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 Listing 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 significant 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 is 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 

insulation, fire suppression, propellants and waste heat recovery. It is 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 successfully we achieve these goals. This is why we have strongly supported the 

Administration’s efforts to amend the Montreal 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 markets 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

2

properly. 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 

payment on the Montreal Protocol process by focusing on areas where technology transitions are 

already 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 proposed 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 year 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 years 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 benefits and reflect the unique technical performance 

requirements of this segment.

 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.

 More closely consider the availability of effective alternatives, the technical and logistical 

timeframes required for transitions in foam applications, and consult closely with foam 

producers 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 systems 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 

produced with and contain HFCs whose status has been changed to unacceptable. 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE 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 in this proposed rule. DuPont believes this decision 

effectively 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 property by fire. 

The fire 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 any 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 system to use for each individual scenario. A 

broad range of fire protection technologies are available, including water sprinkler systems, 

foam, water mist, carbon dioxide and inert gases. Fire protection engineers make their choice 

based on which solution is the most appropriate in each given unique circumstance. 

Given the extremely small GHG emissions associated with fire suppression, and the importance 

of the availability of adequate technical options to practitioners 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 by the 

proposed change of status decisions. Aerosols represent a very small segment of HFC use and 

emissions; on a GWP-weighted basis, only 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 aerosols 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 are 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 community, 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-DISCLOSURE 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-1234yf. We 

support EPA’s proposal to change the status of R-134a in new and retrofit MAC applications to 

unacceptable, but believe that EPA’s proposed timing essentially 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 global 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 currently three SNAP approved low GWP MAC options (HFO-1234yf, 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-1234yf, largely in response to policy incentives 

including the US light duty vehicle tailpipe GHG standards and the EU Mobile Air Conditioning 

Directive. Multiple companies are already transitioning to HFO-1234yf or planning to do so in 

the very near future, including GM, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, 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, deploying HFO-1234yf 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 vehicle GHG credits, with well over half of 

the fleet transitioned by model year 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 transition in that economy. Significant transition is already underway in the 

US and EU, with some 3 million vehicles using HFO-1234yf projected to be on the road by year 

end 2014. The infrastructure is in place at vehicle assembly facilities to quickly expand that 

number, and 7 million vehicles are estimated to be on the road by year end 2015. Equipment 

suppliers are already 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 year 

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 largely transitioned by 2017, and over 

half of the fleet will be transitioned by model year 2019 without any change in policy. Thus the 

proposed model year 2021 date for the change 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 year 2019 would be 

manageable by the auto OEMS and would create additional environmental benefits . 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

5

As regards additional environmental benefits, it is unlikely that any additional credits achieved 

under the motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations from this transition date would be fully

offset by slowing other fleet reductions so there would likely be net additional CO2 reductions 

over those achieved by 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 three model years. We are almost two years 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 system redesign required for the R-134a to HFO-1234yf transition 

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 completely 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-1234yf will not be a 

limiting factor in a more rapid SNAP change of status timing. There are currently HFO-1234yf 

production assets in both China and Japan and there have been recent capacity expansions. 

There is significant additional announced or planned production capacity in Asia, the US and 

Europe by 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-1234yf world-wide in the near future.” The 

existing, announced and projected HFO-1234yf production capacity is sufficient to meet added 

demand associated with a model year 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-1234yf are being imported into a country, will make it a point to be able to 

properly service those cars’ AC systems, just as they would their engines. Based on demand 

from the motor vehicle aftermarket, we currently 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 supply follows demand. As the 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

6

initial need for routine service is typically several years after the motor vehicle is produced, 

initial service needs will be relatively 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 ability 

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 by EPA will result in no 

environmental benefit created by the final rule for this segment. There are no technology, supply 

or engineering barriers to a rapid transition. We recognize that the OEMs have some 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 cycle 

vehicles. We believe that this portion of the fleet can reasonably be granted some flexibility in 

the context of a 2019 model year transition date. 

We would also like to offer comments on a number of more 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 systems in 

newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles. EPA notes that ”since these refrigerant blends 

are not currently in use in any MVAC systems in light-duty vehicles, we believe it is appropriate 

for the unacceptability determination to apply to model year vehicles currently being designed. 

Further, all but the first two of these blends have ODPs, and all have significantly higher GWPs 

than other alternatives such as HFC–152a, HFO– 1234yf, 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 currently 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 unacceptable 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 VI of the CAA make it clear 

that doing so (i.e., servicing HFO-1234yf 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 varying degrees of 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE 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 recycle rates suggest 

that venting does in fact occur. Any such improper servicing would serve to degrade the 

environmental benefits that would otherwise be realized by the proposed rule.

Therefore we strongly encourage the Agency to pursue additional efforts to prevent both 

intentional and unintentional improper service, such as by enhancing the training requirements 

for MVAC servicing. Currently, 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 technicians 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 

requirements, including use conditions, and appropriate industry standards. This 

requirement could be phased in such that any technician whose training and certification was 

more than five years 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 

vehicle 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 HFC-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 

currently in use have particularly high GWPs (on the order of 4,000), the systems in which they 

are used can have relatively high leak rates, alternatives are readily available with GWPs onehalf or less than those of the current incumbents, and additional even lower GWP alternatives 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 roughly 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 

commensurately long service tail. Thus a significant additional period of time using refrigerants 

like the 407 series creates the potential for significant, and unnecessary, GHG emissions. Those 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

8

emissions can be avoided, particularly 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 limit of this nature for this segment because the relatively high leak rates encountered in 

this segment, combined with the relatively 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 Protocol 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 nonflammable, allowing them to be 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 (DR33) 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 efficiency gains for stand-alone and vending applications 

we believe would have net environmental benefit. Stand alone and vending machines typically 

use small charges and are generally hermetically sealed, with very low leak rates, so their 

contribution to greenhouse gas emissions tend to be driven more by their energy consumption 

than by refrigerant leakage. Significant strides have been made in improving the energy

efficiency of vending applications in recent years. There are HFO based refrigerants from 

multiple 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. In addition, some of the currently 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 these 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

9

HFOs will have GWPs higher than CO2 and hydrocarbons, 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 availability include N-13 and XP10. XP10 showed both a 

56% lower refrigerant GWP and a 3% energy efficiency improvement over R-134a in a multirack supermarket system performance test. Similarly, a Total Equivalent Warming Impact 

(TEWI) analysis of XP10 in a typical European supermarket store design showed a 

XP10/cascade system achieved a lower TEWI than systems using R-404A, CO2 and R134a/CO2 cascade (Rinne, Minor and Salem, 2011). We would anticipate similar performance 

in stand-alone and vending applications. 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. Setting 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 vending 

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 

TEWI and therefore provide net environmental benefit.

EPA has also 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 systems, 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, the 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 refrigerants, with GWPs of about 2100-2200, have a significant GWP improvement over 

404A/507A. Tests in transport refrigeration systems 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 those 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 by replacing high global 

warming potential (GWP) foam expansion agents (FEAs) with technically appropriate lower 

GWP alternatives as sufficient quantities of those low GWP solutions become commercially 

available. We note that foam use of HFCs comprises a relatively small proportion of HFC 

related consumption, on the order of 15% on a CO2 equivalent basis versus greater than 80% for 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE 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 roughly 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 technically appropriate solutions that meet necessary 

performance standards and have appropriate properties must be available for a sufficient period 

of time for 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 olefins 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 alternatives.

A key technical property of an alternative in insulating foams (e.g. XPS or Rigid Polyurethane 

Foam) is the contribution to energy efficiency to ensure that the resulting foam product both 

provides the performance required by the market and ensures that the combined greenhouse gas 

footprint of the lower GWP HFC and indirect emissions related to energy consumption are 

lowered by 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 lifecycle 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 GWP HFO foam alternatives can deliver marked energy efficiency improvements 

over current alternatives when they become commercially available.

If the SNAP change of status for the current foam agents occurs before lower GWP products 

with adequate energy efficiency 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 attached 

papers “Low GWP Spray Foam Expansion Agents: Why Performance also Matters” (Krieger et 

al) and “Formacel® 1100: Life Cycle Assessment for use in a Household Appliance” (Roy et al) 

demonstrate that indirect emissions from energy consumption related to the energy efficiency of 

systems insulated by polyurethane 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 years and some have converted their plants to low GWP solutions, such as lower GWP 

HFC blends or lower GWP flammable products. These conversions 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 have 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

11

continued to evaluate lower GWP foam expansion agents, many of these manufacturers have 

been unable to find the next technical solution that is anticipated to be commercially available 

within the EPA’s proposed timeframe. In some cases this is due to polyol blend and foam 

stability issues with an olefin alternative, while in other cases, customers have completed life 

cycle analyses and found that the currently commercially available solutions would decrease 

energy efficiency and increase total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in their applications.

Finally, foam products are typically 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 include UL/FM Fire Safety testing, Aged Rvalue testing, testing to demonstrate compliance with DOE or other energy efficiency standards, 

building code requirements etc. Where there are commercially available solutions, foam 

manufacturers and their customers need sufficient time to re-formulate systems; 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 any point in this transition process requires the foam 

producer to develop and test another system. Additionally, if a user has to transition from a nonflammable agent to a flammable agent significant facility engineering design and refurbishment 

can be required. 

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 years from the time a foam 

producer selects a new commercially available product until they can adapt their manufacturing 

process, address any additional safety requirements that might arise, get customer or third party 

certifications and meet the requirements of codes and standards bodies. Some manufacturers 

have only just completed this 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 types below.

Rigid Polyurethane Foam

EPA has proposed to change the status of several higher GWP HFCs used in various rigid 

polyurethane foam applications to unacceptable as of 1/1/17. The category of Rigid Spray

Polyurethane foam incorporates several product sub-categories, including high pressure spray

foam and low pressure spray foam. These applications each require different foam expansion 

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-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

12

Low pressure foam systems, including low pressure spray and pour-in-place foams, rely 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 yet a reliable alternative. Honeywell’s recently published patent 

application WO20141379699 (Williams et al) states “More particularly, applicants have found 

that a problem may arise with the long term stability, and hence the shelf life, of foamable 

systems in which hydrofluoroolefins, and in particular certain hydrofluoroolefins such as HFO1234ze(E) and HFCO-1233zd(E), are used as the blowing agent.” 

Similar observations have been made by foam system houses and foam producers through The 

Center for the Polyurethane (CPI) Industry Low Pressure Workgroup. In the presentation titled 

“Low 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 currently available HFO product is susceptible to attack by tertiary amines used 

as catalysts in the foam systems, resulting in stability problems that lead to reduced shelf life for 

the packaged foam product. The CPI workgroup reports that this instability leads to a product 

shelf-life on the order of two to eight weeks, versus the necessary one year or longer needed to 

meet the demands of this industry’s supply chain, as product cylinders are shipped and stored 

globally, often in elevated temperatures. Currently neither DuPont nor its foam customers are 

aware of low GWP, non-flammable, gaseous foam expansion agents with appropriate technical 

qualities available commercially for this application. Further development of low GWP 

alternatives is underway by many companies, but additional time will be necessary before this 

segment can effectively transition. DuPont recommends that alternatives HFC-134a and 

Formacel® TI currently listed as acceptable for use in low pressure foam systems, 

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-365mfc 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 polyurethane applications. There is currently one very low GWP olefin product 

currently 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 globally by 

2020. 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 HFC-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-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

13

Non-spray Foam Polyurethane Foam Applications

Non-spray foam polyurethane foam applications (e.g. panels, appliances, etc.) have typically 

taken manufacturers between five to six years to implement a transition to lower GWP 

alternatives after an appropriate technical solution has been identified. Many foam producers 

and system 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-formulate systems, 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 requirements 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 gaseous blends with HFC-134a (e.g. Formacel® B, Formacel® Z6, and Formacel® TI), that reflects the time needed for an effective transition to lower 

GWP alternatives. 

Extruded Polystyrene Foam (XPS)

Extruded polystyrene transitions have typically taken manufacturers between five and six years 

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 they have become available. In these transitions they have needed 

sufficient time to re-formulate systems; design, purchase, await delivery of and convert 

equipment; obtain local permits for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and meet 

internal and external 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 acceptable 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 completed in 2010 and required 5-6 years 

once appropriate solutions were identified.

Polyolefin packaging foams and Decorative Molding

Among polyolefin 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 conversions 
DUPONT NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

14

quickly. Examples include smaller producers of niche products like polyolefin packaging foams

and decorative molding. While these firms are pursuing lower GWP alternatives, they often do 

not have the capacity to adopt these conversions within EPA’s proposed timeframes. DuPont 

recommends a longer period of time for conversion of these specialized companies that are 

generally 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 unacceptable. 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 you 

have any questions please to do hesitate to contact Michael Parr or Mack McFarland of DuPont.