Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0228-0051
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-10-28T04:00Z

Inter­
Agency
Review
Emails
related
to
the
SNAP
Final
Rule
on
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b
in
Foam
Blowing
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
05/
27/
2004
11:
10
AM
To
"
Toy,
Edmond"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>
cc
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jan
Tierney/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Dear
Edmund,

Thanks
for
taking
the
time
to
meet
with
us
by
phone
yesterday
to
review
the
upcoming
final
rule
on
141b.
Here
is
the
history
and
background
information
you
requested
in
support
of
our
belief
that
it
is
appropriate
and
legal
under
the
APA
to
publish
the
final
rule,
and
why
a
new
proposal
is
unnecessary.
Please
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
further
questions
or
comments.
Thanks,

Jeanne
Procedural
Issues
In
accordance
with
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
(
APA),
in
2000,
EPA
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
a
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM)
that
addressed
the
use
of
various
HCFCs
in
foam
end­
uses
(
65
FR
42653).
Part
of
that
NPRM
was
a
proposal
to
change
EPA's
listing
of
HCFC­
141b
from
acceptable
to
unacceptable
in
all
foam
end­
uses,
with
existing
users
grandfathered
until
January
1,
2005.
The
Agency
allowed
60
days
for
public
comment
and
received
45
responses
to
the
proposal
by
the
close
of
the
comment
period
(
September
11,
2000).
Specifically,
the
comments
to
the
proposal
on
HCFC­
141b
detailed
issues
surrounding
the
technical
viability
and
availability
of
alternatives
in
the
spray
foam
sector.
Subsequently,
in
2001,
we
issued
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
that
included
a
report
from
EPA's
technical
expert,
Caleb
Management
Services,
on
the
entire
foam
industry
(
66
FR
28408).
Regarding
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b,
Caleb
assessed
the
spray
foam
sector
and
concluded
that
due
to
the
field
testing
and
approval
process
necessary
for
spray
foam,
commercial
products
containing
alternatives
would
not
be
widely
available
until
the
beginning
of
2005.
The
formulators
supported
this
assessment
and
urged
EPA
to
take
action
consistent
with
the
Caleb
Report.
Following
that,
in
2002,
we
issued
a
final
rule
on
most
aspects
of
the
NPRM
but
explicitly
deferred
action
on
our
decision
to
change
the
listing
of
HCFC­
141b
from
acceptable
to
unacceptable
pending
the
production
phaseout
of
HCFC­
141b
and
the
availability
of
additional
information
regarding
the
feasibility
other
alternatives
in
these
end
uses
(
67
FR
47703).
EPA
wanted
to
monitor
the
progress
of
the
spray
foam
sector
in
implementing
technically
viable
alternatives
and
funded
a
three­
year
grant
to
the
Spray
Polyurethane
Foam
Alliance
(
SPFA)
to
assist
in
the
development
of
those
alternatives.
Then,
in
2003,
in
a
separate
but
related
rulemaking,
EPA
agreed
with
the
formulators
and
Caleb's
assessment
and
established
the
HCFC­
141b
Exemption
Allowance
Petition
process
to
provide
relief
to
any
business
that
did
not
have
access
to
HCFC­
141b
while
they
were
developing
alternatives.
(
Final
HCFC
Allowance
Allocation
rule,
68
FR
2819).
Pursuant
to
this
petition
process,
EPA
was
able
to
gather
the
technical
information
needed
to
determine
the
feasibility
of
other
alternatives.
In
2004,
based
on
the
information
from
the
HCFC­
141b
Exemption
Allowance
Petitions
and
other
information
provided
by
the
industry,
EPA
published
a
NODA
(
69
FR
11358)
pertaining
to
the
availability,
including
the
technical
viability,
of
alternatives,
and
the
import
of
"
blended"
HCFC­
141b
polyurethane
foam
systems.
EPA
allowed
30
days
for
comment
and
received
16
comments
on
the
information
by
the
close
of
the
comment
period
(
April
9,
2004).
The
Final
Rule
we
are
currently
preparing
will
address
all
comments
received
in
response
to
the
2004
NODA
regarding
our
decision
to
change
the
listing
of
HCFC­
141b
from
acceptable
to
unacceptable.
The
comments
related
to
HCFC­
141b
raised
in
response
to
the
NPRM
were
addressed
through
EPA's
creation
of
the
HCFC­
141b
Exemption
Allowance
Petition
process.
The
following
is
a
description
of
the
regulatory
actions
related
to
HCFC­
141b
and
the
citations
to
those
actions:

2000:
SNAP
NPRM
which
requested
comment
on
provisions
related
to
the
use
of
HCFCs
in
foam,
including
the
listing
of
HCFC­
141b
as
an
unacceptable
substitute
for
new
users
as
of
the
effective
date
of
a
final
rule
and
providing
that
existing
users
could
continue
to
use
HCFC­
141b
until
January
1,
2005
(
July
11,
2001,
65
FR
42653).

2001:
NODA
to
request
comment
on
the
accuracy
of
the
report
written
by
EPA's
technical
expert
on
the
technical
considerations
in
the
foam
industry
(
May
23,
2001,
66
FR
28408).

2002:
SNAP
Final
rule
which
we
finalized
our
decisions
on
the
use
of
HCFC­
22
and
­
142b
but
explicitly
deferred
our
decision
on
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b
pending
the
production
phaseout
of
HCFC­
141b
(
July
22,
2002;
67
FR
47703).

2003:
Final
HCFC
Allowance
Allocation
Rule
which
established
the
HCFC­
141b
petition
process
in
response
to
small
businesses'
comments
on
the
feasibility
of
alternatives
in
the
spray
foam
sector
(
January
21,
2003,
68
FR
2819).

2004:
NODA
to
request
comment
on
the
new
information
EPA
had
on
the
technical
viability
and
commercial
availability
of
alternatives
to
HCFC­
141b
in
the
foam
industry
(
March
10,
2004,
69
FR
11358).

Small
Business
Issues
In
the
spray
foam
sector
there
are
small
businesses
at
the
both
the
formulator
level
and
the
contractor
level.
The
formulators
(
15­
20
in
the
U.
S.)
blend
the
different
components
together,
including
the
blowing
agent
(
HCFC­
141b),
to
make
the
spray
foam
system.
The
contractors
(
thousands
in
the
U.
S.)
buy
the
spray
foam
systems
from
the
formulators
and
the
equipment
to
use
the
systems
and
then
"
spray
the
foam"
to
manufacture
actual
foam
products
(
roof,
wall,
pipe
insulation).
At
both
levels
there
are
small
businesses.

Comments
from
Small
formulators
in
the
docket
(
4
of
16
known
affected
businesses)
Polythane
Systems
Inc.
General
Coatings
North
Carolina
Foam
Industries
(
NCFI)
Foam
Supplies
Inc.

Comments
from
Industry
associations
in
the
docket
Spray
Polyurethane
Foam
Alliance
(
SPFA)
(
comments
agree
with
one
small
formulator
who
also
provided
comments,
but
contradict
other
companies
who
are
their
members
and
who
provided
comments)

Comments
from
Small
contractors
in
the
docket
(
3
of
thousands
of
affected
businesses)
Specified
Urethane
Systems
Co.
(
contractor)
Triple
"
C"
Roofing
(
contractor)
Foam
Applications
Inc.
(
contractor)
Small
equipment
manufacturers
in
the
docket
EnDiSys
Comments:
NCFI,
Foam
Supplies,
EnDiSys:
Support
EPA
finalizing
ban,
technically
viable
alternatives
on
the
market
today
Dow
Chemical
(
large
formulator)
also
in
the
docket
supporting
EPA
finalizing
the
ban*

Polythane,
SPFA:
Does
not
believe
every
formulator
will
have
qualified
alternatives
by
1/
1/
05.
No
specific
written
comments
that
warn
that
Polythane
will
suffer
adverse
impacts
from
the
rule.

Contractors,
General
Coatings,
Polythane,
SPFA:
Recommend
EPA
allow
the
use
stockpiled/
inventoried
systems
containing
HCFC­
141b
post
1/
1/
05
(
Included
as
requested
in
draft
final
rule)

*
At
least
5
other
formulators
have
signaled
support
of
the
rule
"
off
the
record".
In
sum,
of
the
16
known
formulators
in
the
US,
9
support
finalization
of
the
rule,
5
are
silent.
See
the
attached
list
with
the
names
of
formulators
in
the
spray
foam
industry
in
the
U.
S.
that
EPA
is
aware
of.

Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
06/
17/
2004
03:
11
PM
To
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov,
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
cc
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Fw:
Info
for
OMB
Edmond
and
Art
­

Thanks
for
taking
the
time
to
meet
with
us
and
Kevin
today
to
help
to
resolve
any
remaining
issues
regarding
the
forthcoming
rulemaking
on
141b.
We
look
forward
to
working
closely
with
you
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
Given
the
investments
made
by
industry
(
businesses
both
small
and
large)
to
support
their
timely,
complete
transition
away
from
141b,
and
the
overall
readiness
of
firms
to
make
the
switch,
we
believe
that
it
is
important
to
meet
the
expectations
that
have
been
in
place
since
2000
and
well
publicized
since
that
time,
to
publish
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register
before
Labor
Day,
so
that
it
may
become
effective
January
1,
2005.

Attached
are
the
comments
from
the
docket
from
spray
formulators
regarding
the
proposal
to
find
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b
unacceptable
in
foam
as
of
January
1,
2005.
If
you
want
to
view
the
entire
docket,
it
can
be
accessed
at
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
under
Docket
#
OAR­
2003­
0228.
This
webpage
has
the
NODA
and
all
the
background
materials
and
comments
available
electronically.
(
This
docket
is
a
continuation
of
the
older
paper
docket
A­
2000­
18
which
was
started
with
the
2000
NPRM).

Although
Kevin
stated
that
he
believed
that
formulators
want
more
time
to
prepare
for
a
ban
on
the
use
of
141b,
it
is
interesting
to
note
that
in
the
comments,
none
of
the
formulators
request
additional
time
to
test
and
receive
qualifications
beyond
January
1,
2005.
Only
one
formulator
questions
whether
all
the
formulators
will
have
all
their
qualifications
as
of
2005,
but
that
commenter
does
not
suggest
they
will
not
have
their
qualifications
and
does
not
provide
any
evidence
of
who
it
might
be
that
will
not
have
their
qualifications.
Furthermore,
our
assessment
and
summary
of
the
petition
process
indicates
the
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
will
be
depleted
by
the
end
of
2004
and
the
market
demand
for
spray
foam
can
be
met
with
alternatives
in
2005,
both
in
terms
of
number
of
formulators
and
their
production
capacity.

Please
contact
Suzie
Kocchi
at
202.343.9387
or
me
at
202.343.9135
if
you
have
any
questions.

Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
06/
18/
2004
12:
57
PM
To
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
cc
Subject
Re:
Fw:
Info
for
OMB
Art,
the
regulations
which
implement
Section
612
are
found
at
59
FR
13044.
(
March
18,
1994).
On
p.
13056,
the
preamble
to
the
regulations
lists
costs
of
substitutes
as
one
of
the
factors
that
information
must
be
submitted
about
when
a
substitute
for
ODSs
is
requested.
That
paragraphs
states:

"
The
Agency
requires
data
on
the
expected
average
cost
of
the
alternative.
The
cost
of
the
substitute
can
be
expressed...
in
terms
of
$/
pound
(
for
a
chemical
substitute)
or
as
incremental
capital
and
operating
costs
associated
with
a
retrofit
or
new
equipment.
In
addition,
information
is
needed
on
the
expected
equipment
life
for
an
alternative
technology.
Other
critical
cost
considerations
should
be
identified
as
appropriate.
For
example,
it
is
important
to
understand
the
incremental
costs
associated
with
losses
or
gains
in
energy
efficiency
associated
with
use
of
a
substitute
relative
to
current
experience
with
existing
substances."

p.
13068
further
states
that
in
listing
substitutes
as
unacceptable,
EPA
will
have
"
assessed
­­
as
required
in
section
612
­­
the
availability
of
other
substitutes
and
concluded
that
alternatives
with
reduced
overall
risk
are
currently
or
potentially
available."

The
bulk
of
the
criteria
for
SNAP
decisions
relate
to
comparative
risks
between
currently
used
materials
and
the
alternatives.
(
See
Sections
IIIA,
IIIB,
.
VB,
VIIIB,
and
VIIID
of
the
preamble)

There
may
be
some
additional
text,
but
I'll
need
to
track
down
whether
there
is
and
what
it
might
be
on
Monday,
when
the
key
staff
in
this
area
return
to
the
office.

Let
me
know
if
you
need
further
information.
In
addition,
I'll
send
an
update
on
whether
I
find
any
additional
information
on
how
cost
and
other
economic
factors
are
taken
into
account
in
612
decisions.

Jeanne
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
o
mb.
eop.
gov
06/
17/
04
03:
45
PM
To:
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Subject:
Re:
Fw:
Info
for
OMB
In
its
actions
under
Section
612,
how
does
the
Agency
consider
cost
and
other
economic
factors?

Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
07/
08/
2004
08:
32
AM
To
"
Toy,
Edmond"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>
cc
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Fw:
costs
for
OMB
Edmond,

You
had
some
questions
about
the
cost
numbers
I
sent
earlier.
Here
is
some
additional
information.
Looking
forward
to
our
talk
at
1
pm.

Jeanne
Thanks,
Jeanne.

Regarding
the
costs
in
the
spreadsheet,
I
thought
the
difference
in
costs
between
141b
and
its
alternatives
(
chemical
prices)
were
higher
than
indicated,
based
on
the
meeting
we
had
with
you
over
here
a
few
weeks
ago.
I
don't
have
in
my
notes
what
the
difference
was,
but
I
was
under
the
impression
that
it
was
higher
than
the
17%
in
the
spreadsheet.
Am
I
misunderstanding
something?

Yes,
I
believe
there
must
have
been
some
misunderstanding.
The
prices
displayed
in
the
spreadsheet
are
accurate
and
represent
the
prices
today
for
the
various
chemicals.
In
fact,
depending
on
the
particular
contract
the
a
formulator
has
with
a
chemical
supplier,
those
prices
could
be
even
lower,
especially
for
the
alternatives.
It
is
very
important
to
highlight
the
fact
that,
once
a
formulator
makes
the
capital
investment
in
transitioning
to
an
alternative,
i.
e.,
development,
testing,
plant
modifications,
equipment,
etc.
the
formulations
with
the
alternatives
compared
to
the
formulations
with
HCFC­
141b
are
virtually
the
same
price
(
especially
if
the
formulator
uses
more
water
to
reduce
the
quantity
of
blowing
agent
and/
or
has
a
special
rate
with
the
chemical
supplier).
Furthermore,
once
the
volume
of
the
alternatives
increases
those
prices
will
drop
evenmore
and
within
2
years
of
the
complete
transition
in
spray
foam,
the
formulation
should
be
about
the
same
as
formulations
containing
HCFC­
141b,
assuming
none
of
the
other
materials
that
make
up
a
formulation
(
surfactants,
fire
retardants,
etc)
do
not
go
up
significantly
in
price.
The
remaining
issue
with
the
transition
in
spray
foam
and
the
reason
for
the
opposition
to
this
rule
is
that
some
formulators
are
still
resistant
to
making
all
the
necessary
capital
investments
required
to
transition
to
alternatives.
HCFC­
141b
was
phased
out
of
production
on
January
1,
2003
and
the
formulators
have
known
about
this
date
for
10
years.
They
had
10
years
to
plan
for
and
make
the
necessary
investments
in
alternatives.
Additionally,
during
the
petition
period,
EPA
provided
them
with
2
more
years
beyond
the
phaseout
to
use
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
and
complete
the
necessary
tests
and
investments.
Those
formulators
that
are
now
resisting
this
rule
are
likely
the
formulators
that
have
still
not
made
all
the
necessary
investments
in
alternatives
and
they
will
continue
to
use
HCFC­
141b
as
long
as
it
is
available.

Given
the
loophole
in
the
regulations,
HCFC­
141b
could
be
available
to
the
spray
foam
market
until
2015
through
the
use
of
fully
formulated
systems
containing
HCFC­
141b
from
other
countries
(
currently
Mexico).
If
these
formulators
could
not
have
used
systems
containing
HCFC­
141b
from
Mexico
it
is
likely
they
would
have
made
the
necessary
investments
and
completed
the
testing
of
alternatives
because
their
finite
supply
of
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
would
have
been
used
up.
These
companies
are
experienced
in
blowing
agent
transitions
because
they
already
transitioned
from
CFC­
11
to
HCFC­
141b
and
did
not
require
special
exemptions
from
EPA
in
order
to
accomplish
it.

Some
formulators
chose
to
follow
the
regulations,
developed
and
transitioned
to
alternatives,
others
did
not.
Any
further
delay
of
this
final
rule
continues
to
penalize
those
businesses
that
invested
in
the
mandated
transition
to
non­
ozone
depleting
substances.

Regarding
the
wall
insulation,
I
was
aware
that
some
companies
have
alternatives
that
have
passed
the
tests,
but
I
was
interested
more
in
companies
that
serve
areas
like
AZ
where
climate
poses
challenges,
according
to
some
of
the
contractors.
So
I
think
that
concern
still
remains.

The
heat
in
AZ
could
be
a
problem
if
a
formulator
will
not
make
the
necessary
investments
to
handling
alternatives.
If
you
use
245fa
in
AZ,
you
have
to
use
different
drums
­­
that
are
appropriate
to
the
climate
and
the
material
­­
and
often
more
expensive
than
drums
used
for
HCFC­
141b.
You
might
also
have
to
adjust
your
formulation
and
use
more
water
or
add
different
surfactants.
If
you
use
hydrocarbons
anywhere
you
have
to
buy
explosion
proof
equipment
and
trailers.

The
contractor
in
AZ
that
says
he
is
not
ready
is
probably
being
supplied
by
a
formulator
that
has
not
developed
an
alternative
formulation
that
works
in
AZ.
That
same
contractor
can
work
with
a
different
formulator
that
has
a
currently
available
formulation
that
works.
That
contractor
might
also
have
to
make
some
investments
in
new
equipment,
be
it
drums
and/
or
explosion
proof
machines,
depending
on
which
alternative
the
formulator
supplies.

There
are
formulations
that
work
in
AZ.
Resin
Technology
is
offering
a
HFC­
245fa
formulation
for
both
roof
and
wall
(
I
think).
They
are
based
in
California
and
presumably
experience
similar
climatic
conditions
to
AZ.
Another
example
is
the
that
2
fairly
large
contractors
in
AZ
called
ExxonMobil
directly
and
indicated
they
would
like
to
sign
up
for
safety
training.
They
are
currently
purchasing
explosion
proof
equipment
necessary
to
use
hydrocarbon
formulations.
NCFI
is
the
likely
supplier
of
the
the
spray
foam
systems
to
the
contractors
but
BASF
could
also
do
it.
According
to
Exxon,
one
of
the
contractors
has
already
purchased
the
equipment,
taken
the
safety
training
and
has
a
spray
job
scheduled.

­
Edmond
(
Embedded
image
moved
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
to
file:
07/
07/
2004
07:
45:
57
AM
pic12387.
pcx)

Record
Type:
Record
To:
Edmond
Toy/
OMB/
EOP@
EOP
cc:
Kocchi.
Suzanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
Fw:
costs
for
OMB
Edmond,

Attached
is
a
spreadsheet
which
compares
the
costs
of
several
transistions
from
HCFCs.
This
table
covers
appliances,
aerosols
and
spray
foam.

On
wall
insulation,
the
success
of
spray
foam
alternatives
in
walls
depends
on
the
formulation,
not
the
applicator.
Functional,
approved
spray
foam
systems
for
use
in
walls
are
commercially
available
today.
NCFI's
letter
to
the
docket
(
OAR­
2003­
0228­
0004)
says
they
have
wall
insulation
systems
with
alternatives
today.
In
addition,
Resin
Technology
and
Stepan
also
have
wall
formulations
they
are
selling
today.
Three
other
firms
(
whose
identity
is
CBI
are
working
on
theirs
expect
to
be
ready
to
go
by
the
end
of
2004,
if
not
before.

(
See
attached
file:
Comparisons
of
Cost
for
OMB.
xls)

Are
you
free
to
discuss
these
and
your
other
questions
today
at
3
pm?
If
not,
please
let
me
know
what
alternatives
times
might
work
for
you
today
or
tomorrow.

Thanks,

Jeanne
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
07/
08/
2004
10:
17
AM
To
"
Toy,
Edmond"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>
cc
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Fw:
omb
progress
Some
additional
information
to
address
the
questions
you
raised
in
our
phone
conversation
last
week.

1.
Why
3
months
for
the
extension.
How
do
we
know
it
will
be
enough?
EPA
believes
the
first
quarter
extension
allowing
the
use
of
fully
formulated
HCFC­
141b
in
inventory
as
of
Dec
31,
2004
is
sufficient
because
the
information
we
have
from
formulators
and
HCFC­
141b
manufacturers
indicates
the
HCFC­
141b
will
be
used
up
by
the
end
of
this
year.
Additionally,
winter
is
traditionally
the
slowest
time
of
the
year
for
spray
foam
so
formulators
and
contractors
will
not
be
holding
on
to
a
large
inventory
of
fully
formulated
systems
in
Dec.
The
first
quarter
of
2005
is
should
be
sufficient
time
to
apply
any
remaining
foam
systems
containing
HCFC­
141b
that
could
not
be
applied
in
Dec
due
to
winter
weather
delays.
Contractors
that
run
out
of
141b
can
purchase
forumulated
systems
from
systems
houses
that
have
already
converted.

3.
What
about
a
special
exception
in
the
use
ban
for
the
spray
foam
subsector?

If
we
deviated
from
the
2000
proposal
significantly,
i.
e.,
offering
some
kind
of
specific
exemption
to
a
particular
sector
(
spray
foam)
OGC
advises
us
that
we
will
have
to
re­
propose,
adding
at
least
another
year,
if
not
longer
to
the
transition
process.
Any
further
delay
with
this
rule
simply
penalizes
companies,
both
small
and
large,
that
have
made
good
faith
investments
in
alternatives
and
have
followed
EPA's
phase­
out
regulations
for
the
last
10
years.

Alternatives
are
technically
viable
and
commercially
available
today
in
the
U.
S.
There
is
no
longer
a
technical
need
in
spray
foam
applications
(
or
any
other
foam
applications)
for
HCFC­
141b.
In
order
to
fulfill
EPA's
mandate,
finding
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b
unacceptable
for
use
would
ensure
the
transition
to
alternatives
that
are
less
harmful
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Furthermore,
some
spray
foam
formulators
are
ready
with
alternatives
today
and
others
will
be
ready
by
the
end
of
the
year.
In
addition,
the
other
88%
of
the
foam
industry
(
non
spray
foam)
that
has
already
transitioned
to
alternatives
(
appliances,
boardstock,
etc.)
EPA's
information
suggests
the
market
demand
for
spray
foam,
the
remaining
application
with
widespread
HCFC­
141b
use,
can
be
met
with
alternatives
in
2005
so
ultimately
the
contractors
and
the
market
will
not
be
adversely
impacted.

4.
How
do
costs
of
this
action
compare
to
costs
experienced
by
other
sectors
in
their
transitions?
Please
see
next
email
with
spreadsheet.

5.
In
EPA's
report
which
surveyed
the
applicators,
one
in
Arizona
says
he's
not
ready
to
go
­­
1
of
7
firms
contacted.
Another
in
AZ
is
ready.
The
one
that
is
not
ready
does
walls,
not
just
roofs.

Contractors
rely
on
formulators
to
manufacture
a
technical
viable
system,
using
whatever
blowing
agent
(
HCFC­
141b,
HFc­
245fa,
water,
hydrocarbons)
is
acceptable.
They
simply
buy
a
fully
formulated
system
and
apply
it
to
a
roof
or
wall.
It
is
up
to
the
formulator/
systems
house
to
provide
them
with
a
qualified
system.
If
that
particular
contractor
cannot
get
a
qualified
system
with
an
alternative
from
one
formulator
they
can
choose
to
buy
it
from
a
different
formulator
that
does
have
a
qualified
system
with
an
alternative.
As
stated
above,
our
information
suggests
the
market
demand
in
2005
for
spray
foam
can
be
met
with
alternatives,
enough
capacity
exists
with
the
formulators
that
have
already
transitioned
to
alternatives
or
plan
to
transition
by
the
end
of
the
year.

Simply,
the
contractors
depend
on
the
formulators
to
supply
them
with
systems
that
are
qualified,
they
do
not
really
mind
what
blowing
agent
is
used
in
them.
EPA
believes
the
market
demand,
i.
e.,
the
contractor
demand,
can
be
met
with
alternatives
in
2005.

b)
Is
there
a
wall
technology
or
weather
hurdle
that
prevents
contractors
from
being
ready?
There
typically
are
spray
foam
formulations
for
different
sizes
of
wall
insulation
1
inch,
2
inch,
4
inch,
etc.
Historically,
spray
foam
systems
for
4
inch
formulations
were
the
most
commonly
used
in
wall
insulation.
In
general,
wall
insulation
is
sprayed
into
a
cavity.
Any
of
the
spray
foam
formulations
can
be
used
(
whether
marketed
for
1,
2
or
4
inch
cavities).
If
a
contractor
uses
a
2"
formulation
on
a
4"
cavity,
after
the
first
application
was
done,
he
would
get
another
set
of
canisters
and
complete
the
job
until
the
cavityis
filled
filled
up.
There
is
no
energy
efficiency
difference
among
using
1
inch,
2
inch
or
4
inch
formulation,
as
long
as
the
cavity
is
fully
filled.

In
the
transition
from
HCFC­
141b
to
alternatives,
formulators
fairly
easily
converted
their
1
and
2
inch
formulations
to
alternatives.
They
did
run
into
some
technical
problems
converting
their
4
inch
applications.
The
most
common
problems
seemed
to
be
smoke
development
and
creep.
Several
formulators
are
working
on
it
and
expect
to
be
done
with
their
4
inch
applications
by
the
end
of
the
year,
if
not
before.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
4
inch
formulation
is
the
most
traditional
size
for
wall
insulation
but
that
doesn't
mean
is
necessarily
any
better
than
1or
2
inch
formulations,
however,
those
formulation
have
not
taken
over
the
market
because
contractors
can
still
buy
4
inch
formulations
containing
HCFC­
141b.
If
the
4"
formulation
formulation
was
no
longer
available
the
market
would
adapt
by
obtaining
1
or
2"
forumulations
and
using
them
instead.
The
impediments
to
the
adoption
of
alternative
formulations
are
price
and
comfort
level,
not
technical
issues.

Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
07/
19/
2004
09:
04
AM
To
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>
cc
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
"'
Edmund
Toy
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)'"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"
Dyke,
Hans
P."
<
Hans.
Dyke@
sba.
gov>,
"'
jprescott@
ustr.
gov'"
<
jprescott@
ustr.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jan
Tierney/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Steve
Wolfson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
RE:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
Kevin,

The
relevant
question
is
actually
not
whether
there
is
a
trade
restriction,
but
whether
there
is
an
illegal
trade
restriction.

As
a
point
in
fact,
there
is
no
restriction
on
the
import
of
141b
foam
systems.
To
the
extent
that
others
might
argue
that
our
rule
indirectly
restricts
trade
because
it
would
reduce
incentives
to
import
foam
systems
containing
141b
from
other
countries
by
removing
a
useful
domestic
purpose
for
the
product,
we
would
argue
that
the
ban
on
the
use
of
141b
in
the
United
States
is
a
legal,
supportable
action
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Further,
our
rule
treats
foam
systems
from
all
sources,
domestic
and
international,
equally,
imposing
no
discrimination
based
on
country
of
origin.
Hence
any
effect
on
trade
would
not
be
considered
an
illegal
trade
restriction.

Therefore,
the
rule
to
ban
the
use
of
141
would
not
pose
any
problems
from
a
trade
point
of
view.

Jeanne
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
To:
Jeanne
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sb
a.
gov>

07/
16/
04
12:
34
PM
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
"'
Edmund
Toy
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)'"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"
Dyke,
Hans
P."
<
Hans.
Dyke@
sba.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
"'
jprescott@
ustr.
gov'"
<
jprescott@
ustr.
gov>
Subject:
RE:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
Thanks
for
your
note.
I'm
now
even
more
confused.

As
I
understand
this,
under
EPA's
proposal
it
is
legal
to
import
blended
systems
with
141b
from
Mexico
into
the
US,
but
not
legal
to
make
foam
in
the
US.
As
I
understand
it,
the
systems
are
blended
specifically
to
make
foam.
Why
would
one
import
such
materials
if
it
were
illegal
to
use
them?
How
is
this
consistent
with
EPA
"
does
not
wish
to
impose
trade
restrictions
more
stringent
than
those
required
under
the
Protocol,"
as
stated
in
the
proposal?
I
would
think
that
a
ban
on
the
use
of
a
product
would
be
a
form
of
a
trade
restriction.
What
do
I
not
understand?

Kevin
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov]

Sent:
Thursday,
July
15,
2004
3:
45
PM
To:
Bromberg,
Kevin
L.
Cc:
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov;
'
Edmund
Toy
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)';
Dyke,
Hans
P.;
Kocchi.
Suzanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
RE:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
Hi
Kevin,

The
rule
would
ban
the
use
in
the
US
of
141b
as
of
January
1,
2005
(
except
what
was
in
stock
w/
contractors
for
the
1st
quarter
of
2005
to
allow
them
to
deal
with
bad
weather)
to
make
foam.
Blended
foam
systems
(
from
any
origin)
that
contained
141b
would
not
be
able
to
be
used
to
manufacture
foam.

After
January
1,
2005,
anyone
could
purchase
or
import
the
systems
from
any
source
with
any
blowing
agent.
(
Just
as
they
may
today.)
However
if
the
blowing
agent
contained
141b,
it
could
not
be
legally
used
to
make
foam
in
the
US.

This
closes
the
loophole
by
making
the
use
of
any
system
containing
141b
illegal.
Thus,
the
incentive
to
use
systems
(
from
any
source,
including
Mexico)
would
be
reduced
because
of
the
risks
of
breaking
the
law.
This
would
increase
incentives
to
use
legal
systems
from
any
source
­­
those
that
contained
approved
alternatives
to
141b.
In
addition,
the
rule
would
not
create
a
trade
issue
because
the
rule
would
have
no
effect
on
what
could
or
could
not
be
imported
or
exported.

The
contact
at
USTR
is
Contact
for
USTR:
Jennifer
Yoder
Prescott,
Director
for
Multilateral
Trade
and
Environment
Policy:
phone
202­
395­
9466
fax­
202­
395­
6865
jprescott@
ustr.
gov
Jeanne
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
To:
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
<
kevin.
bromberg@
s
cc:
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
"'
Edmund
Toy
ba.
gov>
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)'"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
"
Dyke,
Hans
P."
<
Hans.
Dyke@
sba.
gov>
07/
14/
04
04:
15
PM
Subject:
RE:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
To
be
specific,
EPA
doesn't
plan
to
ban
blended
foam
systems
from
Mexico?
Then
how
would
this
plug
the
Mexican
"
loophole"
­
or
am
I
missing
something
here?

Also,
I
didn't
see
the
USTR
contacts
yet.

FYI,
Hans
Dyke
is
an
intern
working
on
this
issue
for
me.

Thanks
kevin
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov]

Sent:
Tuesday,
July
06,
2004
9:
20
AM
To:
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Cc:
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov;
'
Edmund
Toy
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)';
Bromberg,
Kevin
L.;
Kocchi.
Suzanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
Re:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
Kevin,
I
forgot
to
mention
that
we
already
briefed
USTR
about
2
months
ago,
and
spent
a
portion
of
that
discussion
talking
about
the
Mexico
situation
in
particular.
The
result
of
those
meetings
is
that
we
understand
that
the
USTR
comfortable
with
the
final
rule
as
we
have
planned
it.

Jeanne
Jeanne
Briskin
To:
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>
07/
06/
04
08:
21
AM
cc:
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
"'
Edmund
Toy
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)'"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
Re:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule(
Document
link:
Jeanne
Briskin)

Kevin,

Thanks
for
your
note.
I
believe
you
misunderstand
what
the
rule
we
are
currently
working
on
would
and
would
not
do.
It
would
ban
the
use
of
141b
in
the
United
States.
It
would
not
ban
the
import
of
foam
systems
from
any
country
to
the
US.
However,
if
the
systems
were
systems
potentially
used
to
manufacture
foams
with
141b,
they
could
not
be
used
once
they
entered
the
US.
The
rule
would
not
be
in
any
way
inconsistent
with
the
direct
final
rule
you
discuss
below,
and
has
no
trade
implications
for
any
country.

Jeanne
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
To:
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
"'
Edmund
Toy
<
kevin.
bromberg@
s
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)'"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>
ba.
gov>
cc:
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
Subject:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
07/
02/
04
04:
12
PM
Jeanne/
Edmond:

In
a
BNA
article
excerpted
below
that
appeared,
I
believe,
on
June
21,
it
describers
a
direct
final
rule
adopted
by
EPA
on
June
17
to
clarify
the
meaning
of
the
term,
"
state
not
a
party
to
the
protocol''.
In
the
actual
notice,
which
implements
Decision
XV/
3
of
the
Protocol,
trade
in
HCFCs
(
including
141b)
can
continue,
whether
or
not
the
Article
5
country
(
including
Mexico)
has
ratified
the
Beijing
or
Copenhagen
Amendments
to
the
Protocol.
It
is
a
bit
hard
to
imagine
how
the
agency
can
issue
a
ban
intended
to
restrict
imports
of
blended
systems
in
one
rulemaking
while
still
maintaining
that
the
agency
"
does
not
wish
to
impose
trade
restrictions
more
stringent
than
those
required
under
the
Protocol,"
as
stated
in
the
June
17th
notice.
Could
EPA
explain
this?
I'd
also
be
more
comfortable
if
EPA
would
share
its
plan
to
ban
these
blended
systems
from
being
imported
from
Mexico
with
the
relevant
folks
in
USTR
and
the
State
Department
to
determine
whether
the
Administration
is
singing
from
the
same
song
sheet.

Thanks
Kevin
>
­­­­­
>
>
Environment
>
Rule
Will
Eliminate
Inconsistencies
>
Of
Trading
Rule
Compliance,
EPA
Says
>
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
revised
regulations
June
17
>
governing
the
trade
of
certain
ozone­
depleting
substances
to
eliminate
>
inconsistencies
for
manufacturers
complying
with
both
U.
S.
rules
and
>
the
Montreal
Protocol
(
69
Fed.
Reg.
34,023).
EPA
issued
a
direct
final
>
rule
to
conform
its
regulations
with
the
1987
Montreal
Protocol
on
>
Substances
That
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
and
to
correct
a
drafting
>
error
because
the
agency
views
it
as
noncontroversial
and
anticipates
>
no
adverse
comment.
EPA
also
published
a
separate
proposal
to
revise
>
the
trade
restrictions
provisions
if
adverse
comments
are
filed.
If
>
there
are
none,
the
direct
final
rule
will
take
effect
Aug.
16.
To
>
implement
the
Montreal
Protocol
as
amended
later
in
Copenhagen
and
>
Beijing,
EPA
established
an
allowance
system
in
January
2003
under
>
regulations
to
control
the
U.
S.
consumption
of
hydrochlorofluorcarbons
>
(
HCFCs).
This
is
part
of
the
U.
S.
commitment
to
reduce
emissions
of
>
ozone­
depleting
substances
under
the
Montreal
treaty.
Under
these
>
regulations,
EPA
implemented
a
ban
on
trade
with
states
that
>
are
not
a
party
to
the
protocol,
which
EPA
interpreted
to
be
necessary
>
under
Article
4
of
the
pact.
Under
the
protocol
as
amended,
the
United
>
States
and
other
industrialized
>
countries
that
are
parties
agreed
to
limit
production
and
consumption
of
>
HCFCs
and
to
phase
out
consumption
over
time,
culminating
in
a
complete
>
phaseout
in
2030.
>
>
Problems
Noticed
at
Nairobi
Meeting
>
As
a
result
of
a
meeting
of
the
parties
to
the
protocol
in
November
>
2003
in
Nairobi,
a
decision
was
made
as
to
exactly
which
states
were
>
subject
to
implementation
of
control
measures
and
by
what
date.
This
>
was
necessary,
according
to
EPA,
because
different
parties
to
the
>
Beijing
Amendment
to
the
protocol,
including
the
United
States,
were
>
adopting
domestic
regulations
that
included
different
and
conflicting
>
interpretations
of
Article
4
of
the
pact.
These
nations
interpreted
>
the
term,
"
state
not
a
party
to
the
protocol''
in
ways
that
would
have
>
"
created
great
uncertainty
and
confusion
within
the
regulated
>
community
with
respect
to
which
states
trade
was
allowed
under
Article
>
4"
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
with
respect
to
HCFCs,
EPA
said.
>
>
The
United
States
is
a
party
to
the
protocol,
including
both
the
>
Copenhagen
and
Beijing
amendments,
and
it
agreed
with
the
Nairobi
>
decision.
However,
when
EPA
reviewed
the
current
domestic
regulations
>
in
relation
to
the
Nairobi
decision,
it
identified
discrepancies
>
between
it
and
EPA's
2003
regulations.
In
making
the
changes
necessary
>
for
consistency,
EPA
had
to
promulgate
minor
adjustments
to
the
>
regulations
issued
Jan.
21,
2003
(
68
Fed.
Reg.
>
2,820).
>
For
further
information
on
the
rule
or
proposal,
contact
Cindy
Newberg,
>
EPA,
Global
Programs
Division,
Office
of
Atmospheric
Programs,
Office
of
>
Air
and
Radiation
(
6205J),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C
.,
>
20460
or
by
telephone
at
(
202)
343­
9729.
>

"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>

07/
20/
2004
01:
42
PM
To
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
"'
Edmund
Toy
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)'"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"
Dyke,
Hans
P."
<
Hans.
Dyke@
sba.
gov>,
"'
jprescott@
ustr.
gov'"
<
jprescott@
ustr.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jan
Tierney/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Steve
Wolfson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
RE:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
Below
is
the
original
sentence
in
the
FR
notice
that
I
questioned:

'
It
is
a
bit
hard
to
imagine
how
the
agency
can
issue
a
ban
intended
to
restrict
imports
of
blended
systems
in
one
rulemaking
while
still
maintaining
that
the
agency
"
does
not
wish
to
impose
trade
restrictions
more
stringent
than
those
required
under
the
Protocol,"
as
stated
in
the
June
17th
notice.'

I'm
not
questioning,
in
this
note,
the
merits
of
whether
a
trade
restriction
should
be
added
by
EPA
by
rule.
I
wasn't
suggesting
that
it
was
an
"
illegal
trade
restriction"
in
this
note,
although
Atofina
in
its
letters
has
raised
that
issue,
and
we
haven't
taken
a
position
on
that
issue.
I
simply
pointed
out
that
such
a
move
is
not
consistent
with
EPA's
recently
announced
position
in
the
FR
notice.
EPA
is
imposing
a
"
trade
restriction"
more
stringent
than
those
required
under
the
Protocol.
The
fact
that
the
trade
restriction
is
necessary
under
the
Clean
Air
Act,
nondiscriminatory
among
nations,
etc.
does
not
mean
that
it
is
not
a
"
trade
restriction".
I
would
hope
that
all
trade
restrictions
have
a
valid
policy
basis.

Jennifer,
I
hope
you've
had
the
opportunity
to
review
the
Honeywell
and
Atofina
letters
to
satisfy
yourself
as
to
whether
EPA's
proposed
actions
are
consistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
the
Montreal
protocol.
If
not,
Jeanne
or
I
can
provide
you
with
copies
if
you
give
us
your
fax
number.

Kevin
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
On
another
front,
we're
close
to
completing
our
(
9
or
less)
survey
of
the
16
system
houses.
Already,
it
appears
that
only
one
or
two
have
completed
their
code
approvals
for
the
141b­
substitutes.
Generally,
we're
omitting
the
houses
that
favor
a
ban,
or
have
known
positions
in
opposition
to
a
ban
because
their
approvals
are
not
done.

Also,
one
company
that
has
"
commercialized"
the
141b­
substitute
is
selling
the
product
for
unique
applications
for
which
additional
code
approval
(
nor
UL
approval)
is
not
required,
and
gaining
field
experience
in
that
way
(
roofing
under
tile
in
Florida
was
the
example
we
were
given).
Therefore,
the
availability
of
the
product
on
the
website
does
not
indicate
whether
the
code
approval
has
been
achieved
for
conventional
roof
and
wall
applications.
(
At
least,
that's
what
we
were
told).

Kevin
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
07/
21/
2004
09:
53
AM
To
"
bromberg,
kevin"
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>
cc
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
"'
Edmund
Toy
(
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov)'"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"
Dyke,
Hans
P."
<
Hans.
Dyke@
sba.
gov>,
"'
jprescott@
ustr.
gov'"
<
jprescott@
ustr.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jan
Tierney/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Steve
Wolfson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Fw:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
Kevin,

1)
Regarding
the
issue
of
a
possible
trade
restriction
and
our
answer
to
ATOFINA's
comments
about
EPA's
authority
to
regulate
the
import
of
blended
foam
systems
from
other
countries:
The
141b
rule
would
not
impose
an
illegal
trade
restriction
on
any
country
and
does
not
regulate
the
import
or
export
of
any
chemical,
system
or
product.
This
rule
would
simply
prevent
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b
in
the
U.
S.
to
make
foam
in
the
U.
S.
We
have
worked
with
OGC
and
responded
to
ATOFINA's
comments
directly
in
the
rule
and
would
be
happy
to
provide
you
with
the
text
of
that
response
for
your
review.

The
141b
rule
is
consistent
with
the
recently
published
regulation
that
conformed
EPA
regulations
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
requirements.
The
141b
rule
is
not
more
restrictive
than
what
is
called
for
under
the
conforming
regulation.

If
we
had
not
done
the
conforming
regulation,
we
would
not
have
been
able
to
have
trade
of
any
legal
bulk
substances
controlled
under
Title
6
of
the
CAA
with
Mexico
as
well
as
several
other
countries.
This
is
because
these
countries
have
not
ratified
all
the
relevant
international
agreements,
even
though
they
are
complying
with
the
agreements.
The
import
of
bulk
141
b
to
the
US
has
been
banned
for
a
number
of
years,
and
neither
the
conforming
regulation
nor
the
141b
use
ban
change
that
situation.
The
conforming
regulation
makes
consistent
the
requirements
to
legally
trade
bulk
substances.
Other
parts
of
Title
VI
regulations,
such
as
the
Nonessential
Products
Ban,
regulate
the
import
of
products
(
including
foam
systems
that
contain
141b).
Such
trade
would
still
be
permitted
under
the
141b
rule.
(
We
grant
that
the
incentives
to
send
foam
systems
with
141b
from
any
country
to
the
US
would
be
greatly
reduced
by
the
ban
on
use
of
141b
within
the
US.)
Trade
in
other
products
(
formulated
foam
systems
with
blowing
agents
other
than
141b
and
refrigerators
containing
141b­
blown
foam
for
example)
would
remain
completely
untouched.

2)
Since
the
proposal
was
published
in
2000,
nearly
every
known
formulator
(
systems
house)
in
the
U.
S.
has
contacted
EPA
and
provided
information
to
the
Agency
about
the
status
of
their
transition
to
alternatives.
Most
of
that
correspondence,
in
the
form
of
letters
to
or
meetings
with
the
Agency,
appears
in
one
of
three
related
dockets,
A­
2000­
18,
A­
98­
33
and
OAR­
2003­
0228.
Additionally,
the
industry
has
had
a
minimum
of
3
opportunities
(
the
proposal
and
2
notices
of
data
availability)
to
comment
on
that
information
and
provide
new
information
and
data.

The
only
information
that
has
been
kept
confidential
in
since
2000
is
the
company
specific
data
found
in
the
HCFC­
141b
exemption
allowance
petitions
for
2003
and
2004.
EPA
received
petitions
from
10
(
out
of
16
formulators)
in
2003
and
2004
and
therefore
has
a
detailed,
company
specific
understanding
of
the
status
of
transition
to
alternatives
in
the
spray
foam
sector
for
the
U.
S.
We
presented
a
summary
of
those
petitions
and
our
conclusions
in
a
document
that
was
published
in
the
docket
in
March
2004
and
requested
public
comment.

No
commenter
provided
data
to
contradict
our
conclusion
that
there
are
no
technical
constraints
to
alternatives
to
HCFC­
141b
in
spray
foam
and
the
demand
in
the
spray
foam
sector
in
2005
will
be
met
with
alternatives.
Furthermore,
no
data
was
presented
by
either
formulators
or
producers
to
contradict
our
conclusion
that
the
remaining
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
will
be
depleted
at
the
end
of
2004.
Based
on
this
analysis
­
­
alternatives
exist
that
present
a
lower
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
that
HCFC­
141b
­
­
EPA
would
like
to
finalize
its
proposal
to
change
the
listing
of
HCFC­
141b
from
acceptable
to
unacceptable.
This
action
is
necessary
and
prudent
to
ensure
the
complete
transition
to
non­
ODP
alternatives
in
the
foam
industry
and
meet
the
obligations
of
the
CAA.
Continued
use
of
HCFC­
141b
will
not
only
penalize
companies
that
have
made
good
faith
investments
and
efforts
in
alternatives
but
likely
reverse
the
transition
that
already
occurred
in
the
spray
foam
market.

3)
Regarding
the
informal
survey
SBA
is
conducting
with
the
formulators:

EPA
already
conducted
a
random
survey
of
9
or
less
entities
in
the
foam
industry
(
both
formulators
and
contractors)
and
has
provided
the
results
to
OMB
and
SBA
in
the
document
dated
June
14,
2004
and
entitled
"
Economic
impacts
on
small
business
in
the
spray
foam
sector..."
This
document
is
in
addition
to
the
document
already
in
the
docket
that
summarized
the
HCFC­
141b
exemption
allowance
petitions
and
other
industry
data
and
presented
conclusions
based
on
that
information.
The
information
presented
those
two
documents
(
regarding
questions
asked,
respondents
and
their
answers)
is
clear
and
has
been
subject
to
public
comment.

SBA's
survey
of
the
same
industry
could
present
PRA
issues,
due
to
multiple
questioning
of
the
same
entities
and/
or
questioning
of
more
than
9
entities.
If
such
a
survey
was
found
to
violate
PRA
then
the
data
could
not
be
used
in
this
rule
making.
Furthermore,
by
arbitrarily
excluding
certain
formulators
with
stated
positions
for
or
against
the
proposed
rule,
the
SBA
survey
is
neither
representative
of
the
industry
as
a
whole
nor
random.
Therefore
the
results
are
likely
to
be
skewed
compared
to
the
status
of
the
industry
as
a
whole.

If
we
are
to
incorporate
the
information
gathered
by
SBA
into
our
decision
making,
we
would
need
to
be
sure
that
the
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
have
been
met.
We
would
also
need
to
know
specifically
the
method
used
to
select
respondents,
the
information
provided
to
respondents
as
preface
to
the
questions
posed,
the
specific
questions
asked
of
each
respondent
and
the
entire
answer
of
each.
In
addition,
we
would
need
to
have
the
information
provided
in
a
format
that
could
be
made
part
of
the
public
record
in
the
docket.
Finally,
we
would
need
to
evaluate
the
information
provided
in
context
with
all
of
the
other
information
already
on
hand,
including
its
reliability
and
its
representativeness,
in
order
to
arrive
at
a
conclusion
of
whether
and
how
far
to
amend
our
evaluation
of
the
current
state
of
the
market.

All
of
the
information
EPA
has
received
to
date
(
and
published
in
the
public
docket)
supports
the
conclusion
that
non­
ODP
alternatives
are
technically
viable
and
commercially
available
to
the
spray
foam
sector.
There
is
no
technical
reason
to
justify
the
continued
use
of
HCFC­
141b
as
a
blowing
agent
in
foam
applications.
The
public
comments
received
on
this
information
including
the
surveys
of
the
affected
community
have
not
contradicted
our
conclusions
or
provided
new
information.
The
spray
foam
sector
has
been
on
notice
since
1993
about
the
need
to
find
non­
ODP
alternatives
to
HCFC­
141b
and
is
aware
of
the
amount
of
effort,
time
and
investment
required
in
completing
a
transition
to
a
new
blowing
agent.

"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>

07/
21/
2004
01:
38
PM
To
"'
Prescott,
Jennifer'"
<
Jennifer_
Prescott@
USTR.
EOP.
GOV>,
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
"'
Fraas,
Arthur
G.'"
<
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"'
Toy,
Edmond'"
<
Edmond_
Toy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"
Dyke,
Hans
P."
<
Hans.
Dyke@
sba.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jan
Tierney/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Steve
Wolfson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
"
Howe,
Susan
E."
<
Susan.
Howe@
sba.
gov>
Subject
RE:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
"(
We
grant
that
the
incentives
to
send
foam
systems
with
141b
from
any
country
to
the
US
would
be
greatly
reduced
by
the
ban
on
use
of
141b
within
the
US.)"

The
agency
"
does
not
wish
to
impose
trade
restrictions
more
stringent
than
those
required
under
the
Protocol,"
as
stated
in
the
June
17th
notice.'

I
don't
think
EPA
is
well
advised
to
address
further
at
this
time
the
apparent
inconsistency
with
what
EPA
wrote
in
the
June
17th
Federal
Register
notice
(
barely
one
month
ago).
I'm
not
sure
what
dictionary
EPA
lawyers
are
using
to
avoid
admitting
that
a
product
use
ban
is
a
"
restriction"
on
trade
in
the
product,
but
we
appreciate
the
single
sentence
above
which
comes
closer
to
appreciating
the
problem.
When
EPA
drafts
a
proposal
or
a
draft
final
rule
on
this
subject,
we
can
all
review
how
EPA
will
explain
this
inconsistency
and
its
new
action.

Yes,
Jeanne
we
would
like
to
review
the
text
of
the
response
to
Atofina,
as
you
offered
below.
I
suspect
OMB
would
also
be
interested.

Kevin
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Bromberg,
Kevin
L.
Sent:
Wednesday,
July
21,
2004
10:
35
AM
To:
'
Prescott,
Jennifer';
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Cc:
Fraas,
Arthur
G.;
Toy,
Edmond;
Dyke,
Hans
P.;
Kocchi.
Suzanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
tierney.
jan@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Wolfson.
Steve@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
RE:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
"
No
commenter
provided
data
to
contradict
our
conclusion
that
there
are
no
technical
constraints
to
alternatives
to
HCFC­
141b
in
spray
foam
and
the
demand
in
the
spray
foam
sector
in
2005
will
be
met
with
alternatives.
Furthermore,
no
data
was
presented
by
either
formulators
or
producers
to
contradict
our
conclusion
that
the
remaining
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
will
be
depleted
at
the
end
of
2004.
Based
on
this
analysis
­
­
alternatives
exist
that
present
a
lower
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
that
HCFC­
141b
­
­
EPA
would
like
to
finalize
its
proposal
to
change
the
listing
of
HCFC­
141b
from
acceptable
to
unacceptable.
This
action
is
necessary
and
prudent
to
ensure
the
complete
transition
to
non­
ODP
alternatives
in
the
foam
industry
and
meet
the
obligations
of
the
CAA.
Continued
use
of
HCFC­
141b
will
not
only
penalize
companies
that
have
made
good
faith
investments
and
efforts
in
alternatives
but
likely
reverse
the
transition
that
already
occurred
in
the
spray
foam
market."

We
disagree
entirely
with
this
characterization.
I'm
on
a
conference
call
now.
We're
completing
a
survey
(
hopefully
soon)
showing
firms
approaching
a
majority
of
the
16
system
houses,
if
not
more,
do
not
have
either
lab
approvals
or
code
approvals
now,
and
may
get
them
on
the
order
of
through
the
next
year.
We
have
no
evidence
that
these
companies
have
been
negligent
in
seeking
UL
or
FM
approval
­
it's
been
a
many
years
long
process.
We
also
object
to
the
lack
of
proper
rulemaking
to
the
affected
firms,
let
alone
the
serious
legal
issues
involved.
More
details
to
follow.

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Prescott,
Jennifer
[
mailto:
Jennifer_
Prescott@
USTR.
EOP.
GOV]
Sent:
Wednesday,
July
21,
2004
10:
00
AM
To:
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
bromberg,
kevin
Cc:
Fraas,
Arthur
G.;
Toy,
Edmond;
Dyke,
Hans
P.;
Kocchi.
Suzanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
tierney.
jan@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Wolfson.
Steve@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
RE:
HCFC
141b
Ban
and
the
Recent
EPA
Direct
Final
Rule
USTR
is
reviewing
the
rule
(
and
the
comments)
and
we
will
determine
if
there
are
any
legitimate
trade
policy
issues.

Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
08/
04/
2004
03:
49
PM
To
"
bromberg,
kevin"
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>,
"
Toy,
Edmond"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
cc
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Fw:
Florida
Building
Codes
Building
codes
Locality
by
locality
approval
of
code
changes
is
not
necessary.
We
know
of
no
locations
that
require
such
approvals.
None
have
been
brought
to
our
attention,
and
when
we
investigated
the
issue,
we
found
that
none
are
expected.
Let
us
know
specific
locations
you
believe
have
such
policies
and
we
can
investigate
further.

The
national
code
is
adopted
by
the
states
and
local
authorities.
The
code
is
a
pure
performance
standard
and
is
indifferent
to
the
type
of
blowing
agent
used.
The
insulation
must
meet
specific
ASTM
tests
for
smoke
and
flame
spread,
but
the
code
is
indifferent
to
the
components
of
the
foam
insulation
For
example,
you
were
concerned
that
Florida
and
Broward
county
were
examples
of
places
that
required
additional
local
approvals
beyond
ASTM
testing
conducted
by
labs
such
as
UL
or
FM.
We
found
that
not
to
be
the
case:

Florida:
EPA
spoke
with
Jon
Caudill
of
the
Florida
Department
of
Community
Affairs,
Building
Codes
and
Standards
Section
(
phone:
850.921.2282,
website:
http://
www.
dca.
state.
fl.
us/
fhcd/
fbc/).
According
to
Jon,
the
portion
of
Florida
Building
Code
(
FBC)
that
applied
to
spray
foam
insulation
has
not
changed
since
2001.
Jon
explained
that
although
Florida
does
have
its
own
Building
Codes,
they
adopt
the
International
Building
Codes
(
IBC)
in
almost
all
cases.
As
it
pertains
to
spray
foam,
Jon
indicated
that
the
FBC
for
spray
foam
insulation
is
"
virtually
identical"
to
the
IBC.

EPA
reviewed
Chapter
26,
Section
2603
of
the
FBC
and
compared
it
to
Section
719
of
the
IBC.
The
performance
(
smoke
and
flame)
requirements
are
the
same
in
both
codes
for
spray
foam
insulation.
In
other
words,
spray
foam
insulation
in
Florida
does
not
appear
to
have
to
meet
any
additional
criteria
beyond
the
ASTM
tests
listed
in
both
codes.
Furthermore,
Jon
explained,
spray
foam
formulators
do
not
have
to
meet
with
officials
in
Florida
or
apply
for
approval
to
any
particular
code
body
in
Florida,
they
simply
have
to
maintain
on
record
and
be
able
to
produce
documentation,
if
asked,
that
demonstrates
their
spray
foam
formulation
meets
the
criteria
in
the
FBC
(
namely,
the
ASTM
tests).
This
process
is
similar
to
the
process
described
to
EPA
by
Chris
Holland
at
the
International
Code
Council
(
ICC)
on
Friday
July
30,
2004.

EPA
spoke
with
Will
Willis
of
the
Broward
County,
Building
Code
Services
Section
(
phone
#
954.765.4500,
websitehttp://
www.
broward.
org/
bpi00101.
htm).
He
confirmed
what
Jon
Caudill
of
the
Florida
Department
of
Community
Affairs
said.
To
use
spray
foam
insulation
in
Broward
County,
you
have
to
meet
the
FBC
found
in
Chapter
26,
Section
2603.
He
also
indicated
that
in
Miami­
Dade
and
Broward
Counties,
all
buildings
have
to
comply
with
High
Velocity
Hurricane
Zones
but
said
this
mainly
deals
with
the
envelope
of
the
building
(
for
plastic
insulation
the
relevant
chapter
is
Chapter
26
Section
2605).

EPA
reviewed
the
requirements
in
Section
2605
and
did
not
note
any
additional
requirements
for
spray
foam
insulation,
beyond
the
ASTM
tests
listed
in
Section
2603
for
performance
regarding
smoke
and
flame
spread.
Mr
Willis
said
that
he
was
not
aware
of
anything
beyond
meeting
the
FBC
that
a
user
of
spray
foam
would
have
to
do
in
Broward
County.

Commercialized
Systems
The
attached
list
of
spray
foam
formulators
was
provided
to
SBA
and
OMB
from
EPA
at
the
June
17,
2004
meeting.
The
list
provides
name
and
contact
information
for
all
the
known
spray
foam
formulators.
The
last
page
of
the
list
indicates
the
spray
foam
formulators
that
have
commercialized
(
i.
e.,
have
available
for
sale)
spray
foam
systems.
Those
formulators
were
selling
those
systems
commercially
through
their
website
as
of
the
date
of
the
meeting.
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
08/
05/
2004
08:
00
AM
To
"
Toy,
Edmond"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
cc
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
answers
to
OMB
questions
Art
and
Edmond
­

Please
find
the
answers
below
to
the
following
questions
you
asked
us
on
Aug
3,
2004.

1)
What
comments
did
EPA
receive
on
the
effective
date
of
the
rule?

Out
of
a
total
of
181
comments
on
the
entire
use
ban
action
(
2000
NPRM,
2001
NODA,
2004
NODA),
EPA
received
1
timely
and
2
late
comments
on
the
effective
date
with
respect
to
HCFC­
141b
in
response
to
the
2004
NODA.
The
late
commenter
sent
two
letters
to
recommend
initially
a
January
1,
2006
effective
date
and
then
changed
their
request
to
a
July
1,
2006
effective
date.
The
1
comment
received
within
the
comment
period
for
the
2004
NODA
recommended
a
January
1,
2006
effective
date.
These
3
comments
can
be
found
online
at
EPA
edocket
OAR­
2003­
0228,
documents
25,
40
and
41.
EPA
received
no
comments
about
the
effective
date
with
respect
to
HCFC­
141b
in
response
to
the
original
2000
NPRM.

Although
the
production
phaseout
of
HCFC­
141b
was
being
addressed
in
a
separate
but
related
rulemaking,
EPA
received
33
identical
comments
to
the
2000
NPRM
(
which
was
about
the
use
of
HCFCs
in
foam)
regarding
the
production
phaseout
date
of
HCFC­
141b
as
part
of
a
letter
writing
campaign.
EPA
received
6
additional
comments
to
the
2001
NODA
(
again,
which
was
about
the
use
of
HCFCs
in
foam)
also
regarding
the
production
phaseout
date
of
HCFC­
141b.
The
commenters
sought
an
extension
to
the
production
phaseout
date
for
HCFC­
141b.
EPA
responded
to
their
comments
in
that
separate
but
related
rulemaking
by
establishing
the
HCFC­
141b
exemption
allowance
petition
process.
In
other
words,
companies
sent
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
regarding
the
production
phaseout
date
of
HCFC­
141b
to
the
docket
for
the
proposed
rule
on
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b.
These
rules
were
related
but
separate
in
that
one
dealt
with
production
of
HCFCs
and
one
dealt
with
use
of
HCFCs.
EPA
addressed
all
comments
received
on
the
production
phaseout
date
of
HCFC­
141b
in
the
Final
HCFC
Allowance
Allocation
Rule
published
on
January
21,
2003
(
68
FR
2819).

All
comments
to
the
2000
NPRM
and
the
2001
NODA
on
the
use
of
HCFCs
in
foam
can
be
found
in
the
EPA
paper
docket
A­
2000­
18
(
the
legacy
docket
that
corresponds
to
the
edocket
listed
above).

2)
How
do
we
calculate
the
basis
of
EPA's
belief
that
the
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
will
be
depleted
by
the
end
of
2004?

EPA
collected
confidential
business
information
from
the
5
known
suppliers
of
HCFC­
141b
asking
for
the
total
quantity
of
all
committed
and
uncommitted
HCFC­
141b
stockpile
each
supplier
held.
If
the
stockpile
was
committed,
EPA
asked
the
name
of
the
company
and
the
quantity
committed
to
that
company,
as
well
as
a
projection
of
when
that
committed
stockpile
would
be
depleted.
Based
on
that
information,
EPA
determined
the
quantity
of
uncommitted
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
available
for
use
in
the
spray
foam
sector
in
2004
was
1,630,344
kg.

EPA
also
received
confidential
business
information
from
each
of
the
9
formulators
petitioning
for
HCFC­
141b
in
2004
that
detailed,
the
quantity
of
HCFC­
141b
they
used
for
the
last
3
years,
the
quantity
of
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
they
had
purchased
for
2004
and
the
total
quantity
of
HCFC­
141b
they
expected
to
use
in
2004
per
application
(
we
also
received
the
same
information
in
2003
from
12
formulators).
An
aggregate
total
of
the
petitioners'
requests
in
2004,
beforeEPA
analysis
is
that
the
9
formulators
that
petitioned
(
out
of
16
formulators)
were
expecting
to
use
2,319,826
kg
of
HCFC­
141b
in
2004.
All
9
petitioners
were
requested
to
provide
additional
information
to
EPA
after
their
initial
submittals.
One
formulator
withdrew
their
petition
and
one
formulator
did
not
respond.
As
a
result
of
the
analysis
of
the
additional
information
from
the
remaining
7
petitioners,
EPA
determined
the
7
petitioners'
actual
requests
for
HCFC­
141b
in
2004
should
have
been
1,051,875
kg.
This
quantity
was
578,469
kg
short
of
the
available
1,630,344
kg
of
uncommitted
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b.

Based
on
all
the
confidential
information
submitted
to
EPA
for
the
2003
and
2004
petition
processes
and
the
historic
use
patterns
of
HCFC­
141b
by
the
spray
foam
sector,
EPA
believes
that
the
committed
and
uncommitted
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
for
the
spray
foam
sector
will
be
depleted
by
the
end
of
2004.

This
entire
analysis,
including
the
aggregate
total
quantities
of
HCFC­
141b
mentioned
above
is
discussed
in
a
memo
that
is
in
the
docket
(
OAR­
2003­
0228­
0009).
EPA
requested
comment
on
this
analysis
and
did
not
receive
any
evidence
to
suggest
it
is
inaccurate.

3)
Does
EPA
have
any
data
on
the
extent
of
use
of
the
Mexican
loophole?

EPA
has
primarily
anecdotal
information
about
the
use
of
the
Mexican
loophole.
EPA
has
repeatedly
heard
informally
from
several
formulators,
several
suppliers
and
several
technical
experts
in
the
industry
that
exploitation
of
the
loophole
is
being
encouraged
for
those
that
want
to
continue
using
HCFC­
141b,
despite
technically
viable
and
commercially
available
alternatives.
One
commenter
(
OAR­
2003­
0228­
0007)
estimated
the
quantity
of
HCFC­
141b
imported
to
the
U.
S.
through
the
loophole
is
8­
9
million
pounds
(
3.6
­
4.1
mil
kg),
but
did
not
provide
substantiation
for
this
estimate.
(
Historically,
spray
foam
used
approximately
20
million
pounds
(
9
mil
kg)
of
HCFC­
141b).

4)
What
is
the
regulatory
language
regarding
the
petition
process?
If
EPA
granted
an
HCFC­
141b
petition
for
2005,
with
the
use
ban
in
place,
could
EPA
by
granting
that
petition,
allow
use
of
the
newly
produced
HCFC­
141b
in
spite
of
the
ban?

EPA's
petition
process
is
found
at
40
CFR
82.16(
h),
the
preamble
discussion
of
the
petition
process
starts
on
68
FR
2824.
The
following
is
an
excerpt
of
the
regulatory
language:

"
Effective
January
1,
2003,
a
formulator
of
HCFC­
141b,
an
agency,
department
or
instrumentality
of
the
U.
S.,
or
a
non­
governmental
space
vehicle
entity,
may
petition
EPA
for
the
production
or
import
of
HCFC­
141b
after
the
phaseout
date,
in
accordance
with
this
section."
(
40
CFR
82.16(
h)(
1))

No,
granting
an
HCFC­
141b
petition
for
2005
would
not
allow
that
petitioner
to
use
HCFC­
141b
beyond
a
final
use
ban
date
(
January
1,
2005).
EPA's
petition
process
solely
grants
an
allowance
to
the
petitioner
for
new
production
and/
or
import
of
HCFC­
141b
for
the
calendar
year
for
which
the
petition
is
granted.
New
production
and/
or
import
of
HCFC­
141b
is
not
guaranteed
by
EPA
approving
the
petition
(
68
FR
2830).
Approving
a
petition
simply
gives
the
petitioner
the
right
to
take
their
allowance
and
find
attempt
to
find
a
willing
supplier
to
supply
the
approved
quantity
of
HCFC­
141b
for
the
calendar
year
that
is
specified.

The
acceptability
of
the
use
of
HCFC
141b
in
foam
applications
as
a
substitute
for
CFC­
11
is
covered
under
Appendix
K
to
Subpart
G
of
40
CFR
82.
Appendix
K
lists,
by
sector
and
application,
unacceptable
substitutes
for
ozone
depleting
substances.
At
this
time,
HCFC­
141b
is
still
acceptable
for
use
in
foam
applications
as
a
substitute
for
CFC­
11and
therefore
is
not
listed
in
Appendix
K
.
The
rule
you
are
now
reviewing,
when
finalized,
will
list
HCFC­
141b
in
Appendix
K
as
an
unacceptable
substitute
for
CFC­
11
in
foam
applications.
This
would
effectively
ban
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b
in
foam
applications.
Neither
the
preamble
nor
the
regulatory
language
for
the
HCFC­
141b
petition
process
has
any
provision
which
would
allow
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b
independent
of
the
effects
of
Appendix
K
.

5)
How
long
do
recipients
of
Section
114
letters
have
to
respond
to
EPA?

The
EPA
standard
response
time
is
15
days
from
receipt
of
the
114
letter.
Typically,
recipients
call
to
ask
for
an
extension
of
this
15
day
deadline.
Granting
an
extension
is
at
the
discretion
of
the
program
office.
Generally,
an
extension
of
30­
90
days
is
granted
upon
request,
depending
on
the
circumstances.

We're
available
to
discuss
these
answers
further
and
to
address
any
additional
questions
you
may
have.

Thanks,

Jeanne
and
Suzie.

Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
08/
05/
2004
03:
20
PM
To
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>
cc
"'
Edmond_
Toy@
omb.
eop.
gov'"
<
Edmond_
Toy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"
Dyke,
Hans
P."
<
Hans.
Dyke@
sba.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
RE:
Florida
Approval
Process
­
Apparently
is
Time
Consuming
­
See
Fact
Sheet
EPA
understands
that
NCFI,
BASF,
Dow,
Resin
Technology
and
Gaco
Western
have
all
supplied
Florida
contractors
with
spray
foam
systems
in
the
past.
4
out
of
those
5
companies,
have
qualified
spray
foam
systems
containing
alternative
blowing
agents
that
could
supply
FL
contractors
today.

Note
that
the
fact
sheety
you
provided
is
consistent
with
our
understanding
of
the
procedures
(
or
lack
thereof)
that
contractors
who
install
foam
must
follow
to
use
foam
which
contains
alternatives
to
141b
as
the
foam
blowing
agent:

The
Florida
Building
Code
(
FBC),
like
the
International
Building
Code
(
IBC)
for
spray
foam
insulation
has
certain
performance
standards
for
flame
spread
and
smoke
development
(
ASTM
tests)
that
the
spray
foam
insulation
must
meet
in
order
to
be
code
compliant.
As
explained
to
EPA,
and
detailed
in
an
email
sent
8/
4/
04,
in
FL
to
use
spray
foam
a
company
as
to
maintain
on
record
test
results
that
demonstrate
the
insulation
they
are
using
passed
the
ASTM
tests,
required
by
the
code
and
produce
this
evidence
if
asked
by
a
building
code
official.
This
process
is
further
confirmed
with
the
question
and
answer
#
13
on
page
4
of
the
factsheet
SBA
provided:
"
13.
Question:
What
documentation
is
required
to
demonstrate
a
product's
compliance
with
the
standards
adopted
by
the
Code?

Answer:
Where
the
Code
adopts
a
standard
method
of
evaluating
a
product's
compliance
with
the
Code
or
its
performance,
documentation
may
be:

A
test
report
from
an
approved
laboratory
A
listing
or
label
from
an
approved
certification
agency;
or
An
evaluation
report
from
an
approved
evaluation
entity
or
Florida
licensed
P.
E.
or
R.
A."

In
other
words,
when
a
building
permit
applicant
undergoes
plan
review,
he
must
be
prepared
to
provide
information
about
the
performance
of
the
materials
in
the
appropriate
tests,
if
asked.
All
of
this
information
is
typically
and
routinely
provided
in
the
written
description
of
a
project
provided
routinely
for
buiding
permits.
No
change
or
additional
steps
are
necessary
because
of
the
switch
in
blowing
agents.

"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sb
a.
gov>

08/
05/
04
01:
40
PM
To:
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
"'
Edmond_
Toy@
omb.
eop.
gov'"
<
Edmond_
Toy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
"
Dyke,
Hans
P."
<
Hans.
Dyke@
sba.
gov>
Subject:
RE:
Florida
Approval
Process
­
Apparently
is
Time
Consuming
­
See
Fact
Sheet
We'd
be
interested
in
knowing
whether
EPA
knows
any
system
houses
that
got
Florida
approvals
already
­
and
how
long
this
took.

Here
is
an
excerpt
from
the
local
approval
portion
of
the
fact
sheet.
Even
the
manufacturing
of
the
product
needs
to
be
monitored
for
quality
control!

9.
Question:
What
must
be
done
for
local
approval?

Answer:

*
The
manufacturer
must
have
the
product
evaluated
for
compliance
with
standards
established
by
the
Code
by
a
Commission
approved
entity
or
Florida
licensed
P.
E.

or
R.
A.

*
The
manufacturer
must
also
contract
with
a
Commission
approved
quality
assurance
entity
to
monitor
manufacturing
production
or
have
the
product
listed
and
labeled
by
a
Commission
approved
certification
program.

*
The
manufacturer
must
submit:
(
1)
documentation
on
the
evaluation
to
the
building
department
demonstrating
compliance,
(
2)
demonstration
of
active
monitoring
of
production
by
an
approved
QA
entity,
and
(
3)
the
installation
instructions.

10.
Question:
What
must
the
local
building
official
verify/
validate?

Answer:

*
That
the
evaluation
was
conducted
by
a
Commission
approved
entity
or
Florida
licensed
P.
E.
or
R.
A.

*
That
the
evaluation
was
conducted
using
the
standard
method
adopted
by
the
Code
or
a
Commission
approved
alternate.

*
That
the
manufacturer
has
demonstrated
that
a
QA
program
monitored
by
a
state
approved
QA
entity
is
in
place
or
that
the
product
is
labeled
and
listed
under
a
Commission
approved
certification
program.

*
That
the
installation
instructions
consistent
with
the
evaluation
of
compliance
are
provided.

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­

From:
Bromberg,
Kevin
L.

Sent:
Thursday,
August
05,
2004
1:
33
PM
To:
'
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov';
'
Edmond_
Toy@
omb.
eop.
gov'

Cc:
Dyke,
Hans
P.

Subject:
Florida
Approval
Process
­
Apparently
is
Time
Consuming
­
See
Fact
Sheet
http://
www.
dca.
state.
fl.
us/
fhcd/
fbc/
committees/
product_
approval/
PA_
QA2_
082203.
pdf
We're
busy
collecting
specific
information.
We'll
make
it
available
hopefully
within
a
few
days.

Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US
08/
16/
2004
05:
06
PM
To
"
Toy,
Edmond"
<
etoy@
omb.
eop.
gov>
cc
"
bromberg,
kevin"
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>,
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
Subject
Fw:
code
approvals
in
Miami­
Dade,
FL
Edmond,

EPA
spoke
with
Frank
Zuloaga
of
the
Miami­
Dade
Building
Code
Compliance
Office
on
August
16,
2004
(
305.375.2901)
and
discussed
the
processes
and
requirements
for
spray
polyurethane
foam
in
Miami­
Dade
buildings.
In
order
to
use
spray
foam
in
Miami­
Dade,
the
foam
must
comply
with
the
Florida
Building
Code
(
FBC)
for
fire
performance
and
wind
uplift.
The
wind
uplift
test
is
part
of
the
requirement
in
Miami­
Dade
because
it
is
in
a
High
Velocity
Hurricane
Zone.
Both
of
these
tests
are
standard
industry
tests
and
can
be
done
at
UL,
FM
and
other
approved
facilities
in
Florida.

If
formulator
A
wants
sell
its
spray
foam
system
for
use
in
Miami­
Dade
County
they
have
to
go
through
the
following
steps:

1)
Develop
a
formulation
2)
Test
and
qualify
that
formulation
at
a
certified
testing
facility
such
as
UL
and/
or
FM
3)
Obtain
test
results
from
that
facility
4)
Submit
those
test
results
to
Miami­
Dade
County
for
approval
(
this
is
one
of
the
few
counties
in
the
country
that
requires
a
formulator
to
submit
the
test
results
rather
than
just
maintain
them
on
file,
as
it
is
in
the
vast
majority
of
counties
in
the
U.
S.)

5)
If
the
test
results
demonstrate
that
the
foam
meets
to
criteria
for
fire
performance
and
wind
uplift.
The
product
is
approved
for
use
in
Miami­
Dade
(
for
fire
performance
the
standard
is
UL­
790/
ASTM
E108
and
for
wind
uplift
the
standard
is
FM4880)

There
is
no
FBC
or
International
Building
Code
(
IBC)
that
specifies
blowing
agent.
If
there
is
a
change
in
blowing
agent
from
HCFC­
141b
to
an
alternative,
there
is
no
extra
testing
or
approvals
a
formulator
has
to
comply
with
other
than
the
typical
performance
based
tests
(
fire
performance
in
most
counties
and
in
a
hurricane
zone,
fire
performance
and
wind
uplift).
In
most
cases,
a
formulator
simply
has
to
maintain
the
test
results
on
file
that
prove
their
product
meets
the
criteria.
In
Miami­
Dade
they
actually
have
to
submit
the
test
results,
which
has
one
of
the
most
stringent
processes
in
the
U.
S.,
according
to
Frank
Zuloaga.
This
is
not
a
new
requirement
for
Miami­
Dade,
it
has
existed
for
many
years,
due
to
hurricanes.

As
stated
above
the
vast
majority
of
counties
and
states
do
not
require
anything
beyond
fire
performance
and
do
not
require
submittal
of
the
test
data.
According
to
Frank
Zuloaga
in
Miami­
Dade,
based
on
the
current
workload,
if
a
formulator
without
an
already
reviewed
product
submitted
test
data
today
for
a
spray
foam
product
to
be
used
in
Miami­
Dade,
it
would
take
approximately
4
months
to
receive
approval.
He
indicated,
depending
on
the
workload
it
can
take
as
little
as
1
month
and
as
great
as
6
months.
Additionally,
formulators
that
are
already
approved
in
Miami­
Dade
for
spray
foam
do
not
have
to
go
through
the
whole
approval
process
described
above
and
wait
4
months
(
see
below).
When
renewing
their
approvals,
they
simply
have
to
supply
the
test
results
showing
their
product
still
complies
with
the
criteria,
as
it
had
in
the
past.
Furthermore,
Frank
stated
Miami­
Dade
is
aware
there
was
a
blowing
agent
change
in
spray
foam,
has
seen
performance
test
results,
and
received
word
from
the
field
that
the
spray
foam
systems
with
alternatives
are
working
great.
They
did
not
anticipate
a
problem
and/
or
delay
in
awarding
approvals
for
spray
foam
systems
in
Miami­
Dade.

According
to
the
Miami­
Dade
Building
Code
Compliance
website
(
http://
www.
co.
miami­
dade.
fl.
us/
buildingcode/)
the
following
companies
hold
current
approvals
for
use
of
spray
polyurethane
foam
systems
in
Miami­
Dade:
Polythane
Systems
Inc,
Foam
Enterprises
(
owned
by
BASF),
and
North
Carolina
Foam
Industries.

As
stated
above,
Miami­
Dade,
FBC,
and
IBC
do
not
specify
blowing
agent
and/
or
require
companies
to
identify
which
blowing
agent
they
are
using
in
their
spray
foam
system.
Therefore,
the
information
from
Miami­
Dade
County
does
not
indicate
which
blowing
agent
Polythane
Systems,
Foam
Enterprises
and
North
Carolina
Foam
Industries
is
using
in
their
spray
foam
systems
that
are
currently
approved.
EPA
is
aware
of
three
companies
that
have
qualified
foam
systems
with
alternatives
that
are
planning
to
sell
those
systems
for
use
in
Miami­
Dade
County
and
are
confident
they
will
have
all
the
necessary
code
approvals
by
January
1,
2005,
if
not
before.
Two
of
the
companies
currently
have
approvals
in
Miami­
Dade
so
will
only
be
going
through
the
renewal
process
described
above.
One
is
a
new
entrant
to
Miami­
Dade
who
is
also
confident
they
will
have
all
the
necessary
test
and
approvals
completed
by
January
1,
2005,
if
not
before.

Any
other
company
wishing
to
work
in
Miami
Dade
would
need
to
go
through
the
process
explained
by
Mr.
Zuloaga,
regardless
of
the
foam
blowing
agent
­­
In
other
words,
the
rule
would
not
effect
in
any
way
the
procedures,
timing
or
standards
that
new
entrants
in
Miami­
Dade
face
to
enter
the
market.

Please
let
Suzie
know
if
you
have
further
questions.
I
will
be
out
of
the
office
for
the
next
two
weeks.

thanks!
jeanne
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>

08/
24/
2004
01:
51
PM
To
"'
Toy,
Edmond'"
<
Edmond_
Toy@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"
Fraas,
Arthur
G."
<
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov>
cc
Suzanne
Kocchi/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jeanne
Briskin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
RE:
building
codes
and
HCFC­
141b
Thanks,
EPA,
some
progress
is
being
made.
However,
contrary
to
the
below,
my
understanding
is
that
ICC
approval
is
REQUIRED
in
several
states
for
this
product;
and
that
approval
is
not
optional.
The
ICC
has
also
been
adopted
in
44
states
(
although
that
doesn't
mean
that
ICC
approval
is
always
required).
I'm
afraid
that
the
ICC
itself
may
not
be
knowledgeable
about
what
the
jurisdictions
who
have
adopted
the
codes
require
on
this
point.
They
simply
now
that
this
service
is
an
option.
I'm
working
on
getting
documentation
of
this
also.
But
I
am
very
busy
on
other
issues.
And
yes,
the
ICC
does
issue
"
approvals"
for
its
standards.

I'm
glad
that
EPA
now
admits
that
no
one
has
approval
in
Dade
County,
and
indeed,
not
one
system
house
has
even
a
pending
application,
although
EPA
was
:"
confident"
in
its
last
email
that
several
system
houses
would
be
approved
by
January
1,
2005.
(
EPA
needs
to
be
more
careful
in
its
notes;
the
previous
note
led
certain
readers
to
believe
that
firms
had
approvals
of
the
new
systems,
although
I
did
catch
the
distinction.
I
would
prefer
that
EPA
not
try
to
slant
the
facts,
but
let
us
all
objectively
examine
the
facts
and
reach
our
respective
conclusions.)

We
haven't
confirmed
that
any
of
these
three
firms
with
current
approvals
has
completed
testing
for
submission
of
the
third
generation
product
to
Dade
County.
Can
EPA
provide
that
confirmation?
If
they
are
ready,
why
are
the
applications
not
filed?
EPA's
previous
information
has
been
less
than
complete.
(
EPA
now
has
learned
that
more
than
smoke
and
flame
spread
tests
are
required.
EPA
appears
to
be
learning
incrementally
about
the
scope
of
the
delay.)

Also,
it
appears
that
the
code
step
that
takes
the
longest
is
the
ICC
and
Dade
approvals
­
therefore,
the
timing
of
the
UL
and
FM
approvals
are
not
the
procedures
that
drive
when
a
ban
date
may
be
appropriately
set.
Although,
I
do
appreciate
the
new
information
below.

EPA
also
needs
to
allow
some
period
of
time
between
contract
signing
and
the
installation
of
product
for
systems
houses
without
the
new
approvals.
We
will
also
need
to
deal
with
shelf
life
of
the
product.

Kevin
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Toy,
Edmond
[
mailto:
Edmond_
Toy@
omb.
eop.
gov]
Sent:
Tuesday,
August
24,
2004
1:
12
PM
To:
Fraas,
Arthur
G.;
Bromberg,
Kevin
L.
Subject:
FW:
building
codes
and
HCFC­
141b
I'm
forwarding
an
email
from
EPA.

(
1)
Info
on
approvals
in
Miami­
Dade:
timing
involved
and
who
expects
to
receive
approval
for
alternatives
by
Jan
2005.
Currently
none
have
approvals.
(
2)
Quality
control
inspections
related
to
ICC
approval.
EPA
states
that
approvals
are
voluntary,
and
the
approvals
are
run
through
UL
or
FM,
not
ICC.
EPA
states
that
inspections
are
done
on
a
routine
basis
(
not
sure
what
the
frequency
is)
that
is
not
related
to
specific
approval
of
performance
characteristics.
(
3)
Timing
to
get
approval
from
UL/
FM,
based
on
asking
3
companies.

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Kocchi.
Suzanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Kocchi.
Suzanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov]

Sent:
Tuesday,
August
24,
2004
12:
29
PM
To:
Toy,
Edmond
Cc:
Briskin.
Jeanne@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
Fw:
building
codes
and
HCFC­
141b
Edmond
­

Per
our
earlier
discussion
today,
this
email
provides
as
much
detailed
information
as
possible
on
which
systems
houses
have
code
approvals
in
Miami­
Dade
County.
This
email
also
addresses
Kevin's
question
about
the
potential
quality
control
inspections
International
Code
Council
(
ICC)
officials
might
make
at
different
systems
houses
as
part
of
the
code
approval
process.
Finally,
the
email
provides
a
description
of
the
timing
of
the
UL
and/
or
FM
approval
process.

Today
in
Miami­
Dade
As
stated
in
EPA's
Aug
16,
2004
email,
EPA
spoke
with
Frank
Zuloaga
of
the
Miami­
Dade
Building
Code
Compliance
Office
on
August
16,
2004
(
305.375.2901)
and
discussed
the
processes
and
requirements
for
spray
polyurethane
foam
in
Miami­
Dade
buildings.
On
Frank's
advice,
EPA
also
reviewed
the
Miami­
Dade
Building
Code
Compliance
website
(
http://
www.
co.
miami­
dade.
fl.
us/
buildingcode/).
As
of
Aug
16,
the
following
companies
had
foam
systems
approved
for
use
in
Miami­
Dade:
1)
Polythane
Systems
Inc.
2)
Foam
Enterprises
(
owned
by
BASF)
3)
North
Carolina
Foam
Industries
Because
the
code
does
not
apply
to
blowing
agents,
neither
the
website
or
Frank
Zuloaga
had
information
indicating
what
blowing
agent
(
HCFC­
141b
or
a
non­
ODP
alternative)
those
companies
currently
holding
approvals
is
using
in
their
foam
systems.

As
EPA
also
explained
in
the
Aug
16
email,
Frank
stated
that
when/
if
the
companies
with
current
approvals
(
the
3
listed
above)
renewed
their
approvals,
they
could
submit
their
test
results
showing
their
foam
meets
fire
performance
and
wind
uplift
at
that
time,
they
did
not
have
to
do
an
additional
submittal
or
initiate
a
new
approval
process
because
they
changed
blowing
agents.
Any
new
entrants
into
the
Miami­
Dade
market
will
have
to
go
through
the
approval
process
described
in
the
Aug
16
email.
If
that
process
was
started
today,
Frank
stated
based
on
his
current
workload,
it
would
take
4
months
for
a
company
to
receive
Miami­
Dade
approval.
He
also
stated
a
new
approval
can
take
as
little
as
1
month
and
as
long
as
6
months,
depending
on
the
workload.
As
also
described
in
the
Aug
16
email,
Frank
is
aware
of
the
blowing
agent
change
in
spray
foam,
has
seen
performance
test
results,
and
received
word
from
the
field
that
the
spray
foam
systems
with
alternatives
are
working
great.
He
did
not
anticipate
a
problem
and/
or
delay
in
awarding
approvals
for
spray
foam
systems
in
Miami­
Dade.

2005
in
Miami­
Dade
As
far
as
formulators
selling
spray
foam
systems
containing
alternative
blowing
agents
in
Miami­
Dade,
as
of
Aug
16,
EPA
is
aware
of
3
companies:
2
listed
above
1
new
entrant
that
have
completed
their
testing
and
plan
to
sell
their
foam
systems
in
Miami­
Dade
in
2005.
The
fire
performance
test
is
commonly
referenced
as
UL
790/
ASTM
E108.
The
winduplift
test
which
is
required
in
Miami­
Dade
due
to
hurricanes
but
is
not
required
in
the
majority
of
counties
in
the
U.
S.
is
most
often
referenced
as
FM4880.
These
3
companies
that
EPA
is
aware
of
expect
to
receive
their
approvals
from
Miami­
Dade
without
any
delays,
which
will
allow
contractors
to
use
their
foam
systems
in
Miami­
Dade
in
2005.
Two
of
them
stated
they
will
submit
their
test
results
when
they
renew
their
code
approvals.
The
new
entrant
will
start
the
approval
process
for
Miami­
Dade
this
September
(
this
allows
4
months
for
the
process
which
is
in
line
with
the
timing
that
Frank
Zuloaga
described).

Quality
Control
Inspections
by
ICC
officials
EPA
spoke
with
Chris
Holland
(
708.799.2300
x314)
on
July
30,
2004
and
Steve
Thorsell
(
708.799.2300
x313)
on
August
23,
2004
of
the
International
Code
Council
(
ICC).
The
ICC
is
the
nonprofit
organization
that
develops
the
International
Building
Code
(
IBC)
that
is
adopted
by
U.
S.
states
and
localities.
These
officials
explained
both
the
code
process
and
their
evaluation
report
process
which
is
voluntary.

The
IBC
mandates
third
party
approval
of
foam
products,
i.
e.
performance
testing
by
a
third
party
such
as
UL
or
FM.
Listing
and
testing
of
any
product
(
such
as
spray
foam)
with
UL
or
FM
includes
periodic
plant
inspections
to
ensure
sufficient
quality
control
measure
are
in
place.
ICC
officials
do
not
conduct
plant
inspections,
third
parties
such
as
UL/
FM
officials
do
as
a
routine
part
of
their
listing/
testing
of
products.
Steven
Thorsell
explained
because
the
phaseout
of
HCFC­
141b
was
mandated
by
Federal
regulation
and
cut
across
numerous
industries,
the
ICC
did
not
require
any
plant
inspections
specifically
because
the
foam
blowing
agent
changed.
They
simply
require
formulators
to
maintain
on
file
their
third
party
(
UL/
FM)
performance
tests
that
demonstrate
the
foam
made
with
a
new
blowing
agent
meets
the
current
IBC
requirements.

Additionally,
the
ICC's
Evaluation
Services
Division
(
http://
www.
icc­
es.
org/
Criteria/
index.
shtml)
offers
a
voluntary
evaluation
report
on
several
products,
including
spray
foam.
This
is
not
part
of
the
IBC
and
not
required
by
the
ICC
,
it
is
voluntary.
SteveThorsell
explained
the
evaluation
report
is
used
mainly
by
companies
for
marketing
purposes.

In
order
for
a
company
to
receive
an
evaluation
report
from
the
ICC­
ES
they
have
to
submit
documentation
that
includes
performace
tests
from
a
third
party
testing
facility,
a
current
quality
control
manual
and
evidence
of
a
third
party
plant
inspection.
Steve
Thorsell
stated
if
a
spray
foam
formulator
currently
had
an
evaluation
report
with
the
ICC­
ES
and
they
changed
blowing
agents
from
HCFC­
141b
to
an
alternative,
all
they
would
have
to
do
is
submit
documentation
showing
that
the
spray
foam
system
with
the
alternative
met
the
performance
tests
specified
in
the
IBC
as
well
as
submit
an
updated
quality
control
manual.
If
a
spray
foam
formulator
was
seeking
an
evaluation
report
for
the
first
time
or
did
not
have
a
current
evaluation
report,
they
would
have
to
make
a
new
application
to
ICC­
ES.
Part
of
that
application
would
be
to
submit
documentation
for
a
third
party
(
UL/
FM)
that
proves
their
spray
foam
system
passes
performace
tests,
evidence
of
a
third
party
plant
inspection
and
a
current
quality
control
manual.

Timing
of
the
Approval
Process
EPA
contacted
3
systems
houses
(
1
small
and
2
larger)
on
August
24,
2004
and
asked
them
to
explain
exactly
how
long
it
took
to
receive
an
approval
from
UL
and/
or
FM
on
a
spray
foam
formulation.
All
3
cited
virtually
identical
timing
regarding
the
UL
and/
or
FM
approval
process.
They
all
highlighted
that
the
longest
period
of
time
in
the
process
is
how
long
you
actually
have
to
wait
to
get
a
test
slot
at
UL
and/
or
FM.

According
to
the
3
systems
houses,
generally
speaking
in
the
best
case
scenario,
the
testing
process
takes
1
month
from
start
to
finish
and
in
the
worst
case
scenario
it
takes
4
months
from
start
to
finish.
Specifically,
all
3
said
if
they
were
starting
the
UL
approval
process
today,
their
testing
slot
would
be
approximately
3­
5
weeks
from
today.
(
in
the
past,
the
wait
has
been
as
little
as
2
weeks).
The
systems
houses
do
not
want
the
wait
to
be
shorter
than
2
weeks
because
it
takes
approximately
2
weeks
to
complete
the
preparatory
work
necessary
to
submit
a
sample.
In
other
words,
if
a
systems
house
had
a
formulation
with
an
alternative
blowing
agent
they
wanted
UL
approval
for
today,
it
would
take
them
3­
5
weeks
from
the
date
of
submittal
to
receipt
of
the
test
results.

Because
a
systems
house
receives
a
hardcopy
of
the
test
results
the
day
of
the
test,
that
day
they
can
begin
advertising
they
have
UL
approval
and
that
day
they
will
be
code
compliant
in
the
majority
of
locations
in
the
U.
S.
After
the
test
day,
UL
provides
the
systems
house
with
a
formal
listing
in
the
mail
and
they
usually
receive
that
2­
3
weeks
after
the
test
date.
However,
this
formal
listing
is
not
required
by
the
building
codes,
only
a
copy
of
the
test
result,
which
is
provided
the
day
of
the
test
is
required
by
the
code
to
be
maintained
on
file.
Again,
it
would
take
3­
5
weeks
if
a
systems
house
started
today
to
receive
UL
approval
on
a
spray
foam
formulation.

Specifically,
one
company
ran
through
the
steps
and
timing
they
took
in
order
to
receive
UL
approval
for
spray
foam
systems
containing
alternatives
they
are
offering
for
sale
today.
The
company
stressed,
approvals
for
these
particular
spray
foam
formulations
took
longer
than
it
normally
does
because
they
had
UL
assist
in
the
screening
a
variety
of
formulations
before
they
submitted
(
this
is
an
extra
step
that
is
not
typically
done)
samples
and
they
re­
submitted
one
of
their
formulations
to
UL
during
the
process.
The
following
is
this
company's
experience:

1)
Dec
2003:
Developed
a
number
of
spray
foam
formulations
containing
alternatives
for
consideration
2)
Dec
2003:
Brought
UL
on­
site
to
have
them
assist
in
screening
the
formulations
3)
Jan
2004:
Formally
submitted
2
formulations
to
UL
4)
Jan
2004:
Received
test
results
from
UL
on
their
formulations:
One
received
a
Class
A
rating
(
the
highest
rating).
One
received
a
Class
B
rating
(
the
systems
house
stressed
that
this
rating
would
have
allowed
them
to
sell
this
system
in
the
majority
of
applications
but
they
wanted
a
Class
A
rating
because
a
few
architects/
developers
actually
specify
Class
A
rating
in
their
buildings.
Because
the
systems
houses
had
the
time
they
decided
to
do
further
work
and
resubmit).
4)
Feb
2004:
further
work
on
the
Class
B
formulation
5)
March
2004:
resubmitted
Class
B
formulation
to
UL,
received
Class
A
rating
at
that
time
6)
April
2004:
received
formal
UL
listing
in
the
mail
Let
me
know
if
you
have
any
question
or
need
more
information.

Thanks,
Suzie
___________________________
Suzie
Kocchi
Office
of
Atmospheric
Programs
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Phone:
(
202)
343­
9387
Fax:
(
202)
343­
2363