1 DuPont Chemicals & Fluoroproducts 974 Centre Road Chestnut Run Plaza 70 Wilmington, DE 19805
October 17, 2014 Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 Re: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of L isting Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2014

– 0198 Comments of E.I . DuPont de Nemours and Company , Inc. DuPont appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposed change of listing status rule under the Significant New Alternatives Policy . DuPont is a global leader in the production and sales of numerous products that will be affected by this proposed rule, and the rule when finalized will have significant impacts on DuPont’s fluorochemical business, as well as on our customers. DuPont recognizes the need for concerted global action to avoid signif icant future growth in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of HFCs in their various applications. That is why we are bringing low global warming potential, energy efficient products to market across various end uses. We also believe it i s critical that in avoiding those emissions we do so in a manner that ensures that we are still able to deliver the critical societal services that HFCs provide today . Those include safe and energy efficient refrigeration, air conditioning, foam insulatio n, fire suppression, propellants and waste heat recovery. Itis important that we avoid greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that does not impede the global trade in these important products that is central to achieving environmental protection goals in a cost effective manner. The nature of the regulatory approach taken to avoid these future emissions will have a lot to do with how successfull y we achieve these goals. This is why we have strongl y supported the Administration’s efforts to amend the Montr eal Protocol to employ the well understood and very effective tools of that Protocol to achieve the necessary transitions. We believe that the mechanics of the Protocol would provide both a globally consistent framework for the transitions and the ability to make cost
- effective transitions while ensuring we can serve our marketsDUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

2 properl y. A patchwork of uncoordinated national and regional command and control regimes would be a much less effective model. EPA’s SNAP authority can provide a reasonable down pay ment on the Montreal Protocol process by focusing on areas where technology transitions are alread y underway , the change of status for an application results in significant CO2eq emissions reductions, alternatives are already available or will soon be, and action under SNAP can accelerate those transitions. The Montreal Protocol is a better tool for driving new transitions and long term reductions. We have organized our comments by end use sector in the same order as which they are addressed in the pro posed rule. Our key recommendations are summarized below. We recommend that EPA:

 Apply conditions of use rather than narrowed use exemptions in addressing aerosol applications.  Bring the change of status date for the use of R
- 134a in new motor vehicle air conditioning forward to model y ear 2019, with some flexibility provided for certain exports, to realize additional environmental benefits.  Change the status for high GWP blends currently deemed acceptable for but not in use in MVAC to unacceptable for both new and retrofit MVAC uses as of the effective date of the final rule.  Require mandatory

MVAC technician training and certification every five y ears to ensure technicians are current on regulatory requirements, including use conditions and appropriate industry

standards.  Change the SNAP status of currently acceptable alternatives with GWPs greater than 1500, including the 407 series refrigerants, in retail food refrigeration to unacceptable for new equipment and retrofit applications as of 1/1/17, similar to the programs under the EU and emerging Japanese regulations, to realize additional environmental benefits.  Adjust the proposed change of status for refrigerants in new vending equipment applications from 1/1/16 to 1/1/17 to achieve higher energy efficiency and lower net greenhouse gas emissions.  Change the status of those refrigerants currently listed as acceptable for refrigerated transport which have higher GWPs (above 2500) to unacceptable as of 1/1/17 to realize additional environmental benef its and reflect the unique technical performance requirements of this segment.  Create separate SNAP categories for high
- pressure spray foam sy stems, low
- pressure foam sy stems (including pour

– in
- place and low pressure spray foams), and one component spray

f oam sealants to allow appropriate change of status dates for each.  More closel y consider the availability of effective alternatives, the technical and logistical timeframes required for transitions in foam applications, and consult closely with foam produ cers on appropriate SNAP change of status dates for the various foam end use segments where the currently proposed change of status dates are not practicable.  Change the status of HFC
- 365mfc, HFC
- 227ea and HFC
- 245fa, and blends thereof, to unacceptable for high
- pressure spray foam s ys tems by

a date that reflects the availability of low GWP alternatives and the time required for users to adopt these alternatives.  Prohibit the import of closed cell foams, and appliances containing them, that have been produ ced with and contain HFCs whose status has been changed to unacceptable.DUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

3 **Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection** We concur with EPA’s decision not to include any proposed changes of status for HFCs used in fire suppression and Explosion Protection i n this proposed rule. DuPont believes this decision effectivel y takes into account the unique aspects of fire suppression

– de minimis HFC emissions and the critical role they

play in protecting against the risks posed to life and propert y b y fire. The fi re protection sector represents a very small segment of HFC use (about 1% of consumption on a CO2eq basis) and it is virtually non - emissive. The industry has led the way

in introducing global codes of practice for suppression agent containment and emission reductions in advance of an y regulatory

actions. Each fire protection scenario presents a unique technical challenge and calls for an appropriate fire suppression agent, requiring a thorough risk assessment by fire protection officials to determine the most appropriate fire extinguishing sy stem to use for each individual scenario. A broad range of fire protection technologies are available, including water sprinkler sy stems, foam, water mist, carbon dioxide and inert gases. Fire protection engineers mak e their choice based on which solution is the most appropriate in each given unique circumstance. Given the extremely

s mall GHG emissions associated with fire suppression, and the importance of the availability

o f adequate technical options to practition ers in this arena, we concur with EPA’s determination not to include fire suppression agents in this proposal **. Aerosols**  DuPont provides the aerosol products industry with propellants that would be affected b y the proposed change of status decisions. Aer osols represent a very small segment of HFC use and emissions; on a GWP
- weighted basis, onl y about 2% of total US HFC consumption is associated with aerosols. We concur with EPA’s conclusion that R
- 152a is a safe, effective low GWP alternative for aerosol s that has the added benefit of not being a volatile organic compound (VOC). We defer to our customers with regard to specific recommendations regarding other HFC propellants for which EPA is proposing to change the status. **DuPont recommends that EPA use acceptable conditions of use rather than narrowed use**  **exemptions in implementing any changes of status for HFCs used in aerosols.** Most of the companies in the regulated aerosol categories are small with limited resources. Acceptable conditions of use ar e a relatively straightforward, self implementing regulatory approach that would limit the burden on those companies in complying with the changed status. Narrowed use exemptions are a much more administratively intensive approach for both the Agency and the regulated communit y, and would impose significant burdens on these small businesses, as well as on EPA. This added regulatory burden and cost would have little or no added environmental benefit. **Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning**DUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

4 DuPont is a major supplier of both the current motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC or MAC) air conditioning refrigerant R
- 134a, as well as the ultra
- low GWP alternative HFO
- 1234y f. We support EPA’s proposal to change the status of R
- 134a in new and retrofit MAC applicatio ns to unacceptable, but believe that EPA’s proposed timing essentiall y represents business as usual and should be accelerated if the final rule is to achieve the President’s goal of additional environmental benefits. As a long standing supplier to the glo bal automotive industry we participated in the previous refrigerant transition from CFC
- 12 to R
- 134a, and have significant knowledge of the industry and their ability

to make the transition away from R
- 134a. As EPA notes in the proposal, there are current ly

three SNAP approved low GWP MAC options (HFO
- 1234y f, R
- 152a and CO2), and additional alternatives such as AC
- 6 are being developed and evaluated in the market. The industry is already

transitioning to HFO
- 1234y f, largely in response to policy

incentive s including the US light duty vehicle tailpipe GHG standards and the EU Mobile Air Conditioning Directive. Multiple companies are alread y transitioning to HFO
- 1234y f or planning to do so in the very near future, including GM, Ford, Fiat Chry sler, Toyota, Honda, Hy undai, Nissan, Volkswagen, Subaru, BMW, Mazda, Renault, Peugeot, Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, Mitsubishi, Suzuki and Tesla. These represent auto makers in the US, Canada, Mexico, EU, Japan, and South Korea, deplo yi ng HFO
- 1234y f in a range of models, from compact cars to luxury performance sedans, and include electric vehicles from BMW, Tesla and Renault. In the proposed rule EPA notes that under “business as usual” the US fleet will be fully transitioned by

2021 to take advantage of light duty veh icle GHG credits, with well over half of the fleet transitioned b y model y ear 2019. The EU MAC Directive requires all cars sold after 1/1/17 to use a refrigerant with a GWP below 150. Japan is currently developing a policy

that will create a similar tran sition in that economy . Significant transition is already underway in the US and EU, with some 3 million vehicles using HFO
- 1234y f projected to be on the road b y ye ar end 2014. The infrastructure is in place at vehicle assembly facilities to quickly

expan d that number, and 7 million vehicles are estimated to be on the road b y ye ar end 2015. Equipment suppliers are alread y producing the under hood, in factory and service equipment necessary for the transition. To achieve the President’s policy goals of creating environmental benefits that exceed business as usual the SNAP change of status date for R
- 134a in automobile air conditioning will have to be earlier than the date by which the industry

is already

transitioning

– and, as EPA states in the proposal , the significant majority of the US fleet is on track to transition prior to model y ear 2021. EPA states in its proposal that it anticipates a full transition over the period 2017
- 2021 under business as usual conditions . The Global Auto Makers expressed this very point in the public hearing on the proposed rule. Some OEMS will be largel y transitioned by 2017, and over half of the fleet will be transitioned by model y ear 2019 without any change in policy . Thus the proposed model year 2021 date for the c hange of SNAP status for R
- 134a in auto air conditioning appears to provide no environmental benefit beyond business as usual, and actually lags the pace of some OEMs. A more rapid US transition by model y ear 2019 would be manageable b y the auto OEMS and would create additional environmental benefits .DUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

5 As regards additional environmental benefits, it is unlikely that an y additional credits achieved under the motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations from this transition date would be fully offset b y slow ing other fleet reductions so there would likely be net additional CO2 reductions over those achieved b y current regulations. A more rapid transition would mean eight to ten million fewer R
- 134a vehicles on the road. In addition, a more rapid transition would create added environmental benefits elsewhere in the world. First it would likely have the effect of speeding the timing of the transition in Japan, as Japanese policy makers have indicated their interest in harmonizing their policy with that of the US. With the EU fully transitioning by

2017, a more rapid US and Japanese transition would mean that almost half of all global auto sales would be to nations requiring the use of low GWP auto AC refrigerants. This would likely serve to speed the rate of global transition, as the auto makers would be motivated to simplify their supply chain by moving entirely

to low GWP refrigerants. The last time an auto AC transition occurred, from R
- 12 to R
- 134a in the early 1990s, the entire transition took only

thre e model y ears. We are almost two y ears into this current transition in the U.S., and for autos sold in the EU, auto makers have had almost ten years to prepare for the transition. The degree of A/C sy stem redesign required for the R
- 134a to HFO
- 1234y f tr ansition is no more than, and in some regards, less than that required in the earlier transition. For example, the previous transition required the development of a completel y different lubricant chemistry platform, while the current transition simply requires modifying lubricants within the existing lubricant chemistry platform. There is not an inherent design reason why this transition should take significantly

longer. As EPA noted in the proposal, supply of the low GWP refrigerant HFO
- 1234y f will not be a limiting factor in a more rapid SNAP change of status timing. There are currentl y HFO
- 1234y f production assets in both China and Japan and there have been recent capacity expansions. There is significant additional announced or planned production ca pacit y in Asia, the US and Europe b y multiple producers, including DuPont, Honeywell, Arkema and Asahi, with most indicating that production will begin in the 2015
- 2017 timeframe. The November 2013 Issue of China Fluoride Materials Monthly Report ( http://www.cnchemicals.com/Newsletter/NewsletterDetail_241.html ) claims that “ China is expected to be the largest production base of HFO
- 1234y f world
- wide in the near future.” The ex isting, announced and projected HFO
- 1234y f production capacity is sufficient to meet added demand associated with a model y ear 2019 change of status date. Some commenters have suggested that there might be a lack of service infrastructure in some nations to support a transition for some limited number of exported vehicles. We believe this is unlikely , as the equipment for low GWP refrigerant service is readily available, and if dealers and service shops know there will be a demand for such service they can be expected to acquire the necessary

equipment and materials to serve the market demand. Certainly dealers, knowing that cars using HFO
- 1234y f are being imported into a country , will make it a point to be able to properl y service those cars’ AC systems, just as they would their engines. Based on demand from the motor vehicle aftermarket, we currentl y have distribution for Opteon® YF in 40 countries, 11 more than the combined EU member states and the US, including to Saudi Arabia, Turkey , Israel and the United Arab Emirates. While this does not mean extensive service demand in all of these nations, it does demonstrate that service suppl y follows demand. As theDUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

6 initial need for routine service is ty picall y several years after the motor vehicle is produce d, initial service needs will be relativel y limited and related to accidents, providing substantial time for a service capacity

buildup. Dealers and service shops have market incentives to ensure service capacity

once there is a demand signal, and there are no inherent barriers to their abilit y to do so. **Therefore DuPont recommends that EPA set model year 2019 as the change of status date for R** **- 134a in MAC.**  Failure to set a date earlier than that proposed b y EP A will result in no environmental benefit created b y the final rule for this segment. There are no technology , suppl y or engineering barriers to a rapid transition. We recognize that the OEMs have som e market concerns regarding transition time for a very small portion of their production, including vehicles that are exported to countries not anticipated to have similar policy infrastructure in the relevant time frame, such as the Middle East, vehicles near the end of their product run and long cy cle vehicles. We believe that this portion of the fleet can reasonabl y be granted some flexibility in the context of a 2019 model y ear transition date
. We would also like to offer comments on a number of mor e specific MAC issues raised in the proposed rule. Proposed SNAP Change of Status for Currently SNAP Listed MVAC Blends EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant blends SP34E, R

–426A, R

–416A, R

–406A, R

–414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG

–X4), R

–414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG

– X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG

–HP) as unacceptable beginning in MY 2017 for use in MVAC sy stems in newly manufactured light
- duty

motor vehicles. EPA notes that ”since these refrigerant blends are not currentl y in use in any MVAC systems in light
- duty vehicles, we believe it is appropriate for the unacceptability

determination to apply

to model y ear vehicles currently being designed. Further, all b ut the first two of these blends have ODPs, and all have significantly higher GWPs than other alternatives such as HFC

– 152a, HFO

– 1234y f, and CO2.” **1 Most of these blends exhibit ozone depleting potential, and EPA notes that these**  **refrigerant blends are not currently in use in any MVAC systems in light duty vehicles.**  Given that these refrigerants are not currentl y in use, and it would be undesirable to have them used, **DuPont recommends that EPA change the SNAP status for those blends cited above to unaccept**  **able for both new and retrofit MVAC uses as of the effective date of the final rule.**  Preventing Servicing of Vehicles With HFO
- 1234yf Based A/C Systems With R
- 134a EPA notes in the proposal that “Two sets of regulations under title VIof the CAA make i t clear that doing so (i.e., servicing HFO
- 1234y f with HFC
- 134a) is unlawful”. We appreciate that the regulations prohibit such improper servicing, but are cognizant of the fact that service can be performed by businesses and individuals with widely varyingdegrees ofDUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

7 training and awareness of the regulations. We note that while there are no
- venting regulations in place for multiple HFC end uses, HFC aftermarket sales volumes and recy cle rates suggest that venting does in fact occur. An y such improper servicing would serve to degrade the environmental benefits that would otherwise be realized by the proposed rule. Therefore we strongl y encourage the Agency to pursue additional efforts to prevent both intentional and unintentional improper service, such as b y enhancing the training requirements for MVAC servicing. Currentl y, EPA requirements for Certification for Refrigerant Handling Equipment and Technician Training and Certification are one
- time events, and such training and certification can at this point be decades old. Much has changed in the world of MVAC, including transitioning from non
- flammable to mildly flammable refrigerants, and new compressor certification standards. Refresher training is commonly applied in many

fields to both ensure tec hnicians are reminded of basic requirements and to update technician knowledge with more recent developments. **DuPont recommends mandatory technician training and certification be required every five years to ensure technicians are current on regulatory**  **re quirements, including use conditions, and appropriate industry standards.**  This requirement could be phased in such that an y technician whose training and certification was more than five ye ars old as of the date the final rule goes into effect would have a period of time (such as 12 months) to complete the training and certification. Further, **DuPont suggests that EPA clearly state on the SNAP website that any low GWP MVAC refrigerant system can only be serviced with the OEM refrigerant listed in the**  **vehic le A/C manual and A/C system label. We also recommend that EPA require that all**  **HFC -**  **134a MVAC service containers be clearly marked that it is a legal violation to use the product for servicing vehicles other than those that were originally charged with HF**  **C -**  **134a or CFC**  **- 12.**  **Stationary Refrigeration** There is significant opportunity for environmental benefits in transitioning away from higher GWP HFCs in commercial and transport refrigeration related applications. Some of the HFCs currentl y in use have part icularly high GWPs (on the order of 4,000), the s ystems in which they are used can have relatively high leak rates, alternatives are readil y available with GWPs one
half or less than those of the current incumbents, and additional even lower GWP alternativ es are coming to market. In general we concur with EPA’s proposals in this segment, but believe there are two areas where the Agency

can increase the environmental benefits in the rule by modifying the proposed approach. First, while proposing to change the status of R
- 404A and R
- 507A has the immediate benefit of moving these applications to the 407 series refrigerants, with a roughl y 50% reduction in GWP, the GWP of these 407 series products is also relatively high, on the order of 2,000. Equipment in this segment can have relatively high emissions and a very long equipment life, with a commensuratel y long service tail. Thus a significant additional period of time using refrigerants like the 407 series creates the potential for significant, and unnecess ary , GHG emissions. ThoseDUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

8 emissions can be avoided, particularl y if the installed base of 407 using equipment does not continue to grow. DuPont recommends that EPA implement a second step in the GWP reductions for this segment (retail food refrigeration, condensing units) to alternatives with GWPs on the order of < 1500 GWP. There are multiple alternatives with GWPs lower than 1500 for applications in this segment at or near commercial availability . Both the EU and Japan are employing a second
- step GWP l imit of this nature for this segment because the relativel y high leak rates encountered in this segment, combined with the relativel y high GWP of the 404A/507A replacements that EPA proposes to retain as acceptable (such as the 407 series) would result in significant ongoing GHG emissions. This second reduction step will result in levels of emissions reductions that are important to their ability

to meet the overall carbon caps that are part of their HFC regulatory structures. This would be similarly true for the sorts of reductions the US economy would need to make under the proposed North American amendment to the Montreal Protocol. If EPA fails to set the US on a similar trajectory it will complicate meeting the future US targets under the Montreal Pro tocol and perhaps result in a more difficult transition than would be the case with an earlier start in this segment. There are multiple low GWP non
- ozone depleting alternatives from multiple producers, available as 404A alternatives, including ARM 32, N
- 40, and XP40. These HFO
- based refrigerants have technical properties, including energy efficiencies, very

close to those of 404A and 507A and GWPs below 1500. These new generation alternatives are non
- ozone depleting and non
flammable, allowing them to b e adopted without requiring changes to codes and standards, and they have higher energy

efficiency

than other low GWP alternatives such as CO2. For example, in a recent evaluation, DR
- 7 and XP40 (referred to in the evaluation report as DR
- 33), in testing in a reach in freezer designed for R
- 404A, demonstrated energy efficiency

improvements of 3
- 8% across low and high ambient temperature conditions (Minor and Wells, 2012). XP
- 40 (DR
33) was also tested in a display case with an external condensing unit and demonstrated 8
- 12% lower energy

consumption at medium temperature conditions and 3
- 4% at low temperature conditions (Minor and Gertstel, 2014). **We recommend that EPA change the SNAP status to unacceptable for those alternatives which generally have GWPs**  **above 1500, such as the 407 series refrigerants, for new and retrofit refrigeration and vending applications as of**  **1/1/17, by which time there will be multiple low GWP alternatives commercially available.** There are alternatives providing energy efficien cy

gains for stand
- alone and vending applications we believe would have net environmental benefit. Stand alone and vending machines ty picall y use small charges and are generall y hermeticall y s ealed, with very low leak rates, so their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions tend to be driven more b y their energy consumption than by refrigerant leakage. Significant strides have been made in improving the energy efficiency of vending applications in recent y ears. There are HFO based refrigerants from multi ple producers which will soon be in commercial production that can create the next step in energy efficiency

vs. some of the low GWP refrigerant alternatives currently available, but these more energy

efficient alternatives may not be widely

available by

the proposed date of 1/1/16. Inaddition, some of the currentl y available hydrocarbon refrigerants have charge size limitations, limiting options for some equipment. And finally , the new HFO products will be non - flammable, while some of the other low
- GWP options are flammable. While some of theseDUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

9 HFOs will have GWPs higher than CO2 and h ydrocarbons, because these are low leak applications the energy

efficiency

of the refrigerant is the primary GHG driver. The HFO
- based products that are near commercial availabilit y include N
- 13 and XP10. XP10 showed both a 56% lower refrigerant GWP and a 3% energy efficiency

improvement over R
- 134a in a multi
rack supermarket sy stem performance test. Similarly , a Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI ) anal ys is of XP10 i n a ty pical European supermarket store design showed a XP10/cascade sy stem achieved a lower TEWI than sy stems using R
- 404A, CO2 and R
134a/CO2 cascade (Rinne, Minor and Salem, 2011). We would anticipate similar performance in stand
- alone and vending appli cations. A transition date of 1/1/16 may force vending equipment makers to transition to refrigerants with less desirable energy efficiency

profiles, locking in higher energy

consumption and related CO2 emissions for the lifetime of that equipment. Setti ng the change of status date to 1/1/17 would allow the market to access these additional low GWP, energy efficient refrigerants. **Therefore, we recommend that for those refrigerants for which EPA is proposing to change the status to unacceptable in vendi**  **ng and stand**  **- alone end use categories as of 1/1/16 EPA instead establish a date of 1/1/17.**  We believe this would provide the market access to a broader array of alternatives with lower net TEWIand therefore provide net environmental benefit. EPA has al so requested comment on potential change of status for HFCs used in refrigerated transport. The technical demands in this application are unique and more demanding than for other refrigeration applications. These are mobile units that have the potential to be located in multiple climatic and temperature environments and must operate effectively and efficiently across this range of conditions. This requires refrigerants with a low compressor discharge temperature to keep compressor operating temperatures low without the need for secondary compressor cooling s ys tems, or other means to cool the compressor. These unique technical requirements limit the alternatives that can serve as viable refrigerants in refrigerated transport applications. For example, th e 407 series refrigerants and the 404A alternatives with GWPs below 1500 discussed above are not suitable alternatives, but new HFO
- based refrigerants such as XP44 and ARM
- 35 have acceptable compressor discharge temperatures for this application. These re frigerants, with GWPs of about 2100
- 2200, have a significant GWP improvement over 404A/507A. Tests in transport refrigeration s ys tems have demonstrated the low discharge temperature of XP44 (DR
- 34) and cooling capacity and efficiency

very close to that of R
- 404A (Minor et. al, 2014). A major producer of both surface and marine refrigerated transport recently announced the adoption of XP44. **Reflecting the particular technical requirements of this application, we recommend that EPA change the status of t**  **hose currently acceptable alternatives with GWPs generally above 2500 in refrigerated transport, including R** **- 404A**  **and R -**  **507A, to unacceptable as of 1/1/17. Foam Expansion Agents**  DuPont supports EPA’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of HFCs in the production of insulating foams and other foam products b y replacing high global warming potential (GWP) foam expansion agents (FEAs) with technicall y appropriate lower GWP alternatives as sufficient quantities of those low GWP solutions become commerciall y available. We note that foam use of HFCs comprises a relativel y small proportion of HFC related consumption, on the order of 15% on a CO2 equivalent basis versus greater than 80% forDUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

10 refrigeration and air conditioning. Given that HFCs remain in these closed cell foams and provide valuable insulating properties, emissions of HFCs from foam production are roughl y 1/3 of total HFC use in foams, or about 5% of total HFC emissions on a CO2 equivalent basis. For a successful conversion to a new FEA technicall y appropriate solutions that meet necessary performance standards and have appropriate properties must be available for a sufficient period of time fo r foam producers to re
- formulate their product, modify manufacturing equipment as needed and complete the often extensive testing and certification requirements for foam products. The necessary properties and performance of alternatives vary based on end use for foams. We note that fluorochemical producers are actively developing and testing low GWP alternatives for multiple foam sectors, and some olefin alternatives for foam are in commercial production. The industry

began the development of olefin s with a focus on sectors such as motor vehicle air conditioning and stationary applications. The timing of the development and production of low GWP olefin alternatives for foam has followed that for the earlier application, such that the timing of broad commercialization of alternatives for foams is later than for the other segments. So while multiple low GWP alternatives will be available for foam, they will not be broadly available in the timeframe the EPA proposes to change the status of current alte rnatives. A key technical property

of an alternative in insulating foams (e.g. XPS or Rigid Poly urethane Foam) is the contribution to energy efficiency

to ensure that the resulting foam product both provides the performance required b y the market and ensures that the combined greenhouse gas footprint of the lower GWP HFC and indirect emissions related to energy consumption are lowered b y the use of the alternative. Such considerations are also important given the regulation of the energy

efficiency

of many foam containing products by DOE. It is important that EPA consider net lifecy cle greenhouse gas footprint in change of status decisions for alternatives in these applications so that total greenhouse gas emissions are not increased. The emerging low G WP HFO foam alternatives can deliver marked energy efficiency

improvements over current alternatives when they become commerciall y available. If the SNAP change of status for the current foam agents occurs before lower GWP products with adequate energy

ef ficiency performance become available, an opportunity could be missed to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions through the change of status, resulting in higher total greenhouse gas emissions due to lower energy efficiency

of the resulting foams. The att ached papers “Low GWP Spray Foam Expansion Agents: Why Performance also Matters” (Krieger et al) and “Formacel® 1100: L ife C ycl e Assessment for use in a Household Appliance” (Ro y et al) demonstrate that indirect emissions from energy consumption related to the energy efficiency

of sy stems insulated by

poly urethane foam with limited thicknesses (e.g. appliances, refrigerated trailers etc.) have a much larger impact on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than the direct emissions associated with the production of the foam. DuPont notes that foam manufacturers and users have been testing lower GWP solutions for several ye ars and some have converted their plants to low GWP solutions, such as lower GWP HFC blends or lower GWP flammable products. These conversion s have often been undertaken to meet internal sustainability goals or external sustainability standards (e.g. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Sustainability Standard). While foam producers haveDUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

11 continued to evaluate lower GWP foam expan sion agents, man y of these manufacturers have been unable to find the next technical solution that is anticipated to be commerciall y available within the EPA’s proposed timeframe. In some cases this is due to poly ol blend and foam stability issues with an olefin alternative, while in other cases, customers have completed life cycle anal ys es and found that the currently commerciall y available solutions would decrease energy efficiency

and increase total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in their applicati ons. Finally , foam products are ty pically subject to lengthy demonstrations of energy efficiency performance, code certification requirements and flammability testing, requiring significant time to convert. The required testing and certification can inc lude UL/FM Fire Safet y testing, Aged R
value testing, testing to demonstrate compliance with DOE or other energy efficiency

standards, building code requirements etc. Where there are commerciall y available solutions, foam manufacturers and their customers need sufficient time to re
- formulate s ys tems; design, purchase, await receipt of and convert equipment; obtain local permits for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and meet various company and external testing requirements. Underperformance at an y point in this transition process requires the foam producer to develop and test another s ys tem. Additionally , if a user has to transition from a non
flammable agent to a flammable agent significant facility engineering design and refurbishment can be re quired. For these reasons, transitions in many foam segments can take an extended period of time. In our own experience with customers, it has often taken five or six y ears from the time a foam producer selects a new commercially available product until they can adapt their manufacturing process, address an y additional safet y requirements that might arise, get customer or third part y certifications and meet the requirements of codes and standards bodies. Some manufacturers have onl y just completed thi s lengthy process in the conversion from HCFCs to HFCs to meet a 2010 deadline. Thus we believe that the change of status date that EPA has proposed for foams provides insufficient transition time
. Customers have consistently stated that they

need more time than EPA has proposed to provide to complete these transitions. We provide recommendations for specific foam ty

pes below. Rigid Poly

urethane Foam EPA has proposed to change the status of several higher GWP HFCs used in various rigid poly urethane fo am applications to unacceptable as of 1/1/17. The category of Rigid Spray Poly urethane foam incorporates several product sub
- categories, including high pressure spray foam and low pressure spray foam. These applications each require different foam expans ion agent characteristics and therefore different alternatives, as well as different testing requirements. Achievable transition times vary across these segments. **We recommend that EPA create separate SNAP categories for high**  **- pressure spray foam systems,**  **low -**  **pressure foam systems (including pour** 

**– in**  **- place and low pressure spray foams), and one component spray**  **foam sealants to allow appropriate change of status dates for each.**DUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

12 Low pressure foam s ys tems, including low pressure spray and pour
- in
- place foams, rel y on gaseous foam expansion agents that are non - flammable and have a low boiling point that act as both an insulating gas and a propellant. These foam blends are often formulated for use in equipment without pumps, making the pressure provided by the foam expansion agent critical to create a proper spray . While there is a commercial gaseous HFO product available for this segment, foam producers have reported as yet unresolved stability problems with this alternative that suggest this product is not y et a reliable alternative. Honey well’s recently

published patent application WO20141379699 (Williams et al) states “ More particularl y, applicants have found that a problem may

arise with the long term stability , and hence the shelf life, of foamabl e sy stems in which hydrofluoroolefins, and in particular certain h ydrofluoroolefins such as HFO
1234ze(E) and HFCO
- 1233zd(E), are used as the blowing agent.” Similar observations have been made b y foam s ys tem houses and foam producers through The Center for the Pol yurethane (CPI) Industry L ow Pressure Workgroup. In the presentation titled “L ow Pressure 2K SPF Kit, Unique Challenges Related to Blowing Agent Adaptations” (dated June 6, 2014 and included in the docket for this proposed rule) the Low Pressure Workgroup reports that the currentl y available HFO product is susceptible to attack b y t ertiary amines used as catal ys ts in the foam sy stems, resulting in stability problems that lead to reduced shelf life for the packaged foam product. The CPIworkgro up reports that this instability leads to a product shelf
- life on the order of two to eight weeks, versus the necessary one ye ar or longer needed to meet the demands of this industry ’s suppl y chain, as product cylinders are shipped and stored globall y, oft en in elevated temperatures. Currently neither DuPont nor its foam customers are aware of low GW

P, non
- flammable, gaseous foam expansion agents with appropriate technical qualities available commercially for this application. Further development of low GW P alternatives is underway

by man y companies, but additional time will be necessary before this segment can effectivel y transition. **DuPont recommends that alternatives HFC -**  **134a and Formacel® TI currently listed as acceptable for use in low pressure foam s**  **ystems, including low pressure spray foam and pour**  **- in**  **- place, remain designated as acceptable**  **alternatives until multiple low GWP alternatives with appropriate technical performance qualities become commercially available.**  We note that HFC
- 245fa and HFC
- 36 5mfc are not used in low pressure applications because their boiling points are not suitable for these applications. EPA is not proposing to change the status of the relatively high GWP foam expansion agents HFC
- 365mfc, HFC
- 227ea and HFC
- 245fa, and blends thereof, for high pressure, spray foams, unlike for other pol yurethane applications. There is currentl y one very low GWP olefin product currentl y available for this application. DuPont recently announced timing for commercial production of an additional very low GWP HFO foam expansion agent for this application. We believe that there will be multiple low GWP alternatives available in sufficient quantities for high pressure spray

foams and other low GWP liquid and semi
- liquid applications globall y b y 202 0. Consistent with EPA’s proposal to transition foam segments when effective low GWP alternatives become available, and allowing foam manufacturers sufficient time for conversion to lower GWP alternatives, **DuPont recommends that EPA change the status of HF C**  **- 365mfc,**  **HFC -**  **227ea and HFC -**  **245fa, and blends thereof, to unacceptable for high -**  **pressure spray foam systems by a date that reflects the availability of these alternatives and the time**  **required to adopt these alternatives.**DUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

13 Non
- spray

Foam Poly

urethane Foam Applications Non
- spray

foam poly

urethane foam applications (e.g. panels, appliances, etc.) have t ypically taken manufacturers between five to six y ears to implement a transition to lower GWP alternatives after an appropriate technical solution has been identified. Many foam producers and sy stem houses have been testing alternatives for some time and have converted to lower GWP blends to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint where those effective alternatives are available. These transitions have required time to re
- fo rmulate s ys tems, design, purchase, and convert equipment, obtain local permits for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions where necessary , and meet internal and external testing requirements (e.g. energy efficiency performance, code certification requir ements and flammability testing). **DuPont recommends that EPA consult with non**  **- spray polyurethane foam companies on an appropriate date for**  **the change of status of the currently acceptable alternatives, including HFC -**  **245fa, 365mfc, HFc**  **- 227, HFC**  **- 134a and g**  **aseous blends with HFC -**  **134a (e.g. Formacel® B, Formacel® Z**   ** 6, and Formacel® TI), that reflects the time needed for an effective transition to lower** **GWP alternatives.** Extruded Poly st yrene Foam (XPS) Extruded poly st yr ene transitions have ty picall y taken manufacturers between five and six y ears to implement after an appropriate technical solution has been identified. Many XPS producers have been testing alternatives for some time and have converted to blends to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint as th ey have become available. In these transitions they have needed sufficient time to re
- formulate sy stems; design, purchase, await delivery of and convert equipment; obtain local permits for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and meet internal and e xternal testing requirements (e.g. energy efficiency

performance, code certification requirements and flammability testing). We do not believe that EPA’s proposed change of status date provides the industry sufficient time to undertake all of the required agent testing, product reformulation and recertification required by the transition to a new foam expansion agent. **Therefore DuPont recommends that EPA consult with XPS foam companies on an**  **appropriate date for the change of status of the currently accep table foam expansion**  **agents, including HFC**  **- 134a and blends thereof, including Formacel® B, Formacel® Z**  **- 6,**  **and Formacel® TI, that reflects the time needed for an effective transition to lower GWP alternatives.**  We note that the last transition was just compl eted in 2010 and required 5
- 6 y ears once appropriate solutions were identified. Polyolefin packaging foams and Decorative Molding Among pol yolefin foam producers there are some very small, unique applications producing specialized products and consuming, and consequently emitting, very

small quantities of HFCs. Given the relatively small overall emissions of HFCs from the foam segment, and the quite small role of these unique applications within the foam segment, their total HFC emissions are de minimis. These small companies have limited resources to manage conversionsDUPONT NON
- DI SCLOSURE AGREEMENT

14 quickly
. Examples include smaller producers of niche products like pol yol efin packaging foams and decorative molding. While these firms are pursuing lower GWP alternatives, they often do not have the capacit y to adopt these conversions within EPA’s proposed timeframes. DuPont recommends a longer period of time for conversion of these specialized companies that are generall y very small sources of HFC emissions. **DuPont recommends that HFC**  **- 134a,**  **Formacel® TI and Formacel® Z**  **- 6 (non**  **- flammable, gaseous FEAs) continue to be listed as**  **acceptable alternatives for polyolefin packaging foams and decorative molding**  **manufacturers, which are minor consumers and emitters of HFC’s until such time as these**  **foam producers can reasonable transition to lower GWP alternatives. We recommend that EPA consult with these small foam producers on appropriate transition timing for these**  **small end uses.** EPA is proposing to apply these proposed changes of status to the import of closed cell foams containing the relevant HFCs. **DuPont supports EPA’s proposal to prohibit the import of closed cell foams, and appliances containing them, that have been produced with and**  **contain HFCs whose status has been changed to una cceptable.**  We believe such prohibition of foams made with and containing unacceptable HFCs entering US commerce is important to ensure that the intended environmental benefits are realized and the proposed change of status does not simply

shift the use of high GWP HFCs to other countries **.** In closing, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rule. Should y ou have an y questions please to do hesitate to contact Michael Parr or Mack McFarland of DuPont.