1

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

2

3

4

5 Public meeting on 

6 Proposed Rule “Protection of Stratospheric 

7 Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain 

8 Substitutes under the Significant New 

9 Alternatives Policy Program” 

10

11

12

13

14 9:14 a.m. to 12:11 p.m. 

15 Wednesday, August 27, 2014 

16

17 William Jefferson Clinton East Building 

18 Room 1153 

19 1201 Constitution Avenue Northwest 

20 Washington, D.C. 20004 

21

22
2

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 EPA STAFF: 

2 Cindy Newberg 

3 Gerald Wozniak 

4 Margaret Sheppard 

5 Chenise Farquharson 

6 Drusilla Hufford 

7 Luke Hall-Jordan 

8 Paul Horwitz 

9 David Donaldson 

10 David Godwin 

11 Jan Tierney 

12 Rob Landolfi 

13 SPEAKERS: PAGE 

14 Kevin Fay - Alliance for Responsible 

15 Atmospheric Policy 9 

16 Christopher Nitz - Danfoss 15 

17 Allan Thornton - Environmental Investigation 

18 Agency 18 

19 Douglas Fratz - Consumer Specialty Products 

20 Association 23 

21 Julie Becker - Alliance of Automobile 

22 Manufacturers 27 
3

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 SPEAKERS (Cont'd): PAGE 

2 Dave Stirpe - Honeywell 32 

3 Robert McArver - Association of Home 

4 Appliance Manufacturers 36 

5 Michael Parr - DuPont 42 

6 Emily Davis - Natural Resources Defense 

7 Council 46 

8 John Ferraro - Extruded Polystyrene Foam 

9 Association 52 

10 Ron Shebik - Hussmann Corporation 56 

11 Peter Williams - New Era Group 62 

12 Mac Hess - Premium Spray Products 68 

13 Brian Casserilla - Kairak 72 

14 Mike Krupa - BASF 75 

15 Mary Dane - Traulsen 79 

16 Keilly Witman - Shecco America 83 

17 John Cabaniss - Assoc. of Global Automakers 88 

18 Stephen Schaefer - Hoshizaki America 92 

19 Michael Coyle - Bally Refrigerated Boxes 97 

20 Jason Paquette - Structural Concepts 101 

21 Terry Brooks - CrownTonka, ThermalRite 107 

22 Scott Lewit - Structural Composites 108 
4

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 SPEAKERS (Cont'd): PAGE 

2 Paul Ramsbottom - American Panel 113 

3 Lee Thames - Thermo-Kool 117 

4 Charlie Souhrada - North American Assoc. of 

5 Food Equipment Manufacturers 122 

6 Karim Amrane - Air Conditioning, Heating, & 

7 Refrigeration Institute 127 

8 Kenny Owen - Master-Bilt Products 132 

9 Edward Bates - Pactiv Building Products 137 

10 Jose Avendano - Grindmaster-Cecilware Corp. 140 

11 Nathan Mouw - Whirlpool Corporation 144 

12 Karl Hielscher - Metl-Span 149 

13 Doug Raymond - National Aerosol Association 151 

14 Rick Heffernan - System Development 

15 Integration 153 

16 Richard Willey - Grindmaster-Cecilware Corp. 162 

17

18

19

20

21

22
5

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

2 9:14 a.m. 

3 MS. NEWBERG: Okay. So welcome to EPA. 

4 This is a public hearing. So, I'm Cindy Newberg. 

5 I'm the Branch Chief for the Alternatives and 

6 Emissions Reductions Branch, which houses the 

7 SNAP Program. 

8 So welcome, and thanks for coming. We 

9 have quite a large turnout. Just to let you 

10 know, folks who are in the room from EPA, at the 

11 table, Gerald Wozniak, who will be giving 

12 speakers a one minute warning, and we'll get 

13 through that in a moment, Margaret Sheppard who 

14 is our SNAP Team Leader and Chenise Farquharson, 

15 who has organized this hearing for us today. 

16 Also in the room is Drusilla Hufford, who 

17 is the Division Director for the Stratospheric 

18 Protection Program, Luke Hall-Jordan, who is our 

19 refrigerants team lead, Paul Horwitz, who is the 

20 Deputy Division Director, David Donaldson who is 

21 the Branch Chief for the Stratospheric Protection 

22 Implementation Branch, and Dave Godwin will be in 
6

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 the room in a moment, who is our refrigerants 

2 expert, and Jan Tierney, who is with our Office 

3 of General Counsel. 

4 I may have missed someone. I don't think 

5 so. Oh, and Rob Landolfi, who is a member of our 

6 SNAP Team and supporting this room. 

7 So this is a public hearing. The purpose 

8 of the hearing is to provide verbal comment on 

9 the proposed rule titled, “Protection of 

10 Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for 

11 Certain Substances Under the Significant New 

12 Alternatives Policy Program.” 

13 The rule was published on the Federal 

14 Register on August 6th. Written comment is due 

15 by October 6th. The docket for the rule -- and 

16 there was information out front for folks who 

17 need additional information on how to provide 

18 comment to the docket -- is EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198. 

19 Providing verbal comment this morning 

20 does not preclude anyone from providing 

21 additional written comment. Verbal comment is 

22 being transcribed by a court reporter, who is 
7

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 sitting behind me, Buck Johnson. If you have 

2 prepared versions of your oral comment and you're 

3 willing to provide it to Mr. Johnson, we would 

4 appreciate that. It will make sure that it's 

5 more accurately reflected in -- obvious it will 

6 all be accurately reflected, but to make sure we 

7 have everything quite as we want it to be. 

8 And just to be clear for folks, I think 

9 there were some people who had some questions and 

10 haven't participated in public hearings before. 

11 This is not an opportunity to ask the Agency 

12 questions. We're not positioned to answer any 

13 questions today. This is an opportunity to 

14 provide oral comment to the docket only. 

15 If you'd like to speak to EPA and have 

16 additional discussions, we're perfectly willing 

17 to set that up but it would be a separate 

18 meeting. It will not be happening today. 

19 A copy of the transcript from today's 

20 hearing will be made public. It will be part of 

21 our docket. And just to provide just some brief 

22 instructions to the speakers, which we'll start 
8

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 with the speaking as soon as I finish this, 

2 please provide, when you start -- you've been 

3 provided with a number. That number, if you have 

4 preregistered to speak or if you registered on 

5 the spot, you were given a number. We'll be 

6 calling you in that order. 

7 When you start your testimony we would 

8 appreciate if you would state and spell your 

9 name, so we can make sure that it's correct in 

10 the docket. Also, state your affiliation. 

11 And to ensure all interested parties have 

12 an adequate opportunity to speak, we are sticking 

13 very strictly to a five minute time slot. If 

14 folks feel they didn't have sufficient time in 

15 that five minutes and they want to provide 

16 additional oral comment, and again you can 

17 provide written, at the end of the hearing we can 

18 come back and allow people who wanted additional 

19 time an additional five minutes. But we will be 

20 very clear about that. 

21 And Gerald is timing folks, and he has a 

22 one minute remaining sign that he will let you 
9

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 know. 

2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 

3 (Inaudible.)**11:37 

4 MS. NEWBERG: Yes. Short names need less 

5 time, right? 

6 With that, I'm going to hand it off to 

7 Chenise, who is going to go ahead and she will be 

8 calling each of the speakers up. 

9 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thanks, Cindy. Good 

10 morning everyone and thank you for being here. 

11 The first speaker is number one, Kevin Fay, the 

12 Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. 

13 MR. FAY: Good morning. Thank you. 

14 Kevin Fay, F-A-Y, the Alliance for Responsible 

15 Atmospheric Policy, and we appreciate the 

16 opportunity to speak here this morning. 

17 The Alliance is an industry coalition 

18 organized in 1980 to address the issue of 

19 stratospheric ozone depletion and the use of 

20 fluorocarbon compounds. Today the Alliance 

21 coordinates industry participation in the 

22 development of reasonable international and 
10

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 government policies at the nexus of ozone 

2 protection and climate change, and we're proud to 

3 continue its long history of working in a 

4 positive manner with EPA on the protection of 

5 stratospheric ozone and the mitigation of climate 

6 change. 

7 Our annual goods and services has been 

8 recently projected at $158 billion in the United 

9 States. 

10 We appreciate this opportunity to comment 

11 on the proposed change of listing status for 

12 certain compounds under the Significant New 

13 Alternatives Policy Program. While Alliance 

14 member companies will comment individually on the 

15 specific changes in listing status proposed in 

16 the rule, there are a number of broader concerns 

17 which are shared across the fluorocarbon 

18 producing and using sectors that we will touch 

19 upon. 

20 First, EPA has publicly stated its 

21 position as part of the North American Amendment 

22 proposals for the Montreal Protocol that it seeks 
11

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 to achieve a gradual phase down of HFC production 

2 and consumption on a GWP-weighted basis. EPA has 

3 supported the gradual phase down approach in 

4 order to allow for effective technology 

5 development and introduction to allow for the 

6 building codes and safety standards process to 

7 catch up with the newly available low-GWP 

8 compounds and technologies and to ensure 

9 continued improvement of energy efficiency 

10 performance where relevant. 

11 The Alliance supports these goals. As 

12 announced earlier this year, the Alliance also 

13 supports the negotiation of such an amendment to 

14 the Montreal Protocol as the best means of 

15 achieving ozone and climate environmental 

16 objectives while considering performance, safety, 

17 energy efficiency and technology availability. 

18 The Alliance is concerned that in many 

19 cases the transition dates in the proposed rule, 

20 however, are inconsistent with EPA's stated 

21 notion that there should be a gradual phase down 

22 of HFCs. With the proposed rule not likely to be 
12

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 finalized before the first or second quarter of 

2 2015, the proposed transition deadlines in 2016 

3 and 2017 are not feasible, in many cases 

4 impossible, for companies and inconsistent with 

5 this notion of a gradual phase down as stated by 

6 the Agency. 

7 Second, the Alliance believes that the 

8 SNAP rulemaking schedule should be better 

9 coordinated with the ongoing DOE energy 

10 efficiency rulemaking schedules. The proposed 

11 modifications have significant energy efficiency 

12 implications, whether for foam insulation or air 

13 conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Any 

14 proposed changes to SNAP listing status should 

15 ensure that the alternatives whose use is being 

16 encouraged by the changes meet the requirements 

17 of stringent new DOE efficiency standards that 

18 are to be promulgated over the next several 

19 years. 

20 Given the important energy efficiency 

21 consequences of this proposed rule, it is unclear 

22 how this action will meet the statutory standard 
13

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 of no greater risk to human health and the 

2 environment. By forcing previously acceptable 

3 substitutes off the market, these proposals could 

4 in fact result in less efficiency, not more, in 

5 the near term. Change of status determinations, 

6 in most cases, should not be made based on one 

7 attribute alone such as GWP. 

8 Third, the SNAP change of listing status 

9 process should be used sparingly as the economic 

10 implications should require a higher standard of 

11 care in considering transition dates and market 

12 assumptions than is needed for the SNAP listing 

13 approval process. Whereas SNAP listing does not 

14 place a burden on companies to change their 

15 operations, a change of listing status requires 

16 adjustments to business models or practices that 

17 might not otherwise occur, potentially to a 

18 company's economic detriment. This does not mean 

19 that some relatively rapid transitions are not 

20 achievable, nor does it mean that transitions are 

21 not already taking place. However, final 

22 transition deadlines should take into account 
14

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 reasonable time frames from an economic 

2 standpoint and other competing regulatory 

3 initiatives such as energy efficiency standards, 

4 building codes, and safety standards and other 

5 issues. 

6 Lastly, it must be recognized that EPA 

7 has so far failed to respond to the petition 

8 filed by the Alliance earlier this year to extent 

9 Section 608 rules to HFCs. The immediate 

10 environmental benefit of preventing service 

11 emissions and leaks from existing equipment is 

12 likely far greater than any marginal benefit in 

13 the immediate implementation of the delisting 

14 proposal. 

15 In the recently sponsored Montreal 

16 Protocol workshop on HFC management, Alliance 

17 speakers and others documented the significant 

18 progress in the last few years on the 

19 development, availability, and implementation of 

20 low-GWP alternatives. The involved industries 

21 have already accepted the challenge of minimizing 

22 the climate change impacts of ODS substitutes and 
15

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 have made rapid progress. SNAP change of status 

2 activities should be limited and take into 

3 account the important considerations we have 

4 cited above. We should all work together to 

5 achieve an effective global regime to phase down 

6 HFCs that follows the Protocol’s historical 

7 pattern of ensuring measures that are both 

8 environmentally and economically acceptable. 

9 Thank you and we look forward to working 

10 with you on the completing of this rule. 

11 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thanks, Kevin. Speaker 

12 number two is Christopher Nitz from Danfoss. 

13 MR. NITZ: Hi. Good morning. I'm 

14 Christopher Nitz. It's N-I-T-Z, N like in Nancy. 

15 My role is Segment Manager for Commercial 

16 Refrigeration with Danfoss. 

17 Danfoss is a leading international 

18 manufacturer of high efficiency controls, 

19 compressors, and variable frequency drives for 

20 the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

21 and refrigeration industry. We appreciate the 

22 opportunity to provide comments today on the 
16

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 EPA's proposed rule. 

2 Danfoss supports the planned orderly 

3 approach to the phase down of high GWP chemicals 

4 on a CO2 equivalent weighted basis. The phase 

5 down process is important to Danfoss, its 

6 customers and the industry as a whole. 

7 The EPA SNAP program, overall, has been 

8 successful in its quest to identify alternative 

9 refrigerants to CFCs and HCFCs in advance of the 

10 phase-out of those chemicals and the industry has 

11 responded. 

12 Danfoss supports the SNAP program; 

13 however, we do have four concerns. And they are, 

14 number one, while the SNAP process has been 

15 effective in listing refrigerant alternatives, 

16 the process to de-list is unproven. This causes 

17 concern simply due to the uncertainty as to the 

18 order in which specific refrigerants may actually 

19 be de-listed. 

20 Number two, in order to meet the proposed 

21 delisting date of January 1, 2016, it would 

22 require the industry to do a complete product 
17

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 line redesign in about one year, which is 

2 unrealistic. We recommend further engagement 

3 with equipment manufacturers to develop a 

4 realistic time line. 

5 Number three, even if it were possible to 

6 complete the redesign, significant progress needs 

7 to be made in both developing and implementing 

8 local codes and standards. This is a challenging 

9 hurdle to overcome. It's a complex issue and the 

10 January 1, 2016, time frame is also unrealistic. 

11 Finally, number four, Danfoss is aware of 

12 the Department of Energy’s concurrent rulemaking 

13 process regarding refrigeration equipment energy 

14 efficiency. Therefore, we urge EPA to work 

15 closely with the Department of Energy in 

16 synchronizing rulemaking timing in order to 

17 provide manufacturers with adequate notice and 

18 simultaneously comply with the refrigerant and 

19 the energy efficiency requirements. 

20 Lastly, we appreciate the opportunity to 

21 provide these comments, and we commend the EPA 

22 for taking the collaborative approach with 
18

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 stakeholders. Thank you. 

2 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Christopher. 

3 Speaker number three is Allan Thornton from the 

4 Environmental Investigation Agency. 

5 MR. THORNTON: Good morning. I am the 

6 President of the Environmental Investigation 

7 Agency. We're a nonprofit, independent 

8 environmental campaigning organization, and we 

9 work around the world to protect the global 

10 climate. We work across the European Union 

11 countries, in the U.S., and elsewhere to support 

12 the transition to HFC-free alternatives. 

13 We're pleased to have this opportunity to 

14 provide our comments regarding EPA's proposed 

15 rule on the change of listing status for certain 

16 substances under the Significant New Alternatives 

17 Policy Program. We would also like to 

18 congratulate the EPA on proposing a practical 

19 rule that addresses the steps laid out in 

20 President Obama's Climate Action Plan. EIA 

21 strongly supports this proposed rule and 

22 encourages the EPA to continue to remove high GWP 
19

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 HFCs as acceptable substitutes. 

2 In the U.S., HFC emissions are growing at 

3 a faster rate than all other greenhouse gases and 

4 they are projected to double by 2020 and triple 

5 by 2030. This rule, which is only addressing 

6 some high GWP HFCs and some end uses, is alone 

7 estimated that it will prevent emissions of up to 

8 42 metric tons -- 42 million metric tons of CO2 

9 equivalent by the year 2020. 

10 In the refrigeration sector, the EPA is 

11 proposing to de-list certain high GWP HFCs, 

12 including 404A for new retail food refrigeration 

13 equipment. As this sector accounts for 

14 approximately 32 percent of global HFC 

15 consumption, it's important that lower GPW 

16 alternatives are used and phased in as they 

17 become available. 

18 There are already numerous other approved 

19 alternatives, including HFC-407A, CO2, ammonia and 

20 propane. By using lower GWP alternatives and new 

21 store builds, a supermarket can reduce its carbon 

22 footprint 25 percent or more. 
20

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 In addition, these new systems are more 

2 energy efficient. For instance, the 

3 transcritical CO2 system has been shown in the 

4 field to be up to 30 percent more efficient than 

5 a system running on fluorinated gas refrigerants. 

6 Because of these climate savings and 

7 energy-efficient savings, many food retailers are 

8 already moving away from the use of HFC-404A. 

9 The consumer goods forum, which is a global 

10 network of retailers and food manufacturers, have 

11 pledged to begin phasing out HFC refrigeration 

12 equipment where commercially feasible as of 2015. 

13 And in the U.S., many supermarket chains are 

14 starting to install CO2 transcritical or cascade 

15 systems that do not use HFC-404A. 

16 On the manufacturing side, large 

17 manufacturers have already begun making these new 

18 systems in the U.S. Three companies alone will 

19 produce over 200 CO2 transcritical systems this 

20 year, mitigating the equivalent emissions of over 

21 60,000 passenger cars just from leakage. 

22 These options show how quickly the market 
21

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 is changing in the U.S. and highlight the 

2 opportunity for U.S. businesses to continue to be 

3 leaders by moving away from older, high GWP 

4 options. 

5 While we laud the EPA for proposing this 

6 rule, EIA urges EPA to go further in light of the 

7 many available alternatives and the dire needs of 

8 the climate. First, we believe the rule does not 

9 adequately address all the sectors covered by the 

10 SNAP Program, for which there are many climate11 friendly alternatives. 

12 One specific example of this is the EPA's 

13 failure to list HFC-23 as unacceptable for use in 

14 fire suppression and very low-temperature 

15 refrigeration system sectors, despite the fact 

16 that HFC-23 is 14,800 times more damaging to the 

17 climate than carbon dioxide and multiple other 

18 alternatives are already available. 

19 Second, EIA believes that the delisting 

20 dates for many sectors are too lenient, 

21 particularly for sectors where both chlorinated 

22 and nonchlorinated substitutes exist. For 
22

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 example, in the foam sector methyl formate, 

2 water, CO2 hydrocarbons and HFO-1234 are all 

3 approved substitutes that are used not only in 

4 the U.S. but also around the world. 

5 In Europe, hydrocarbons have been used as 

6 blowing agents since 1992, and internationally 

7 the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund did not 

8 approve the use of HFCs by developing countries 

9 for any type of foam blowing agent. Therefore, 

10 EIA strongly urges EPA to bring forward the 2017 

11 delisting date by a year for foam blowing 

12 applications. 

13 All deadlines beyond 2016 in all of the 

14 sectors should be reviewed as there are numerous 

15 alternatives available for all the sectors being 

16 discussed in this rule. If too long a delay is 

17 allowed to transition from HFCs, not only will 

18 U.S. industry fall even further behind companies 

19 in the European Union, Japan, and even China -- 

20 MS. FARQUHARSON: Allan, sorry. Do you 

21 mind finishing up soon, please? Thank you. 

22 MR. THORNTON: Is that it? 
23

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MS. FARQUHARSON: Sorry. 

2 MR. THORNTON: Okay. Thank you very 

3 much. I'll just leave it there. 

4 MS. FARQUHARSON: Speaker number four is 

5 Douglas Fratz from the Consumer Specialty 

6 Products Association. 

7 MR. FRATZ: Good morning. I am D. 

8 Douglas Fratz, F-R-A-T-Z, and I am a staff 

9 executive for the aerosol products division of 

10 the Consumer Specialty Products Association. 

11 I'm also representing today, the 

12 Automotive Specialty Products Alliance, which is 

13 an alliance of CSPA for the Auto Care Association 

14 and the Motor Equipment Manufacturer's 

15 Association. 

16 CSPA's aerosol products division 

17 represents more than 150 companies that 

18 manufacture or market aerosol products or supply 

19 related products and services. This year is 

20 CSPA's 100th anniversary, and we have represented 

21 the aerosol industry since 1950 -- although I 

22 will say I wasn't there in 1950, although I look 
24

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 like I was. 

2 CSPA has been supportive of the goals of 

3 the EPA SNAP Program for stratospheric ozone 

4 protection and also for climate change 

5 mitigation. EPA's newest proposal primarily 

6 impacts CSPA members who have remaining uses of 

7 HFC-134a. The use of HFCs -152a and 134a as 

8 aerosol propellants began largely in the 1990s to 

9 meet VOC standards being set by EPA, California, 

10 and other states. These were to assist on 

11 tropospheric ozone attainment, and since 134A is 

12 nonflammable it was used where there were safety 

13 concerns. 

14 In 2002, CSPA and its members signed on 

15 as founding members of EPA's Responsible Use 

16 Principles for HFCs. For the past dozen years, 

17 CSPA members have sought to use 134a only where 

18 nonflammability is needed for product safety. 

19 After enactment of the global -- or of the 

20 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, 

21 CSPA helped that state's Air Resources Board 

22 develop a series of regulations that restricted 
25

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 the remaining 134a uses in 17 different product 

2 categories. Our members' remaining uses are very 

3 small. We estimate that HFC-134a use in 

4 nonmedical aerosols represents less than one 

5 percent of HFC usage today in the United States. 

6 Nevertheless, we remain dedicated to do 

7 all that we can to improve our products. Another 

8 significant factor is the CSPA product care 

9 program. This program is a product stewardship 

10 program that establishes principles for all CSPA 

11 members to follow and minimizing the impacts and 

12 ensuring product safety. 

13 Reformulating product can be expensive 

14 and time consuming. We appreciate that EPA has 

15 recognized that some 134a uses need to continue 

16 in this proposed rule. But each manufacturer and 

17 each product is unique in its formulation and its 

18 uses, and careful evaluations are needed to 

19 assure that each and every one is stable in 

20 storage and safe for all intended uses. 

21 A new alternative, HFC-1234ze is now 

22 available, and CSPA members have been evaluating 
26

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 its use. Several members have ze-based products 

2 in the market now. CSPA members are dedicated to 

3 improving their products, and more are in the 

4 process of evaluating ze products. But they must 

5 assure that they are safe and effective for all 

6 intended uses. 

7 EPA hopes to issue its final rule in 

8 April of next year, but that is only months 

9 before the proposed January 2016 deadline. More 

10 time may be needed for some products. Product 

11 reformulations often require one or more years. 

12 For workplace products, worker education may be 

13 needed to assure safe use. For retail products, 

14 time is needed to adjust contracts with 

15 retailers, but we may need time and EPA 

16 assistance to work with retailers to assure that 

17 CSPA member complying products are not displaced 

18 by noncomplying products from offshore. This has 

19 been a significant problem in the past. 

20 CSPA will file comprehensive comments by 

21 the October 6th deadline to outline and support 

22 any minor adjustments that are needed to assure 
27

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 that our members can comply with the final rule, 

2 and continue to provide safe and effective 

3 products with minimal environmental impacts. 

4 CSPA looks forward to continuing work with the 

5 EPA on this common goal. Thank you. 

6 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Douglas. 

7 The next speaker is Julie Becker from the 

8 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 

9 MS. BECKER: Good morning. My name is 

10 Julie Becker, J-U-L-I-E, B-E-C-K-E-R. I'm Vice 

11 President for Environmental Affairs of the 

12 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. We're a 

13 trade association of 12 light-duty vehicle 

14 manufacturers who account for about 75 percent of 

15 the new vehicles sold in the U.S. each year. I'm 

16 happy to be here today and even happier that I 

17 brought my own personal HFC-free air conditioner. 

18 Automakers supported the development of 

19 the groundbreaking Single National Program 

20 governing light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas 

21 emission and fuel economy. Our industry was the 

22 first to commit to greenhouse gas emission 
28

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 reductions on a broad scale. We've invested 

2 billions in this effort. 

3 One of the things I wanted to start with 

4 today is to tell you that automakers support 

5 transitioning as quickly as possible to 

6 refrigerants with a lower GWP, and to do this 

7 current models will need to be redesigned and a 

8 reliable supply of new refrigerants established. 

9 In addition to investing heavily in 

10 research of alternative refrigerants, automakers 

11 have worked to improve the efficiency of their 

12 refrigeration systems to prevent leakage. By 

13 reducing leakage, we reduce emissions of today's 

14 refrigerants and save consumers the cost of 

15 expensive refills. 

16 Going forward, as EPA notes in the NPRM, 

17 these improvements will reduce the motivation for 

18 do-it-yourselfers to use more cheaper HFC-134a in 

19 AC systems designed for HFO-1234yf. 

20 So the key question today is not whether 

21 to transition to low-GWP refrigerants, it's when 

22 the SNAP rule should take effect and how it 
29

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 should be structured. 

2 So let's start with when. We would 

3 propose that the rule take effect at the end of 

4 2025. Simply put, doing so would preserve the 

5 integrity of the Single National Program for 

6 greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy without 

7 threatening the program's greenhouse gas 

8 reductions at all. An integral part of that 

9 program is the earning of credits for 

10 transitioning to the new refrigerants, and we 

11 appreciate that EPA is not proposing to touch 

12 those credits. 

13 However, the second element of the Single 

14 National Program is that each manufacturer is 

15 given an opportunity model by model to determine 

16 when they should make the transition to low-GWP 

17 refrigerants since there is no drop-in solution 

18 here and the transition needs to occur as models 

19 undergo major redesign and new models are 

20 introduced. This is why when it set the GHG 

21 standards EPA predicted that manufacturers would 

22 transition, for the most part, to low-GWP 
30

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 refrigerants by 2021, but allowed any 

2 manufacturer that fails to do so to make up the 

3 difference by finding other ways to achieve equal 

4 greenhouse gas reductions. 

5 EPA now proposes to take away that 

6 valuable flexibility. Given that there is no 

7 measurable environment impact at stake, we think 

8 the best way to preserve the integrity of the 

9 Single National Program is to allow HFC-134a 

10 until the end of 2025. 

11 A second major concern is how, 

12 specifically how exports are addressed. Auto 

13 manufacturing is a cornerstone of the U.S. 

14 economy, representing 8 million jobs. A quarter 

15 of that, 2 million jobs, is due to automotive 

16 exports from the United States. U.S. assembly 

17 plants export to over 130 countries around the 

18 world, including many that have not begun 

19 creating the infrastructure for service and 

20 refilling local air conditioning systems with the 

21 new refrigerant. By my count, that's about 100 

22 countries that haven't done so, let alone 
31

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 updating their regulations governing 

2 transportation and handling of those new 

3 refrigerants. In the U.S., if the U.S. is any 

4 example, this process could take up to a decade. 

5 Now, we understand that EPA is reluctant 

6 to make an export exception, but this is an 

7 exceptional situation for appliances like 

8 refrigerators, manufacturers could unilaterally 

9 produce and export products that met all the use 

10 conditions for safe operation and they don't have 

11 to go through the significant changes to the 

12 regulations overseas, creating the infrastructure 

13 and the servicing that has to happen for vehicles 

14 because a vehicle at least once in its lifetime 

15 typically needs a new refrigerant. 

16 Well, absent changes in the SNAP rule, 

17 both the lack of infrastructure and the fact that 

18 alternative refrigerants may not be approved for 

19 use in some nations would effectively prevent 

20 manufacturers in the U.S. from exporting vehicles 

21 to some markets. We recommend, therefore, that 

22 EPA adopt provisions consistent with what the 
32

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 European Union has done and limit the SNAP rule 

2 to vehicles intended for the U.S. Market. 

3 Thank you for this opportunity to 

4 testify. Of course, we also plan to present in5 depth written comments on a variety of issues 

6 that are raised in the NPRM. 

7 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Julie. 

8 Speaker number six is Dave Stirpe from Honeywell. 

9 MR. STIRPE: Good morning. My name is 

10 Dave Stirpe, S-T-I-R-P-E, and I'm Manager of 

11 Regulatory Affairs at Honeywell. 

12 Honeywell supports changes in the listing 

13 status of certain high-GWP substances and 

14 applications where alternatives are technically 

15 and economically feasible and commercially 

16 available. Honeywell has developed such 

17 alternatives that produce overall environmental 

18 benefits in all of the sectors addressed by the 

19 rule and in areas the rule has not addressed such 

20 as commercial chillers and spray foam. 

21 The SNAP proposal addressed by President 

22 Obama in his June 13 -- his June 2013 Climate 
33

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Action Plan can succeed due to the availability 

2 of these alternatives, and we are ready to work 

3 with the EPA and manufacturers on the 

4 implementation of the President's goals. 

5 We support EPA's use of the SNAP Program 

6 to transition the industry to low-GWP 

7 alternatives and have been working diligently to 

8 develop technologies to further these goals. 

9 Honeywell has invested significantly in a new 

10 platform of low- and lower-GWP compounds for use 

11 by equipment and product manufacturers worldwide. 

12 We are working with manufacturers today to 

13 evaluate and implement these new compounds and 

14 new products and equipment. Regulatory 

15 incentives and drivers, such as this SNAP 

16 statute’s change rule will lead companies to 

17 commercial adoption of new compounds that reduce 

18 the risk to human health and the environment. 

19 Last December, Honeywell and its 

20 suppliers announced plans to invest $300 million 

21 in building a new facility in Geismar, Louisiana, 

22 to produce HFO-1234yf for motor vehicle air 
34

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 conditioning. This refrigerant has a GWP of less 

2 than one, lower than carbon dioxide. The plan is 

3 expected to be operational by the end of 2016. 

4 Nearly 2 million cars in the world will use 

5 1234yf by the end of this year, including many in 

6 the United States. 

7 While the CAFÉ Credit program that EPA 

8 has offered U.S. automobile manufacturers to meet 

9 the tailpipe emission standards has helped to 

10 drive adoption of lower-GWP refrigerants, there 

11 is still a large percentage of the U.S. 

12 automobile fleet that does not need the CAFÉ 

13 credits gained from adopting low-GWP 

14 refrigerants. The proposed change of listing 

15 status would help accelerate that refrigerant 

16 conversion for the remaining U.S. automobile 

17 fleet. 

18 In January of this year, Whirlpool 

19 Corporation announced that it has implemented the 

20 use of Honeywell Solstice LBA, Liquid Blowing 

21 Agent, into its foam insulation used in U.S. made 

22 household refrigerators and freezers. This 
35

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 compound has a GWP approximately 1,000 times 

2 lower than the most common foam blowing agents in 

3 use today. It is also nonflammable and VOC 

4 exempt by EPA. That conversion is expected to be 

5 complete by the end of 2014, resulting in global 

6 warming impact equivalent to removing more than 

7 400,000 cars annually from the road. 

8 Solstice LBA has also been commercial in 

9 the U.S. for more than a year in spray foam. 

10 Commercialization of Solstice LBA has also 

11 occurred in Japan, the E.U., and even in China 

12 for a variety of foam applications, including 

13 appliance, panel and spray foam. A commercial14 scale plant for this compound has already begun 

15 operations in Baton Rouge. 

16 Honeywell has completed construction of 

17 yet another commercial-scale plant, also in Baton 

18 Rouge, to produce HFO-1234ze, a low-GWP compound 

19 for use as a refrigerant extruded by styrene foam 

20 blowing agent, as an aerosol propellant. It is 

21 nonflammable, VOC exempt by EPA and California, 

22 and has a GWP of one. 
36

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 We are working with companies to replace 

2 HFC-134a in extruded polystyrene foam, consumer 

3 and technical aerosols, and chillers. In fact, 

4 1234ze has been sold commercially since 2009 in a 

5 variety of consumer and technical aerosol 

6 applications in Europe, Asia, and the U.S., as 

7 well as for one-component foams and extruded 

8 polystyrene foam applications in Europe. 

9 These are just some of the examples where 

10 alternatives can be implemented in sectors using 

11 HFCs. Thank you for the consideration of these 

12 comments. 

13 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Dave. 

14 Speaker number seven is Robert McArver from the 

15 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

16 MR. MCARVER: Good morning. I'm Rob 

17 McArver. That's M-C-A-R-V-E-R. I'm the Vice 

18 President of Policy and Government Relations with 

19 the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 

20 or AHAM. I appreciate the opportunity to explain 

21 why AHAM is opposed to the proposed delisting 

22 rule as it applies to refrigerator foam. 
37

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 This proposed action is well beyond the 

2 authority delegated to EPA under the Clean Air 

3 Act. It is unnecessary to protect the 

4 environment, exposes a lack of regulatory 

5 coordination among federal agencies, and creates 

6 significant burdens to U.S. businesses. 

7 The U.S. appliance manufacturing industry 

8 has been at the forefront of providing consumers 

9 increasingly sustainable and environmentally 

10 preferable products. Over time, we've 

11 transitioned our products to highly efficient 

12 non-ozone depleting substances, which has cost 

13 manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars. 

14 All of these transitions from CFCs to HCFCs to 

15 HFCs have been encouraged, actually urged and 

16 applauded by EPA, including the extremely 

17 beneficial move to HFCs. 

18 With these new generations of products, 

19 we have eliminated almost all use of ozone20 depleting substances. We recognize that HFCs are 

21 ultimately transitional chemicals, although it is 

22 not sufficiently reflected in EPA's analysis. In 
38

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 fact, a significant portion of products sold in 

2 the U.S. market no longer use HFCs as foam 

3 blowing agents, opting instead for hydrocarbons 

4 or HFO. Despite this, the EPA proposal goes well 

5 beyond the actions that were suggested in 

6 preproposal workshops, indeed going so far as to 

7 propose unnecessarily accelerating delisting of 

8 widely used chemicals that still have significant 

9 beneficial uses in the U.S. 

10 This action only serves to insert the 

11 federal government into the marketplace by 

12 forcing investments that are economically 

13 unsound. These actions exceed EPA's legal 

14 authority and are unnecessary, and thus we oppose 

15 them. 

16 What EPA has proposed is not authorized 

17 under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The 

18 statute requires the replacing of ozone-depleting 

19 substances with substitutes as a trigger for 

20 regulatory action. But nowhere in the U.S. are 

21 ODSs being substituted for non-ODS materials in 

22 refrigerator foam blowing agents. At present, we 
39

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 are on second, third, or fourth generations of 

2 refrigerator products since ODSs were used in 

3 U.S. production. There simply is no ODS 

4 substitution taking place, and thus EPA does not 

5 have authority to regulate further in this area. 

6 AHAM is working on a current valid 

7 estimate of the reduced level of HFC usage and 

8 refrigerator foam and what is forecasted for 

9 future demand, and we will provide that data in 

10 our written comments. Initial analysis 

11 indicates, however, that by 2015 many 

12 refrigerators sold in the U.S. will not use high13 GWP foam blowing agents and the trend of dramatic 

14 reductions in the use of high-GWP HFCs by this 

15 responsible industry will accelerate in the 

16 future. 

17 Regardless of these trends, manufacturers 

18 of all sizes will be impacted by this rule. For 

19 those that have not fully transitioned from HFC 

20 foam blowing agents and do not have the time or 

21 the capital to invest in 100 percent transition 

22 by an arbitrary January 1, 2017, date, the impact 
40

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 of these proposals could be devastating. 

2 These same firms have invested millions 

3 of dollars in new DOE efficiency requirements 

4 that become effective in less than a month. The 

5 DOE requirements were based on assumptions about 

6 the availability of HFCs and have diverted the 

7 scarce capital that is available for regulation8 driven investment. 

9 To make matters worse, the major new 

10 burdens EPA proposes are unnecessary because the 

11 use and potential emission of high-GWP HFCs for 

12 refrigerators sold in the U.S. market are far 

13 less than were estimated. This is a classic 

14 example of the cumulative regulatory burden that 

15 falls on manufacturers when EPA and DOE fail to 

16 coordinate their rulemaking activity. 

17 EPA also significantly underestimates the 

18 cost of this proposal. One particularly 

19 disappointing example is the suggestion that 

20 refrigerator manufacturers seek to replace HFCs 

21 and foam-blowing agents have drop-in substitutes. 

22 In fact, there are no available drop-ins. That 
41

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 false but convenient misnomer overlooks the years 

2 and millions of dollars of work necessary to 

3 ensure continued manufacturing efficiency, 

4 product quality performance and longevity, and 

5 evaluation of potential impacts on energy 

6 efficiency and the compatibility of plastics 

7 used. On top of that, it is well known that the 

8 use of hydrocarbon foam in U.S. factories 

9 requires an investment in bomb proofing such 

10 production to protect employees and new VOC 

11 controls, and in reformulation analysis to ensure 

12 continued energy efficiency. 

13 These steps are neither cheap nor easy, 

14 and the significant burdens they impose were 

15 inadequately addressed in the proposal. By 

16 forcing 100 percent across the board transitions 

17 in such a short period of time, this proposal 

18 would put companies and their products at risk, 

19 given the limited alternatives that are currently 

20 available. 

21 AHAM urges EPA to drop this ill22 considered effort after more carefully and 
42

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 accurately taking into account the realities of 

2 the marketplace and the true costs and benefits 

3 of this effort. The appliance industry's 

4 transition away from HFCs is well under way. 

5 EPA's proposal should reflect and support this 

6 rather than impede it. 

7 Thank you for considering our comments. 

8 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Robert. The 

9 next speaker is number eight, Michael Parr from 

10 DuPont Chemicals and Flouroproducts. 

11 MR. PARR: Good morning. Thank you for 

12 the opportunity to join you all. My name is 

13 Michael Parr, P-A-R-R, with DuPont. DuPont 

14 appreciates the opportunity to participate in 

15 this hearing and briefly present our views on the 

16 proposed Change of Status Rule under EPA's 

17 Significant Alternatives Program. 

18 We would also like to recognize the 

19 significant stakeholder outreach that EPA has 

20 performed in preparing this proposal and the 

21 Agency's ongoing openness to the views of all 

22 stakeholders in the process. 
43

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 We applaud the White House and the Agency 

2 also for the timely action in developing this 

3 proposal in response to the President's Climate 

4 Action Plan. I believe you all have set a record 

5 for OMB review, and I congratulate you for that. 

6 As we stated at the beginning of the 

7 stakeholder outreach process, DuPont recognizes 

8 the need for concerted global action to avoid 

9 significant future growth in greenhouse gas 

10 emissions associated with the use of HFCs in the 

11 various applications. That is why we are 

12 bringing low global warming potential, energy 

13 efficient products to market across a variety of 

14 HFC end uses. 

15 We also believe that in avoiding these 

16 future emissions, it is critical that we do so in 

17 a manner that ensures that we remain able to 

18 deliver the critical societal services that HFCs 

19 provide today. This includes safe and energy 

20 efficient refrigeration, air conditioning, foam 

21 insulation, fire suppression, repellants, and 

22 waste heat recovery. It is also important that 
44

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 we avoid these emissions in a manner that does 

2 not impede the global trade in these important 

3 products that is central to achieving these 

4 reductions in cost effective manner. 

5 The nature of the regulatory approach 

6 taken to avoid these future emissions will have a 

7 lot to do with how successfully we achieve these 

8 goals. That is why we have strongly supported 

9 the Administration's efforts to amend the 

10 Montreal Protocol to employ the well understood 

11 and very effective tools of that protocol to 

12 achieve these necessary transitions. We believe 

13 the mechanics of the protocol would provide both 

14 a globally consistent framework for the 

15 transitions and the ability to make cost 

16 effective transitions while ensuring we can 

17 continue to serve our markets properly. A 

18 patchwork of uncoordinated national and regional 

19 command and control regimes would be a much less 

20 effective regulatory model for these changes. 

21 We do believe the EPA's SNAP authority 

22 can provide a reasonable down payment on the 
45

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Montreal Protocol process by focusing on areas 

2 where technology transitions are already underway 

3 in the marketplace, alternatives are already 

4 available, or will soon be, and action under SNAP 

5 can accelerate those transitions. We think the 

6 Montreal Protocol is the better tool for driving 

7 new transitions and long-term reductions. 

8 As for the specifics of the proposed 

9 rule, we're still evaluating it and talking with 

10 our customers and other value chain participants 

11 and stakeholders, and we will be submitting 

12 detailed comments. Based on our review to date, 

13 we generally think the scope of the proposal is 

14 appropriate and reflects transitions already 

15 underway in the market. 

16 There are some areas, such as motor 

17 vehicle air conditioning, where we think the 

18 proposed timing is actually lagging the business 

19 as usual market transition that is underway, and 

20 there are others, such as in several of the foam 

21 segments, where we feel the proposed timing is 

22 faster than the market can reasonably manage. 
46

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 We look forward to providing more detail 

2 in our written comments. In closing, we 

3 appreciate the opportunity to share our views and 

4 believe that the proposed SNAP rule, with some 

5 adjustments, can be a helpful down payment on the 

6 broad market transitions to be achieved under an 

7 amended Montreal Protocol. 

8 We look forward to working with EPA, 

9 important customers in the auto, foam, appliance, 

10 and propellant segments and other stakeholders in 

11 finalizing this regulation. Thank you very much. 

12 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Michael. 

13 The next speaker is number nine, Emily Davis from 

14 the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

15 MS. DAVIS: Thank you for the opportunity 

16 to be here today. My name is Emily Davis, 

17 D-A-V-I-S, and I'm here on behalf of the Natural 

18 Resources Defense Council and the Institute for 

19 governance and sustainable development. 

20 I'd like to thank EPA for the opportunity 

21 to comment on its proposal to change the listing 

22 status of certain substitutes under the 
47

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Significant New Alternatives Policy and 

2 congratulate them on their proposal. 

3 EPA's SNAP program has a proud history of 

4 collaboration among stakeholders, and NRDC and 

5 IGSD are proud of the relationship we've built in 

6 the process of implementing past transitions. 

7 We're eager to work with industry and other 

8 stakeholders as these SNAP rules are finalized 

9 and implemented. 

10 HFCs, the chemicals at issue in today's 

11 SNAP proposal, were added to the SNAP list 

12 because they were an improvement on the chemicals 

13 they replaced. But they are, themselves, 

14 extremely potent chemicals with a very high 

15 global warming potential thousands of times 

16 greater than carbon dioxide. This means that 

17 every ton of HFCs has an impact on the climate 

18 many times worse than a ton of carbon dioxide. 

19 We also know that HFC emissions are forecasted to 

20 almost triple by 2030 if we don't act to reduce 

21 their use. 

22 The good news is that safer chemicals 
48

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 exist and 25 years of experience with the 

2 Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act has shown 

3 us that transitioning to safer chemicals works 

4 smoothly. In fact, we know more now about safer 

5 alternative chemicals to HFCs than we knew at a 

6 comparable moment for alternatives to CFCs. 

7 When EPA proposed phasing down CFCs and 

8 other ozone-depleting substances, there were dire 

9 warnings that the industry could not survive 

10 without these chemicals; but in fact, the phase11 out of CFCs was successful and the warnings did 

12 not come true. Similar warnings may be repeated 

13 now, but the history of success and the evidence 

14 in support of safer alternatives shows that we 

15 will be able to succeed in moving away from HFCs 

16 as proposed. 

17 EPA's proposed rule is important for 

18 several reasons. First and foremost, it is 

19 critical because of the reductions in HFCs that 

20 will be achieved in the sectors at issue, 31 to 

21 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

22 equivalent in 2020 by EPA's estimates. 
49

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Second, the rule is important because it 

2 provides a needed signal to industry that as 

3 safer alternatives are brought to market, 

4 dangerous substitutes with high global warming 

5 potentials will be removed from the SNAP list. 

6 Third, the rule is important because it 

7 puts U.S. industry in the leadership position as 

8 the global market moves away from high-GWP 

9 substances. 

10 From an environmental standpoint, if EPA 

11 were only taking into account the risks of human 

12 health and the environment the Agency would act 

13 to ban HFCs immediately. We know that these 

14 chemicals are extremely potent agents of climate 

15 change, and we know that continuing to use them 

16 only exacerbates the climate problem. So in that 

17 sense, the very idea of the SNAP program takes 

18 into account the technological feasibility and 

19 business concerns of the regulated community in 

20 the very structure of the program itself by 

21 removing harmful chemicals only as safer 

22 alternatives come to market. 
50

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 However, NRDC and IGSD believe that for 

2 some sectors transition dates can and should be 

3 accelerated from the dates in the proposed rule. 

4 For example, we believe that the motor vehicle 

5 air conditioning sector can transition by 2017. 

6 In this sector, the industry already has many 

7 vehicle models that use low-GWP alternatives to 

8 HFCs, and manufacturers that have signaled that 

9 they will develop additional models in the next 

10 few years. 

11 Adopting a 2017 date also makes sense 

12 because it aligns the U.S. time line with the 

13 European auto market, which is required to 

14 transition away from HFCs completely by 2017, 

15 five years earlier than the date EPA has proposed 

16 here. 

17 We believe the deadlines should be based 

18 on the leaders in the industry rather than 

19 laggers and setting these accelerated time lines 

20 in certain sectors would do just that. But we 

21 believe the automakers should be able to meet an 

22 earlier transition date. NDRC and IGSD are 
51

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 interested in hearing the concerns of automakers 

2 and other parties who do not believe they can 

3 meet a 2017 deadline, and we would be glad to 

4 work with such parties to discuss how such 

5 concerns can be addressed. 

6 Securing HFC reductions as quickly as 

7 possible is critical to achieving the goals of 

8 the President's Climate Action Plan. In addition 

9 to accelerating the dates in the proposed rule, 

10 we urge EPA to quickly start work on the next 

11 SNAP rule. Further progress to replace higher 

12 GWP substances can be made in these and other 

13 sectors based on the alternatives currently on 

14 the market and those that are being developed. 

15 Further, such action is critical as a 

16 means of reducing domestic emissions of 

17 greenhouse gasses, making the U.S. an industry 

18 leader in safer chemicals and paving the way for 

19 international action through the Montreal 

20 Protocol. Thank you. 

21 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Emily. 

22 Speaker number 10 is John Ferraro from the 
52

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association. 

2 MR. FERRARO: Good morning. My name is 

3 John Ferraro, spelled F-E-R-R-A-R-0, and I'm the 

4 Executive Director of the Extruded Polystyrene 

5 Foam Associations. 

6 XPSA is the trade association 

7 representing manufacturers of extruded 

8 polystyrene foam insulation products and the 

9 industry's raw material suppliers. XPSA is 

10 regular members of Dow, Owens Corning, Pactiv 

11 Building Products collectively manufacture more 

12 than 95 percent of all XPS destined for use in 

13 the North American Market. 

14 XPS insulation applications include 

15 external walls, foundations and basements, 

16 commercial roots, plus other uses. XPS is an 

17 excellent thermal insulation product due to its 

18 high R-value to thickness ratio and plays a 

19 critical role improving the energy efficiency of 

20 buildings by lowering heating and cooling costs 

21 for building owners and occupants. 

22 XPS insulation maintains thermal and 
53

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 structural integrity during the building service 

2 life. With the trend to longer building 

3 lifetimes, the use of thermal insulation only 

4 increases the net savings in energy and 

5 greenhouse gas emissions. The use of thermal 

6 insulation for increased energy efficiency is 

7 important to reduce global warming and plays an 

8 important role in meeting EPA's challenge to 

9 reduce carbon emissions. 

10 First-year savings of XPS far exceed 

11 energy consumed in the manufacturing process. 

12 Emissions of blowing agents and foams such as 

13 HFC-134a are significantly offset by energy 

14 savings over the life of the building. As 

15 currently outlined, the removal of 134a from 

16 foam-blowing agents is scheduled for January 1st, 

17 2017, which is unrealistic, unreasonable and 

18 inconsistent with the gradual phase down approach 

19 proposed by EPA within the Montreal Protocol. 

20 When EPA SNAP evaluated HCFCs, XPS 

21 manufacturers essentially had a 14-year window to 

22 move from CFCs to the current zero ozone 
54

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 depleting HFCs technologies. With each 

2 conversion, all of our manufacturers used 

3 approximately seven years to ensure the safety, 

4 mechanical performance, and integrity of our 

5 products, met the expectations of the industry 

6 and our customers. 

7 At the time, it was acknowledged by EPA 

8 that it would take manufacturers significant time 

9 to convert based on the aged thermal testing to 

10 be conducted, the need to obtain emission 

11 permits, make required modifications to existing 

12 plant designs, order and install equipment to 

13 optimize worker safety and efficiency, and 

14 finally the need to approve and certify these new 

15 formulations to comply with the required industry 

16 standards and state and local codes. 

17 If this proposed rule was not finalized 

18 until early 2015, manufacturers will have a less 

19 than a two-year period to perform the conversion. 

20 Additionally, because it takes several months for 

21 sufficient depletion of the supply channel, it is 

22 realistically an even shorter time frame. In 
55

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 addition to these timing considerations, there 

2 are also questions as to the volume of 

3 commercially-viable replacements to HFCs and 

4 their availability in the United States. 

5 Suppliers do not currently have an alternative 

6 that is both functional and cost equivalent. 

7 Several replacements being proposed for 

8 our industry are flammable, which could result in 

9 significant changes to the manufacturing and 

10 product performance. One of the newer 

11 technologies being offered is not currently 

12 available in the U.S. in commercially-certified 

13 quantities. In 2015, we only anticipate that one 

14 supplier from one location in the U.S. would be 

15 available to supply this technology to the XPS 

16 industry. 

17 An evaluation of XPSA members has 

18 suggested the cost of this product would 

19 significantly increase the cost of XPS products. 

20 A responsibility of the SNAP rule is to assess 

21 the cost effectiveness, and we do not believe 

22 this was adequately conducted for XPS insulation. 
56

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Therefore, this may actually lead to less 

2 greenhouse gas emission savings from in-use foam 

3 insulation contributions due to more expensive 

4 insulations we require to insulate buildings. 

5 This would result in less insulation being used 

6 overall. 

7 We urge you to reconsider the conversion 

8 time line for 134a foam insulation technologies 

9 or consider narrow use exemptions for high10 performance insulation using 134a until the new 

11 technologies are understood and widely available 

12 within the industry. 

13 XPSA appreciates the opportunity to share 

14 its thoughts on the proposed rule and looks 

15 forward to working with EPA in a constructive 

16 manner. Thank you for your consideration of our 

17 comments. 

18 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, John. 

19 Speaker 11 is Ron Shebik from Hussmann 

20 Corporation. 

21 MR. SHEBIK: Good morning, and thank you 

22 for giving me an opportunity this morning. 
57

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Again, my name is Ron Shebik. The name is 

2 S-H-E-B-I-K, and I'm the Regulatory Compliance 

3 Manager for Hussmann Corporation. 

4 Hussmann is a larger company. We have 

5 four locations, four manufacturing locations 

6 located in North America. We make a variety of 

7 products that fall under the commercial 

8 refrigeration equipment spectrum. We make 

9 supermarket cases, we do general merchandisers, 

10 we also build the refrigeration systems as well 

11 as condensing units, and we're also involved with 

12 walk-in cooler/freezer refrigeration. 

13 Okay. Hussmann, as well as our 

14 customers, we support energy efficiency and we 

15 are also in support of clean air policies. 

16 However, the concern we have are the time lines 

17 that are being provided, as well as the options 

18 that are being provided by the EPA. Again, 

19 Customer is a very focused -- we're very center20 focused on our customers. We support our 

21 customer's needs and interests. Most of our 

22 customer's focus areas are reliability, energy 
58

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 efficiency, performance, food safety, product 

2 quality, as well as cost of ownership. And all 

3 of our retailers or end-users overall efficiency 

4 of the store is key to their business. And I 

5 believe those are areas that fall in line with 

6 both the EPA and the DOE. 

7 Excuse me. So, prior to the NOPR coming 

8 out, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Hussmann 

9 has been very active working with the EPA. We 

10 attended public meetings that were available in 

11 2013, as well as early 2014, and we also had 

12 meetings with the EPA, both I believe in April 

13 and June with NAFEM as well as HRI. And again, 

14 our concern there was to make sure that the EPA 

15 understands our concerns and what we feel is 

16 technologically feasible to move forward in these 

17 areas. 

18 First, I want to start talking about the 

19 impact on our customers. For self-contained 

20 merchandisers, our customers have very little 

21 options, either going with HC or transcritical -- 

22 HC refrigerants or transcritical CO2. These are 
59

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 now what's favorable for our customers, and they 

2 can definitely result in a cost increase. 

3 For our supermarket cases, we're going to 

4 be limited to 407 Series refrigerants. The 

5 impact on a customer who has recently installed a 

6 404A system, which has a lifetime up to 25 years, 

7 is something that needs to be looked at and 

8 reviewed. What's it going to do to the lifetime 

9 of that system? 

10 Another concern we had with the use of 

11 alternative refrigerants, in particular 

12 hydrocarbons, is that the end-users can and will 

13 have problems getting building permits in their 

14 stores. I have dealt with this in several 

15 locations already. We acknowledge that UL on the 

16 listing end is up to speed, and they do have 

17 their safety guidelines in place for 

18 certification. However, the end-users affect the 

19 AHJs, the ones who have to approve the 

20 installation in the field that currently is not 

21 there. And in many locations, the AHJs are a 

22 little leery to move forward with the option of 
60

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 propane or other alternative hydrocarbons. 

2 Another concern we have with our -- our 

3 customers have is there is a reduction in new 

4 product development. OEMs are going to be 

5 dedicating all their resources towards testing 

6 and compliance, which means that new product 

7 innovation is going to be tossed out the window 

8 because we, as manufacturers, just need to be 

9 focused on compliance. 

10 As I said, there's an added complexity 

11 for the retailers as far as those who have 

12 systems that are currently compliant with the law 

13 using 404A in their supermarkets. How would 

14 these store owners, these retailers, handle a 

15 refurbishing of a store eight years from now with 

16 a 404A system that has a 25-year lifetime, yet 

17 they want to go to new, highly-efficient cases to 

18 test shift for a system. 

19 These are concerns that need to be 

20 addressed that aren't properly addressed in a 

21 NOPR. 

22 Hussmann has a few -- sorry, I'm running 
61

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 out of time here. We do have some additional 

2 concerns as well. In order to get a product to 

3 market, DOE uses a -- or, EPA, I'm sorry, uses 

4 the term "potentially available." The concern we 

5 have with potentially available? You're 

6 referring to a refrigerant. You're not looking 

7 at the refrigerant system. 

8 In order to get a case developed into 

9 market, we have to look at the condensing unit 

10 and the rest of the components that go into the 

11 system. We're looking at a year, if not longer, 

12 just to get a compressor or a condenser unit 

13 listed. Once it's listed, it goes to our 

14 manufacturer. We put it in our case, and we have 

15 to go through the same procedure with you to get 

16 it listed. Sixteen months is not enough time to 

17 get this work done. We're looking at years, 

18 especially if you have multiple product lines. 

19 So again, that's an area that EPA needs to look 

20 at and hopefully come up with a revised time 

21 line. 

22 I would request that hopefully EPA would 
62

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 allow us to reconsider and perhaps work with the 

2 manufacturers to possibly -- something like a 

3 written negotiated rulemaking where we can sit 

4 down and go over what we feel is technologically 

5 feasible, and we can all move forward in 

6 agreement with what is best for the future. We 

7 feel that 2020 is definitely a better time line 

8 that can be more realistically achieved and 

9 benefit both manufacturers as well as our 

10 customers. 

11 Thank you for your time. 

12 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Ron. Is 

13 Kate DeAngelis present, or another representative 

14 from Friends of the Earth? 

15 (No audible response.) 

16 MS. FARQUHARSON: Okay. We'll move on to 

17 speaker number 13, Peter Williams from New Era 

18 Group. 

19 MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning. My name is 

20 Peter Williams with the New Era Group, 

21 W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. Our group is a nonprofit 

22 consulting group representing interests of 
63

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 refrigerant reclaimers, alternative refrigerant 

2 manufacturers and distributors throughout the 

3 United States. Our clients have invested 

4 significant resources in an effort to support the 

5 United States Clean Air Act. 

6 The very safety net that the nation needs 

7 to support a viable environmental policy, New Era 

8 Group agrees with the President's Climate Action 

9 Policy. The issues of climate change -- the 

10 issue of climate change is very relevant and 

11 significant in America. EPA's latest challenge 

12 is to establish regulatory policy which will 

13 achieve the goals set forth by the Administration 

14 in this matter. 

15 We're expressing concerns that EPA has 

16 not -- that EPA has lost their way with respect 

17 to ensuring the use of accurate data as it vets 

18 and presents these rules to the public for 

19 approval. There is a need to look at the history 

20 that EPA took to phase-out CFCs. In fact, the 

21 phase-out of CFCs was accomplished five years 

22 sooner than required. EPA was able to accomplish 
64

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 an accelerated phase-out and brought enforcement 

2 and venting as an important part of that 

3 rulemaking. 

4 EPA had, at that time, a very significant 

5 tool, the ODC tax, which prevented stockpiling. 

6 In 1993, the 1993 Rule referenced the need for 

7 data collection throughout the rule. The 

8 significance of that action was to understand the 

9 use and the demand for CFCs in order for there to 

10 form a better policy. 

11 The Agency stated policy in 1993 brought 

12 forth the worst first doctrine. It was that 

13 doctrine that led all of us to believe that there 

14 would be an aggressive ACFC phase-out. EPA is to 

15 be commended for the work done with respect to 

16 the Significant New Alternatives Program. 

17 Implementation of the clean air requirements must 

18 be considered as a great cornerstone to success 

19 of the 1995 consumption phase-out. 

20 In addition to this success, the nation 

21 saw recovery and reclamation grow. 

22 Unlike the prior phase-out periods, EPA, 
65

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 having vacated their prior process, did not seek 

2 any data from the industry on the needs or the 

3 inventories of HCFCs. The baseline was too high. 

4 The stockpile of products like R-22 went on for 

5 over 18 years before EPA attempted to identify 

6 the oversupply. 

7 The entrepreneurial spirit of the 

8 companies that develop alternative refrigerants 

9 further supported aggressive refrigerant 

10 management. These SNAP-approved products 

11 provided a hedge for the United States consumer 

12 against high prices. No one holding a patent had 

13 the illusion that these alternatives would last 

14 forever. 

15 Some of our concerns are the failure of 

16 the Rule to create a sustainable path for 

17 reclamation through the requirements of recovery 

18 of all refrigerants: 

19 For every molecule that is recovered and 

20 reclaimed, there is less demand and emphasis on a 

21 new molecule. 

22 No clear policy on what we're regulating, 
66

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 i.e. ozone depletion, global warming, greenhouse 

2 gasses, not to forget CO2e. 

3 HCFC issues are unsettled. This rule and 

4 other EPA actions were predicated on the HCFC 

5 phase-out. 

6 EPA has chosen to allow mobile 

7 applications until the year 2021 to adjust, and 

8 at the same time EPA is pulling the plug on SNAP 

9 products in 2016. 

10 Recordkeeping and reporting must be 

11 placed into the rule for proper understanding of 

12 the current and future inventory demands. 

13 Labeling of products on safety issues to 

14 include any side effects. 

15 This rule seeks to limit the HCFC 

16 production -- this rule seeks to limit the use of 

17 HCFC products, at the same time HCFC-22 and all 

18 of the direct and indirect effects go on being 

19 produced. HCFC-22 has a lower GWP than some of 

20 the SNAP alternatives. But unlike SNAP products, 

21 HCFC has an ozone-depleting factor that SNAP 

22 products don't. 
67

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 We feel that EPA has to rethink the 

2 policy of recordkeeping and reporting. We have 

3 been constant in our request for EPA to require 

4 all holders, sellers and processors report these 

5 amounts, the amounts of these chemicals on an 

6 annual basis. EPA is instituting a national -- 

7 by instituting a national survey/data collection 

8 will allow the public to know what the 

9 inventories are. This action will allow the 

10 public to make comments based on facts, not 

11 assumptions. 

12 We suggest that EPA is not giving the 

13 American public all the benefit of research and 

14 development. The haste to write the rule to 

15 phase-out a class of products in favor of only a 

16 few HFO and flammable materials may result in 

17 some of the products being left on the sidelines 

18 and issues of new chemicals will not be fully 

19 captured. The jump to these new products does 

20 not ensure that all have made -- 

21 MS. FARQUHARSON: Pete, sorry to 

22 interrupt you, but we have to allow enough time 
68

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 for other folks, so thank you. 

2 MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. Thank you. 

3 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you. Speaker 14 

4 will be George Parsons. He's from Ice-O-Matic. 

5 Is George in the room? 

6 (No audible response.) 

7 MS. FARQUHARSON: Okay. We will move on 

8 to speaker number 15, Mac Hess from Premium Spray 

9 Products. 

10 MR. HESS: You'll have to excuse me, this 

11 is the first time I've attended one of these 

12 things. I'm going to have to use my computer on 

13 this presentation. 

14 My name is Mac Hess, H-E-S-S. I'm 

15 President and Managing Partner of Premium Spray 

16 Products, a company out of Marietta, Georgia. 

17 First off, I'd like to thank you for the 

18 opportunity to present information to you today 

19 that is vital to our industry. The issue is more 

20 complex than at first glance and not just one 

21 insulation material as we have against another 

22 insulation material that does not use HFCs. And 
69

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 it's not based on who our competition is and what 

2 they're doing either. It's based on the overall 

3 effects that this has on a company like Premium 

4 Spray Products and small industry. 

5 It is about energy usage that our 

6 products provide efficiency for, and also in the 

7 process of doing that, have a positive overall 

8 effect on the environment. 

9 A little history -- and unlike the 

10 earlier speaker, I do go back to those days of 

11 the 1960s through today. When I was first in the 

12 industry, we were using the R11s, a very good 

13 product, very inexpensive, provided the highest 

14 quality insulation and fire retardant 

15 capabilities in our foams. We were phased out of 

16 the R11 in 1992 in my industry. 

17 In 1992 we went to HCFC, the 141b, which 

18 was not as good. It didn't have the fire 

19 retardancy and quality. The overall products 

20 were inferior to the R-11 products. We made good 

21 products, and we grew the industry in spite of 

22 that. 
70

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 In our industry, we phased out 141b to 

2 HFC to come into compliance with the Montreal 

3 Protocol and were using HFC-245fa, which I know 

4 you're familiar with. This product was a very 

5 very costly endeavor for us to develop, make 

6 replacements, get commercially quality products, 

7 and to meet all the test requirements that our 

8 industry required. And it also added about an 

9 additional 40 percent increase to the cost of our 

10 systems, which is -- I'm sorry. Yeah, it added 

11 about a 40 percent increase to the cost of our 

12 products. 

13 Premium Spray Products is a producer of 

14 polyurethane foam insulation, roofing, and 

15 similar products. Our major market, obviously, 

16 is the spray foam. We were involved in nonspray 

17 foam application where we also need blowing 

18 agents. And for our business, we are required to 

19 have long shelf lives, put it in drums, send it 

20 to job sites and have storage. So safety is an 

21 extremely important thing with us. 

22 The cost of replacing these products for 
71

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 our construction-only OEM customers is extremely 

2 high and forbidding for small companies like us 

3 in research time, testing, customer trials, 

4 approvals and certifications -- oh, sorry. 

5 Well, basically, in summary what I want 

6 to say is, let the market dictate which are the 

7 best products with the best ingredients. Do not 

8 overregulate or restrict quality, viable blowing 

9 agents in the U.S. We ask that additional 

10 monopolies not be created to restrain our 

11 industry and unnecessary cost. And we also would 

12 like to make sure that we are able to get sources 

13 of blowing agents from foreign sources. Existing 

14 blowing agents are proven and have gone through a 

15 very strenuous and complete testing process to 

16 ensure safety and fire -- human safety and fire 

17 regulations. 

18 Next generation blowing agents will and 

19 are coming. But rather than rush and push 

20 arbitrary deadlines, we implore you to act such 

21 that proper testing is done to ensure that the 

22 right and best alternatives are allowed to come 
72

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 to the market. And at this point in time, there 

2 just is not enough data by the formulators like 

3 us who are actually -- who actually put the raw 

4 materials together in viable commercial products 

5 to charge an absolute best path. Insulation 

6 saves energy, big time, and that means it's very 

7 important to get it right. Allow us that time, 

8 please. 

9 MS. FARQUHARSON: Okay. Thank you, Mac. 

10 The next speaker is Brian Casserilla from Kairak. 

11 MR. CASSERILLA: Good morning. My name 

12 is Brian Casserilla. That's C-A-S-S-E-R-I-L-L-A. 

13 I'm the Business Unit Manager for Kairak, a 

14 division of Illinois Tool Works. Thank you for 

15 your time. I truly appreciate the opportunity to 

16 share our thoughts regarding the proposed SNAP 

17 rule. 

18 As a quick background of Kairak, we are 

19 located in Fort Worth, Texas, and have been in 

20 operation for over 25 years. Our company 

21 manufactures self-contained commercial 

22 refrigeration fixtures and large remote systems 
73

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 for food service and food retail applications. 

2 Our products not only meet strict Health 

3 Department standards, but are also designed with 

4 our customer's operations in mind. 

5 Our team takes great pride in our 

6 system's ability to maintain safe food 

7 temperatures in the toughest kitchen 

8 environments. As we like to say in Fort Worth, 

9 Kairak is a refrigeration company of last resort. 

10 Please note, we have always taken an 

11 environmentally friendly proactive approach in 

12 our designs as demonstrated through the release 

13 of our BLU Product line. Kairak's BLU fixtures 

14 and remote systems utilize glycol as a secondary 

15 cooling agent, greatly reducing the amount of 

16 refrigerant needed in our equipment. As 

17 proposed, this SNAP rule making will 

18 fundamentally change the character of released 

19 product designs. The proposal eliminates our 

20 chosen refrigerants for both self-contained 

21 fixtures and remote systems. We also lose 134a 

22 as our preferred blowing agent for cabinet 
74

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 insulation. 

2 We ask that you consider the breadth and 

3 depth of work required to meet the current 

4 proposal deadlines for commercial refrigerant 

5 projects and blowing agents. Every one of our 

6 designs will change. Every one of our product 

7 families will need to be recertified through ETL 

8 or NSF. Every one of our building materials will 

9 need to be modified. Every piece of marketing 

10 and sales literature will need to be updated. 

11 Our entire manufacturing facility will need to be 

12 retooled to keep our employees safe from the 

13 introduction of flammable refrigerants. And at 

14 this time, not all of our suppliers have 

15 commercially available products for us to test 

16 and design into our systems. 

17 Kairak is asking for your help and 

18 partnership as we strive to continuously improve 

19 our products and designs. We request your 

20 consideration for the adjustment of the 

21 implementation time line for refrigerants and 

22 blowing agents to match the full time line given 
75

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 to the manufacturers of commercial refrigeration 

2 products based in Europe. 

3 We also ask for your consideration for 

4 the approval of additional nonflammable 

5 refrigerants for self-contained fixtures as it is 

6 our belief continued use of nonflammable 

7 refrigerants will provide an additional era of 

8 workplace safety for our employees as well as the 

9 people employed by our customers and field 

10 service agents. 

11 Thank you for your consideration. 

12 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Brian. 

13 Speaker 17 is Michael Krupa from BASF. 

14 MR. KRUPA: Thank you for the opportunity 

15 to speak at today's hearing. I am Mike Krupa, 

16 and that's K-R-U-P-A. I’m one of the Technical 

17 Managers at BASF Corporation. 

18 BASF supplies chemicals that are used to 

19 make polyurethane foams for insulation and other 

20 markets affected by the proposed HFC changes. 

21 HFCs are used as blowing agents and act 

22 as the main component to improve insulation 
76

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 properties of the foam. We have been involved in 

2 all of the previous blowing agent changes as 

3 directed by the Montreal Protocol. During all of 

4 the blowing agent changes, a great deal of 

5 formulation work is always necessary. In almost 

6 every case, a change of the blowing agent 

7 requires a major formulation change to provide a 

8 product that works for our customers. 

9 The previous changes from CFCs to HCFCs 

10 to HFCs were not easy and did not occur without a 

11 lot of challenges. There was a lot of cost 

12 incurred due to trials, production runs, and 

13 higher levels of scrap, until the formulations 

14 could be optimized for each of our customers. 

15 We're also concerned about the 

16 availability of new blowing agents. HFO products 

17 are available from Arkema and Honeywell with 

18 another product from DuPont pending TSCA 

19 approval. These manufacturers can comment on the 

20 commercial status and quantities of their 

21 available products. But the indications that we 

22 have been given are that the available supply as 
77

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 of the 1st of January, 2017, will be insufficient 

2 to meet the needs of the affected industries. 

3 The alternative low-GWP blowing agents that are 

4 readily available right now are either flammable 

5 or did not provide adequate insulation 

6 properties. 

7 There's a large capital investment and 

8 several years to implement flammable blowing 

9 agents for a customer that does not currently 

10 have that capability. Timing is our most 

11 important concern. 

12 The time required to effect the changes 

13 discussed here is significant. We estimate that 

14 simply introducing and qualifying new products at 

15 each of our affected customers will take a full 

16 five years to complete. Many of our customers 

17 require agency approvals and certifications to 

18 sell products requiring a flammability rating. 

19 These approvals are granted by Underwriter 

20 Laboratories and Factory Mutual Insurance 

21 Company. As the change in blowing agents is 

22 widespread, affecting multiple industries, UL and 
78

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 FMGlobal are likely to run into serious capacity 

2 constraints regarding their ability to provide 

3 individual product certifications per customer. 

4 As the process is often iterative, these delays 

5 will have a compounding effect on the industry's 

6 ability to change all product formulations in the 

7 required time frame. 

8 We've already implemented low-GWP blowing 

9 agent changes in some of our largest customers. 

10 These conversions took approximately five years 

11 to complete. Conversions at our small customers 

12 will likely be last. We simply do not have the 

13 time or resources to ensure a smooth transition 

14 to the new blowing agents in a two year time 

15 frame. Based on the information presented here 

16 and what we have learned from our industry 

17 partners, BASF would suggest that a delay in the 

18 implementation of the proposed rule is necessary. 

19 We would support a scheduled phase-out of HFC20 134a and HFC-245fa as blowing agents for nonspray 

21 polyurethane foams effective no earlier than 

22 January 1st, 2020. Thank you. 
79

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Michael. 

2 Speaker 18 is Mary Dane from Traulsen. 

3 MS. DANE: Hi. My name is Mary Dane, 

4 that's D-A-N-E, and today I am speaking for 

5 Traulsen, which is an ITW Food Equipment Group 

6 company. We are located in Fort Worth, Texas. 

7 We have over 400 employees that manufacture 

8 various forms of commercial appliances that are 

9 used in many different industries, schools, 

10 hospitals, restaurants -- just a wide variety of 

11 applications. All of our products are used in 

12 freezing, quick chill, holding. They require a 

13 large amount of safety and performance in all 

14 different kinds of applications and heat 

15 requirements, you know, from hot kitchens to cool 

16 stores. 

17 Basically what our concern is today, 

18 besides the safety of the product and the needs 

19 of our customer, is -- is number one, our 

20 concern. And today we would like to discuss the 

21 time line proposal for the removal of a number of 

22 the refrigerants with high GWPs. We would be 
80

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 most affected by R-134a and R-404A. One is used 

2 mostly in refrigeration, the other in freezing, 

3 and of course, those that are used in the foam 

4 blowing agents which would be another whole plank 

5 to part of what we're working on. 

6 We've begun to apply these -- just a 

7 proposed scheduled to how we can come about this. 

8 I got my trusty little pencil out and we figured 

9 we have 512 base models of product, 

10 differentiations of product, and that was before 

11 I started in with hingings and doors and things 

12 like that. So if you extrapolate that out, I 

13 have more than two to 3,000 bills and material 

14 for each and every thing and that doesn't begin 

15 to go into our custom made products. Every 

16 single one of those bills and material will need 

17 to be changed in order to go from the 

18 refrigerants that we currently use to what is 

19 being proposed. 

20 We have no drop-in alternatives in the 

21 rules as stated, though they talk of proposed -- 

22 that there are potential releases. What we're 
81

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 unable to get when we speak to some of the 

2 chemical manufacturers is if there is any 

3 commitment from the EPA to even get a letter of 

4 completed file that says that they're far enough 

5 through their process that we would able to count 

6 on, or to even begin to plan on when we can go to 

7 our compressor manufacturers and ask is there 

8 even a compressor that will use the refrigerant 

9 that you're waiting for to be released. 

10 So that's kind of forced us into where we 

11 can only look at flammable refrigerants. And as 

12 you've heard from the 17 speakers before me in 

13 various forms, flammability refrigerants, while 

14 it's more of a natural and has low GWP, it has a 

15 lot of things that we are concerned about which 

16 requires us to go in and change our factories. 

17 Some of us have multiple facilities. Some of us 

18 have maybe one facility, but we're jam packed. 

19 You know, our facility is the size of seven 

20 football fields. But I'm telling you, trying to 

21 get through that thing is -- you know, is quite 

22 tight. And we have to keep current production 
82

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 going while we're switching over to something 

2 else. 

3 So frankly, we have no commercial drop4 ins. And we've spoke to all the same people that 

5 are speaking today, and we don't see a promising 

6 supply of commercially available components and 

7 things that would be able to be available for us 

8 to even begin testing to be able to plan to meet 

9 a 2016 date. 

10 So, what little we're able to do with 

11 some of the -- from some little samples and the 

12 little quantities that we get of things to test 

13 by, we're finding that there's an energy 

14 efficiency sacrifice that puts us in risk of 

15 meeting DOE requirements that come out separately 

16 from EPA requirements. And sometimes they tend 

17 to fight against one another. So to go to meet 

18 lower GWP, we have to give up something else. 

19 So, basically one of the things we would 

20 ask today, besides a delay of the rule, is the 

21 comments are very important to us. We want to 

22 make sure that we give the EPA enough 
83

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 information, enough data. Also some of the stuff 

2 that's in the first rule that you have going on 

3 where you put the special use categories in, 

4 there's a lot of important topics we want to 

5 address to that. So we want to make sure that 

6 the rule that we're getting ready to comment on 

7 and that's due October 8th, we'd like to have a 

8 little extra time so we can take into 

9 consideration how servicing will effect some of 

10 the other things. 

11 So we would request the minimum of 2025 

12 date as far as being able to convert, especially 

13 if it requires something that's not a drop-in 

14 replacement, and a little extra time on the 

15 comments. 

16 But as always, we appreciate the EPA's 

17 openness to discussion, and we look forward to 

18 further discussion with you. Thank you very 

19 much. 

20 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Mary. 

21 Speaker 19 is Keilly Witman from Shecco America. 

22 MS. WITMAN: Hi. My name is Keilly 
84

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Witman. I'll spell the first name. It's a 

2 little more difficult than the last name. It's 

3 K-E-I-L-L-Y, W-I-T-M-A-N. And I'm here to 

4 represent a company called Shecco, which is a 

5 market development company for natural 

6 refrigerants. If there is time after everyone 

7 else has spoken, I would like to make comments on 

8 behalf of KW Refrigerant Management Strategy, 

9 where I will deal with input I've received from 

10 service techs, end-users, and equipment 

11 manufacturers on commercial systems. 

12 Right now what I'm going to focus on is 

13 self-contained units, stand-alone equipment. 

14 Some might say that delisting the HFC 

15 refrigerants with high GWPs of 134a and up as of 

16 2016 is ambitious. But the writing has been on 

17 the wall for years. EPA has had petitions in 

18 front of it for years, and an awful lot of the 

19 industry should not be surprised that this is 

20 happening. 

21 The Atmosphere America conferences for 

22 the past three years have had limited -- we 
85

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 limited participation to 250 people. They've 

2 sold out every year. There have been 

3 presentations and business cases presented from 

4 90-plus companies for natural refrigerants and 

5 the end-uses talked about; 60 presentations on 

6 trends in natural refrigerants, 22 of them on 

7 commercial refrigeration this past year alone; 

8 20-plus technology case studies, all of which are 

9 available to the public. In addition to those 

10 conferences, FMI Energy features more and more 

11 presentations and commercial refrigeration and 

12 self-contained units related to natural 

13 refrigerants. 

14 The Purdue conference in July 2014 had 

15 400-plus presentations and dozens of research 

16 papers focusing on low GWP, HFCs, HFOs, CO2, 

17 hydrocarbons, and ammonia. So, my only surprise 

18 is that others are surprised. 

19 The 2013 guide, North American Guide on 

20 natural refrigerants which surveyed 440 members 

21 of U.S. industry, resulted in a directory with 

22 over 165 HVAC and R system and component 
86

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 manufacturers and engineering firms that are 

2 already working with natural refrigerants. 

3 There were at least 4,000 light 

4 commercial refrigeration units in the U.S. using 

5 hydrocarbons or CO2 by the end of 2012. UL has 

6 standards for hydrocarbons and CO2 use in 

7 commercial refrigeration. ASHRAE issued a 

8 position document on natural refrigerants in 2009 

9 and reaffirmed it in 2011. AHRI released its 

10 report on low-GWP refrigerants also. 

11 A large number of U.S. manufacturers have 

12 relied on the EPA doing what it has stated it is 

13 going to do. They invested in technology that 

14 uses environmentally friendly refrigerants and 

15 provide energy efficiency gains. Industry needs 

16 certainty to invest. Pulling back on EPA's plans 

17 is a disincentive for those in industry who 

18 prepared for the future. Why would anyone invest 

19 in environmentally friendly technology ahead of 

20 time if EPA halts progress for those who did not 

21 see the writing on the wall or chose to ignore it 

22 to catch up? 
87

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 EPA should not allow itself to be misused 

2 as a protectionist organization for competitors 

3 who cannot compete. Shecco is in the process of 

4 completing its market research on the use of 

5 natural refrigerants for 2014. Data will be 

6 available towards the end of this year as well as 

7 a new directory of companies that are fully ready 

8 and eager to meet the demand that would be 

9 reflected if the SNAP rule went forward in 2016. 

10 Shecco will be providing further data to 

11 EPA in comments by the October deadline, and a 

12 position on EPA's questions about other options 

13 like splitting self-contained into large charge 

14 134A units and small charge low-GWP units, which 

15 will only provide a perverse incentive to certain 

16 manufacturers to increase the amount of 

17 refrigerant used in these units. 

18 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on 

19 behalf of Shecco today, and thank you for holding 

20 this hearing. 

21 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Keilly. Is 

22 John Cabaniss present? 
88

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 (No audible response.) 

2 MS. FARQUHARSON: Great. So, John will 

3 be speaking on behalf of the Association of 

4 Global Automakers. 

5 MR. CABANISS: Good morning. My name is 

6 John Cabaniss. That's spelled C-A-B-A-N-I-S-S, 

7 Director of Environment and Energy at the 

8 Association of Global Automakers. We also 

9 represent 12 automakers that sell cars worldwide. 

10 If I could ask to have my statement that 

11 I gave you put in the record, and I'll just focus 

12 on a couple of things to expand on the remarks 

13 made by my colleague, Julie Becker earlier, from 

14 the Auto Alliance. There are really two things 

15 that, as she pointed out, are of major concerns 

16 to us. 

17 One is the delisting date for cars for 

18 model year '21. We also would like to see more 

19 flexibility. We want to see the flexibility 

20 preserved that's in the federal greenhouse gas 

21 program already for vehicles, and we agree with 

22 the recommendation that the alliance made of 
89

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 postponing the delisting until the end of model 

2 year '25. 

3 That said, we agree with the assessment 

4 that EPA has made in the rulemaking, proposed 

5 rulemaking, that the transition will occur 

6 earlier for most vehicles, and that most will be 

7 transitioned probably by the '21 model year. 

8 However, the flexibility, the compliance 

9 flexibilities that Ms. Becker mentioned are 

10 highly valued by the companies, and as she noted, 

11 the emphasis here is on changing vehicles during 

12 major redesigns. 

13 While the five-year cycle is an average 

14 that was mentioned in the proposal, some models 

15 have much longer redesign cycles, up to seven or 

16 eight years, and in the past some have even been 

17 longer. 

18 For vehicles that were redesigned already 

19 for the 2016 Model year, which begins in just six 

20 months, those that are already locked. And if 

21 they're working on a seven or eight model year 

22 cycle for those models, they wouldn't come up 
90

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 again until '23 or later. So, this is why this 

2 flexibility could be important for at least a 

3 small set of these vehicles through '25. 

4 The other big problem for us is the 

5 export rule, and the main point there of course 

6 is that right now about 2 million are exported 

7 from the U.S. annually, according to Department 

8 of Commerce data. They value those exports at 

9 $52 billion a year. About half of those exports 

10 go to Canada or Mexico. Another 10 percent go to 

11 Europe, so there's a sizable fraction of those 

12 exports that will be transitioning to low-GWP 

13 refrigerants because of either the existing 

14 requirements in Europe or what we'll find here in 

15 North America because of the Federal GHG program 

16 and under NAFTA. But that still leaves 40 

17 percent of vehicles that go to other 

18 destinations, which is a sizable number, has a 

19 significant value. 

20 There are three undesirable outcomes that 

21 could occur. One, by imposing the rule on those 

22 exports -- one is if you -- the risk is that the 
91

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 companies would move the production outside of 

2 the U.S. That would, of course, have job impacts 

3 and balance of payment impacts that would be 

4 significant -- potentially. 

5 Another outcome would be that the 

6 companies could build the vehicles -- continue to 

7 be able to build the vehicles in the U.S. and not 

8 charge the system until they get it outside of 

9 the U.S. That has the undesirable effects of 

10 poor quality control at the factory, and other 

11 potential environmental problems because of more 

12 leakage when you do charge it. 

13 So, the other complication with exports 

14 is that, as we found here in the U.S., when we 

15 did SNAP rules for some refrigerants that are 

16 slightly flammable, there are often fire and 

17 safety code requirements that have to be 

18 addressed along with other things in order to be 

19 able to put those refrigerants into commerce. 

20 Here in the U.S., it took us several years 

21 working with EPA to get state fire codes updated 

22 to allow some of those refrigerants to be sold 
92

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 here. We suspect that some of the same things 

2 will happen in other markets around the world, 

3 and so we again would caution you about applying 

4 the rule to exports going to markets that do not 

5 support these refrigerants. Thank you very much. 

6 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, John. 

7 Speaker 21 is Stephen Schaefer from Hoshizaki 

8 America. 

9 MR. SCHAEFER: Good morning. I'm Stephen 

10 Schaefer, S-C-H-A-E-F-E-R. 

11 I work for Hoshizaki America and we thank 

12 the EPA for their important work and the 

13 opportunity for industry engagement in this 

14 process. 

15 Hoshizaki America is a small business 

16 from Georgia that specializes in food equipment, 

17 especially commercialized machines and commercial 

18 refrigerators and freezers. We pride ourselves 

19 on quality, reliability and being stewards to the 

20 environment. 

21 Hoshizaki America has been chosen as 

22 Energy Star partner of the year two years running 
93

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 due to the ingenuity involved in qualifying many 

2 Energy Star products. 

3 Hoshizaki America would like to join the 

4 EPA on a mission to achieve goals in the SNAP 

5 program without compromising occupational health, 

6 public safety or market competitiveness. The 

7 choices that the EPA is giving the commercial 

8 refrigeration industry to phase-out R-134a and 

9 R404-A present many challenges and complications 

10 on all the fronts that could cripple the industry 

11 if not given proper evaluation. 

12 One of the primary challenges in this 

13 proposal is limited substitutes. Carbon dioxide 

14 is in no way a viable replacement for R-134a or 

15 R-404A in stand-alone units. The pressures 

16 needed by the refrigeration system are five times 

17 that of the current refrigerants. To change the 

18 system to accept carbon dioxide would result in 

19 larger pipes and a high risk of death for 

20 undertrained service personnel and innocent 

21 bystanders when servicing. 

22 No suppliers, except one, have even 
94

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 attempted to offer carbon dioxide components for 

2 the industry. Carbon dioxide has been known for 

3 decades, but has never been considered viable due 

4 to the lack of support, components, and failures 

5 in the industry. 

6 Isobutane and propane are also suggested 

7 replacements due to low GWP. These choices have 

8 restrictions and risks due to high flammability 

9 that make the design cycle complicated and 

10 problematic for potential injuries to school 

11 children, hospital patients and prisoners to name 

12 a few. 

13 Risks, such as the potential for sparks, 

14 in the current system would need to be carefully 

15 reviewed in relation to flammable refrigerants. 

16 High flammability refrigerants pose risk of death 

17 when combined with service people who are thrust 

18 into working on the equipment without the proper 

19 amount of training time. 

20 Manufacturers' production lines would 

21 also need to be transformed to take into account 

22 flammable charge. On top of this, there are 
95

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 strong concerns that energy efficiency for the 

2 alternative refrigerants that could pose a great 

3 risk to the industry. The Department of Energy 

4 has imposed much tighter restrictions for energy 

5 use, and each model must be designed to meet 

6 these requirements in order to be sold. 

7 Refrigerant change is also to be handled 

8 concurrently with the mandate to change foam 

9 blowing agents by 2017. Added to the list of 

10 mandatory tasks, each unit must be evaluated for 

11 safety and sanitation which adds time to the 

12 design cycle. 

13 Hoshizaki America estimates that the 

14 minimum time for each model group is 30 weeks due 

15 to design, testing, and approval for overloaded 

16 third-party approval agencies. There is no way 

17 that we could do this in two years and component 

18 manufacturers, such as compressors, have 

19 specified they do not have products ready for 

20 each model that we have until two to three years 

21 from now. 

22 As demonstrated, the complexity of 
96

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 changing refrigerants while simultaneously 

2 designing to meet new mandatory energy efficiency 

3 requirements makes it impossible to deliver in 18 

4 months. This phase-out should be done 

5 methodically, with proper alternatives given not 

6 only to help the environment, but also properly 

7 prioritize the safety for manufacturers, service 

8 personnel and end-users alike. 

9 If the alternatives are not as efficient 

10 and end up requiring more energy, the net result 

11 would be an increasing carbon footprint and even 

12 more damage to the environment. 

13 Hoshizaki America implores the EPA to 

14 allow for a 10 year phase-out for commercial 

15 refrigeration to not only allow for refrigerant 

16 and component manufacturers to come up with 

17 viable nonflammable choices, but also for the 

18 manufacturers to save countless lives by not 

19 rushing to change over refrigerant without the 

20 time for each safety aspect to be considered. 

21 Unlike previous changeovers, the 

22 alternatives given now are not truly in the 
97

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 infant stage for entering the U.S. Market. 

2 Hoshizaki America agrees that we need to be good 

3 stewards for the environment, but as the original 

4 intent of SNAP, flammable refrigerants should not 

5 be the first choice and proper time should be 

6 given to safeguard, so to protect innocent lives 

7 from being lost. 

8 Thank you for your time in this process. 

9 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Stephen. 

10 The next speaker is Michael Coyle from Bally 

11 Refrigerated Boxes. 

12 MR. COYLE: Good morning and thank you 

13 for the opportunity to speak today. My name is 

14 Mike Coyle, that's C-O-Y-L-E. I'm the President 

15 of Bally Refrigerated Boxes. 

16 Bally is a leading U.S. manufacturer of 

17 commercial refrigeration equipment, and we 

18 produce a variety of insulated panels that are 

19 sold both domestically and internationally. The 

20 company's principle markets are institutional 

21 food service and refrigerated warehouses. 

22 Bally's customer base includes hundreds 
98

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 of food service equipment dealers and 

2 refrigeration wholesalers. Most of our customers 

3 lack formal engineering personnel and look to us 

4 for guidance and interpretation of new 

5 regulations as they relate to the products that 

6 we manufacture. 

7 Bally is very concerned with the proposed 

8 SNAP rule to phase out HFC-245fa by January 1st, 

9 2017. Bally does support the gradual phase down 

10 of HFCs across many applications. However, a 

11 more responsible timetable must be considered for 

12 our sector of the market. The current timetable 

13 is virtually impossible to achieve, and I will 

14 attempt to put into context the issues that 

15 surround my concern. 

16 Bally manufactures structural insulated 

17 panels that range from 6 to 28 foot in length, 

18 any new urethane foam formulation needs to be 

19 thoroughly tested for structural integrity, 

20 insulating value, flame spread, smoke generation, 

21 adhesion properties and proper flow through our 

22 existing foam processing equipment to adequately 
99

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 fill these panels. 

2 And I need to comment -- the raw testing 

3 costs and the resource divergent cost to Bally 

4 and the individual companies in our industry will 

5 be enormous. Also we don't know how the limited 

6 number of testing labs will be able to 

7 accommodate the large burden of testing for all 

8 of the companies that will need to go through the 

9 process. These tests are Underwriters Lab, 

10 Factory Mutual, Miami Dade Structural Testing, 

11 DOE K Value and R Value Testing that's now 

12 promulgated, IBC and all local building codes as 

13 they relate to our foam insulated structures. 

14 Bally is not aware of any existing HFO-based 

15 Class One system that is available for the 

16 industry right now to test in a production 

17 environment. To my knowledge, only laboratory 

18 lot sizes of pre-blended systems have been made 

19 available to our industry. 

20 Our industry generally procures and 

21 stores raw materials in large 40,000 pound 

22 shipments, therefore shelf life and solubility of 
100

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 any new HFO on the polysystem requires it to be 

2 thoroughly tested and eliminated as having any 

3 potential issues. We are not certain of the 

4 chemical companies’ production capacity to cover 

5 the millions of pounds required for our segment 

6 of the industry. 

7 We believe that foreign manufacturers of 

8 insulated panels will begin to import finished 

9 panels that have either HFC-141b or 245fa in 

10 their finished composite panel, and that will be 

11 cost disadvantageous to Bally and our other 

12 competitors domestically. We have seen this 

13 example in the past. 

14 We have no data currently about the 

15 toxicity of the system, but we do plan to test 

16 that thoroughly. We asked EPA to do the 

17 following: please delay the implementation and 

18 phase-out of 245fa until at least 2020, 

19 preferably longer. Based on my personal 

20 experience during the change to 245fa, it will 

21 take at least this long to perfect the 

22 commercialization of the foam system. Thank you 
101

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 very much. 

2 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Michael. 

3 The next speaker is number 23, Jason Paquette 

4 from Structural Concepts. 

5 MR. PAQUETTE: Good morning. My name is 

6 Jason Paquette. It's P-A-Q-U-E-T-T-E. 

7 Structural Concepts would like to thank the EPA 

8 for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

9 We are a privately held company with 480 

10 employees located in Mesquite in Michigan. We 

11 are a producer of remote and stand-alone 

12 commercial refrigerated units for the retail and 

13 food service industry. Eighty percent of our 

14 equipment is stand-alone with the vast majority 

15 of our cases falling in the three-quarter to 

16 three horsepower range. 

17 We have over 600 active models and -- 

18 MS. FARQUHARSON: Jason, I'm sorry. Do 

19 you mind speaking in the mic, please? 

20 MR. PAQUETTE: We have over 600 active 

21 models in our product offering. SCC supports the 

22 efforts to reduce the overall energy usage and 
102

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 carbon footprint our product has on the 

2 environment. With each phased down of 

3 refrigerant gases in the past, there has been a 

4 readily available alternative refrigerant that 

5 required no more than a compressor and valve 

6 change. Today, we are left with only flammable 

7 refrigerants or a high-pressure refrigerant with 

8 no component availability and reduced efficiency 

9 rates at elevated temperatures. 

10 With the current charge limits on 

11 flammable A3 refrigerants, only approximately 15 

12 percent of our product line could be converted to 

13 a hydrocarbon refrigerant with a single 

14 condensing unit. The rest of the product 

15 offering would need to go to multiple condensing 

16 units which would in turn increase energy 

17 consumption. 

18 In addition to compressors and valves, 

19 heat exchanges and electrical safety components 

20 need to be designed into the product to conform 

21 to current UL, NSF, and DOE regulations. These 

22 units would need a complete redesign of the 
103

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 refrigeration system and have to be retested and 

2 recertified. 

3 To keep the charge limit down, hot gas 

4 condensate heaters would need to be replaced with 

5 electric heaters, again increasing overall energy 

6 consumption that could potentially put the unit 

7 over the allowable DOE energy levels. For a 10-

8 year life expectancy, this would result in 

9 increased energy and an increased overall carbon 

10 footprint between 10 and 40 percent over our 

11 404A. 

12 Many customers have concerns about 

13 flammable products placed into their store 

14 environments. Service companies would need to be 

15 trained to handle these refrigerants. Just 

16 implementing the charging and handling of the 

17 flammable refrigerant in a manufacturing 

18 environment would take several years. 

19 The only other refrigerant in 

20 consideration for stand-alone refrigerated units 

21 is R-744. Currently, there are only a few 

22 compressor manufacturers that produce CO2
104

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 compressors, and these are primarily for small 

2 vending machines and large refrigerated rack 

3 manufacturers with barely any offerings in 

4 between. The major compressor manufacturers of 

5 fractional and small horsepower compressors have 

6 abandoned the possibility of producing a CO2

7 compressors as it is not economically feasible 

8 for them with the increased material thicknesses 

9 due to the high pressures and the inherent 

10 inefficiency of CO2 when ran transcritical. 

11 With compressors that are double the weight of 

12 their HFC counterparts, the increased material 

13 and increased shipping weight, again, adds to the 

14 overall carbon footprint. 

15 When ran above the critical point (which 

16 many stores are going to be up to 80 degrees) so 

17 it would be common, the systems consume much more 

18 energy than conventional systems today. Using 

19 data from one CO2 compressor manufacturer with a 

20 95 degree gas cooler temperature, the overall 

21 energy increases by 45 percent from the current 

22 R-404A compressor. This inefficiency would push 
105

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 the case over the allowable energy levels as 

2 dictated by the DOE and exceed the R-404A carbon 

3 footprint by approximately 30 percent. 

4 Both of these alternative refrigerant 

5 choices would leave our customers with costly, 

6 less efficient product. The current proposal 

7 would force a large percentage of our product out 

8 of the market due to the charge limits, component 

9 availability, regulatory limitations and time 

10 lines. It will take tens of thousand of hours to 

11 redesign and test new systems and making a 

12 January 2016 date unfeasible. 

13 The EPA cannot just focus on the GWP 

14 number for a given refrigerant without taking 

15 into consideration the overall energy usage and 

16 the overall carbon footprint of the equipment 

17 itself. If the industry is forced to go to only 

18 these refrigerants, we find ourselves in a 

19 situation where we no longer meet the energy 

20 requirements set forth by the Department of 

21 Energy. 

22 This brings us to the need for additional 
106

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 low-GWP refrigerants. Currently, SNAP has 30 

2 refrigerants submitted to them for approval. 

3 We've tested some of these refrigerants with very 

4 good results. HFO blends such as R-448A and 

5 R-449A have one-third the GWP of R-404A and 

6 provide up to a 10 percent energy reduction while 

7 still remaining an A1 nonflammable, low pressure 

8 refrigerant. We, as well as other CRE 

9 manufacturers, have evaluated this refrigerant in 

10 our labs and have validated these findings. 

11 In lieu of this, the supermarket systems 

12 and condensing units are allowed refrigerants 

13 that standalone retail systems are not. 

14 Standalone refrigeration units should be allowed 

15 to use refrigerants such as R-407A and R-407C, 

16 just like the supermarket systems. While still 

17 not being able to meet the January 2016 date, 

18 these alternatives could be implemented 

19 dramatically faster than the proposed 

20 alternatives. 

21 With the cost, safety, and regulatory 

22 component availability concerns with the current 
107

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 proposed alternatives for standalone 

2 refrigeration units and the sheer amount of time 

3 it would take to redesign over 600 models, we 

4 would need up to 10 years to implement across all 

5 of our models. If the supermarket refrigerant 

6 alternatives that are still on the acceptable 

7 list for the supermarkets, or ideally the HFO 

8 blends could be added to the allowable 

9 refrigerant usage list, implementation could be 

10 done in a much faster time frame. Thank you. 

11 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Jason. 

12 Speaker 24 is next, Terry Brooks from CrownTonka, 

13 ThermalRite. 

14 MR. BROOKS: Thank you for the 

15 opportunity. My name is Terry Brooks. I'm with 

16 CrownTonka, Thermalrite International Cold 

17 Storage. That's B-R-O-O-K-S. We're 

18 manufacturers of walk-in coolers and freezers 

19 located in Plymouth, Minnesota with six 

20 manufacturing locations. 

21 The proposed ruling would be extremely 

22 damaging to small family-owned businesses such as 
108

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 ours. At this time, there is no economical 

2 replacement for blowing agents currently in use. 

3 The switch to alternatives would not only raise 

4 the cost of our products, but also saddle the 

5 walk-in cooler freezer companies, many of which 

6 are small privately-held businesses such as ours, 

7 with huge investments and testing and equipment, 

8 which would put many of us out of business. 

9 Further, the cost of our products would 

10 rise significantly, hurting our customers, many 

11 of whom are independent restaurants and grocery 

12 stores. 

13 This ruling should be postponed or 

14 delayed until a viable alternative blowing agent 

15 is commercially available. We propose at least 

16 2020. The proposed rulemaking also would impact 

17 our industry's ability to comply with the DOE 

18 regulations that have currently been enacted. 

19 Thank you very much for the opportunity. 

20 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Terry. 

21 We're going to skip ahead to number 26, Scott 

22 Lewit from the Structural Composites and Compsys. 
109

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. LEWIT: Good morning, and thank you 

2 for allowing me to speak. I am Scott Lewit, 

3 L-E-W-I-T, President of Structural Composites and 

4 Compsys Inc., a small businesses located in 

5 Melbourne, Florida. We formed in 1987, and we 

6 currently employ 40 people from Ph.D. to high 

7 school graduates. We supply the composites 

8 industry with cutting-edge technology and 

9 products that affordably improve efficiency. Our 

10 PRISMA Preform Technology is a game-changing 

11 technology broadly employed in the recreational 

12 marine industry, and in the process of 

13 transitioning into the broader transportation, 

14 infrastructure and building construction markets. 

15 The technology allows for high rate 

16 production of lightweight, load-bearing 

17 composites. We can support the loads of a 

18 highway bridge deck, or we can provide superior 

19 insulation and structures to trailers, buses, 

20 railcars, recreational vehicles and intermodal 

21 containers, just to name a few. 

22 Our technology has recently received 
110

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 national recognition. We won the 2014 National 

2 Innovation Award. We won the 2014 Tibbett's 

3 Award. We won three congressional medals of 

4 merit for our technology, all derived from small 

5 business innovative research work for the Navy. 

6 We are survivors of the great economic 

7 downturn. We are more recently survivors of 

8 sequestering and government shutdowns. We have 

9 been busy providing leadership and technology to 

10 help the nation. And in doing so, we are 

11 creating the groundwork for a great resurgence in 

12 U.S. manufacturing using advanced composites. 

13 In the DOD, we have proven the benefits, 

14 lowered manufacturing costs, decreased weight. 

15 This gives us increased efficiency, performance, 

16 and payload ability. 

17 We recently teamed and are a key partner 

18 in the Composites NOW! Team. Here, we are 

19 competing for $170 million Department of Energy 

20 and industry-funded effort to bring composites 

21 into the transportation, wind energy, and 

22 compressed gas storage markets. Our small 
111

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 business, Structural Composites, was able to 

2 commit over $30 million of cost share to the 

3 team. While we have not heard if we have won or 

4 not, the effort has already caused a critical 

5 mass accelerating our technology into the 

6 transportation segment. 

7 The core of our innovation is the PRISMA 

8 Preform technology. Here, we take fiber 

9 reinforcements and we cast them into shape using 

10 expanding 134A based polyurethane foam produced 

11 by BSF. A key aspect of our technology is the 

12 foam expanding into the fabric, but not going 

13 through it, allowing the outer fiber layers to be 

14 ready for accepting resin. 

15 Several years ago, we had the daunting 

16 task of switching from R-22 to 134a. At that 

17 time, we had the 134a material available and had 

18 run trials to determine that it could be adapted. 

19 The EPA granted us an extension to allow this 

20 transition. We made it, but it was costly for 

21 this small business and it sucked resources from 

22 our core mission. 
112

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Ladies and gentlemen, the proposed change 

2 to ban 134a is widely unknown to the impacted 

3 industry, small businesses like us. 

4 The same 134a that we use in our 

5 performing process is key to several industries, 

6 some of which we supply such as U.S. Coast Guard 

7 approved foam, which is widely used in the 

8 recreational marine industry. Here the foam 

9 provides both structure and floatation, thus the 

10 change in blowing agent involves much work and 

11 buy-in from our boat building customers to the 

12 regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard, 

13 American Bureau of Shipping, American Boat and 

14 Yacht Council, and the DOD depending on 

15 application. 

16 We ask for balance. Our PRISMA 

17 technology is proven to provide significant 

18 weight, performance, and cost advantages. The 

19 efficiency is dramatic, from DOD craft that are 

20 40 percent more payload fuel efficient to 

21 refrigerated trailers that are over 25 percent 

22 more thermally efficient and 15 percent lighter 
113

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 and will have far longer extended service 

2 performance. Clearly, the efficiency and reduced 

3 manufacturing impact of our technology offsets 

4 the very small amount of nonrecurring 134A foam 

5 used. 

6 Based on our experience with R22 to the 

7 134a transition, it is not by any means a snap. 

8 Once a proven alternative is available, we will 

9 need four to six years for transition. This 

10 would give us time for plant evaluations, 

11 customer acceptance trials, agency certification 

12 and plant conversion. As we have no alternative 

13 at this time, we ask that the composites industry 

14 be exempt from the rule change and remain exempt 

15 until a viable alternative is available. 

16 Thank you for your consideration of small 

17 business and U.S. manufacturing as you consider 

18 this decision. We will be sending written 

19 comments. Thank you. 

20 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Scott. 

21 Speaker 27 is Paul Ramsbottom from American Panel 

22 Corporation. 
114

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. RAMSBOTTOM: Good morning. Paul 

2 Ramsbottom, R-A-M-S-B-O-T-T-O-M, American Panel. 

3 I'm here today representing American 

4 Panel, a family-owned small business company 

5 manufacturing walk-ins for the commercial food 

6 industry in Central Florida. 

7 As a small company we are especially 

8 sensitive to this. In our opinion, it's an 

9 accelerated phase-out of HFC refrigerant. 

10 Accelerated phase-outs require extra expense, man 

11 hour to condense the time line, and make fully 

12 operational using the new foam insulation. 

13 This dedication of our time and resources 

14 pushes aside our other, what I call other new 

15 product commitments. Basically, it's a big 

16 problem for us. 

17 We have, as a company, gone through the 

18 CFC phase-out from that foam insulation to the 

19 HCFC-141b foam phase-out, and then into HFC20 245fa. Each of those changes was never clear cut 

21 for us. The time from being advised by our foam 

22 insulation supplier that they had an acceptable 
115

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 formulation until production startup of this new 

2 foam was never less than one year and was 

3 actually closer to two years. There was always 

4 issues, and the foam insulation -- our present 

5 foam insulation supplier is still six to eight 

6 months away from having field trial samples of 

7 the HFC-free foam. 

8 We've heard earlier that there are some 

9 natural refrigerants. There clearly is not a 

10 natural refrigerant available in foam insulation 

11 that we would use in the panels in panel 

12 manufacturing. And then also, we do not care to 

13 use pentanes because DOE has recently imposed the 

14 requirements for -- new requirements for our 

15 walk-in panel manufacturers, and those 

16 requirements do not permit us to use pentanes 

17 because they would make us increase the panel 

18 thickness size, which again puts a burden on us 

19 economically because we have to change our 

20 fixtures. 

21 Although there's been some announcements 

22 and publications about a major appliance 
116

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 manufacturer using HFC -- sorry, HFO foam 

2 insulation, this formulation is not a Class One 

3 foam. For those that do not know, Class One is a 

4 requirement for our industry to certify us for UL 

5 and Factory Mutual. It allows us to manufacture 

6 a large rated -- fire rated structures such as 

7 refrigerator warehouses. 

8 We do not have a Class One foam precedent 

9 right now, so even if this could happen within 

10 the next year, this provides us little time to 

11 certify the foam with UL and in our case with 

12 Factory Mutual. And you've heard from another 

13 manufacturer, Miami Dade, all these panel 

14 manufacturers represented here today, they would 

15 fall in line -- they would have to fall in line 

16 and wait their turn for the panel certification. 

17 Factory Mutual, for instance, quotes just 

18 on normal panel certification process of six 

19 months. So given that there is eight to 10 major 

20 panel manufacturers here, this doesn't make 

21 logical sense to us. 

22 Lastly, we're just asking for the delay 
117

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 in implementation of the HFC phase-out until 

2 2020. This allows time to choose an appropriate 

3 manufacturer, work with them through field tests 

4 of this new formulation and use up existing HFC5 245fa foam stock and deplete our stock panels 

6 while implementing the new foam into our plasto 

7 sink tanks and dispensing equipment. Thank you 

8 for your time and consideration. 

9 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Paul. Is 

10 Lee Thames present, Thermo-Kool? 

11 MR. THAMES: I am Lee Thames, 

12 T-H-A-M-E-S, Vice President and Operations 

13 Manager of Thermo-Kool. We're a small business, 

14 walk-in cooler manufacturer located in Laurel, 

15 Mississippi. 

16 We currently use an HFC blowing agent to 

17 expand the urethane foam of our walk-in panels. 

18 That is on the unacceptable list by EPA. Since 

19 1992, due to the Montreal Protocol we have gone 

20 through two blowing agent changes, from a CFC to 

21 an HCFC, and now to an HFC. Each time this has 

22 occurred, processability becomes more and more 
118

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 difficult -- it's more and more difficult, as 

2 well as extreme cost, time, and labor due to the 

3 equipment changes and numerous other parameters 

4 that come with each change that highly affect our 

5 business. 

6 Due to the proposed SNAP rule by EPA to 

7 phase-out the current HFC blowing agents, we are 

8 extremely concerned about a number of issues 

9 which are the time span, the cost and efficiency. 

10 We believe the change to the alternative blowing 

11 agents is inevitable. However, the proposed date 

12 of January 1st, 2017, especially the idea to 

13 accelerate the now announced unacceptable blowing 

14 agents to 2016 is totally unreasonable. We 

15 propose a date of at least no sooner than 2020. 

16 There are three refrigerant companies 

17 that have developed HFOs and only one has a 

18 plant, to my knowledge, that is manufacturing 

19 product. However, there is no way that the 

20 current capacity of this plant can handle the 

21 number of walk-in cooler companies and other 

22 panel manufacturers that use blowing agents by 
119

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 2017. In discussion with one of the plant 

2 account managers with one of these refrigerants 

3 plants, it was stated that after engineering 

4 drawings for the plan are completed, it would 

5 take approximately 18 to 24 months to erect a new 

6 manufacturing plant that could be built either in 

7 the states or possibly even in Asia. 

8 The concern is that there is not enough 

9 supply of the refrigerants used as blowing agents 

10 to supply the entire walk-in manufacturing 

11 industry. The foam system houses, BASF, Dow, and 

12 Carpenter to name a few, do not have systems 

13 utilizing HFOs as blowing agents readily 

14 available. Based on past development schedules, 

15 it takes a minimum of at least two years for the 

16 flammability, toxicity, and field testing before 

17 they feel confident to actually sell a new system 

18 to their customers. 

19 As a panel manufacturer, the last thing 

20 we need is failure or a safety-related issue to 

21 occur with our end-users that consists of 

22 schools, restaurants, hospitals, hotels, prisons, 
120

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 et cetera. It took a major appliance 

2 manufacturer five years to do developmental 

3 testing to qualify and get an HFO commercially 

4 available as a blowing agent. 

5 Shelf life is also a major concern as 

6 mentioned earlier, that the solubility does not 

7 allow the product to stay within the system long 

8 enough to actually produce. 

9 There are a lot of uncertainties 

10 regarding equipment modifications that would most 

11 likely be required to adjust to the new molecules 

12 and the HFOs. And if hydrocarbons are used as an 

13 alternative, explosion proof motors and equipment 

14 would be required. Lead times of the equipment 

15 would be significantly increased since this would 

16 affect all of the manufacturers. 

17 There would also be a significant cost 

18 burden. Equipment modifications due to changing 

19 to an HFO or a hydrocarbon blown system would be 

20 in the neighborhood of anywhere from $100,000 to 

21 $500,000. Third-party testing, such as UL and 

22 FM, are a major cost burden that is required, not 
121

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 only for fire safety but for numerous other 

2 municipalities requiring seismic, wind, and other 

3 load bearing tests. Every time there is a foam 

4 formulation change, new testing is required such 

5 as mentioned earlier, Miami Dade County, Florida 

6 Building Code, Houston approval, those types of 

7 places that could cost it in excess of $150,000 

8 for the various tests. Certifying labs would not 

9 be able to manage the amount of testing in the 

10 time frame proposed since this change would 

11 affect every walk-in manufacturer in the 

12 industry. 

13 We are just now also recovering from the 

14 lost margins due to the recession that we have 

15 encountered over the recent years, especially 

16 small businesses are struggling to get back to a 

17 financially stable condition and just need more 

18 time before we have to go through the next 

19 generation of blowing agent changes. 

20 It has been -- 

21 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Lee. Sorry. 

22 We have to allow enough time for other speakers. 
122

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. THAMES: Okay. Thank you very much. 

2 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you. The next 

3 speaker is Charlie Souhrada from North American 

4 Association and Food Equipment Manufacturing. 

5 MR. SOUHRADA: Good morning. My name is 

6 Charlie Souhrada. I'm Director of Members 

7 Services for the North American Association of 

8 Food Equipment Manufacturers. My last name is 

9 spelled S-O-U-H-R-A-D-A. 

10 NAFEM appreciates the opportunity for 

11 industry engagement and discussion regarding the 

12 delisting process outlined in SNAP. NAFEM 

13 represents more than 500 member companies, many 

14 of which you've heard from this morning and many 

15 which you'll hear more from later. 

16 These companies manufacture commercial 

17 food service equipment and supplies for the food 

18 away from home market. These member companies 

19 make the tools used to prepare, cook, serve, and 

20 store food safely, including a variety of 

21 refrigeration products ranging from blast 

22 chillers, coolers, freezers, and even ice cream 
123

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 and soft serve machines. 

2 NAFEM has a long history of supporting 

3 the prevention of climate change and the 

4 reduction of energy consumption. More than 10 

5 years ago, NAFEM members actively worked with the 

6 EPA to help start the Energy Star program for 

7 commercial food service equipment. That active 

8 support continues today and includes other 

9 environmentally focused activities such as the 

10 development of life cycle and carbon footprint 

11 calculators in helping our members understand 

12 global environmental standards such as WEEE RoHS. 

13 We do these things because our customers demand 

14 them. They're good for business, good for the 

15 environment, and they're the right thing to do. 

16 NAFEM is gravely concerned that EPA's 

17 proposed SNAP rulemaking will impose unintended 

18 negative consequences, including possibly 

19 compromising the occupational health of employees 

20 through the commercial refrigeration 

21 manufacturing, distribution, service, and end-use 

22 markets. These dangers also could extend to the 
124

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 public at large as flammable refrigerants are 

2 forced into certain market applications. In all 

3 applications, EPA's proposal does not provide 

4 adequate time to research, design, test, train, 

5 and certify these products. 

6 In addition, our industry has been 

7 inundated by various DOE energy standards and 

8 EPA's July 9th proposal to add refrigerants under 

9 SNAP. Because of the timing and cumulative 

10 impacts of these government actions, we 

11 respectfully request a 60 day comment period 

12 extension to this proposal. 

13 If finalized, this proposal will have 

14 dire consequences on our industry. The proposal 

15 will raise the cost of finished goods while 

16 reducing the number and diversity of products 

17 consumers need in the market place. U.S. 

18 manufacturers also will be significant 

19 disadvantaged in the domestic and global markets 

20 because European manufacturers have a significant 

21 head start with these deadlines and are more 

22 likely to meet the strict requirements than 
125

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 domestic manufacturers. 

2 These impacts, paired with the high 

3 levels of capital required to develop, 

4 manufacture, and test products with new 

5 refrigerants by the short compliance window of 

6 2016, will cause refrigeration manufacturers to 

7 cut jobs and move out of the refrigeration 

8 industry, or close their doors entirely. For 

9 these reasons, we propose an alternate time frame 

10 based on industry deliverables, experiential 

11 knowledge, and to assure the success of all 

12 businesses in the safe transition to low-GWP 

13 refrigerants. 

14 NAFEM members are greatly concerned that 

15 the proposal, as written, limits our industry to 

16 four refrigerant options: ammonia, CO2, isobutane, 

17 and propane. Considering current mandates 

18 originating out of the DOE regarding energy 

19 efficiency combined with the toxicity, 

20 flammability, and costs of these alternatives, 

21 the industry is facing lengthy research and 

22 engineering challenges. 
126

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Based on the experience by European 

2 manufacturers and prior changes within the 

3 domestic industry, we believe that EPA should 

4 provide at least a 10-year time frame for its 

5 proposed conversion. While we appreciate EPA's 

6 willingness to meet with NAFEM and other affected 

7 stakeholders, NAFEM believes that EPA's docket 

8 lacks inappropriately robust industry analysis of 

9 the food refrigeration equipment manufacturing 

10 industry, potential impacts on small 

11 manufacturers, as well as their business 

12 customers, many which are small, and any 

13 reasonable support for EPA's regulatory 

14 flexibility act conclusions. 

15 The Reg Flex Act as amended by SBREFA 

16 requires federal agencies to prepare an initial 

17 and final regulatory flexibility analysis that 

18 describes the impact of the proposed rule on 

19 small entities. 

20 Here, EPA certified that the proposed 

21 rule will not have a significant impact on a 

22 substantial number of small entities. NAFEM 
127

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 recommends that EPA initiate a SBREFA small 

2 entity representative review panel immediately to 

3 help inform any final rulemaking. 

4 And finally NAFEM, of course, is 

5 available to meet with EPA to discuss all of its 

6 concern with the proposed rule and possible 

7 solutions that will both achieve the Agency's 

8 regulatory obligations, while not unduly 

9 impacting our industry and our customers. We 

10 will be submitting detailed comments before the 

11 close of the comment period, and we thank you 

12 very much for this opportunity. 

13 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Charlie. 

14 Speaker 30 is Karim Amrane from Air Conditioning, 

15 Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. 

16 MR. AMRANE: Good morning. My name is 

17 Karim Amrane, spelled A-M-R-A-N-E, and I'm with 

18 the Air Conditioning and Heating and 

19 Refrigeration Institute, AHRI. We appreciate the 

20 opportunity to appear before you this morning and 

21 provide input into the proposed rulemaking. 

22 AHRI is a trade association representing 
128

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 manufacturers of heating, cooling, water heating, 

2 and commercial refrigeration equipment. We have 

3 a long history in support of environmental 

4 issues. We have worked very closely with the EPA 

5 on issues related to climate change, refrigerant 

6 purity, recovery and recycle equipment, 

7 technician certification, and AHRI has been an 

8 industry leader in researching alternative 

9 refrigerants. 

10 In the 1990s, our alternative refrigerant 

11 evolution program successfully led to the 

12 identification of substitute refrigerants to 

13 ozone depleting substances. Three years ago, we 

14 started a similar program to identify low-GWP 

15 alternatives. The program has evaluated, so far, 

16 38 alternatives in various air conditioning and 

17 refrigeration applications. Results for the 

18 first phase of the programs are available on the 

19 AHRI website. 

20 The second phase was initiated this year 

21 to evaluate additional low-GWP alternatives. 

22 AHRI supports an amendment to the Montreal 
129

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Protocol that would achieve a gradual phase down 

2 of HFCs to allow for the development of low 

3 global warming potential alternative 

4 technologies. EPA supported the North American 

5 Amendment proposal to the Montreal Protocol which 

6 calls for a similar gradual phase down of HFCs. 

7 However, provisions of the proposed rule that are 

8 modifying the listing of certain HFC refrigerants 

9 and foam blowing agents by January 1st, 2016 or 

10 2017 are inconsistent with the EPA stated 

11 position at the Montreal Protocol. 

12 AHRI is very concerned with the proposed 

13 ruling’s potential negative impact on commercial 

14 refrigeration equipment manufacturers. We 

15 believe that the proposed change of status of R16 404A, 507A, 134a, and other HFC blends in 

17 standalone commercial refrigeration equipment is 

18 premature and will leave manufacturers with no 

19 viable alternatives. 

20 Most of the SNAP listed low-GWP 

21 refrigerants for this application will result in 

22 less efficient products. It will increase 
130

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 overall greenhouse gas emissions, which is 

2 contrary to the stated objective of the rule. It 

3 should be noted that direct refrigerant emissions 

4 represent on average less than 10 percent of the 

5 overall life cycle climate performance of 

6 standalone commercial refrigeration systems. 

7 Taking this fact into account, EPA should accept 

8 additional alternatives for this end use, 

9 including R-407A and R-407F. However, for all 

10 commercial refrigeration end uses, the proposed 

11 transition effective date of January 1, 2016, is 

12 unrealistic, unfeasible, and inconsistent with a 

13 gradual phase down of HFCs that EPA is advocating 

14 internationally. Similarly the January 1, 2017, 

15 transition date for foam blowing agent is 

16 impractical. Manufacturers will need a 

17 significant amount of time to test new 

18 alternatives and get the necessary safety 

19 listings from agencies such as UL and ETL. 

20 There is currently not enough laboratory 

21 testing facilities in the U.S. to accommodate all 

22 the testing that would be required in the amount 
131

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 of time that EPA is contemplating. Furthermore, 

2 the use of most of the alternatives that EPA 

3 believes could be implemented in a short period 

4 of time is severely restricted by all major 

5 mechanical, fire and building codes in the U.S. 

6 Although work has already started to 

7 amend these codes to accommodate alternative 

8 refrigerants, the process will take several years 

9 to complete. Complicating further the matter are 

10 new federal minimum energy conservation standard 

11 for commercial refrigeration equipment and walk12 ins that are expected to take effect in 2017. 

13 The Department of Energy has adopted very 

14 aggressive standards that may not be achievable 

15 with the current alternatives, potentially 

16 forcing manufacturers not to comply with the law. 

17 Taking all these issues into account, we believe 

18 that the more realistic implementation date would 

19 be around 2020 at a minimum. 

20 Finally, we would like to express our 

21 concern with the lack of coordination between EPA 

22 and DOE on rulemaking activities impacting the 
132

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 same industry. As previously mentioned, DOE has 

2 set very aggressive new federal minimum energy 

3 conservation standards for commercial 

4 refrigeration equipment and walk-in coolers and 

5 freezers and has based its entire analysis on 

6 refrigerants and foam blowing agents that EPA is 

7 now proposing to list as unacceptable. The 

8 proposed SNAP rulemaking has significant energy 

9 efficiency implication and EPA has an obligation 

10 to ensure that the alternative it proposes 

11 results in products with equal or less energy 

12 consumption that are affordable to consumers. 

13 Thank you very much for the opportunity 

14 to present our views. 

15 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Karim. 

16 Speaker 31 is Kenny Owen from Master-Bilt 

17 Products. 

18 MR. OWEN: Good morning. And thank you 

19 for the opportunity to be here today. My name is 

20 Kenny Owen, that's O-W-E-N. I am Vice President 

21 of Engineering for Master-Bilt Products. 

22 Master-Bilt is a small manufacturer of 
133

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 commercial refrigeration equipment with 

2 manufacturing located in New Albany, Mississippi. 

3 Master-Bilt employs approximately 400 people. 

4 Master-Bilt manufactures over 215 models 

5 of self-contained and remote refrigerators and 

6 freezers. It also imports 50 models of 

7 commercial refrigerators and freezers. Master8 Bilt also manufactures walk-in coolers and 

9 freezers and the associated refrigeration units 

10 that go with these walk-ins. We manufacture over 

11 700 condensing unit models, 400 evaporator 

12 models, and we also build custom design multi13 circuit racks, parallel racks, and secondary loop 

14 parallel racks. 

15 Every single product that we manufacture 

16 uses an HFC that EPA plans to ban. Every single 

17 one. Our refrigeration units use either 134 or 

18 R-404A, and all our foam blowing is done with R19 245fa. 

20 My company is not opposed to converting 

21 to more environmentally friendly refrigerants and 

22 blowing agents, but EPA must be more realistic in 
134

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 the time frame that's currently proposed. 

2 When we converted from CFC refrigerants 

3 to HFC refrigerants in the mid-1990s, drop-in 

4 replacements were readily available. So were the 

5 components for using these new refrigerants, such 

6 as someone has mentioned, compressors and 

7 expansion valves, which was all you had to change 

8 to make that conversion. 

9 At this time, no commercially available 

10 drop-in replacement for 134a, 404A, or 245fa 

11 exists. This makes the transition for Master12 Bilt infinitely more difficult than the previous 

13 transition from HFCs -- or from CFCs. 

14 Since the non drop-in alternatives 

15 available and proposed by EPA have many bad 

16 characteristics such as flammability, toxicity, 

17 poor energy efficiency, much more testing is 

18 going to be required than what was required with 

19 the switch from CFCs to HFCs. Also, many 

20 proposed alternatives have restrictions on use 

21 which may prohibit their use in larger capacity 

22 equipment such as the charged limitation on the 
135

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 flammables. 

2 Every one of our 1300-plus models will 

3 have to be redesigned. Every one of our 1300 

4 plus models will have to be tested, relisted for 

5 UL safety, CSA safety, NSF sanitation, DOE 

6 energy, and when applicable, EPA Energy Star. 

7 This testing can take as long as 18 weeks per 

8 model. Even if performed concurrently by our 

9 small engineering staff, we estimate it will take 

10 us working non-stop over three years, and this is 

11 at the expense of new product development. 

12 We can't begin this conversion until the 

13 components are available from our suppliers, and 

14 we talked about that already. You've already 

15 heard that from people. 

16 Before we can sell these new products, a 

17 lot of things have to change; a lot of things 

18 have to happen. Among them, our factory will 

19 have to be upgraded with many new pieces of 

20 equipment since current equipment is not 

21 compatible with the proposed alternative 

22 refrigerants. This will be a very large expense 
136

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 to my company and many other small businesses. 

2 Our service technicians have to be trained to 

3 work on flammable, toxic, extremely high pressure 

4 systems. Our customers have to be convinced that 

5 it's okay to have flammable refrigerants inside 

6 their stores and around their customers and their 

7 employees, and around their food products. 

8 Our agency testing companies like UL, 

9 CSA, Intertek, will have to add a lot of new test 

10 facilities, as we've heard already, they're going 

11 to be jammed packed with all these changes 

12 because it's not just us, it's everybody. 

13 Building codes have to be updated, and 

14 there are a lot of other things that you heard 

15 today. We won't go through all of that. 

16 Regarding blowing agents for polyurethane 

17 foam, replacements are available to replace 

18 245fa. We know that. These blowing agents are 

19 not drop-in replacements for our current foam 

20 system. All are either unable to pass Class One 

21 burn tests, which are required by building codes, 

22 or they're less -- excuse me, less energy 
137

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 efficient. Less efficient foam will cause a 

2 standard walk-in panel to go from four inches to 

3 five inches. This means our manufacturing costs 

4 go up and our customers will have to pay more. 

5 Given the facts of the situation Master6 Bilt does not see any way we can comply with 

7 2016/17 deadline proposed. We feel better 

8 alternatives must be available. We would like 

9 for you to have 2025 for these rules to take 

10 affect. And I hope this brief overview will help 

11 you understand the urgency of our situation. 

12 We will be submitting detailed comments 

13 before the deadline, which we request that you 

14 extend at least 60 days. And thank you for the 

15 opportunity to be here. 

16 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Kenny. 

17 Speaker 32 is Edward Bates from Pactiv Building 

18 Products. 

19 MR. BATES: Good morning. Edward Bates, 

20 B-A-T-E-S. I work with Pactiv Building Products. 

21 We're a manufacturer of extruded polystyrene foam 

22 insulation. We're also a member of the Extruded 
138

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Polystyrene Association that you heard Mr. 

2 Ferraro talk this morning about our products and 

3 the energy efficiency and global warming 

4 reduction benefits of our products. 

5 Pactiv building products just recently, 

6 in 2010, invested millions of dollars for the 

7 conversion from the HCFC to the HFC, and with 

8 that we had over seven years advance notice to 

9 plan and execute. We are now facing another 

10 multi-million dollar investment in operating 

11 costs to phase-out the HFC-134a with effectively 

12 less than two years to plan and execute. 

13 Extruded polystyrene insulation produced 

14 with the HFC-134a is part of the global warming 

15 reduction solution and is not part of the 

16 problem. The high retention rates of the gas in 

17 our product combined with the long life of our 

18 product, basically the life of the structure, in 

19 high thermal insulation performance from the 

20 extruded polystyrene produced with the HFC-134a 

21 is a net global warming reducer. 

22 The 2017, January 2017, HFC-134a phase-
139

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 out for XPS insulation is not consistent with the 

2 phase down approach that was discussed during our 

3 May 2014 meeting. In addition, the January 2017 

4 phase-out is not feasible given the lack of 

5 commercially available replacements, the 

6 significant amount of development work required, 

7 the extensive product testing, third-party 

8 compliance approvals, as well as potentially 

9 lengthy air permitting requirements. 

10 Pactiv Building Products believes that a 

11 commercially available alternative to the HFC12 134a for XPS insulation that will provide 

13 equivalent properties and performance does not 

14 currently exist. 

15 We also request that XPS insulation be 

16 excluded from the HFC-134a phase-out due to its 

17 contributions to the global warming problem. And 

18 if this exclusion cannot be granted we request 

19 the HFC-134a phase-out for XPS insulation be 

20 extended to January 2022. Thank you. 

21 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Edward. 

22 Speaker 33 is Jose Avendano from Grindmaster-
140

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Cecilware Corporation. 

2 MR. AVENDANO: Yes, good morning. My 

3 name is Jose Avendano, A-V-E-N, D as in David, 

4 A-N-O. I'm with Grindmaster-Cecilware. We are a 

5 manufacturer of food service equipment. We 

6 manufacture noncarbonated cold beverage 

7 equipment, frozen drink equipment, cold and hot 

8 liquid coffee equipment and you can keep going. 

9 I mean, we have probably over 60,000 items on our 

10 builds and materials. 

11 I had originally planned to pretty much 

12 give a presentation similar to what everybody had 

13 done, but as I sat over there I started thinking 

14 about ways to illustrating this better. And I 

15 thought, wait a minute, I worked 20 years in the 

16 appliance industry, and I've worked 10 years in 

17 the food service industry. Maybe I should use 

18 that to illustrate the point. 

19 I remember in my days when I was in the 

20 appliance industry, if you wanted a compressor 

21 and that compressor was not available, you picked 

22 up the phone and you either called Compressor A 
141

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 supplier or Compressor B supplier. Before you 

2 knew it, three people are walking through the 

3 door from that supplier and they were working 

4 with you trying to figure out how to develop that 

5 compressor for you. 

6 Now that I'm in the food service 

7 industry, when I call Compressor A or Compressor 

8 B, they say, I'm sorry, I don't have that 

9 compressor for you. And maybe I don't even get 

10 an answer right away. Maybe I have to wait about 

11 a week to get an answer. So it is really 

12 challenging to find parts that are suitable for 

13 the equipment that we make. Okay? 

14 And it's all about profit and revenue, so 

15 what happens is the people that have more sales 

16 and more money, in this case let's talk -- and 

17 I'm not attacking the appliance industry because 

18 it's in my heart. They get preference over 

19 somebody who is making over a company that is 

20 $100 million or $50 million company. That is the 

21 way the economy is. Okay? 

22 In addition to that, I also remember that 
142

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 we had a calorimeter at the appliance company 

2 that I worked for. We had probably about 12 or 

3 14 environmental test chambers to run tests. We 

4 had a foam group for our insulation that was 

5 probably five people. We had a refrigeration 

6 group that had about seven or eight engineers. 

7 And I can go on. 

8 Now, I go to the food service industry. 

9 I have a staff of 12 people. I don't have any 

10 foam experts. I hardly have one refrigeration 

11 engineer, and we have a lot of work going on. 

12 Okay? 

13 So, I think one of the things that I see 

14 that really puzzled me when I saw the proposal 

15 was the fact that all these different industries, 

16 large, small, mass production versus custom made, 

17 everybody was kind of like put in the same 

18 bucket. Okay? And I got to tell you that -- and 

19 I've heard some people say here that Agency 

20 approvals is going to be a challenge. Make no 

21 mistake. Agency approvals are going to be a 

22 challenge. 
143

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 In my opinion, the way that this should 

2 be approached is you should use a divide and 

3 conquer approach. In other words, this should be 

4 split up and consider the proposal by -- first of 

5 all, break it up into -- I think you had aerosol, 

6 you had foam blowing agents, you had automobile 

7 air-conditioners and commercial refrigeration. 

8 As I stand here, I'm not even sure that 

9 we fall under commercial refrigeration because I 

10 was never able to get an answer on that. So I'm 

11 not even sure that our equipment is affected, but 

12 I would tend to think that it would be. So that 

13 would be the first thing that I would do. 

14 Now, the other thing that I want 

15 everybody to think about is, there are 16 months 

16 between now and January 1st, 2016. I can tell 

17 you this, three months at least will be field 

18 tests, and three months at least are going to be 

19 reliability testing and all the testing that we 

20 have to do, plus agency approvals. That's six 

21 months. We have 10 months to do this change. 

22 Think about that. Thank you. 
144

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Jose. 

2 Speaker 34 is Nathan Mouw from Whirlpool 

3 Corporation. 

4 MR. MOUW: Good morning. My name is 

5 Nathan Mouw. That's spelled M-O-U-W. I'm the 

6 Director of Regulatory Affairs for Whirlpool 

7 Corporation. I certainly appreciate this 

8 opportunity to share Whirlpool's view of this 

9 rule. 

10 Whirlpool is a leading manufacturer and 

11 marketer of major and portable home appliances. 

12 We employ more than 23,000 people here in the 

13 United States, and manufacture right here in the 

14 United States over 82 percent of our products 

15 that we sell here. 

16 We've been a longstanding partner with 

17 DOE and EPA to continually and dramatically 

18 improve the efficiency of our products and 

19 protect the environment while delivering on the 

20 utility and performance that our end consumers 

21 demand. 

22 Whirlpool participated in several public 
145

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 SNAP workshops and meetings over the past 12 

2 months. We very much appreciate the Agency's 

3 outreach to stakeholders. However, we were quite 

4 surprised by this proposal since it differed 

5 significantly from the clearly-signaled intent of 

6 the Agency. We participated honestly and openly 

7 during the SNAP meetings, and again we're 

8 disappointed in this decision to expand the 

9 proposed coverage of foam blowing agents that are 

10 proposed to be classified as unacceptable actions 

11 like this go against what should be shared goals 

12 of transparency and predictability. 

13 Next, like so many others I'd like to 

14 offer a few comments on the proposed time line. 

15 EPA has proposed the transition time line of 

16 January 1st, 2017, for refrigerator foam blowing 

17 agents. Assuming a final rule is released in the 

18 first or second quarter of 2015, this allows only 

19 18 to 21 months to transition. This proposed 

20 transition time line is simply not feasible for 

21 multiple reasons, many of which have already been 

22 mentioned today. 
146

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 First, EPA has failed to take into 

2 account associated time lines for DOE amended 

3 energy conservation standards. Refrigerator 

4 manufacturers are just now finishing our 

5 execution of an energy standards transition; a 

6 transition that results in products that are 

7 significantly more efficient. A great win, but a 

8 transition that has required a complete refocus 

9 of our engineering staff, required capital 

10 investments of tens of millions of dollars, and 

11 has required significant transition expense for 

12 advertising, marketing, consumer outreach costs, 

13 all a direct result of this required transition. 

14 The current proposal would require 

15 another transition of similar scope and magnitude 

16 at a time when manufacturers were hoping to 

17 refocus on our consumer renovation, driving 

18 additional energy efficiency, improved 

19 performance, and lower costs. 

20 Second, EPA has failed to acknowledge a 

21 significant technical complexity of transitioning 

22 a foam blowing agent in a refrigerator. There is 
147

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 no, quote, drop-in alternative for foam blowing 

2 agents and refrigerators as commonly advertised. 

3 Transitioning from one blowing agent to another 

4 is a major engineering challenge to execute. 

5 This transition requires significant engineering 

6 design, testing, approvals to ensure all product 

7 requirements are met, but also to ensure that the 

8 process, the manufacturing process, is delivering 

9 the product with the quality levels that you all, 

10 as end consumers, demand. 

11 Design and process considerations must be 

12 made at the individual model level due to 

13 differences in the product design and assembly. 

14 Manufacturers that have numerous models, multiple 

15 product platforms, and multiple factories to 

16 transition cannot execute a transition in the 

17 time period that EPA has proposed. 

18 Lastly this affectivity date may have 

19 unintended consequences in the market, which are 

20 very important. Whirlpool believes that the 

21 short transition timing that EPA is proposing for 

22 refrigerator freezer foam blowing agents will at 
148

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 best limit the options that manufacturers have 

2 for selection of alternative technologies and for 

3 supplier partnerships and at worst disrupt our 

4 business operations because we're unable to 

5 transition in this time frame to any alternative. 

6 The outcome may be a narrow choice or 

7 singular choice of suppliers for the 

8 alternatives, and could very possibly result in 

9 inadequate supply and disruption of our business 

10 operations. Manufacturers need absolute 

11 certainty in supply to continue to meet market 

12 demand for our products. 

13 EPA should instead adopt an affectivity 

14 date that allows natural market forces to direct 

15 manufacturer's decisions on alternatives to 

16 pursue, allow adequate time to pursue those 

17 alternatives and allow time for the supply base 

18 to actually develop to meet those supply needs. 

19 Whirlpool advises EPA to reconsider this 

20 proposed rule as it relates to refrigerator foam 

21 blowing agents. This proposed rule will, at 

22 best, result in marginal benefits above what is 
149

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 already happening in our industry. 

2 Because of the apparent disregard for 

3 regulatory cooperation with other agencies, this 

4 rule will impose significant, unnecessary and 

5 redundant burdens on manufacturers. Because of 

6 the proposed time line of the rule, it will cause 

7 hurried selection of alternatives and suppliers 

8 and likely result in suboptimum outcomes. 

9 Rather, EPA should consider a time line that is 

10 aligned with DOE amended energy conservation 

11 standards and take into account the true 

12 challenges and realities of a transition of this 

13 magnitude. 

14 Again, thanks for holding this meeting 

15 today. Thanks for considering our comments, and 

16 we look forward to further constructive and open 

17 dialog on this rulemaking. 

18 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Nathan. 

19 Speaker 35 is Karl Hielscher from Metl-Span. 

20 MR. HIELSCHER: I'm Karl Hielscher, H-I21 E-L-S-C-H-E-R, president of Metl-Span, 

22 Lewisville, Texas. 
150

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 We have six manufacturing facilities in 

2 six states -- I'm sorry, seven in six states -- 

3 and are a leading manufacturer of rigid insulated 

4 metal panels that serve a variety of 

5 nonresidential construction projects and demands. 

6 The primary issue for me to speak, along 

7 with everyone else who has spoken here today, is 

8 the need to have a more coordinated cohesion of 

9 the approach to make these transitions that we've 

10 all participated in since the Montreal Protocol 

11 began. And the primary problem that we have as a 

12 company is the fact that we have six plants and 

13 we have to meet the countless federal, state, and 

14 local and building code requirements for not just 

15 the product we make, but also the ability to 

16 produce that product. And so the three- to five17 year periods that people have spoken about today 

18 is really a minimum time frame for all of us. 

19 Thank you. 

20 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Karl. 

21 Speaker 36 is Doug Raymond from the National 

22 Aerosol Association. 
151

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. RAYMOND: Good morning -- and it is 

2 still morning. My name is Doug Raymond. Last 

3 name is R-A-Y-M-O-N-D, here on behalf of the 

4 National Aerosol Association. 

5 We're here today to work with the EPA in 

6 an attempt to develop the best possible 

7 amendments to the SNAP rule. NAA appreciates the 

8 time the EPA has provided to the aerosol industry 

9 on this issue, and we look forward to working 

10 with you over the next 60 days. 

11 The aerosol industry has been removing or 

12 reducing the use of GWP compounds, high-GWP 

13 compounds for years. Our work with the 

14 California Resources Board has resulted in 

15 numerous product categories from containing high16 GWP compounds. The most widely used GWP compound 

17 used in aerosols is HFC-134a. It's used 

18 primarily because the compound is nonflammable. 

19 However, other characteristics make the compound 

20 preferable. Generally, use of the HFC-134a has 

21 been restricted to products in which 

22 nonflammability has been required. The SNAP 
152

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 amendments will further this process, so the 

2 removal of the HFC out of the aerosols industry 

3 has only a few options to the HFC. Carbon 

4 dioxide is one of the candidates; however, if 

5 carbon dioxide was an alternative for use in the 

6 reformulation it would have been done. The 

7 difference in the cost is great and everybody 

8 would have switched out of 134a. 

9 The next candidate is alternative 

10 products as stated by EPA which means 

11 nonaerosols. Being the NAA, we don't really 

12 consider that an alternative; but again, if that 

13 was an alternative it would have happened. 

14 People would have looked to that already. 

15 The last one is -- the next candidate is 

16 the HFO-1234, which is a low-GWP, no ODP, and is 

17 nonflammable. But ASTM E681 and ISO 10156 for 

18 most applications, the HFO-1234 will be a 

19 replacement. 

20 The vapor pressure, however, is different 

21 than HFC-134a, and under narrow conditions the 

22 1234ze exhibits flame limits. However, there 
153

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 have been numerous products that have been 

2 developed and a large number of nonflammable 

3 aerosols that will be using the HFO. 

4 Aerosols are convenient and easy to use 

5 due to their portability and are a necessary tool 

6 for some users. One main reason for the industry 

7 that it's not the appropriate time limit that 

8 we're looking at -- it's 1/1/2016 -- is industry 

9 has had numerous other issues to deal with. 

10 We've had to deal with VOC regs, the GHS, which 

11 is going to be kicking in next year, and other 

12 limits. Thus, the 1/1/2016 date is probably not 

13 going to be feasible for some products. By the 

14 time this regulation is done, it will give us 

15 less than a year to comply. 

16 In closing, we would ask the EPA to 

17 consider all of these issues when preparing the 

18 final document. The 1/1/2016 date will be less 

19 than one year away. Thank you very much. 

20 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Doug. The 

21 last registered speaker I have this morning is 

22 Rick. Is Rick Heffernan in the room? 
154

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. HEFFERNAN: Yes. 

2 MS. FARQUHARSON: Great. Rick will be 

3 speaking on behalf of System Development 

4 Integration, SDI. 

5 MR. HEFFERNAN: SDI. Good morning. I 

6 can still say that it's morning, Doug, because I 

7 have two minutes left, and I'll try to keep it to 

8 that. 

9 My name is Rick Heffernan, spelled 

10 H-E-F-F-E-R-N-A-N. I'm one of the owners of SDI 

11 located in Neptune, New Jersey, together with our 

12 partners, No Climb Products. We represent two 

13 small family-owned businesses that develop, 

14 manufacture and distribute specialized fire alarm 

15 system test equipment to the life safety industry 

16 in both the commercial and industrial markets. 

17 I am a principle member of Chapter 14, 

18 testing and maintenance of fire alarm and 

19 signaling systems, as well as Chapter 29, single 

20 and multiple station alarms and household fire 

21 alarm systems of NFPA 72, the National Fire Alarm 

22 and Signaling Code which specifies the 
155

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 requirements for a fire alarm systems and 

2 associated components that protect the general 

3 public. 

4 Most federal, state, and local 

5 municipalities have adopted NFPA 72 for the 

6 enforcement of fire and life safety codes and 

7 associated regulations. I'm also a principle 

8 member of NFPA 720, the standard for the 

9 installation of carbon monoxide detection, and I 

10 currently sit on the National Board of Directors 

11 for the Automatic Fire Alarm Association, or 

12 AFAA. 

13 The products I'm here to talk about very 

14 briefly are two types of smoke detector testers 

15 that utilize HFC-134a. The first is used for the 

16 functional testing of smoke detectors where 

17 confined spaces and potential ignition sources 

18 can be present. Thus, there is a need for a 

19 nonflammable product. Currently, we are working 

20 on an HFO-based replacement. However, due to the 

21 need for a UL listing -- and that's no easy task 

22 -- in the past, it's taken up to four months for 
156

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 a simple label change with no testing involved, 

2 and other necessary and vital certifications and 

3 endorsements, this product cannot be commercially 

4 available by 1/1/16. We essentially have to go 

5 around all of the detector manufacturers, the 

6 smoke alarm manufacturers after we have the UL 

7 listing, and say, Please test this with your 

8 product. Does it work? Just in most cases of 

9 covering yourself, obviously. 

10 These types of products represent an 

11 extremely small amount of the entire fire 

12 detecting testing market. It would be great if 

13 there was a drop-in replacement for our niche and 

14 vital product sector, but unfortunately there 

15 isn't. 

16 The second product that I'm going to 

17 refer to as far as a smoke detector and alarm 

18 tester is used in testing the sensitivity of fire 

19 detectors and alarms, which is required by NFPA 

20 72, the National Fire Alarm Signaling Code, 

21 Sections 14.4.4.3.4. In it's most current 

22 edition, the 2013 edition. 
157

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 We're asking for the EPA to provide an 

2 acceptable use status for HFC-134a due to the 

3 fact that our tests with the HFO haven't been 

4 successful. Quite simply, it doesn't work. The 

5 HFO does not have the vapor pressure needed to 

6 perform the function of the current product. In 

7 addition, at elevated temperatures and the 

8 confined spaces in the presence of an ignition 

9 source, the HFO can exhibit flammability. 

10 This sensitivity product is used with 

11 expensive equipment. The prohibition of HFC-134a 

12 in this small use will cost companies 

13 significantly due to the loss of the use of this 

14 equipment. As a result, it will expose the 

15 public to an unacceptable risk due to the fact of 

16 noncompliance with requirements set forth in the 

17 previously mentioned NFPA 72, the Fire Alarm 

18 Safety Signaling Code. 

19 When SDI was founded, it was done with a 

20 vision to provide quality products to improve the 

21 protection of life and property, and we stand by 

22 that belief today. As a follow-up we're 
158

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 preparing a document sent through your proper 

2 channels that will back up all of my comments and 

3 explain them in greater detail. 

4 Thank you for your time and consideration 

5 and I'm -- is it about noon? Maybe a little 

6 after? Okay. Thank you. 

7 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Rick. 

8 Before we move on to the folks who signed up to 

9 speak this morning and the folks who want to 

10 provide additional comments, I want to make sure 

11 I capture all the registered speakers. 

12 So once again, is Kate DeAngelis present 

13 from Friends of the Earth? 

14 (No audible response.) 

15 MS. FARQUHARSON: Okay. George Parsons 

16 from Ice-O-Matic. Is George present? 

17 (No audible response.) 

18 MS. FARQUHARSON: All right. So did you 

19 have a question? Okay. 

20 Did anyone sign up this morning to speak? 

21 (No audible response.) 

22 MS. FARQUHARSON: Okay. All right. So, 
159

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Keilly, do you want to -- you'll go after Keilly. 

2 Is that okay? 

3 (No audible response.) 

4 MS. WITMAN: (Now speaking on behalf of 

5 KW Refrigerant Strategy) Wow, it's enviable to 

6 have to come up here a couple of minutes when 

7 everyone is dying to go to lunch, but most of the 

8 comments so far have focused on what people think 

9 will not work and the timing being too soon, and 

10 all of that other stuff. What I wanted to go on 

11 record about is commercial refrigeration systems, 

12 the delisting of 404A and 507A, and the 

13 alternatives available and the timing. 

14 I conducted a series of meetings with 

15 equipment manufacturers of systems, service 

16 contracting organizations, and supermarket end 

17 users, and have also conducted some webinars, 

18 mainly to deal with the problem of 

19 misunderstanding that happened as a result of the 

20 way that the rule was worded. 

21 I think the problem is, is that when the 

22 rule refers to commercial refrigeration end uses, 
160

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 self-contained and standalone equipment is very, 

2 very different than refrigeration systems, and 

3 when supermarkets and other industry stakeholders 

4 read that in certain commercial refrigeration end 

5 uses 404, 507, 134a, would be delisted, they did 

6 not realize that 134a was just for self-contained 

7 units, and they became very panic stricken, I 

8 would say. When the rule came out, my phone rang 

9 off the hook. 

10 So, it would be helpful just in terms of 

11 explaining this rule to make that very clear 

12 separation. It would certainly eliminate a lot 

13 of anxiety. 

14 The second thing is that I have yet to 

15 hear of anyone when I ask the question of, you 

16 know, is it a problem to use the 407 series 

17 refrigerants instead of 404 or 507 in supermarket 

18 refrigeration systems. Not a single person said, 

19 yes, it would be a problem. In fact, the 

20 majority of people I talked to said EPA could 

21 make this change tomorrow and it would not affect 

22 us. I think the supermarkets that are involved 
161

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 in the Green Chill Partnership were ready for 

2 this years ago. They led the charge to the 407 

3 series of refrigerants in terms of getting the 

4 compressor manufacturers to approve of its use. 

5 So, I think that the 407F alternative both for 

6 new systems and for retrofits is fairly 

7 unproblematic. 

8 When I ask service technicians, you know, 

9 are there problems with 407 series refrigerants 

10 retrofits versus 404 and 507, every service tech 

11 organization I spoke with said it's a non-issue. 

12 I can't remember the last time I did a 404 or 507 

13 retrofit out of R-22. We already are doing 407. 

14 That's what is happening out there. 

15 In addition to that, 407 brings certain 

16 advantages in R-22 retrofits. The feeling is 

17 that it's an overall easier retrofit. That 

18 doesn't mean that it's a no-brainer. There are 

19 some things you have to watch out for, but the 

20 feedback I get from supermarket end users is that 

21 the retrofit process is faster and easier, which 

22 allows more time to check leak tightness during 
162

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 the retrofit process, which of course had the 

2 obvious environmental benefits associated with 

3 that. 

4 So I just wanted to give comments related 

5 to something that is perhaps not as problematic 

6 as some of the other areas. When you start 

7 talking about self-contained units with 

8 manufacturers and supermarkets, it's a different 

9 story, which I've already discussed in my 

10 previous comments. Thank you. 

11 MS. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Keilly. 

12 Richard Willey will be next. Richard will be 

13 speaking on behalf of Grindmaster-Cecilware 

14 Corporation. 

15 MR. WILEY: Thank you. My name is 

16 Richard Willey. I'm a Components Engineer for 

17 Grindmaster Corporation in Louisville, Kentucky. 

18 Today, we listened and we heard everyone 

19 that was in agreement with moving to HC. The 

20 issue that we're facing is its timing. I'm going 

21 to be like Paul Harvey, and I want to explain the 

22 rest of the story from a compliance perspective. 
163

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Before we can do anything on the 

2 mechanical side of the implementation of 

3 components and finished products using HC, we 

4 have to understand fully what are the 

5 requirements from all the jurisdictions having 

6 authority, UL, CSA, NSF. No one has mentioned 

7 sanitation impact. I'm sure there will be an 

8 impact for sanitation approvals also. 

9 These agencies, while they speak to 

10 having coverage and their current standards, most 

11 of that coverage is for information only, or is 

12 vague and ambiguous when it comes to the very 

13 specifics of what we're talking about. When 

14 we're talking about going to new components for a 

15 different refrigerant, all of these components 

16 are pressure vessels. They're subject to 

17 mechanical properties. One of those properties 

18 is burst strength. 

19 In order to have the proper burst 

20 strength, you have to have a mechanical design, 

21 it has to be tooled, and then we go through our 

22 burst test and our endurance testing. We cannot 
164

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 meet that requirement in 14 months, for several 

2 reasons that safety agencies do not have the 

3 tools in place. The specific tools I'm speaking 

4 of are test procedures, test equipment, 

5 interpretation of the results of the test 

6 procedure. Most of the time, you will have a 

7 test that simulates real world conditions, and 

8 then there has to be an interpretive period of 

9 how the test results apply to real world 

10 situations. 

11 Specifically, I'm speaking to leakage. 

12 How much is going to be an allowable leakage? 

13 Well, our proposal here and many other documents 

14 speak that it can't reach the lower explosive 

15 limit. But then it doesn't define the room size. 

16 It doesn't define a lot of the parameters that we 

17 need to understand. 

18 Now, how this will happen is we will go 

19 back to the agencies and we'll be working with 

20 these folks. Well, the Agency standards change 

21 on a consensus basis. That means that many 

22 people will be reading and reviewing these, and I 
165

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 would venture to say that we are not going to 

2 have a consensus standard back from UL or from 

3 CSA in that 14 months that would provide adequate 

4 coverage for testing and interpretation. 

5 I propose that we delay this until 2020 

6 or until such time as we can make a determination 

7 based on facts, delivered to us by our safety 

8 authorities and our other authorities having 

9 jurisdiction. We are going to be receiving 

10 input, I'm sure, from NFPA. We're going to have 

11 to manage how OSHA responds to the training 

12 program for hazardous materials. We're going to 

13 have to look at how the Department of 

14 Transportation is going to consider the 

15 hydrocarbons as a hazardous material and 

16 different category. There's a lot of 

17 interaction. 

18 There are at least 14 different standards 

19 that I listed back here this morning that I will 

20 have to read and understand before I can offer to 

21 the mechanical designers a game plan that says 

22 this is how that we're going to be able to 
166

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 achieve full compliance and to deliver what we 

2 need to meet our obligation, our civic 

3 obligation, our obligation to our customers, and 

4 our obligations to our shareholders. 

5 So I humbly propose that we delay this 

6 process. Thank you. 

7 MS. NEWBERG: Is there anyone else who 

8 wanted to take the floor? 

9 (No response.) 

10 If not, then this concludes the hearing 

11 today on this rule, which is the Stratospheric 

12 Protection Rule, Change of Status Listing for 

13 Certain Substances under the Significant New 

14 Alternatives Policy Program. 

15 Thanks very much for coming. 

16 (Proceedings concluded at 12:11 a.m.)