October
7,
2003
Polyurethanes
Expo
2003
Orlando,
FL
October
1­
3,
2003
Spray
Foam
Industry
/
Systems
House
Meeting
with
U.
S.
EPA
October
1,
2003
Gaylord
Palms
Hotel
&
Convention
Center
8:
30
am.
,
Tampa
Room
Background
and
Meeting
Objective:
Members
of
the
Spray
Foam
Association
(
SPFA)
and
some
system
houses
expressed
interest
in
meeting
with
EPA,
regarding
the
past
2003
HCFC­
141b
petitioning
process
and
the
upcoming
2004
HCFC­
141b
petitioning
process.
A
meeting
was
organized
by
Mason
Knowles
(
Executive
Director
of
SPFA)
and
Suzanne
Kocchi
of
U.
S.
EPA,
to
review
the
upcoming
petition
process
for
2004
and
to
field
questions
regarding
the
2003
petitioning
process.

Meeting
Minutes:
Mason
Knowles
opened
the
meeting
thanking
EPA
(
Suzie)
for
her
willingness
to
meet
with
industry
and
field
questions
from
the
participants.
There
were
approximately
25
attendees
at
the
session.

Suzie
Kocchi
(
EPA)
:
Suzie
reviewed
the
process
used
to
evaluate
HCFC­
141b
petitions
for
2003.
She
explained
that
10
petitions
were
denied
(
in
2003,
the
primary
reason
was
the
availability
of
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b)
and
that
two
petitions
were
granted
to
NASA
and
Boeing.
She
explained
that
there
has
been
a
Freedom
of
Information
Act
request
(
FOIA),
sent
to
the
Agency
in
May
2003,
challenging
the
confidentiality
of
the
petitions
and
that
OGC
(
Office
of
General
Counsel)
is
currently
reviewing
the
request.
There
may
be
a
decision
by
year
end
on
this
request
and
any
petition
sent
in
2003,
or
in
the
future,
will
be
subject
to
OGC's
determination.
The
2004
petition
process
opens
October
1,
2003
and
closes
October
31,
2003.
The
timetable
after
that
is
that
EPA
has
21
days
to
respond
to
the
initial
petition,
either
acting
on
it
or
requesting
more
information.
A
listing
of
the
exact
process
and
timetables
can
be
found
in
the
Federal
Register.

Industry
Question:
What
is
the
last
day
for
petitioning
this
year?
EPA:
October
31,
2003
Industry
Question:
Would
any
of
the
10
petitions,
which
were
denied,
been
approved
had
an
HCFC­
141b
stockpile
not
been
available?
EPA:
It
is
not
possible
to
make
a
general
statement
such
as
that.
Each
petition
was
evaluated
individually
against
all
of
the
criteria
in
the
regulation,
not
just
the
stockpile
issue.
In
general
however,
many
of
the
petitions
were
incomplete
and
did
not
provide
documentation
for
several
of
the
statements
being
made
in
the
petition.

Industry
Question:
How
did
EPA
determine
if
enough
HCFC­
141b
existed?
EPA:
Each
petitioner
had
to
demonstrate
that
they
were
not
able
to
access
enough
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b
for
their
needs
for
2003.

Industry
Comment:
One
petitioner
commented
that
they
sent
Honeywell
3
e­
mails
requesting
to
purchase
a
quantity
of
HCFC­
141b.
He
commented
that
Honeywell
was
unlikely
to
have
enough
of
a
stockpile
left
for
2004.
He
mentioned
that
HCFC­
141b
was
selling
at
$
2.50/
lb.
and
was
going
to
$
3.00­
4.00/
lb.
EPA:
Each
petitioner
has
the
right
to
demonstrate
the
unavailability
of
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b.
If
it
is
unavailable
for
economic
reasons,
the
company
would
have
to
demonstrate
purchasing
the
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b,
would
be
an
undue
financial
hardship
to
their
company.

Industry
Comment:
We
have
been
told
that
HCFC­
141b
only
has
a
shelf
life
of
1
year.
We
therefore
cannot
use
the
material,
if
it
is
more
than
one
year
old.
EPA:
The
process
allows
you
to
make
that
argument
in
your
petition
and
provide
technical
documentation
to
support
that
assertion.

Industry
Question:
There
is
a
general
question
overall
on
what
level
of
documentation
is
needed
in
the
petitioning
process?
EPA:
In
order
to
support
a
petition,
the
petitioner
should
send
any
analysis
they
have
conducted,
any
test
performed,
any
copies
of
phone
logs,
etc.
to
support
the
statements
that
the
company
is
making
on
commercial
need,
technical
constraints
or
financial
hardship.
The
more
documentation
provided,
the
better.

Industry
Question:
What
do
you
consider
a
phone
log?
EPA:
A
record
of
the
date,
time,
person's
name
and
subject
matter
discussed.

Industry
Question:
Last
year,
Honeywell
would
not
send
us
a
letter
saying
that
they
had
no
stockpile
to
sell.
What
should
we
do
in
that
circumstance?
EPA:
Document
the
requests
in
the
best
mode
possible;
phone
logs,
e­
mails,
written
requests
and
include
all
of
those
with
your
petition
submittal.
Name
the
person
being
contacted
and
mention
the
refusal
to
answer
your
request.

Industry
Question:
How
do
you
evaluate
market
fairness
between
entities
when
you
evaluate
each
petition
on
its
own
merit?
EPA:
The
process
was
established
to
evaluate
the
merit
of
each
petition.
Each
petition
is
evaluated
based
upon
the
individual
company
circumstances
and
their
ability
to
convert.
The
process
was
put
in
place
to
be
responsive
to
industry
concerns
and
to
make
sure
there
was
fairness
across
the
petitioners.

Industry
Comment:
The
economic
and
financial
criteria
of
alternatives
are
a
real
concern
in
evaluating
viable
options.
EPA:
If
you
are
demonstrating
that
an
alternative
is
not
feasible
because
of
economic
criteria,
you
should
provide
documentation
to
support
the
assertion.
You
should
demonstrate
that
this
translates
to
an
undue
financial
hardship
for
your
company.

Industry
Comment:
There
is
concern
by
my
company
on
submitting
information
to
EPA,
because
of
the
current
FOIA
request,
will
we
have
an
opportunity
to
appeal
confidentiality
decision?
EPA:
As
we
understand
it,
before
OGC's
decision
is
made
public,
OGC
should
notify
you
and
you
should
have
an
opportunity
to
appeal
their
decision
on
the
confidentiality
of
the
information
submitted
in
the
petitions.

Industry
Question:
Will
my
petition
be
individually
evaluated
or
be
compared
to
others,
which
have
been
submitted?
EPA:
Each
petition
is
individually
evaluated
for
its
merits
on
the
technical
constraints
preventing
the
transition
to
alternatives.
The
specific
information
submitted
by
your
company
is
the
over­
riding
factor
in
making
a
decision
on
your
petition.
However,
as
stated
in
the
regulation,
EPA
will
consider
industry­
wide
data
as
well.

Industry
Question:
What
committee
is
evaluating
the
petitions?
EPA:
The
petitions
are
reviewed
by
EPA,
not
a
committee.
Stratus
Consulting
has
been
hired
to
provide
technical
support
in
the
2004
petitioning
process.

Industry
Comment:
Some
companies
feel
like
they
should
hold­
off
participating
in
testing
or
collaborative
studies,
because
it
hurts
their
chances
of
being
awarded
a
petition
volume.
EPA:
This
is
just
the
opposite
of
the
thinking
that
should
take
place.
Not
demonstrating
efforts
to
transition
from
HCFC­
141b
to
alternatives
will
likely
work
against
you
in
arguing
that
you
have
a
legitimate
need
for
newly
produced
HCFC­
141b.
Due
to
the
fact
the
phaseout
has
already
occurred,
companies
should
be
able
to
demonstrate
concentrated
efforts
to
convert
to
alternatives.

Industry
Question:
We
realize
that
each
individual
company's
information
will
be
weighed,
but
what
about
the
fairness
of
blended
imported
systems?
EPA:
Today,
it
is
legal
to
import
"
blended"
systems
into
the
U.
S.
EPA
is
aware
of
the
availability
of
HCFC­
141b
blended
systems
coming
from
Mexico.

Industry
Question:
What
attempts
are
being
made
to
close
the
blended
import
loophole?
EPA:
Several
approaches
are
being
considered
regarding
the
import
of
"
blended"
HCFC­
141b
systems.
One
option
is
to
regulate
the
use
of
HCFC­
141b
in
the
US
under
the
SNAP
(
Significant
New
Alternative
Policy)
program.
In
2000,
EPA
proposed
for
public
comment
restricting
use
of
HCFC­
141b
in
all
foam
end­
uses.
We
are
reviewing
new
information
about
the
availability
of
alternatives.
Before
issuing
a
final
decision,
EPA
will
provide
notice
on
the
status
of
our
review,
along
with
any
newly
available
data.
Other
approaches
being
considered
include
publishing
a
rule
that
clarified
the
definition
of
a
controlled
substance
to
include
"
blended"
systems.
This
would
mean
that
"
blended"
systems
would
be
subject
to
the
import
ban
on
HCFC­
141b
that
went
into
effect
on
January
1,
2003.

Industry
Question:
Would
any
"
use
ban"
include
stockpiled
material?
EPA:
If,
EPA
determined
through
new
information
that
sufficient
alternatives
existed
for
HCFC­
141b,
the
use
ban
could
include
any
remaining
stockpiled
HCFC­
141b.

At
this
point,
Mason
Knowles
(
SPFA)
thanked
all
the
participants
for
their
time
and
active
involvement
and
adjourned
the
meeting
(
time
approximate
9:
50
am).
