Comments Of BASF Corporation’s On US EPA’s Proposal to Change the Listings from Acceptable to 

Unacceptable For HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, And Any Blends Containing These Blowing 

Agents For All Foam End- Uses And Applications Except For Spray Foam As Of January 1, 2017

October 17, 2014

The following comments are submitted on behalf of BASF Corporation in response to the EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198: “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change 

of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.”

BASF remains highly concerned that the accelerated timing is impractical for large parts of our industry, 

given the absence of “drop-in” replacements for blowing agents in polyurethane foam. Without significant 

grandfather periods, there is a real potential for the construction products business, consumer appliance 

business, and energy conservation efforts currently on-going throughout to suffer significant adverse impacts. 

Adverse Impact of EPA’s Proposal on Federal Energy Use Efficiency Programs

In its proposal, EPA requested comment on “the effects this proposal would have on the energy efficiency of 

the commercial refrigeration end-uses addressed and in particular the effect, if any, this proposal would have 

on meeting applicable DOE standards” but did not otherwise solicit comments concerning its impact across 

the Federal energy use efficiency programs (79 Fed Reg. 46147). 

BASF is concerned about potential negative impacts that the impractical time frame set forth in EPA’s 

proposal could bear upon the advancement of federal efficiency standards and policies seeking to improve 

efficiency and performance in both appliances and buildings. We question whether EPA has sufficiently 

coordinated this initiative with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other federal agencies charged 

with reducing energy use in buildings and appliances. Foam materials provide high-performance insulation 

which saves energy throughout the entire, relatively long, life cycle of homes and buildings. The impractical 

time frame set forth in EPA’s proposal may jeopardize the continuity of the energy efficiency benefits 

currently delivered by foam materials. 

BASF highly recommends coordination and collaboration about the potential impact of this Proposed Rule 

within and among all federal agencies charged with reducing energy use in buildings and appliances 

including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. General 

Services Administration, and the U.S. EPA. As such, the federal government must be considerate of the 

lifetime energy use reductions in buildings delivered from the use of foam materials. Energy use reductions 

in buildings also reduces GHG emissions associated with buildings, currently estimated at one-third of all 

GHG emissions globally (citation: UN Environment Programme, Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative, 

page 6 of this PDF link - http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/SBCI-BCCSummary.pdf )

3
Spray Foam

BASF strongly supports the current EPA SNAP exemptions proposed for spray foam. Before turning to the 

end uses subject to EPA’s proposal, BASF offers the following comments and questions regarding the 

proposed HFC exemption for spray foam. 

Spray foam is traditionally field applied. As a result the formulations require extended shelf life under a 

variety of environmental conditions. While reportedly a great deal of formulation work has been done to 

increase shelf life with the next generation HFO’s, not all of the proposed HFO molecules have the shelf life 

needed to make them acceptable alternates in the field. 

Impact of Reactive HFOs on Shelf Life: The next generation HFO’s are designed to break down resulting in 

low GWP. One of the factors that accelerate the breakdown of one of the HFO molecules is a strong base, for 

example, the strongly basic amine catalysts used in most polyurethane chemistry and used at very high levels 

in spray foam. Spray foam, in particular, requires high levels of very active amine catalysts to drive the 

reaction rates. These very active catalysts cause rapid chemical breakdown of one of the HFO molecules 

releasing HF acid (hydrofluoric acid) which in turn breaks down the surfactants in the formulation causing 

cell and foam collapse. This mechanism has been widely documented by one of the HFO manufacturers. It 

has been BASF’s experience that initial thermal properties suffer and aged thermal properties degrade rapidly 

with HFO-1233zd in spray foam applications. Currently suggested solutions may improve the shelf life of 

spray foam made using next generation HFO’s but they have not been proven to be effective in all spray foam 

formulations. Evaluations of alternate catalyst and surfactant packages have started but will likely take 

several years to achieve and optimize. 

Lack of Drop-In Alternatives: BASF also supports the HFC exemptions for spray foam because of the lack of 

available alternates. Since spray foam is typically field applied it is very difficult to control the environment 

during the application, which is why spray foam applicators are required to wear extensive PPE (personal 

protective equipment). Unlike other polyurethane applications, spray foam cannot readily transition to 

hydrocarbon blowing agents as an acceptable option due to flammability concerns. Currently there would 

only be one commercially available HFO option available to evaluate and even this molecule has shelf 

stability concerns. Commercial HFO alternates which may have better shelf stability have not been TSCA or 

SNAP approved to date and therefore it has been difficult to complete an evaluation to determine if they are 

acceptable alternates. We understand that production of the alternate HFO molecule is not slated to be 

complete until late 2016 or early 2017. If not exempt, this would leave no time to complete formulation 

modifications and obtain the full battery of third party credentials required (fire testing, physical property 

attributes, etc.) to commercialize spray foam formulations based on the next generation HFO’s. 

Commercial Impacts of Inadequate Testing Opportunities: One commercial concern unique to spray foam 

applications involves warranties. Many spray foam roof applications can carry up to a 30-year limited 

4
warranty, and must do so to be competitive in the market. A tremendous amount of field testing goes into any 

formulation changes to spray foam roofing formulations to avoid claims against those warranties. In many 

cases field installations are monitored for 1-2 years before a formulation change is fully approved for 

commercial use. During previous blowing agent changes, there were numerous claims due to unduly 

accelerated testing. BASF supports the spray foam exemption to allow sufficient time to properly field test 

foam roof applications made using the next generation blowing agents. Otherwise, polyurethane foam 

manufacturers like BASF could face enormous claims associated, for example, with delayed or latent 

shrinkage of the finished foam, field failures due to foam delamination and blisters, or insufficient fire 

resistance. 

 

Need for Definition of Spray Foam Applications: BASF requests further clarification and definition of spray 

foam applications. There are many field applied and plant applied processes that use the same equipment and 

have the same shelf life limitations as spray foam. Many of these applications still use HFC’s as foam 

blowing agents, processing aids or to maintain physical properties in the application. These applications 

include but are not limited to the following:

• Industrial piping applications

• Slab jacking or ground stabilization

• Flotation applications – boats, floating docks, barges

• Spas and bath manufacture

Many of these applications use spray foam equipment but may have a slightly modified spray tip to either 

control the spray pattern or dispense the material at a distance. The primary difference in these applications is 

mechanical to control the spray pattern but the chemistry may be very similar to traditional spray foam 

chemistry. It is unclear in the current proposal if these applications would qualify as exempt spray foam 

applications or pour-in-place applications which would not qualify for exemption.

HFC Blend Flexibility: Finally, before turning to other end uses, BASF recommends that EPA offer wider 

flexibility to the use of mixtures of HFCs (other than HFC-134a) in spray foam. In the preamble to the 

Proposed Rule, EPA notes: 

“Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC– 134a and blends thereof and Formacel TI 

unacceptable in this application. We are proposing that HFC–245fa; commercial blends of 

HFC–365mfc and HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC–

365mfc; and blends of HFC–365mfc and at least 5% HFC–245fa remain acceptable in spray 

foam because these three nonflammable foam blowing agents reduce overall risk compared 

to the available flammable alternatives.”1

1

 Proposed rule at page 46152. 

5

 
BASF proposes that EPA add a provision allowing blends of HFC-365mfc, HFC-227ea and HFC-245fa, so 

that a broader range of options utilizing only these three nonflammable foam blowing agents could be used. 

The revised preamble language would then say (showing changes in red): 

Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC– 134a and blends thereof and Formacel TI unacceptable 

in this application. We are proposing that HFC–245fa; commercial blends of HFC–365mfc 

and HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC– 365mfc; 

commercial blends of HFC–365mfc and HFC–227ea (previously described) combined with 

HFC-245fa; and blends of HFC–365mfc and at least 5% HFC–245fa remain acceptable in 

spray foam because these three nonflammable foam blowing agents reduce overall risk 

compared to the available flammable alternatives.

We now turn to our primary concerns with EPA’s proposal. 

EPA’s Proposed January 1, 2017 Effective Date of the “Unacceptable Substitute” Listings for the 

Referenced HFCs Should be extended via “Grandfathering” for All 

Non-Spray Polyurethane Foam Uses 

Certain aspects of EPA’s Proposed Rule on the phase out timing of HFC blowing agents would cause undue 

burden and be highly detrimental to our industry. That adverse impact could only be mitigated by 

grandfathering certain existing uses. BASF submits that the following phase-in schedule is justified and 

appropriate assuming a sufficient supply of each required blowing agent is readily available to support 

industry-wide polyurethane foam conversion efforts by January 1, 2016:

• Walk-in cooler panel foams– not before January 1, 2020;

• Continuously produced insulated metal panels -- not before 2019;

• Marine Floatation – not before July 1, 2019;

• Commercial Refrigeration – not before July 1, 2019;

• Garage door applications and refrigerated transport -- not before July 1, 2018;

• Domestic Refrigeration – not before July 1, 2017;

• Integral Skin – not before July 1, 2017;

• HVAC panels and residential entry door applications -- not before July 1, 2017.

Application of EPA’s four-part test to judge the appropriateness of agency grandfathering supports the 

conclusion that, for each of the end uses listed in proposed 40 CFR § 82 Subpart G, Appendix U, Table 5A, 

the referenced extensions to the proposed January 1, 2017 effective date of the “Unacceptable Substitute”

listing for HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof is warranted. As a result, BASF 

proposes that the use of HFCs in support of a variety of existing end uses be grandfathered as proposed 

above.

6
Overview

EPA is proposing to change the SNAP listings from acceptable to unacceptable beginning January 1, 2017, 

except where allowed under a narrowed use limit, for HFC–134a and blends thereof in all foam blowing enduses, and for HFC– 365mfc, HFC–245fa and blends thereof for all foam blowing end-uses except spray foam 

applications.2 Other than spray foam, specific end- uses and applications subject to EPA’s proposal include: 

(1) Rigid polyurethane appliance foam; (2) flexible polyurethane; (3) rigid polyurethane: commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels; (4) rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other); (5) rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; (6) integral skin polyurethane; (7) polystyrene (extruded sheet); (8) 

polystyrene: extruded boardstock and billet; (9) polyolefin foam; and (10) phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock.

3

Timing

In its proposal, EPA solicited information from commenters as to whether its proposed transitions could be 

completed even earlier, by January 1, 2016: 

“We are also seeking comment on whether a transition could be completed by January 1, 

2016. In particular, we request comment on whether these dates would be sufficient time for 

the transition where the foam product is incorporated into a larger product (e.g., commercial 

refrigeration foam used in transport refrigeration), and whether there are any specific foam 

end-uses or applications that may require additional time and, if so, how long and why. 

Based on this information, EPA could consider grandfathering options for foam blowing 

agents in specific end- uses or could provide a different date for use to be unacceptable.”4

BASF submits that, for all of the listed polyurethane non-spray foam applications, EPA’s proposed 2017 

deadline is technically infeasible and that a 2016 deadline would be out of the question. EPA has 

significantly underestimated the hurdles that must be overcome by system houses in order to transition 

existing foam sector applications before the proposed January 1, 2017 deadline, at which point such uses of 

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof would be deemed “Unacceptable.”5

 The need for 

2 As proposed, the narrowed use limit for HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof would apply only to 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications and would expire on January 1, 2022.

3 US EPA Proposed Rule, Section V.D. “Foam Blowing Agents,” 79 Fed Reg. 46150 (August 6, 2014)

4

 See “When would the listings change?” Section V.D.2.d., US EPA’s Proposed Rule at p. 46154

5

 In this context, “existing use” would be defined as a current use of HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof to manufacture actual foam products that are sold into commercial markets. See 70 Fed Reg. 67124, Footnote 5.

7

 
up to an additional three (3) years’ time for existing polyurethane non-spray foam applications to make that 

transition is well supported under EPA’s so-called “grandfather” analysis. 

Appropriateness of Agency Grandfathering

EPA’s proposed January 1, 2017 deadline apparently reflects a decision not to grandfather any existing uses

beyond the January 1, 2017 deadline. In fact, grandfathering of such existing uses for periods up to four (4) 

years is fully justified based on EPA’s analysis under the four-part test it established in Sierra Club v. EPA

(719 F.2d 436 (DC Cir. 1983)), as discussed on page 13057 of EPA’s original SNAP rule (published March 

18, 1994): 

“The United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has established a fourpart test to judge the Appropriateness of Agency grandfathering (see Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 

F.2d 436 (DC Cir. 1983)). This test involves balancing the results of four analyses, including 

whether the new rule represents an abrupt departure from previously established practice, the 

extent to which a party relied on the previous rule, the degree of burden which application of 

the new rule would impose on the party, and the statutory interest in applying the new rule 

immediately.”6

1. EPA’s Proposed Rule represents an abrupt departure from previously established practice.

The first part of the four-part test to judge the appropriateness of agency grandfathering asks whether the 

proposal represents an abrupt departure from previously established practice. Answer: It most certainly does. 

In the Proposed Rule, in discussing its basis for the January 1, 2017 deadline for transitioning away from 

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof in such applications, EPA simply noted: 

Through this action, EPA is proposing to change the listings for foam blowing agents as of 

January 1, 2017. Based on information concerning the timeframes from past transitions, EPA 

believes this date allows sufficient opportunity to redesign for a different foam blowing 

agent.7

EPA’s decision not to grandfather any existing uses reflects an abrupt and short sighted departure from 

previously established practice. In its most recent SNAP rulemaking to revise the listings of blowing agents 

6

 “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone”; Final Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; FR DOC # 94-4753 

Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-03-18/html/94-4753.htm. “This test involves balancing the results 

of four analyses, including whether the new rule represents an abrupt departure from previously established practice, the 

extent to which a party relied on the previous rule, the degree of burden which application of the new rule would impose 

on the party, and the statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately.”

7 Proposed Rule at page 46154 (79 Fed Reg. 46154).

8

 
used in the foam sector, EPA granted certain existing users of HCFCs a grandfathering period, allowing the 

continued use of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b for an extended period of time (e.g., for pour foam and marine 

foam applications). Moreover, in its July 11, 2000 proposed rulemaking, it proposed a grandfather period: 

“Current HCFC–22/– 142b use would be grandfathered until January 1, 2005.” 

EPA goes on to claim in the Proposed Rule that the “foam industry was able to convert from HCFC–142b and 

HCFC–22 to other acceptable substitutes between EPA’s proposed unacceptability determination in 

November 2005 and its final determination in March 2007, which specified that existing users of the 

unacceptable HCFCs must transition by March 1, 2008, for most uses.8 This claim ignores the fact that 

EPA’s plans to require substitution for HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b were telegraphed to industry as early as 

2000, when proposed by EPA, and even as early as 1993 in the first SNAP final rulemaking.

9

,

10 Even though 

EPA withdrew its 2000 proposal in 2002 then re-proposed it 2005, industry knew that a final EPA

unacceptability determination for these blowing agents was only a matter of time, and so had at many years’

lead time to formulate, qualify and otherwise obtain the certifications and other credentials necessary to sell 

the final products in the end use industries.

11 Under the current proposal, industry has had very little time to 

begin the long process of reformulating its many and varied products using HFOs. And while industry has 

had more time to work with hydrocarbons such as cyclopentane, the resulting flammability concerns limit the 

practical scope of HC applications. 

Moreover, in claiming in the preamble to its proposal that the “foam industry was able to convert from 

HCFC–142b and HCFC–22 to other acceptable substitutes between EPA’s proposed unacceptability 

determination in November 2005 and its final determination in March 2007,” EPA also ignores one other 

major difference between the HCFC–22 /HCFC– 142b substitution and its current proposal: Ready 

availability of drop-in alternate blowing agents. The alternatives, namely HFC-245fa, HFC– 365mfc and 

8 See “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Ozone Depleting Substitutes in Foam Blowing;” EPA Final Rule; 72 

Fed Reg. 14432 (March 28, 2007).

9 See 65 Fed Reg. 42653 (July 11, 2000): “In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA is proposing the following 

decisions on the acceptability of substitutes in the foams sector: To list HCFC–141b and blends thereof as unacceptable 

as substitutes in all foam end-uses. Current HCFC–141b use would be grandfathered (i.e., allowed to continue) until 

January 1, 2005. To list HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends thereof as unacceptable as substitutes in all foam end-uses. 

Current HCFC–22/– 142b use would be grandfathered until January 1, 2005.”

10 58 Fed Reg. 65018 (December 10, 1993): “Specifically, the Agency will ban the production and consumption of 

HCFC-141b as of January 1, 2003. The production and consumption of HCFC- 142b and HCFC-22 will be frozen at 

baseline levels in 2010, with a complete phaseout of these chemicals by January 1, 2020.”

11 See 67 Fed Reg. 47703 (July 22, 2002) “Today's action: Withdraws the proposed decision to list HCFC-22 and HCFC142b as unacceptable substitutes for existing users ....”; and 70 Fed Reg. 67120 (November 4, 2005): “Today the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that HCFC–22 and HCFC– 142b are unacceptable 

for use in the foam sector under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program under section 612 of the 

Clean Air Act.”

9

 
HFC-134a, were widely available. In this case, the alternative low GWP blowing agents that are readily 

available right now are either flammable and/or or have very limited performance history in most foam enduse applications. 

The challenges to the polyurethane system houses resulting from the 2007 transition away from HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b will pale in comparison to the challenges faced when transitioning from HFCs to HFOs or 

hydrocarbons (HCs). One or more of BASF business units in its Performance Materials Division have 

concerns with products made to date using such HFOs and HCs, including: 

- Loss of process latitude (adhesion, loss of dimensional stability, loss of cold temperature processing 

latitude, delamination)

- Loss of foam flammability performance

- Loss of chemical shelf stability

- Incompatibility of HFO with a variety of polymers used in affected end use applications

- Energy performance and a lack of long term performance data where insulation value is specified

History will likely show that the relatively short transition time frame EPA mistakenly associates with the 

2007 Final SNAP Rule to be artificially brief, for reasons described above. More commonly, EPA has found 

the foam sector to require at least four years in order to make such transitions, as was noted in a 2005 EPA 

file memo summarizing the conclusions of various EPA consultants:

....Once there is an alternative blowing agent that is EPA approved and available, it can take 

up to four years to complete the transition from one blowing agent to another. EPA has based 

this four year determination on its assessment of the activities necessary to transition as 

explained in separate but related rulemakings.12

2. The Extent to Which a Party Relied on the Previous Rule

The second part of the four-part test to judge the appropriateness of agency grandfathering asks about the 

extent to which the requesting party relied on the previous rule. The polyurethanes industry in which BASF 

participates has invested millions of dollars over the past decade completing its transition to the use of the 

referenced HFC blowing agents: developing formulations, products, and conducting the full battery of testing 

(fire testing, physical properties) necessary to obtain third party credentials required to commercialize the end 

use products based on HFCs. Rather than bear the fruits of those investments, EPA’s proposed rule would 

require that industry begin again largely from scratch, often required to use HFO blowing agents with limited

availability and offering technical and safety challenges not encountered in the use of HFCs. 

12 See August 11, 2005 EPA File Memo from Suzie Kocchi, “Four year transition time period in the foam sector”; EPAHQ-OAR-2004-0507-0014.pdf, available at http://www.regulations.gov. (Copy attached.)

10

 
BASF remains highly concerned that the accelerated timing is impractical for large parts of our industry, 

given the absence of “drop-in” replacements for blowing agents in polyurethane foam. Without significant 

grandfather periods, there is a real potential for the construction products business, consumer appliance 

business, and energy conservation efforts currently on-going throughout to suffer significant adverse impacts. 

3. The New Rule Would Impose Very Significant Burdens on System Houses and their Customers’ 

Manufacturing and Selling Rigid Insulating Foams. 

The third part of the four-part test to judge the appropriateness of agency grandfathering asks about the

degree of burden which application of the new rule would impose on the party. Simply put, it is not possible 

for polyurethane foam systems houses to meet the proposed January 1, 2017 deadline, which would further 

challenge the commercial availability of alternatives to existing blowing agent technology, significantly

increase the costs to implement new blowing agent technology, and present a widespread industry rush to 

formulate, qualify and otherwise obtain the certifications and other credentials necessary to sell the final 

product in the end use industry segments in time to meet the proposed January 1, 2017 deadline. As an 

alternative proposal, BASF supports the scheduled phase out of the referenced HFCs as blowing agents for 

non-spray polyurethane foams (also outlined at the beginning of these comments), assuming a sufficient 

supply of each required blowing agent is readily available to support industry-wide polyurethane foam 

conversion efforts by January 1, 2016:

• Walk-in cooler panel foams– not before January 1, 2020;

• Continuously produced insulated metal panels -- not before 2019;

• Marine Floatation – not before July 1, 2019;

• Commercial Refrigeration – not before July 1, 2019;

• Garage door applications and refrigerated transport -- not before July 1, 2018;

• Domestic Refrigeration – not before July 1, 2017;

• Integral Skin – not before July 1, 2017;

• HVAC panels and residential entry door applications -- not before July 1, 2017.

These grandfathering proposals, which are drawn from the experience and know-how of the Technical 

Managers responsible for the polyurethane foam products sold by BASF’s Constructions and Consumer 

Products Divisions, will be explored below.

Commercial Availability of HFO Blowing Agents

Commercial quantities of 1233zd (E) are currently available only from Honeywell. Arkema has made small 

trial quantities of 1233zdE available. DuPont is reportedly in the process of obtaining TSCA and 

SNAP/Foam Sector approval for a different HFO product. While these manufacturers will likely confirm the

commercial availability of their own products, BASF has received indications that the available supply as of 

11
January 2017 will be insufficient to meet the needs of all affected industries. In addition, the patent litigation 

between Honeywell and Arkema may further complicate the availability of HFO 1233zd(E).

Other alternative low GWP blowing agents (hydrocarbons, for example) are readily available but require 

significant time and capital investment to develop viable products and manufacturing platforms. The 

flammability of these products would require significant capital investment to make manufacturing facilities 

intrinsically safe.

Timing

As EPA previously noted in its August 11, 2005 EPA File Memo (apparently written in connection with its 

“Proposed Rule 13”), system houses need to conduct several activities when transitioning to an alternative 

blowing agent(s): 

“EPA believes that it could take foam manufacturers up to four years to transition to 

alternatives. EPA considered that companies might need to conduct several activities during 

that time period, including:

(1) Obtain permits or make modifications to existing permits;

(2) Make changes to equipment in order to optimize production and ensure worker 

safety;

(3) Establish raw material suppliers;

(4) Develop formulations;

(5) Test final products; and

(6) Obtain final product review and approval by relevant boards or agencies.”

EPA’s 2005 comments remain credible today. BASF understands the serious pitfalls associated with 

accelerated implementation of new blowing agent technologies. In the conversion from CFC’s to HCFC’s,

we experienced serious product quality issues that caused shrinkage and hence unacceptable performance of 

finished products only after they reached the retail shelves, resulting in significant product defect claims. 

Given the regulatory deadlines, we were forced to end the testing prematurely in order to meet the timing 

required for delivery of the new product. This problem could have been avoided had we been able to 

complete dimensional stability testing. The conversion now proposed by EPA presents far greater timing 

challenges. 

The time needed to implement the changes across each of the affected end-uses is significant, as outlined 

below and in the chart attached to these comments: 

• Product Development: We estimate that simply introducing and qualifying new product offerings at 

each of our affected customers will take a full year to complete. 

12
• Certification/Testing: Once the commercial products are approved by the customer, we need to 

obtain flammability and other certifications to obtain agency and/or customer approval. 

Flammability certification of foam products and unit construction is a requirement of selling into 

many of our rigid insulation applications, including walk-in coolers and insulated metal panel 

applications. These approvals are only granted by private laboratories such as UL (Underwriter’s 

Laboratories) and FM Global (Factory Mutual Insurance Company) and are needed to support 

compliance with local fire or building codes, industry consensus standards, internal manufacturer 

and/or customer approval criteria.

o As the change in blowing agent affects foam sector industries nationwide, the testing 

laboratories are likely to run into serious capacity constraints regarding their ability to 

provide individual product certifications per customer. As the process is often iterative, 

requiring processing adjustments and retests, these delays will have a compounding effect on 

the industry’s ability to change all product formulations in less than 3 years’ time. 

Anecdotally, we understand that there is currently a six- month wait to conduct burn testing 

at FM Global during a “normal” product change cycle.13

• Commercialization: Another eighteen months beyond that would be needed to develop the new 

products - which vary with end-use application and blowing agent choice. As some conversions will 

require new processing equipment, it should be noted that new polyurethane foaming equipment lead 

time is currently 16 – 20 weeks and will likely lengthen with increased demand. This timing does not 

include engineering or installation and commissioning time.

BASF does have some experience with HFO conversion in our Consumer Products business. BASF and 

Whirlpool Corporation completed an implementation of an HFO blown foam for domestic refrigeration.

14

This project required a full five years from product development to commercialization without the added time 

to conduct flammability certification testing at FMGlobal or UL. While we expect to leverage the 

formulation expertise gained in this effort to assist in the product development for other applications, this 

extraordinarily long timeline may not be unusual. 

Rigid foams find use in multiple applications/products. BASFs Performance Materials’ Construction 

Division generally segments these applications into the following categories: entry doors, HVAC (Heating 

Ventilation and Air Conditioning), bath and spa, refrigerated transport, insulated metal panels, domestic 

refrigeration, commercial refrigeration, marine flotation and walk-in cooler panels. In our analysis we 

conclude that the walk-in cooler panels will probably require the most time to convert to new blowing agent 

technologies. These applications present the greatest challenges to the product formulator to balance physical 

properties, processing ease and flammability performance. Specific aspects of these conversion examples, as 

13 Personal communication, Walter White, Technical Service Manager, BASF Polyurethane Systems.

14 See http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en_GB/news-and-media-relations/news-releases/news-releases-usa/P-13-

628

13

 
well as examples drawn from BASFs Performance Materials’ Consumer Products Division, are described 

below. 

Rigid Insulating Foams Conversion Example 1: Walk-in Cooler Panels

For walk-in cooler applications BASF will typically spend 12-18 months developing chemistry to meet the 

needs of our customers. There are significant challenges to be overcome for this market segment. Shelf-life 

stability of the resin systems containing HFO blowing agents is the first technical hurdle to overcome. The 

low GWP (Global Warming Potential) of the HFO blowing agents is due, in part, to their inherent reactivity. 

This causes the HFO to be susceptible to attack from catalysts necessarily present in the resin blend. This 

attack generates hydro fluoric acid which consumes the silicone surfactant and may cause “course cells” or 

complete foam collapse. 

A related failure is delayed or latent shrinkage of the finished foam. We attribute this to the reaction of the 

catalysts present in the reacted foam matrix with the HFO blowing agent present in the cell. The small 

molecules liberated from this reaction migrate out of the cells faster than they are replaced by other gases 

forming a partial vacuum and resulting in foam shrinkage. This process is analogous to the known process 

for the shrinkage of closed cell water blown foams due to the differential migration rates of carbon dioxide 

and air. 

The next challenge to be tackled is the development of a flame retardant package that protects the foam while 

maintaining the flow and reactivity properties. Changes in blowing agent present significant challenges here 

as flame retardants generally degrade the processability of foam systems and necessitate significant 

experimentation. Based upon previous efforts and experimentation HFO blowing agents we estimate it will 

take 12-18 months to complete our product development. Completion of the initial product development will 

be followed by UL and FM qualification as outlined above. A product development effort lasting 1-1.5 years 

coupled with an agency approval process of approximately 3 years will mean that products will first be ready 

for commercial launch in 4 - 4.5 years. Based upon the number of customers and plant combinations BASF 

supplies, we expect launch and commercialization activities to last a minimum of one full year. Under a best 

case scenario, the time to complete product development coupled with the agency approval processes and the 

efforts necessary to implement new products in manufacturing necessitates a timeframe of between 5 and 5 1⁄2 

years to ensure an orderly transition to lower GWP blowing agents for the walk-in cooler market.

Rigid Insulating Foams Conversion Example 2: HVAC and Residential Entry Door Applications

The expertise developed while formulating HFO solutions for Walk-in cooler applications should help 

expedite the development of entry door and HVAC applications. The 18 month timeframe outlined for walkin cooler applications should be sufficient to develop technology for entry doors and HVAC. Coupled with 

limited agency testing and time to commercialize these systems, we would estimate HVAC and entry door 

14
applications could be converted to HFO solutions by the middle of 2017, assuming we could begin 

formulation work today.

Rigid Insulating Foams Conversion Example 3: Garage Door Applications

As with entry door product development, we will leverage technology developed for walk-in coolers to 

accelerate the work on garage doors. Again, we expect the same 18 months of product development to be 

sufficient to have garage door products developed. Garage doors require UL approval which we expect to 

add as much as 18 months to the entire effort. With commercialization efforts to take approximately 6 

months, we would expect that garage door applications could be converted by the middle of 2018.

Rigid Insulating Foams Conversion Example 4: Refrigerated Transport

Refrigerated transportation trailers or “reefers” will benefit from general development efforts with new low 

GWP blowing agents. The time frame is expected to follow closely with what we expect for garage door 

applications. There is little agency approval work to be done but long-term over-the-road durability testing is 

expected to take the place of agency testing on the timeline. Commercialization time will be similar and a 

mid-2018 date would be reasonable for customer conversion to be complete, assuming we could begin 

formulation work today.

Rigid Insulating Foams Conversion Example 5: Marine Floatation

We will leverage experience developing systems for the other applications as a basis for an HFO based 

system for marine flotation. We expect the same 12 months of product development time. Marine flotation 

foams require Coast Guard approval to confirm buoyancy and chemical resistance to materials that are used 

in the boating industry. The process is often iterative, requiring processing adjustments and retests to obtain 

approval. We expect this approval process to take approximately 12 months. Although there is an approved 

water blown system available today, processing at the customers facility is difficult leading to increased 

product defects and/or costly/time intensive design changes. 

Current experience working with HFO containing systems has shown an incompatibility with several 

common polymers used in the construction of domestic and commercial appliances. This incompatibility 

results in increased production scrap and field failures due to cracking or wall thickness thinning of the 

polymer. The potential exists for similar incompatibility issues with marine stringers and various other 

critical components currently made from polymer materials. Following the development and Coast Guard 

approval of a new HFO system, each customer would need to conduct durability testing and possible specify 

alternative materials of construction to ensure performance and safety. We expect this phase of conversion to 

take a minimum of 12 months. 

15
Due to the large number of customers in this segment commercial conversion will require a great deal of 

resources and is expected to take a minimum of 18 months. It is expected that this can be accomplished by 

the middle of 2019.

Rigid Insulating Foams Conversion Example 6: Domestic Refrigeration

Some manufacturers in this industry have been proactive in their development of next generation products 

that use either cyclopentane or HFO blowing agents. However there are many manufacturers that have yet to 

begin the process. BASF has commercially available systems utilizing cyclopentane or HFO blowing agents. 

History tells us that approximately 6 months will be required to adapt these products to meet the individual 

needs of each customer. 

Current experience working with HFO containing systems has shown an incompatibility with several 

common polymers used in the construction of domestic refrigeration cabinets. This incompatibility results in 

increased production scrap and field failures due to cracking or wall thickness thinning of the polymer. 

Domestic appliance producers will need to invest time and resources to investigate the compatibility of the 

foam system and the polymers with which it will come in contact in each of their models. This will require 

durability and field testing and possible specification of new materials of construction. Because this is a 

known issue in this industry we expect this to take a minimum of 6 months to complete.

Alternatively, conversion to cyclopentane or another flammable blowing agent requires investment in 

intrinsically safe equipment. This conversion will take a minimum of 18 months to engineer, procure and 

install.

Following selection of a foam system, domestic refrigeration producers will also need to confirm compliance 

of each model with new Federal Energy Efficiency Regulations. We expect this step to take a minimum of 6 

months. From this point an additional 12 months will be required for full conversion at each customers 

production facility.

Due to the head start on the formulation work for this industry, it is expected that conversion can be 

accomplished as early as the middle of 2017.

Rigid Insulating Foams Conversion Example 7: Commercial Refrigeration

BASF has commercially available systems utilizing cyclopentane or HFO blowing agents. History tells us 

that approximately 6 months will be required to adapt these products to meet the individual needs of each 

customer. Conversion to cyclopentane or another flammable blowing agent requires investment in 

intrinsically safe equipment. This conversion will take a minimum of 18 months to engineer, procure and 

install. As this industry is also facing several new regulations related to Department of Energy regulations 

and refrigerant changes, the resources will likely be limited to also support a parallel blowing agent change in 

16
the polyurethane foam system. Completion of the initial product development will be followed by UL and 

FM qualification as outlined above. A product development effort lasting 6 months coupled with an agency 

approval process of approximately 36 months will mean that products will first be ready for commercial 

launch in 42 months. Commercial launch will require an additional 12 months. We expect that this market 

can be converted by the middle of 2019.

Flexible Foams Conversion Example 8: Integral Skin 

This product requires an auxiliary blowing agent to produce a necessary skin on the surface of the flexible 

foam. As the end products are in direct contact with people the system components must be chosen carefully. 

Development work recently began utilizing HFO blowing agents with very limited success to date. A 

minimum of 2 years will be necessary to formulate a system to meet the requirements for this industry. As 

there a limited number of customers in this area, we expect commercialization will take 6 months. It is 

expected that conversion can be accomplished as early as the middle of 2017.

Rigid Insulating Foams Conversion Example 9: Insulated Metal Panels (IMP)

Some continuous insulated metal panel producers are already utilizing cyclopentane as a low GWP blowing 

agent. Those that are not will be required to use an HFO product’ if they prefer a non-flammable solution, or 

would otherwise need to make an investment in intrinsically safe equipment to enable the use of 

cyclopentane, HFC 152a or another flammable material. We understand HFO blend formulations are being 

developed and those efforts are expected to fall into the 18 month development horizon that we have 

discussed and will also fall into the queue for agency approvals. An HFO solution for IMP’s could be 

expected in 5 years and a 2020 timeframe for conversion would be proposed. Conversion to a flammable 

blowing agent will require equipment upgrades that are expected to take at least 18 months to engineer, 

procure and install. Commercial launch would be expected to take at least 6 months and then another 2 years 

for FMGlobal, Miami-Dade and other building code-required approvals. BASF would support four years for 

implementation resulting in an early 2019 conversion date, assuming we could begin formulation work today.

Cost Impacts

While BASF understands that Section 612 of the Clean Air Act may limit the extent to which EPA may 

consider cost impacts, those impacts should be understood. Conversion of current foamed products to new 

blowing agent derived systems will increase costs throughout the industry. HFO blowing agents are expected 

to cost as much as three times as much as the HFC products that they are replacing. This cost will be passed 

along from the polyurethane suppliers to the converters and ultimately to the consumer. The cost of the foam 

could increase as much as 30 – 40%. 

Conversion to hydrocarbon blowing agents could mitigate increases in the cost of foam systems but require 

significant capital investment to use safely. Many foam producing plants are not rated to handle flammable 

17
blowing agents. The cost of capital improvements to enable the processing of flammables will vary widely 

depending upon the current state of the equipment, size and layout of the plant, air emissions permitting status 

etc. We estimate these costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to >$1M (per plant manufacturing)

depending upon the factors mentioned here.

A third component of the cost equation involves the foam suppliers. Significant research and development 

costs will be incurred by the chemical suppliers like BASF. These costs will be manifested in salaries, 

materials for development along with trial and agency testing fees. BASF estimates this conversion related 

cost to be at least several million dollars over and above our current rate of investment. This estimate 

includes the cost to develop, test and implement new technologies at each of our affected customers. 

The greatest cost impact will be on the Walk-in-cooler manufacturers and Insulated Metal Panels producers. 

The qualification efforts at these customers alone will cost BASF several million dollars to support. This 

estimate does not take into account the cost incurred by our customers to run trials and approve new products. 

Our customer base ranges from small, family owned businesses to large corporate entities. The small 

businesses will be most adversely affected as our limited resources will be required to support our largest 

customers first.

4. The Statutory Interest in Applying the New Rule Immediately

Finally, the fourth part of the four-part test to judge the appropriateness of agency grandfathering requires an 

examination of the statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately, without grandfathering periods. 

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act is the “Safe Alternatives Policy” implemented by EPA under its Significant 

New Alternatives Policy program.15 Section 612 is organized to address: “(a) Policy”; “(b) Reviews and 

reports” (“recommending Federal research programs and other activities to assist in identifying alternatives 

... and in achieving a transition to such alternatives”); “(c) Alternatives for class I or II substances” 

(“unlawful to replace any class I or class II substance with any substitute substance which the Administrator 

determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment, where the Administrator has 

identified an alternative to such replacement that— (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the 

environment; and (2) is currently or potentially available”); (d) Right to petition; and (e) Studies and 

notification” (requiring submission of unpublished health and safety studies and SNAP notifications).

EPA acknowledges in the preamble to the rulemaking that, as to foam blowing end-uses, it has not received a 

petition it has found to be complete.

16 As such, the only other statutory interest that might be in favor of 

applying the new rule immediately would be under the “Policy” subsection of the Statute, which provides: 

§ 7671k. Safe alternatives policy (a) Policy

15 Section 612 of the Clean Air Act; Title 42 USC § 7671k - Safe alternatives policy 16 79 Fed Reg. 46134 (August 6, 2014)

18

 
To the maximum extent practicable, class I and class II substances shall be replaced by chemicals, 

product substitutes, or alternative manufacturing processes that reduce overall risks to human health 

and the environment.17

When presented with similar circumstances in the past, EPA has never required polyurethane foam producers 

to convert to acceptable alternates without benefit of a grandfather period which, while not dispositive, 

suggests that EPA doesn’t view the statutory interest to require immediate conversion. More importantly, in 

its proposed rulemaking, EPA based its decision to find HWCs unacceptable on their “high GWPs as 

compared with other available or potentially available substitutes in those end–uses and pose significantly 

greater risk overall to human health and the environment.”18

While EPA found all remaining issues in the three petitions incomplete with respect to the other enduses, EPA has independently acquired sufficient information to address certain other requests made by 

the petitioners regarding listing high GWP HFCs as unacceptable. Specifically, based on our review of 

the aerosols, foams, and air conditioning and refrigeration sectors, we are proposing to revise the 

listings for a number of substitutes from acceptable to acceptable subject to use conditions, or 

unacceptable. (See sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of today’s notice.) These substitutes have high 

GWPs as compared with other available or potentially available substitutes in those end–uses and pose 

significantly greater risk overall to human health and the environment. EPA considers the intersection 

between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that 

any specific HFC be unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for 

any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC- free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated 

(e.g., HFCs, HFOs and non- fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes are potentially acceptable. 

Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing 

these modifications, and will consider future modifications based on the substitutes being considered, 

the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of other available and potentially available 

substitutes in specific sectors and end- uses.

While Section 612 of the Clean Air Act does require an assessment of risk, it doesn’t explain how that 

assessment should be done. Whatever that assessment should involve, it’s possible that Congress did not 

intend Global Warming Potential (GWP) to be part of that assessment. While the balance of Title 7, 

Subchapter VI—Stratospheric Ozone Protection does speak to GWP, Section 602 raises some question about 

the extent to which GWP might be considered in regulating Class II substances: 

§ 7671a. Listing of class I and class II substances

(e) Ozone-depletion and global warming potential

Simultaneously with publication of the lists under this section and simultaneously with any addition to 

either of such lists, the Administrator shall assign to each listed substance a numerical value 

representing the substance’s ozone-depletion potential. In addition, the Administrator shall publish the 

17 Section 612 of the Clean Air Act; Title 42 USC § 7671k(a) - Policy 18 79 Fed Reg. 46135 (August 6, 2014) 

19

 
chlorine and bromine loading potential and the atmospheric lifetime of each listed substance. One year 

after November 15, 1990 (one year after the addition of a substance to either of such lists in the case 

of a substance added after the publication of the initial lists of such substances), and after notice and 

opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall publish the global warming potential of each 

listed substance. The preceding sentence shall not be construed to be the basis of any additional 

regulation under this chapter.19

As a result, it is clear that there is not a compelling statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately, 

without grandfathering periods, and so EPA should adopt the grandfathering periods outlined herein. 

Summary of BASF’s Alternative Proposal: 

Based upon the information presented above and what we have learned from our industry partners, BASF 

believes, given the nature of the transition that would result should the Proposed Rule be promulgated, that a 

“grandfathering period” of up to three years (beyond January 1, 2017) for existing uses of HFC–134a, HFC–

245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof, as outlined below, is justified and necessary, assuming a sufficient 

supply of each required blowing agent is readily available to support industry-wide polyurethane foam 

conversion efforts by January 1, 2016:

• Walk-in cooler panel foams– not before January 1, 2020;

• Continuously produced insulated metal panels -- not before 2019;

• Marine Floatation – not before July 1, 2019

• Commercial Refrigeration – not before July 1, 2019

• Garage door applications and refrigerated transport -- not before July 1, 2018;

• Domestic Refrigeration – not before July 1, 2017

• Integral Skin – not before July 1, 2017

• HVAC panels and residential entry door applications -- not before July 1, 2017.

A chart showing the phase-out periods is provided on the next page. Such an approach would support a 

diligent, informed transition from HFC blowing agents and help avoid the types of problems that the industry 

experienced during the conversion from CFC’s to HCFCs – which now have a far greater likelihood under 

EPA’s currently proposed transition away from HFCs -- while fully complying with the statute, regulations 

and EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy program.

Attached: 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0507-0014.pdf, available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

BASF Corporation’s Proposed HFC Conversion Timeline

19 Section 602 of the Clean Air Act; Title 7 USC § 7671a. “Listing of class I and class II substances”; emphasis added. 

20

 
BASF Corporation’s Proposed HFC Conversion Timeline

Proposed Conversion Timeline

Walk-in Coolers Product Development

Agency Approval

Customer Approval

HVAC and Entry Doors Product Development

Customer Approval

Garage Doors Product Development

Agency Approval

Customer 

Approval

Refrigerated Transport Product Development

Durability Testing

Customer Approval

Product Development

Agency Approval

Customer 

Approval

Capital Equipment Upgrade

Agency Approval

Customer 

Approval

Marine Flotation Product Development

Agency Approval

Durability Testing

Customer Approval

Domestic

Refrigeration

Product 

Dev.

Durability 

Testing

Energy Eff. 

Testing

Customer Approval

Commercial

Refrigeration

Product 

Dev.

Agency Approval

Customer Approval

Integral Skin Product Development

Customer 

Approval

1-Jan-21

Insulated Metal Panels 

HFO Solution

Insulated Metal Panels 

Flammable Solution

1-Jan-15 1-Jan-16 1-Jan-17 1-Jan-18 1-Jan-19 1-Jan-20

21