1squirepattonboggs.comAs noted in June 2014 meeting,proposed amendments to theMontreal Protocol would include HFCs within its scope and require aglobal phase-down.EPA should not exceed its statutory authority by effectively phasingdown 134a under SNAP before the Protocol is amended and beforeCongress expressly authorizesregulation of greenhouse gases.Introduction and Overview2squirepattonboggs.comCAA§612(c) speaks to alternatives “that reduce[] the overall risk tohuman health and the environment;and [are] currently or potentiallyavailable.”No evidence so far that EPA has conducted the required analysisof“overall risk to human health andthe environment.” GWP alone is crudemetric for environmental impact and is one of many factors in assessingoverall risk.Operational efficiency should be a key driver in assessing impact (e.g., alow-GWP refrigerant that increases energy use may harm theenvironment more than a high-GWP refrigerant).It is critical that alternative technology be proven at appropriate scale,and existing product/equipment lifetimes be recognized.In assessing alternatives, availability is key consideration. Supplysituation for alternatives is discussed in next two slides.Introduction and Overview3squirepattonboggs.comIf MVAC uses of 134a are delisted too soon, US automakers’ refrigerant choicecould be limited to 1234yf from a single world supplier (a jointventure ofHoneywell and Chemours, formerly DuPont) with a single facilityin China.The China plant has productioncapacity around 3000 tons/year,and over thenext three years it may be the sole source for all 1234yf. Given expectedEuropean demand, there would likely be a shortage of 1234yf supply if EPArequired US automakers to switch to 1234yf during this period.New plantsannounced by the joint venture are not expected to be operational before sometime in 2016 at the earliest.Current suppliers of 134a could also make 1234yf and provide automakers withmuch-needed competition, but Honeywell’s conduct in filing shampatents anddenying licenses to other producers has excluded competition from the 1234yfmarket. Last year, the European Commission informed Honeywell and DuPontof its preliminary view that their cooperation on 1234yf may have limited itsavailability and technical development in breach of EU antitrust rules. The FTCis currently investigating Honeywell’s monopolistic conduct andagreements.The Patent & Trademark Office has rejected eight of Honeywell’s1234yf patentsupon re-examination.Patent and Competition Issues around R-1234yf/MVAC4squirepattonboggs.comThe absence of competition:reduces the sole manufacturer’s incentive to expand 1234yfcapacity in response to demand in a timely manner;results in much higher monopoly prices ($75 for 1234yf vs. $3.75for 134a); andhas led to demands for long-term exclusive contracts unheard ofinthe automotive industry.SNAP delisting increases risk that remedies pursued by the FTCwillbe inadequate. De-listing 134a also makes problem worse forautomakers because it takes awaytheir ability to determine their owntransition schedule based on market considerations.Patent and Competition Issues5squirepattonboggs.comBecause of unavailability of alternatives, implementation of theEuropean MAC directive had to be delayed by one year.EPA should not take 134a away from US automakers until1234yf is manufactured domestically in sufficient quantities andat affordable, competitive prices, or other alternatives areavailable.MVAC Conclusion6squirepattonboggs.comUsing GWP as single criterion for alternative foam blowing agents canlead to selection of alternatives that provide a reduced R-value andover time result in more greenhouse gas emissions than would beemitted from the foam insulation itself.Delisting proposed for 134a and blends thereof:Even a non-flammable blend of say 40% 134a with 60% 1234zewould not be allowed despite a 60% reduction in GWP over pure134a.No account taken of the benefits that such blends could bring tooverall safety, health and environment.Foam Sector7squirepattonboggs.comSome overlap in applications but in general:134a will be replaced by 1234ze (Honeywell)Hydrocarbons and ethers also possible in some sectors butsignificant re-engineering costs to deal with flammability. Someadditional cost may be required for 1234ze (flammability issues)245fa replaced by 1233zd (Honeywell, Arkema)Non-flammable but some concernsabout chemical stability in PUfoam formulationsHydrocarbons and ethers as above1336mzz (DuPont) non-flammable and better stability but likelymoreexpensive than 1233zdFoam Sector Alternatives8squirepattonboggs.comIn polyurethane formulation, chemical reactivity is an issue:Particularly for 1233zdbut also potentially 1234ze•Catalyst chemistry is complex•Interaction with (brominated) flame retardants complex-Requirement for flame retardant and quantity dependent onflammability of the blowing agent (1234ze flammable, 134aand 1233zd non-flammable)-Presence of flame retardant may alter foam propertiesTakes several years to conduct foam precursor and finished foamstability testing•Shelf-life•Degradation of finished foam in-service-Mechanical and thermal performance degradation•Any issues identified may require reformulation andrepeat cycleIssues with Foam Sector Alternatives9squirepattonboggs.comThermal insulation performance may be inferior:Significant foam reformulation may be required to restoreperformance levels (each reformulation takes time)•Thickness increases also possible with associated increasedcosts and reduction in utility•Loss of blowing agent (and insulation factor) over time takesseveral years for long-term results•Cost of new blowing agents may require use of inferior co-blowingagents (CO2, HCs) at the expense of insulation factor-Foam insulation is a cost-sensitive market-But increasing demand for better foam insulationperformance means greater efforts required to optimizeproducts – time requiredIssues with Foam Sector Alternatives10squirepattonboggs.comDOE’s next efficiency standard for refrigerators expected in 2020Most recent standard only effective September 2014Extensive product testing and certification required to qualifyundernew standardsManufacturers align product research and development cyclesaround DOE schedule2017 deadline limits choice of alternativesEarly transition would require:Major capital investments ahead of scheduleMassive coordination effort with suppliersRecertification of all models to September 2014 standardFoams/Refrigeration11squirepattonboggs.comIndustry used non-flammable propellants in the past22, 134aIndustry used flammable propellants in the pastAs alternatives to 22 under Montreal ProtocolHydrocarbons, DMEProven safety issue with flammable propellantsSeveral significant liability rulings by US courts (FixAFlat)Manufacturers have reverted to using 134a on the grounds ofproven safety in useEmergency Tire Inflator12squirepattonboggs.comSafety/flammabilityDME was marketed as “non-explosive”•Use of an aerosol industry test (flame extension) where DME isacceptable was not found to result in a safe product•1234ze is non-flammable for MSDS purposes but classified asflammable (2L) by ASHRAE:-Non-flammable at 23°C (73°F) but flammable at 30°C(86°F)-Tire is a pressurized mixture with airFlammable propellants have been tried and shown to beunacceptable134a is a proven, safe product for this applicationEmergency Tire Inflator13squirepattonboggs.comReformulation required if propellant changedStudies on propellant/sealant combinations required•Chemical reactivity•Storage stability•Performance in puncture repair•Physical and chemical properties of the mixtureTire inflators should be added to list of 134a aerosol propellantsacceptable subject to use conditions in Table 2Emergency Tire Inflator