PREMATURE, BUT WHAT IS YOUR ESTIMATE OF HOW COST MAY 
VARY WITH INCREASED DEMAND?? 
??????? -- HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU HAVE TO SELL TO TRIGGER A SIGNIFICANT 
REDUCTION IS PRICE?? 
??????? -- THERE WAS AN INDICATION THAT PALLETS OF 30 WOULD HAVE A QUANTITY 
DISCOUNT, BUT WHAT IS THAT DISCOUNTED PRICE OF A PALLET?

THERE MAY BE A MIDDLE GROUND FOR US OF USING CANS FOR CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES 
AND THE FROTH PAK FOR OTHERS.? 

THE TWO PAKS THAT WERE LEFT FOR OUR USE WILL PROVIDE US SOME USEFUL HANDS-ON 
EVALUATION OPPORTUNITIES. 

2.????? SHELF-LIFE AFTER THE CYLINDERS ARE OPENED.? THE 45-DAY LIFE MAY NOT 
ALLOW US TO EFFICIENTLY USE UP REAGENTS.? WE ARE A LARGE TERRITORY COMPANY.? 
SHARING OF PAKS BETWEEN DISTRICTS WOULD MEAN TRAVEL TIME TO TAKE KITS FROM 
DISTRICT TO DISTRICT.? ON THE OTHER HAND, INDIVIDUAL PAKS FOR EACH DISTRICT 
MAY MEAN GREATER WASTED REAGENTS.

Where do we go from here?? 

FOR OUR COMPANY, THE FIRST STEP IS TO DEVELOP A SURVEY FORM THAT WE WILL USE 
FOR THE CREWS.? (THE DRAFT FORM IS UNDER REVIEW.)? WE WILL BE ABLE TO TALLY 
SUCCESSES UNDER VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE REACTION OF THE FIELD CREWS, AS 
WELL AS IDENTIFYING ANY PROBLEM SITUATIONS.? WE WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP 
THE AVERAGE COST PER SERVICE.? THE TWO KITS WILL BE USED IN TWO DIFFERENT 
REGIONS, AND THE INFORMATION/EXPERIENCE WILL BE EXAMINED TO SEE IF THERE WERE 
ANY PROBLEMS.? COSTS WILL BE CALCULATED.? THEN WE WILL DECIDE WHETHER WE NEED 
TO PILOT THIS SOME MORE, OR WE WOULD PREFER TO STAY WITH OUR PRESENT METHODS, 
OR IF WE WISH TO IMPLEMENT USE OF YOUR PRODUCT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS.

JOHN CAHILL WILL BE PROVIDING US INFORMATION REGARDING LANDFILLING APPROVAL 
FOR PRODUCT FOAM AND DEPLETED REAGENT PRESSURE CONTAINERS.? 

ANDY BOOS WILL BE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL NOZZLE/CONNECTORS TO CAREY DOWNS, 
BECAUSE OF THE SHORTER AVERAGE LENGTH ABANDONMENTS IN HIS REGION.

One of the thoughts that we are currently evaluating and would greatly 
appreciate your input on is the following:? Based upon all of our field work 
we believe that it may be advantageous to under fill the cylinders of 
chemical (180 board feet to 110-120) and in turn increase the amount of 
propellant from 250 psi to 350 psi.? In our opinion this would serve three 
functions: 1) Reduce potential material waste; 2) Reduce any potential 
confusion associated with using a 

kit multiple times; 3) Reduce the cost per foot factors and the acquisition 
price.? What do you think? 

1.????? THIS APPROACH WOULD ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS ABOUT WASTED REAGENT.? 
2.????? FOR USING THE KIT AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS, THERE IS PROBABLY A NEED TO 
TRACK HOW MANY ABANDONMENTS OF WHAT DIAMETER AND LENGTH IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE 
HOW MANY ADDITIONAL LINES YOU CAN FILL.? TOWARD THE END OF A KIT, THERE IS A 
QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO FILL A LINE OR NOT.? CAN YOU SWITCH 
PAKS WHEN ONE RUNS OUT, IF YOU DO IT WITHIN 2 MINUTES OF THE INJECTION START 
TIME OF THE FIRST KIT?? OTHERWISE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH RUNNING OUT OF 
REACTANTS WHEN YOU'VE SQUIRTED IN LESS THAN ENOUGH FOR 50% OF THE VOLUME.? 
THERE IS ALSO A PROBLEM WITH DECIDING WHAT PERCENTAGE YOU HAVE FILLED WHEN 
YOU RUN OUT.

3.????? IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE COST PER FOOT WOULD GO UP WITH UNDERFILLED 
CYLINDERS, SINCE THE FIXED COST IS THE SAME FOR CYLINDERS, HOSES, TRIGGER, 
AND CARDBOARD BOX.? YOU WOULD STILL GET THE SAME NUMBER OF BOXES ON A PALLET, 
BUT YOU'D FILL FEWER LINES WITH THAT PALLET.

FEWER FILLS AND CHEAPER PAKS WOULD, HOWEVER, ALLOW US TO PURCHASE MORE AND 
DISTRIBUTE THEM MORE WIDELY.? THAT WOULD CUT DOWN ON THE TRAVEL TIME TO 
DELIVER SHARED PAKS.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE FEEDBACK IS FROM THE OPERATING REGIONS AFTER 
THEY PILOT THE PAKS BEFORE WE GIVE YOU OUR MEASURED OPINION ON THE UNDERFILL 
CONCEPT.

THAT'S ALL OF MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT REACTION FOR NOW.? THANKS FOR THE 
EVALUATION OPPORTUNITY. 


Ralph Komai 
Sempra Energy 
Principal Environmental Specialist 
Phone: (213) 244-5860? FAX: (213) 244-8046 
Pager: (213) 287-2091 
E-mail: RYKomai@sempra.com 



-----Original Message----- 
From: Dan Pajak [mailto:DPAJAK@upscoinc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 8:50 AM 
To: Ralph Komai 
Cc: ABOOS; Jim Bean; Chuck Lang V; Gary Grunauer; John Cahill; Ron 
Rockett 
Subject: Demo 

Ralph, 

Good morning. The boys made it back safe and sound with glowing reports of 
yesterdays' foam demonstration.? I am curious as to your thoughts.? Did we 
meet your expectations?? Do we have any challenges that need to be 
addressed?? Where do we go from here?? One of the thoughts that we are 
currently evaluating and would greatly appreciate your input on is the 
following:? Based upon all of our field work we believe that it may be 
advantageous to under fill the cylinders of chemical (180 board feet to 
110-120) and in turn increase the amount of propellant from 250 psi to 350 
psi.? In our opinion this would serve three functions: 1) Reduce potential 
material waste; 2) Reduce any potential confusion associated with using a 
kit multiple times; 3) Reduce the cost per foot factors and the acquisition 
price.? What do you think? 

Thanks again for affording Upsco and DOW the opportunity to demonstrate our 
solution for Gas Utilities to effectively and economically address the Mega 
Rule. If you have any photos from yesterday that you can pass along I would 
appreciate seeing them.? DP 

Regards, 

Dan Pajak: Upsco, Inc. 
www.upscoinc.com 
Cellular: 215/439-2913 
Voice Mail: 315/497-1944 X1117 

? 
 - MSDSDOW.pdf
 - fill nozzle kits.jpg