[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19454-19501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07895]
[[Page 19453]]
Vol. 80
Friday,
No. 69
April 10, 2015
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting
Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 19454]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748; FRL-9922-26-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS04
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting
Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action lists five
flammable refrigerants as acceptable substitutes, subject to use
conditions, in several end-uses: Household refrigerators and freezers,
stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment, very low temperature
refrigeration, non-mechanical heat transfer, vending machines, and room
air conditioning units. This action also exempts from Clean Air Act
Section 608's prohibition on venting, release, or disposal the four
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes listed in this action as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in specific end-uses. We are
finalizing this exemption for those substitutes, subject to those use
conditions and in those end-uses, on the basis of current evidence that
their venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the
environment.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 11, 2015. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of May 11, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9163; fax number (202)
343-2338, email address: [email protected]. Notices and
rulemakings under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Executive summary
B. Background
C. Does this action apply to me?
D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the
SNAP program?
B. What is EPA's regulation implementing Section 612?
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
D. Where do I find additional information about the SNAP
program?
III. What action is the Agency taking?
A. Listing decisions: Substitutes and end-uses
B. What are ethane, isobutane, propane, HFC-32, R-441A, and the
ASHRAE classifications for refrigerant flammability?
C. Use conditions
D. Venting prohibition
E. Recommendations for the safe use of flammable substitute
refrigerants
IV. What criteria did EPA consider in determining whether to list
the substitutes as acceptable and in determining the use conditions,
and how does EPA consider those criteria?
A. Effects on the environment
B. Flammability
C. Toxicity and asphyxiation
V. What are the differences between the proposed and final rules?
VI. What are EPA's responses to public comments?
A. EPA's acceptability determinations
B. Environmental and public health impacts
C. Toxicity
D. Flammability
E. Use conditions
F. Technician training
G. Venting prohibition
H. Cost and economic impacts
I. Statutory and executive order reviews
J. Relationship with other rules
K. Timing of final rule
L. Other comments
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Population
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
VIII. References
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
Pursuant to the SNAP program under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612,
this final rule lists five flammable refrigerant substitutes as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in several refrigeration and air
conditioning end-uses: Household refrigerators and freezers; retail
food refrigeration, stand-alone equipment only; very low temperature
refrigeration; non-mechanical heat transfer; vending machines; and room
air conditioning (AC) units. The five refrigerant substitutes are:
Difluoromethane (also known as hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-32), ethane,
isobutane, propane, and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A. The use
conditions address safe use of flammable refrigerants and include
incorporation by reference of portions of certain safety standards from
Underwriters Laboratories (UL), refrigerant charge size limits, and
requirements for markings on equipment using these refrigerants. This
action also exempts from CAA Section 608's prohibition on venting,
release, or disposal the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes ethane,
isobutane, propane, and R-441A in specific end-uses for which they are
being listed in this rulemaking. We are finalizing this exemption for
those substitutes on the basis of current evidence that their venting,
release, or disposal from these specific end-uses does not pose a
threat to the environment.
This final rule lists all five refrigerants as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, in the same end-uses as in the proposed
[[Page 19455]]
rule. This final rule retains the same use conditions as proposed for
household refrigerators and freezers; retail food refrigeration, stand-
alone equipment only; very low temperature refrigeration; non-
mechanical heat transfer; and vending machines. For room AC units, EPA
is retaining the same use conditions as proposed, with one exception.
For portable AC units, EPA is not applying the proposed charge limits
for packaged terminal AC (PTAC) units, packaged terminal heat pumps
(PTHP), and other floor mounted AC units, which are set forth in Table
D. In this final rule, Table E (new) establishes charge limits for
portable AC units, consistent with the requirements in Appendix F of UL
484, ``Room Air Conditioners,'' 8th Edition, dated August 2, 2012. EPA
is making this change because we agree with commenters that the final
rule should incorporate specific provisions for charge limits for
portable units in UL 484, which is the standard that is the basis of
EPA's other charge limits, as well. This final rule exempts the four
hydrocarbon refrigerants for the end-uses addressed in the proposed
rule from the venting prohibition under CAA Section 608. HFC-32 remains
prohibited from being knowingly vented or otherwise knowingly released
or disposed of by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or
disposing appliances containing HFC-32.
EPA received a total of 37 comments from 35 commenters. Major
topics raised by commenters included: The acceptability of each
refrigerant; the environmental, flammability, and toxicity
characteristics of the proposed refrigerants; the cost impacts of using
the proposed refrigerants; the proposed use conditions; EPA's
recommendations for safe handling of the refrigerants; technician
training; the relationship between this proposed rule and the proposed
rule Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for
Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program (August 6, 2014, 79 FR 46126); and the proposed exemption from
CAA Section 608's prohibition on venting, release, or disposal of the
four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes.
B. Background
Consistent with the Climate Action Plan announced June 2013, which
calls on EPA to ``use its authority through the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in
low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly
chemicals'' (Climate Action Plan, 2013), this final rule approves a
number of climate-friendly alternatives for various kinds of
refrigeration and AC equipment. Using low-GWP alternatives instead of
high-GWP HFCs reduces climate-damaging emissions. Use and emissions of
HFCs are rapidly increasing because they are the primary substitutes
for ozone-depleting substances, especially in many of the largest end-
uses. Though they represent a small fraction of current total
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, their warming impact is hundreds to
thousands of times higher than that of CO2 and other GHGs.
Further, if left unregulated, emissions of HFCs in the United States
are expected to double from current levels of 1.5 percent of GHG
emissions to 3 percent by 2020 and nearly triple by 2030.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Climate Change and President Obama's Action Plan. June,
2013. Available in the docket and online at www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action lists as acceptable, subject to use conditions, five
flammable refrigerant substitutes that EPA believes present overall
lower risk to human health and the environment compared to other
available or potentially available alternatives in the same end-uses.
The refrigerants include one HFC refrigerant--HFC-32--and four
hydrocarbon refrigerants--ethane, isobutane, propane, and R-441A. We
are listing these substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
in a number of stationary AC and refrigeration end-uses under the SNAP
program, including: Household refrigerators and freezers, retail food
refrigeration, very low temperature refrigeration, non-mechanical heat
transfer, vending machines, and residential and light commercial AC and
heat pumps. The use conditions set requirements to ensure that these
substitutes do not present significantly greater risk in the end-use
than other substitutes that are currently or potentially available for
that same end-use. This action is another regular update to EPA's lists
of acceptable substitutes through the SNAP program under the authority
of CAA Section 612.
This action responds to a number of SNAP submissions for four
hydrocarbon refrigerants and HFC-32. Additionally, this action exempts
from the prohibition under CAA Section 608 on venting, release, or
disposal, the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that are listed
as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in specific end-uses, on the
basis of current evidence that their venting, release, or disposal does
not pose a threat to the environment. Note, however, that other
applicable environmental regulatory requirements still apply. For
example, for those refrigerant substitutes listed in this action that
contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) as defined in 40 CFR
50.100(s), i.e., isobutane, propane, and R-441A,\2\ a state might adopt
additional control strategies if necessary for an ozone nonattainment
area to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Neither ethane nor HFC-32 are VOC under the definition at 40
CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of HFC-32, the refrigerants listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this action are hydrocarbons
or blends consisting solely of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon refrigerants
have been in use for over 15 years in countries such as Germany, the
United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan in household and commercial
refrigerators and freezers. To a lesser extent, hydrocarbon
refrigerants have also been used internationally in small AC units such
as portable room air conditioners.
Because hydrocarbon refrigerants have zero ozone depletion
potential (ODP) and very low global warming potentials (GWPs) compared
to most other refrigerants, many companies recently have expressed
interest in using hydrocarbons in the United States. Also, some
companies have reported improved energy efficiency with hydrocarbon
refrigerants (A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2012; A/S Vestfrost, 2012; CHEAA,
2013).
In a final rule published in the Federal Register (FR) on December
20, 2011, at 76 FR 78832, EPA's SNAP program listed isobutane and R-
441A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in household
refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers,
and listed propane as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in retail
food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only). In this
action, EPA is listing isobutane, propane, and R-441A as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in additional end-uses.
This final action lists HFC-32 (difluoromethane, Chemical Abstracts
Service Registry Number [CAS Reg. No.] 75-10-5) as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, in room air conditioners for residential and light
commercial AC and heat pumps end-use. There appears to be interest in
using HFC-32 for many reasons, including its GWP of 675, which is
considerably lower than the GWPs of hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22
(1,810) and most other HFC-based refrigerants (approximately 1,500 to
4,000) currently used in this end-use. It also has mild flammability
compared to hydrocarbon refrigerants. Mini-split
[[Page 19456]]
systems using HFC-32 are now being sold in Japan and are being
introduced in India and Indonesia.
All of the end-uses in this final rule are for stationary
refrigeration or AC. EPA previously issued several final rules
addressing the use of flammable refrigerants in motor vehicle air
conditioning (MVAC). On June 13, 1995, at 60 FR 31092, the Agency found
all flammable substitutes to be unacceptable for use in MVAC unless
specifically listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, because
of flammability risks and the lack of sufficient risk assessment and
other relevant information to demonstrate safe use in that end-use at
that time. Some of these risks are unique to motor vehicles. In recent
years, EPA has listed three low-GWP refrigerants as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, for MVAC systems (i.e., R-152a, R-1234yf, and R-
744). Two of these refrigerants are flammable, although less flammable
than hydrocarbons. Under 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, Appendix B, all
other flammable substitutes remain unacceptable for use in MVAC because
EPA has not taken action to specifically list them as acceptable,
subject to use conditions.
As stated above, this action is being taken under the President's
Climate Action Plan. HFCs are accumulating rapidly in the atmosphere.
For example, the atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a, the most
abundant HFC, has increased by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012,
and concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen over 13% and 16%
per year from 2007-2011, respectively (Montzka, 2012; NOAA, 2013).
The alternatives addressed in this action have GWPs significantly
lower than both the ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and HFC substitute
refrigerants in the end-uses in which they are being listed. ODS in the
end-uses in this final rule include chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-12 (ODP
\3\ of 1 and GWP of 10,900), R-13B1 (also known as
bromotrifluoromethane or halon 1301, with ODP of 10 and GWP of 7,140),
CFC-113 (ODP of 0.8 and GWP of 6,130), R-502 (a blend of CFC-115 and
HCFC-22, with ODP of 0.334 and GWP of 4,660), and HCFC-22 (ODP of 0.055
and GWP of 1,810). The GWPs \4\ of the hydrocarbon refrigerants we are
adding to the SNAP lists in this rule are less than 10, while HFCs
listed as acceptable in the end-uses in this rule have GWPs ranging
from 1,430 to 3,920. Thus, the listed refrigerants provide industry
additional options with lower atmospheric impacts. In this rulemaking,
however, EPA did not limit its review to atmospheric impacts, but
evaluated each of the SNAP criteria for each substitute in each end-use
addressed by this action. EPA then considered overall risk to human
health and the environment for each substitute in comparison to other
available or potentially available alternatives in the same end-uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Unless otherwise stated, the ODP values used in this
document are those published in Appendices A and B to Subpart A of
40 CFR part 82. For refrigerant blends, EPA has taken the ODPs for
the component compounds and multiplied them by the weight fraction
of each component in the blend to obtain an approximate ODP.
\4\ GWPs for HFC-134a, HFC-32, the component HFCs comprising R-
404A and R-410A, propane and ethane are listed in IPCC, 2007:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. GWPs for isobutane
and R-441A were provided by the submitters to EPA and they are
consistent with available information for their components and the
range of GWPs found for other hydrocarbons in IPCC, 2007. For
refrigerant blends, EPA has taken the 100-year integrated time
horizon GWP from IPCC, 2007 for the component compounds and
multiplied them by the weight fraction of each component in the
blend to obtain an approximate GWP. Unless otherwise stated, GWPs
stated in this document are 100-year integrated time horizon values
taken from IPCC, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Does this action apply to me?
This action lists the following refrigerants as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, for use in specific end-uses within the
refrigeration and AC sector: Ethane (R-170), HFC-32 (R-32), isobutane
(R-600a), propane (R-290), and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A. Types of
residential and light commercial AC equipment addressed in this action
include window AC units; packaged terminal AC units and heat pumps; and
portable room AC units. Types of refrigeration equipment include stand-
alone retail food refrigeration equipment, very low temperature
freezers, thermosiphons (non-mechanical heat transfer equipment),
household refrigerators and freezers, and vending machines.
Table 1 identifies industry subsectors that may wish to explore the
use of ethane, HFC-32, R-441A, isobutane, and propane in these end-uses
or that may work with equipment using these refrigerants in the future.
Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Code or Subsector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code or Description of regulated
Category subsector entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................... 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparations
(e.g., Capsules,
Liniments, Ointments,
Tablets) Manufacturing.
Industry................... 333415 Manufacturers of
Refrigerators, Freezers,
and Other Refrigerating or
Freezing Equipment,
Electric or Other; Heat
Pumps Not Elsewhere
Specified or Included
(NESOI); and Parts
Thereof.
Industry................... 333415 Air-Conditioning and Warm
Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial
Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.
Industry................... 443111 Appliance Stores: Household-
type.
Industry................... 445120 Convenience Stores.
Industry................... 445110 Supermarkets and Other
Grocery (except
Convenience) Stores.
Industry................... 722211 Limited-Service
Restaurants.
Industry................... 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air
Conditioning Contractors.
Industry................... 811412 Appliance Repair and
Maintenance.
Industry................... 423930 Recyclable Material
Merchant Wholesalers.
Industry................... 423620 Household Appliances,
Electric Housewares, and
Consumer Electronics
Merchant Wholesalers.
Industry................... 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and
Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide
regarding entities likely to adopt, service or dispose of the
substitutes that are being listed in this action. If you have any
questions about whether this action
[[Page 19457]]
applies to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in this
preamble.
AC--air conditioning
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ACH--air changes per hour
AEGL--acute exposure guideline level
AHAM--Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
AHRI--Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute
AIRAH--Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and
Heating
ANSI--American National Standards Institute
ARA--Australian Refrigeration Association
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
BTU--British thermal unit
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
CARB--California Air Resources Board
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CHEAA--Chinese Household Electrical Appliance Association
CMAQ--Community Multiscale Air Quality
CRA--Congressional Review Act
DOE--the United States Department of Energy
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency-U.S.
EO--Executive Order
EPA--the United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FR--Federal Register
ft--foot
g--gram
GHG--greenhouse gas
GWP--global warming potential
HCFC--hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HF--hydrogen fluoride
HFC--hydrofluorocarbon
HVACR--heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
ICOR--ICOR International, Inc.
IEC--International Electrotechnical Commission
in.Hg--inches of mercury
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPR--industrial process refrigeration
ISRI--Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries
JTG--Joint Task Group
kg--kilogram
kJ--kilojoule
kPa--kilopascal
lb--pound
LFL--lower flammability limit
m--meter
mm--millimeter
MMTCO2eq--million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
MSDS--Material Safety Data Sheet
MVAC--motor vehicle air conditioning
NAAQS--National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAFEM--North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NIOSH--the United States National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health
NOAA--the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NOAEL--No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OEM--original equipment manufacturer
ODP--ozone depletion potential
ODS--ozone-depleting substances
OHA--Office of Hearing and Appeals
OMB--the United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--the United States Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
oz--ounce
PPE--personal protective equipment
PEL--permissible exposure limit
PFC--perfluorocarbon
PMS--Pantone Matching System
ppb--parts per billion
ppm--parts per million
ppmv--parts per million by volume
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
psi--pounds per square inch
PTAC--packaged terminal air conditioner
PTHP--packaged terminal heat pump
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REL--Recommended Exposure Limit
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RSES--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
SIP--State Implementation Plan
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
STEL--short-term exposure limit
STP--Standards Technical Panels
TFA--trifluoroacetic acid
The Alliance--The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy
TLV--threshold limit value
TWA--time-weighted average
UL--Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.--United States Code
VOC--volatile organic compounds
II. How does the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program
work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP
program?
Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to develop a program for
evaluating alternatives to ozone depleting substances (ODS). EPA refers
to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program. The major provisions of Section 612 are the following:
1. Rulemaking
Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I substance (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon,
carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or
class II substance (HCFC) with any substitute that the Administrator
determines may present adverse effects to human health or the
environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that
(1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment and
(2) is currently or potentially available.
2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of
acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of acceptable
substitutes may be found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists, and the lists
of ``unacceptable,'' ``acceptable subject to use conditions,'' and
``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits'' substitutes are found in
the appendices to Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 as well as at
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists.
3. Petition Process
Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to
add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in
accordance with Section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny
a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the
revised lists within an additional six months.
4. 90-Day Notification
Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a
chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not
less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into
interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class
I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the
producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
5. Outreach
Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to
maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist
users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing
alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
6. Clearinghouse
Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are
[[Page 19458]]
available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I
and II substances.
B. What is EPA's regulation implementing Section 612?
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR
13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable
substitutes in the major industrial use sectors (Subpart G of 40 CFR
part 82). These eight sectors--refrigeration and AC; foam blowing;
cleaning solvents; fire suppression and explosion protection;
sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco
expansion--are the principal industrial sectors that historically
consumed the largest volumes of ODS.
Section 612 of the CAA instructs EPA to list as acceptable those
substitutes that present a lower overall risk to human health and the
environment as compared with other substitutes that are currently or
potentially available for a specific use.
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a
substitute in one of the eight major industrial use sectors where class
I or class II substances have been used must provide notice to the
Agency, including health and safety information on the substitute, at
least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for
significant new use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). This
requirement applies to the persons planning to introduce the substitute
into interstate commerce,\5\ who typically are chemical manufacturers
but may include importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, and
end users when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into
commerce.\6\ The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a),
prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after notice has been
provided to the Agency. EPA considers that notice has been received
once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission
includes complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). At that point,
the SNAP review begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, ``interstate commerce'' means
the distribution or transportation of any product between one state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another
state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the
sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state,
territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for
which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the
release of a product from the facility in which the product was
manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic
manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at
the site of United States Customs clearance.
\6\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``end-use'' means processes or
classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors
where a substitute is used to replace an ODS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for
substitutes that are submitted for evaluation: Acceptable; acceptable
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;
and unacceptable \7\ (40 CFR 82.180(b)). Use conditions and narrowed
use limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained
below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no use restrictions
(no use conditions or narrowed use limits) can be used for all
applications in the relevant end-uses within the sector. Substitutes
that are acceptable, subject to use conditions, may be used only in
accordance with those restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination under this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions are met in
the way that the substitute is used to minimize risks to human health
and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as ``acceptable
subject to use conditions.'' Entities that use these substitutes
without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of
Section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).
For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an
industry sector. EPA describes these substitutes as ``acceptable
subject to narrowed use limits.'' A person using a substitute that is
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses
that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using the
substitute in an unacceptable manner and is in violation of Section 612
of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).
The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal
Register. EPA publishes proposed decisions concerning substitutes that
are deemed acceptable subject to use restrictions (use conditions and/
or narrowed use limits), or substitutes deemed unacceptable, as
proposed rulemakings to provide the public an opportunity to comment,
before publishing final decisions.
In contrast, EPA publishes decisions concerning substitutes that
are deemed acceptable with no restrictions as ``notices of
acceptability'' or ``determinations of acceptability,'' rather than as
proposed and final rules. As described in the preamble to the rule
initially implementing the SNAP program in the Federal Register at 59
FR 13044 on March 18, 1994, EPA does not believe that rulemaking
procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable
without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction
nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.
Many SNAP listings include ``Comments'' or ``Further Information''
to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional
information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements
are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program.
However, regulatory requirements so listed may be binding under other
regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The
``Further Information'' identified in the listing does not necessarily
include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the
substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the
SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all
statements in the ``Further Information'' column in their use of these
substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound
operating practices that have already been identified in existing
industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus many of the
statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make
significant changes in existing operating practices.
D. Where do I find additional information about the SNAP program?
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or
additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site
at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the Agency's
process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation
of substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking in the Federal
Register at 59 FR 13044 on March 18, 1994, codified at 40 CFR part 82,
Subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate
citations are found at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.
[[Page 19459]]
III. What action is the Agency taking?
A. Listing Decisions: Substitutes and End-Uses
In this action, EPA is listing the following refrigerants as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the identified end-uses.
1. Retail food refrigeration. EPA finds isobutane (also referred to
as R-600a) and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A acceptable, subject to use
conditions, as substitutes in retail food refrigeration (new stand-
alone retail food refrigeration equipment only). The use conditions
require the following:
i. The quantity of the substitute refrigerant (i.e., ``charge
size'') must not exceed 150 g (5.29 oz);
ii. These refrigerants may be used only in new equipment designed
specifically and clearly identified for the refrigerant--i.e., none of
these substitutes may be used as a conversion or ``retrofit'' \8\
refrigerant for existing equipment;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sometimes conversion refrigerant substitutes are
inaccurately referred to as ``drop in'' replacements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. These refrigerants may be used only in stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment that meets all requirements listed in
Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL Standard 471, dated November
24, 2010. In cases where this final rule includes requirements more
stringent than those of the 10th edition of UL Standard 471, the
appliance would need to meet the requirements of the final rule in
place of the requirements in the UL Standard;
iv. The refrigerator or freezer must have red Pantone Matching
System (PMS) #185 marked pipes, hoses, or other devices through which
the refrigerant passes, to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant.
This color must be present at all service ports and other parts of the
system where service puncturing or other actions creating an opening
from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected and
must extend a minimum of one (1) inch in both directions from such
locations.
v. The following markings, or the equivalent, must be provided and
must be permanent:
(a) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant
Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not
Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.'' This marking must be provided on or near
any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer.
(b) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant
Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture
Refrigerant Tubing.'' This marking must be located near the machine
compartment.
(c) ``CAUTION--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant
Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service
This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.'' This marking
must be located near the machine compartment.
(d) ``CAUTION--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In
Accordance With Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant
Used.'' This marking must be provided on the exterior of the
refrigeration equipment.
(e) ``CAUTION--Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To Puncture Of
Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. Flammable
Refrigerant Used.'' This marking must be provided near all exposed
refrigerant tubing.
All of these markings must be in letters no less than 6.4 mm (\1/4\
inch) high.
Retail food refrigeration includes the refrigeration systems,
including cold storage cases, designed to chill food or keep it at a
cold temperature for commercial sale. Stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment includes appliances that use a sealed hermetic
compressor and for which all refrigerant-containing components,
including but not limited to the compressor, condenser, and evaporator,
are assembled into a single piece of equipment before delivery to the
ultimate consumer or user. Such equipment does not require the addition
or removal of refrigerant when placed into initial operation. Stand-
alone equipment is used to chill or to store chilled beverages or
frozen products (e.g., reach-in beverage coolers, stand-alone ice cream
cabinets, and wine coolers in commercial settings).
This acceptability decision does not apply to large commercial
refrigeration systems such as, but not limited to, remote direct
expansion refrigeration systems typically found in supermarkets. This
acceptability decision also does not apply to walk-in coolers. The SNAP
submission did not apply to these types of systems. Moreover, these
types of equipment typically require larger charges than those
established in this use condition for the end-use addressed in this
rule and are sufficiently different that we would need additional
information before making a listing decision.
2. Very low temperature refrigeration and non-mechanical heat
transfer. EPA finds ethane (also referred to as R-170) acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in very low temperature refrigeration
equipment and in non-mechanical heat transfer, subject to the same use
conditions described above for isobutane and R-441A in stand-alone
retail food refrigeration equipment.
Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is intended to
maintain temperatures considerably lower than for refrigeration of
food--for example, -80 [deg]C (-170[emsp14][deg]F) or lower. Examples
of very low temperature refrigeration equipment include medical
freezers and freeze-dryers, which generally require extremely reliable
refrigeration cycles to maintain low temperatures and must meet
stringent technical standards. In some cases, very low temperature
refrigeration equipment may use a refrigeration system with two
refrigerant loops or with a direct expansion refrigeration loop coupled
with an alternative refrigeration technology (e.g., Stirling cycle).
This allows a greater range of temperatures and may reduce the overall
refrigerant charge.
There is no U.S. standard that we are aware of that applies
specifically to very low temperature refrigeration or non-mechanical
heat transfer. The submitter of information for use of ethane in very
low temperature refrigeration has indicated that UL has tested their
equipment for compliance with the UL 471 Standard for commercial
refrigeration equipment, which addresses stand-alone commercial
refrigerators and freezers. In this final rule, we are requiring
compliance with the UL 471 Standard as one of the conditions for use of
ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
This submission also addressed the use of ethane in a type of non-
mechanical heat transfer equipment called a thermosiphon. Non-
mechanical heat transfer involves cooling systems that rely on
convection to remove heat from an area, rather than mechanical
refrigeration. A thermosiphon is a type of heat transfer system that
relies on natural convection currents, as opposed to using a mechanical
pump. This final rule lists ethane as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for use in non-mechanical heat transfer. The use conditions
include a requirement to meet Supplement B to the UL 471 Standard and a
charge limit of 150 g. We note that some other types of non-mechanical
heat transfer equipment would be expected to present different
technical issues than a thermosiphon in a freezer and are not part of
this decision, e.g., equipment designed for cooling the engine
compartment of heavy duty vehicles, organic Rankine cycle equipment, or
geothermal systems.
3. Household refrigerators and freezers. EPA finds propane (also
[[Page 19460]]
referred to as R-290) acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a
substitute in household refrigerators and freezers and combination
refrigerator/freezers. The use conditions require the following:
i. The charge size for any household refrigerator, freezer, or
combination refrigerator and freezer for each circuit using R-290 must
not exceed 57 g (2.01 oz);
ii. This refrigerant may be used only in new equipment specifically
designed and clearly identified for the refrigerant--i.e., none of
these substitutes may be used as a conversion or ``retrofit''
refrigerant for existing equipment;
iii. This substitute may be used only in equipment that meets all
requirements in Supplement SA to the 10th edition of UL Standard 250,
dated August 25, 2000. In cases where this final rule includes
requirements more stringent than those of the 10th edition of UL
Standard 250, the appliance would need to meet the requirements of the
final rule in place of the requirements in the UL Standard;
iv. The refrigerator or freezer must have red PMS #185 marked
pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant passes to
indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant;
v. Permanent markings must be provided on the equipment, as
described above for stand-alone commercial refrigerators and freezers.
All of these markings must be in letters no less than 6.4 mm (\1/4\
inch) high.
Household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator/
freezers are intended primarily for residential use, although they may
be used outside the home. Household freezers only offer storage space
at freezing temperatures, unlike household refrigerators. Products with
both a refrigerator and freezer in a single unit are most common. Wine
coolers used in residential settings are considered part of this end-
use. EPA previously found the flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants
isobutane and R-441A acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this
end-use (December 20, 2011, at 76 FR 78832, codified at Appendix R of
Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82).
4. Vending machines. EPA finds R-441A, isobutane, and propane as
acceptable substitutes in vending machines, subject to the same use
conditions described above for stand-alone retail food refrigeration
equipment, except that paragraph iii. reads as follows:
Equipment must meet all requirements of Supplement SA to the 7th
edition of UL Standard 541, ``Refrigerated Vending Machines,'' dated
December 30, 2011 (instead of Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL
471). Supplement SA specifically addressing flammable refrigerants is
very similar to the Supplement SB in the UL 471 Standard for commercial
refrigerators and freezers, and thus, similar requirements apply to
these types of refrigeration equipment. In UL 541, the relevant
references on equipment markings for flammable refrigerants in
Supplement A are Sections SA 6.1.2-SA 6.1.5.
Vending machines are self-contained units for refrigerating
beverages or food which dispense goods that must be kept cold or
frozen. This end-use differs from other retail food refrigeration
because goods are dispensed, rather than allowing the consumer to reach
in to grab a beverage or food product. The design of the refrigeration
system of a vending machine is similar to that of a self-contained
commercial refrigerator or freezer. Typically the difference lies in
how payment for goods is made and in the selection mechanisms found in
vending machines but not in self-contained commercial refrigerator-
freezers, and possibly the outer casing (e.g., glass doors and open,
reach-in designs are generally used in self-contained commercial
refrigerator-freezers whereas glass wall and other types of casings are
used for vending machines). We are aware that for vending machines, it
is possible to detach easily and replace the refrigeration circuit from
the outer casing of the equipment. In such a situation, replacing the
old refrigeration circuit with a new one within the old casing would be
considered ``new'' equipment and not a retrofit of the old, existing
equipment.
5. Residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps. EPA finds
propane (also known as R-290), difluoromethane (also known as HFC-32 or
R-32), and R-441A acceptable, subject to use conditions, as substitutes
in residential and light commercial AC for self-contained room air
conditioners, including PTAC units and PTHPs, window AC units, and
portable AC units designed for use in a single room. The use conditions
require the following:
i. These refrigerants may be used only in new equipment designed
specifically, and clearly identified, for the refrigerant--i.e., none
of these substitutes may be used as a conversion or ``retrofit''
refrigerant for existing equipment;
ii. These refrigerants may be used only in air conditioners that
meet all requirements listed in Supplement SA to the 8th edition, dated
August 2, 2012, of UL Standard 484, ``Room Air Conditioners.'' In cases
where this final rule includes requirements more stringent than those
of the 8th edition of UL Standard 484, the appliance would need to meet
the requirements of the final rule in place of the requirements in the
UL Standard;
iii. UL 484 includes charge limits for room air conditioners and
adherence to those charge limits would normally be confirmed by the
installer. In addition to requiring the charge limits in the UL 484
Standard, EPA is requiring the following charge size limits, adherence
to which must be confirmed by the original equipment manufacturer
(OEM). In cases where the charge size limit listed is different from
those determined by UL 484, the smaller of the two charge sizes would
apply. For a review of how these charge size limits were derived, see
``Derivation of Charge Limits for Room Air Conditioners,'' (EPA, 2015)
in the docket. The charge size limit must be determined based on the
type of equipment, the alternative refrigerant used, and the normal
rated capacity of the unit. The limits are presented in Tables 2
through 6 below in Section III.C.3, ``Charge size,'' and in Tables A,
B, C, D and E of the regulatory text at the end of this preamble.
iv. The air conditioner must have red PMS #185 marked pipes, hoses,
or other devices through which the refrigerant passes to indicate the
use of a flammable refrigerant. This color must be present at all
service ports and other parts of the system where service puncturing or
other actions creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the
atmosphere might be expected and must extend a minimum of one (1) inch
in both directions from such locations;
v. The following markings, or the equivalent, must be provided and
must be permanent:
(a) On the outside of the air conditioner: ``DANGER--Risk of Fire
or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By
Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.''
(b) On the outside of the air conditioner: ``CAUTION--Risk of Fire
or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local
Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.''
(c) On the inside of the air conditioner near the compressor:
``CAUTION--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used.
Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service This
Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.''
(d) For portable air conditioners, PTAC and PTHP, on the outside of
the
[[Page 19461]]
product: ``WARNING: Appliance shall be installed, operated and stored
in a room with a floor area larger than ``X'' m\2\ (Y ft\2\).'' The
value ``X'' must be determined using the minimum room size in m\2\
calculated using Appendix F of UL 484. The evaporator must remain no
higher than 0.6 m above the floor.
(e) For window air conditioners, on the outside of the product:
``WARNING: Appliance shall be installed, operated and stored in a room
with a floor area larger than ``X'' m\2\ (Y ft\2\).'' The value ``X''
must be determined using the minimum room size in m\2\ calculated using
Appendix F of UL 484. The evaporator must remain no higher than 1.06 m
above the floor. All of these markings must be in letters no less than
6.4 mm (\1/4\ inch) high.
The residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps end-use
includes equipment for cooling air in individual rooms, in single-
family homes, and sometimes in small commercial buildings. This end-use
differs from commercial comfort AC, which uses chillers that cool water
that is then used to cool air throughout a large commercial building,
such as an office building or hotel. Examples of equipment for
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps include:
Central air conditioners, also called unitary AC or
unitary split systems. These systems include an outdoor unit with a
condenser and a compressor, refrigerant lines, an indoor unit with an
evaporator, and ducts to carry cooled air throughout a building.
Central heat pumps are similar but offer the choice to either heat or
cool the indoor space. These systems are not addressed in this rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA has received submissions for HFC-32 and the hydrocarbon
blends R-441A and R-443A, and no other flammable refrigerants, in
new unitary central air conditioners.This action does not address
flammable refrigerants in unitary central air conditioners.
Introduction into interstate commerce of refrigerants without giving
timely and adequate notice to EPA is in violation of Section 612(e)
of the CAA and the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-split air conditioners. These systems include one or
more outdoor unit(s) with a condenser and a compressor and multiple
indoor units, each of which is connected to the outdoor unit by
refrigerant lines. These systems are not addressed in this rule.
Mini-split air conditioners. These systems include an
outdoor unit with a condenser and a compressor and a single indoor unit
that is connected to the outdoor unit by refrigerant lines. Cooled air
exits directly from the indoor unit rather than being carried through
ducts. These systems are not addressed in this rule.
Window air conditioners. These are self-contained units
that fit in a window with the condenser extending outside the window.
These types of units are regulated under this rule.
PTAC and PTHP. These are self-contained units that consist
of a separate, un-encased combination of heating and cooling assemblies
mounted through a wall.\10\ These types of units are regulated under
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Packaged terminal air conditioners are intended for use in
a single room, or potentially for two rooms next to each other, and
use no external refrigerant lines. Typical applications include
motel or dormitory air conditioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable room air conditioners. These are self-contained,
factory-sealed, single package units that are designed to be moved
easily from room to room and are intended to provide supplemental
cooling within a room. These units typically have wheels or casters for
portability and, under the UL 484 Standard for room air conditioners,
must have a fan which operates continuously when the unit is on.
Portable room air conditioners may contain an exhaust hose that can be
placed through a window or door to eject heat to the outside. These
types of units are regulated under this rule.
Of these types of equipment, window air conditioners, PTAC, PTHP,
and portable room air conditioners are self-contained equipment with
the condenser, compressor, evaporator, and tubing all within casing in
a single unit. These units all fall under the scope of the UL 484
Standard for room air conditioners. In contrast, unitary split systems,
multi-split systems and mini-split systems have an outdoor condenser
that is separated from an indoor unit. Compared to split systems, self-
contained equipment typically has smaller charge sizes, has fewer
locations that are prone to leak, and is less likely to require
servicing by a technician, thereby causing refrigerant releases. A
lower risk of refrigerant releases and a potential for smaller releases
and lower concentration releases results in lower risk that flammable
refrigerant could be ignited. Thus, self-contained air conditioners and
heat pumps using a flammable refrigerant have lower risk for fire than
split systems using a flammable refrigerant. EPA notes that split
system AC systems present different technical challenges than self-
contained room AC equipment and are not part of this decision.
6. Summary. In summary, EPA is listing ethane, isobutane, propane,
HFC-32, and R-441A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as
substitute refrigerants in certain refrigeration and AC end-uses. It is
legal to use those refrigerants in the specified types of equipment
under the conditions identified above. Use in the specified types of
equipment that is not consistent with the use conditions is a violation
of CAA Section 612 and EPA's implementing regulations for the SNAP
program. Both the equipment manufacturers and the end users must comply
with these use conditions.
The regulatory text of our decisions for the end-uses discussed
above appears in tables at the end of this preamble. This text will be
codified at 40 CFR part 82 Subpart G. We note that there may be other
legal obligations pertaining to the manufacture, use, handling, and
disposal of hydrocarbons that are not included in the information
listed in the tables (e.g., Section 608 prohibition on venting,
releasing, or disposing of refrigerant substitutes or Department of
Transportation requirements for transport of flammable gases).
B. What are ethane, isobutane, propane, HFC-32, R-441A, and the
ASHRAE classifications for refrigerant flammability?
Ethane, isobutane, and propane are hydrocarbons and R-441A is a
hydrocarbon blend. Hydrocarbons are highly flammable organic compounds
made up of hydrogen and carbon. Ethane has two carbons, the chemical
formula of C2H6, and the CAS Reg. No. 74-84-0.
Propane has three carbons, the formula C3H8, and
the CAS Reg. No. 74-98-6. Isobutane has four carbons, the formula
C4H10, also written as
CH(CH3)2CH3 to distinguish it from n-
butane, and the CAS Reg. No. 75-28-5. As refrigerants, ethane, propane,
and isobutane can be referred to by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) designations R-
170, R-290, and R-600a, respectively. R-441A, also known by the trade
name ``HCR-188C,'' is a hydrocarbon blend \11\ consisting of 55%
propane, 36% n-butane, 6% isobutane, and 3% ethane by weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA notes that under the SNAP program, we review and list
refrigerants with specific compositions (59 FR 13044; March 18,
1994). To the extent possible, we follow ASHRAE's designations for
refrigerants. Blends of refrigerants must be reviewed separately.
For example, we consider each blend of propane with isobutane to be
a different and unique refrigerant, and each would require separate
submission, review and listing. Thus, blends of the refrigerants
that we are listing as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in
this rule are not acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-32 is a mildly flammable organic compound made up of hydrogen,
[[Page 19462]]
carbon, and fluorine with the chemical formula
CF2H2 (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5).
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE Standard
34-2010 assigns a safety group classification for each refrigerant
which consists of two alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2 or B1). The
capital letter indicates the toxicity and the numeral denotes the
flammability. ASHRAE classifies Class A refrigerants as refrigerants
for which toxicity has not been identified at concentrations less than
or equal to 400 parts per million (ppm) by volume, based on data used
to determine threshold limit value-time-weighted average (TLV-TWA) or
consistent indices. Class B signifies refrigerants for which there is
evidence of toxicity at concentrations below 400 ppm by volume, based
on data used to determine TLV-TWA or consistent indices. The
refrigerants are also assigned a flammability classification of 1, 2,
or 3. Tests are conducted in accordance with ASTM E681 using a spark
ignition source at 60 [deg]C and 101.3 kPa (ASHRAE, 2010). Figure 1 in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2007 uses the same safety group but limits its
concentration to 3,400 ppm.
The flammability classification ``1'' is given to refrigerants
that, when tested, show no flame propagation. The flammability
classification ``2'' is given to refrigerants that, when tested,
exhibit flame propagation, have a heat of combustion less than 19,000
kJ/kg (8,174 British thermal units (BTU)/lb), and have a lower
flammability limit (LFL) greater than 0.10 kg/m\3\. Refrigerants within
flammability classification 2 may optionally be designated in the LFL
subclass ``2L'' if they have a maximum burning velocity of 10 cm/s or
lower when tested at 23.0 [deg]C and 101.3 kPa. The flammability
classification ``3'' is given to refrigerants that, when tested,
exhibit flame propagation and that either have a heat of combustion of
19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or an LFL of 0.10 kg/m\3\ or
lower. Thus, refrigerants with flammability classification ``3'' are
highly flammable, while those with flammability classification ``2''
are less flammable and those with flammability classification ``2L''
are mildly flammable. For both toxicity and flammability
classifications, refrigerant blends are designated based on the worst-
case of fractionation determined for the blend (which may be different
when evaluating toxicity than when evaluating flammability).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AP15.000
Using these safety group classifications, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-
2010 categorizes ethane, isobutane, propane, and R-441A in the A3
Safety Group and categorizes HFC-32 in the A2L Safety Group.
C. Use Conditions
EPA is listing ethane, isobutane, propane, HFC-32, and R-441A as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the specified end-uses. The
use conditions include conditions consistent with industry standards,
limits on charge size, and requirements for warnings and markings on
equipment to inform consumers and technicians of potential flammability
hazards. The listings with specific use conditions are intended to
allow for the use of these flammable refrigerants in a manner that will
ensure they do not pose a greater risk to human health or the
environment than other substitutes that are currently or potentially
available.
1. New Equipment Only; Not Intended for Use as a Retrofit Alternative
The refrigerants listed in this final rule may be used only in new
equipment \12\ designed to address concerns unique to flammable
refrigerants--i.e., none of these substitutes may be used as a
conversion or ``retrofit'' refrigerant for existing equipment. The
flammable refrigerants were not submitted under the SNAP program to be
used in retrofitted equipment, and no information was provided on how
to address hazards of flammable refrigerants when used in equipment
that was designed for non-flammable refrigerants. Introduction into
interstate commerce of these refrigerants for use in existing
equipment, or for other end-uses, without giving timely and adequate
notice to EPA is in violation of Section 612(e) of the CAA and the SNAP
regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. In addition, use of these
refrigerants in existing equipment is in violation of Section 612(c) of
the CAA and the corresponding SNAP regulations at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This is intended to mean a completely new refrigeration
circuit containing a new evaporator, condenser and refrigerant
tubing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Standards
The flammable refrigerants may be used only in equipment that meets
all requirements in the relevant supplements for flammable refrigerants
in certain applicable UL standards for refrigeration and AC equipment.
Specifically, the cited supplements include Supplement SB to UL 471
10th edition for commercial refrigerators and freezers (including
stand-alone freezers
[[Page 19463]]
for very low temperature refrigeration), Supplement SA to UL 250 10th
edition (for household refrigerators and freezers), Supplement SA to UL
541 7th edition for refrigerated vending machines, and Supplement SA to
UL 484 8th edition for room air conditioners.
UL has tested equipment for flammability risk in household and
retail food refrigeration, vending machines, and room AC. Further, UL
has developed acceptable safety standards including requirements for
construction, for markings, and for performance tests concerning
refrigerant leakage, ignition of switching components, surface
temperature of parts, and component strength after being scratched.
These standards were developed in an open and consensus-based approach,
with the assistance of experts in the refrigeration and AC industry as
well as experts involved in assessing the safety of products. While
similar standards exist from other bodies such as the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), this rule relies on UL standards
because they are most applicable and recognized by the U.S. market.
i. Incorporation by Reference
This approach is the same as that in our previous rule on flammable
refrigerants (December 20, 2011 at 76 FR 78832), through which EPA
incorporated by reference to 40 CFR part 82, appendix R to subpart G,
Supplement SA to UL 250 10th edition and Supplement SB to UL 471 10th
edition. Through this action the EPA is incorporating by reference
relevant supplements from two additional UL standards: Supplement SA to
UL 541 7th edition and Supplement SA to UL 484 8th edition. These
supplements are summarized elsewhere in this document.
The UL Standards are available for purchase by mail at: COMM 2000;
151 Eastern Avenue; Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: 2000.com">orders@comm-2000.com;
Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial
+1-415-352-2168); Internet address: http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/
or www.comm-2000.com. The cost of a single standard is $400-$500 for
electronic and $500-$630 for hardcopy. An outline of UL 484 may be
purchased for $150 electronically or $175 for a hardcopy. UL also
offers a subscription service to the Standards Certification Customer
Library (SCCL) that allows unlimited access to their standards and
related documents. The cost of obtaining these standards is not a
significant financial burden for equipment manufacturers and purchase
is not required for those selling, installing and servicing the
equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL standards being
incorporated by reference are reasonably available.
3. Charge Size
The refrigerants listed in this final rule are subject to use
conditions that limit the amount of refrigerant allowed in each type of
appliance. Consistent with previous actions, EPA believes it is
necessary to set limits on charge size in order for these refrigerants
not to pose a risk to human health or the environment that is greater
than the risk posed by other available substitutes. These limits will
reduce the risk to workers and consumers since under worst-case
scenario analyses, a leak of the maximum charge sizes allowed under the
use conditions did not result in concentrations of the refrigerant that
met or exceeded the LFL, as explained below in Section IV.B,
``Flammability.''
The limitations on refrigerant charge size for household and stand-
alone retail food refrigeration equipment, vending machines, and room
AC units reflect the UL 250, UL 471, UL 541 and UL 484 Standards. As
discussed above in Section III.C.2, ``Standards,'' we believe UL
standards are most applicable to the U.S. market and offer requirements
developed by a consensus of experts. EPA is requiring a charge size not
to exceed 57 g (2.01 oz) for household refrigerators and freezers, not
to exceed 150 g (5.29 oz) for retail food refrigeration in stand-alone
units, and not to exceed 150 g (5.29 oz) for vending machines. The
maximum charge size limit for room AC units varies, as discussed below.
To place these quantities in context, the charge size of a disposable
lighter is approximately 30 g (1.06 oz).
The UL 250 Standard for household refrigerators and freezers limits
the amount of refrigerant that may leak to no more than 50 g (1.76 oz).
EPA is requiring a charge size of 57 g (2.01 oz) to allow for up to 7 g
(0.25 oz) of refrigerant that might be solubilized in the oil (and
assumed not to leak or immediately vaporize with the refrigerant in
case of a leak). EPA bases this estimate on information received from a
manufacturer of hydrocarbon-based refrigerator-freezers (see EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0286-0033 on www.regulations.gov).
UL Standards 471 (retail food refrigeration) and 541 (vending
machines) limit the amount of refrigerant leaked to 150 g (5.29 oz).
Furthermore, the charge size limit for A3 refrigerants (for retail food
refrigeration) is in line with the IEC 60335-2-89 Standard for
commercial appliances, which has a charge size limit of 150 g (5.29
oz).
As noted above, EPA is requiring a varying charge size for room AC
units. The maximum charge must be no greater than the amount calculated
for a given sized space according to Appendix F to Supplement SA of UL
Standard 484. This section of the UL standard uses a formula for the
charge of a fixed room air conditioner based upon the size of the space
where the refrigerant may escape and the LFL of the refrigerant. Height
of the mounting of the unit is also a variable, because empirical
studies have found that leaked refrigerant is more likely to mix
thoroughly with the surrounding air, rather than pooling, when the AC
unit is mounted higher. The formula is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AP15.001
Where,
Mmax is the maximum charge size allowed for the space, in
kg,
LFL is the lower flammability limit of the refrigerant in kg/m\3\,
h0 is the installation height of the indoor unit in m
(0.6 m for an AC unit on the floor, 1.0 m for an AC unit in a
window, 1.8 m for a wall-mounted AC unit, and 2.2 m for a ceiling-
mounted AC unit), and
A is the floor area of the room, in m\2\.
The equipment manufacturer would then design AC units to be used in
rooms with a minimum size and would label the minimum room size on the
equipment.
In addition to the formula above, UL 484 has a requirement that the
maximum charge for a fixed room air conditioner may not exceed the
amount calculated using the following formula:
m2 = (26 m\3\) x LFL
Where,
m2 is the maximum charge size allowed, in kg,
26 m\3\ is a constant, and
LFL is the lower flammability limit of the refrigerant in kg/m\3\.
That formula sets maximum limits on refrigerant in a room air
conditioner. With the A3 refrigerants, the maximum value is 1 kg.
In addition, Appendix F of UL 484 sets alternative requirements for
non-fixed units such as portable air conditioners. Portable air
conditioners are usually located on the floor of a room, and thus, if
they followed the formula for fixed appliances, they would be assumed
to have a height of 0.6 m, and would have relatively low charge sizes.
However, Sections F.1.7 uses a different formula that allows for
[[Page 19464]]
a potentially larger charge size for non-fixed units. Sections F.1.8
through F.1.14 of UL 484 set additional requirements for non-fixed
units to further reduce flammability risk. Among these provisions are
requirements for a drop test, a vibration test, and a continuously
operating fan, which would ensure that any leaked refrigerant is
rapidly mixed and its concentration reduced. Thus, a different approach
is used in the formula for determining charge sizes of non-fixed units;
for example, the height of 0.6 m that might otherwise be assumed for
PTACs is not used for a portable unit.
Although using a formula to determine the maximum charge size and
minimum room size is appropriate from an engineering perspective, it
does not ensure that a consumer will select an appropriate AC unit for
the size of their room. It is likely that some consumers may be unaware
of the exact size of the room to be cooled and thus may select an
inappropriately sized AC unit that increases the flammability risk. Or,
a consumer may believe that a larger, more powerful AC unit will
provide better, faster cooling and therefore may select an
inappropriately sized AC unit that increases the flammability risk. To
address these concerns, EPA is supplementing the charge size guidelines
in Appendix F of UL 484 with a use condition that restricts the maximum
refrigerant charge of equipment based upon the cooling capacity needed,
in BTU/hour. Equipment manufacturers are responsible for designing
equipment below a maximum charge size consistent with the intended
cooling capacity. This will allow the manufacturer, who is better
positioned than the consumer, to address these challenges. Placing the
responsibility on the manufacturer to design equipment that restricts
the maximum refrigerant charge based upon the cooling capacity needed
also provides a better means for EPA to ensure compliance with the use
conditions, and thus to ensure that the risk to human health will not
be greater than that posed by other available substitutes. We believe
that these requirements, in combination with the other use conditions
and commonly found informational materials, provide sufficient
safeguards against instances of consumers selecting inappropriately-
sized equipment.
EPA has based its charge limits upon appropriate capacity needs for
an area to be cooled and the requirements for refrigerant charge
relative to room size in Appendix F of UL 484, discussed above. A
document in the docket describes this relationship in tables in a
spreadsheet (EPA, 2015). The charge limits for each refrigerant by
equipment type and mounting location are as follows:
Table 2--Window AC Units *
[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge size in kg (by associated capacity in BTU/hr)
Refrigerant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-32.............................................................. 1.73 2.12 2.74 3.00 3.24 3.47 3.68 4.07 4.59 5.48 6.01 6.49 6.72 7.76
R-290............................................................. 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.50 0.57
R-441A............................................................ 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.44 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes the evaporator is at least 1 m, but not more than 1.8 m, above the floor. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and
larger capacities listed in the table.
Table 3--Packaged Terminal AC Units and Heat Pumps *
[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge size in kg (by associated capacity in BTU/hr)
Refrigerant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-32.............................................................. 1.04 1.27 1.65 1.80 1.95 2.08 2.21 2.44 2.75 3.29 3.60 3.89 4.03 4.65
R-290............................................................. 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.34
R-441A............................................................ 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes the evaporator is at least 0.6 m, but not more than 1.0 m, above the floor. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and
larger capacities listed in the table.
Table 4--Wall-Mounted AC Units * With Compressor 1.8 m Above Floor Level *
[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge size in kg (by associated capacity in BTU/hr)
Refrigerant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-32.............................................................. 3.12 3.82 4.94 5.41 5.84 6.24 6.62 7.32 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96
R-290............................................................. 0.23 0.28 0.36 0.40 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.54 0.61 0.73 0.80 0.86 0.89 1.00
R-441A............................................................ 0.25 0.31 0.40 0.44 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.59 0.67 0.80 0.88 0.95 0.98 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes the evaporator is at least 1.8 m, but not more than 2.2 m, above the floor. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and
larger capacities listed in the table.
[[Page 19465]]
Table 5--Ceiling-Mounted AC Units *
[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge size in kg (by associated capacity in BTU/hr)
Refrigerant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-32.............................................................. 3.82 4.67 6.03 6.61 7.14 7.63 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96
R-290............................................................. 0.28 0.34 0.44 0.49 0.53 0.56 0.60 0.66 0.74 0.89 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00
R-441A............................................................ 0.31 0.38 0.49 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.73 0.82 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes the evaporator is at least 2.2 m above the floor. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and larger capacities listed
in the table.
Table 6--Portable Room AC Units *
[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge size in kg (by associated capacity in BTU/hr)
Refrigerant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-32.............................................................. 1.56 2.35 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45
R-290............................................................. 0.19 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
R-441A............................................................ 0.21 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes equipment meeting UL 484 requirements for non-fixed equipment. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and larger
capacities listed in the table.
In cases where the rated capacity exceeds the maximum shown on the
table, the maximum charge size in the table for that refrigerant
applies. In cases where the normal rated capacity lies between two
values listed next to each other in the table, the maximum charge size
should be determined based on a linear interpolation between the two
respective charge sizes. We assume that room air conditioners will be
at least 5,000 BTU/hr in capacity; this corresponds to cooling a floor
area of roughly 100 square feet or 9.3 m\2\ and it is the lowest value
observed at a popular retailer's Web site (www.homedepot.com).
4. Color-Coded Hoses and Piping
Equipment must have distinguishing color-coded hoses and piping to
indicate use of a flammable refrigerant. This will help alert
technicians immediately to the use of a flammable refrigerant, thereby
reducing the risk of using sparking equipment or otherwise having an
ignition source nearby. The AC and refrigeration industry currently
uses distinguishing colors as a means of identifying different
refrigerants in containers, and so this approach is consistent with
industry practice. Likewise, distinguishing coloring has been used
elsewhere to indicate an unusual and potentially dangerous situation,
for example in the use of orange-insulated wires in hybrid electric
vehicles. Currently, no industry standard exists for color-coded hoses
or pipes for ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, or R-441A. The final
use condition requires all such refrigerator tubing to be colored red
PMS #185 to match the red band displayed on the container of flammable
refrigerants under the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) Guideline ``N'' 2012, ``2012 Guideline for Assignment
of Refrigerant Container Colors.''
A cost-effective alternative to painting or dying the hose or pipe
would be to instead add a colored plastic sleeve or cap to the service
tube that is the same red color (PMS #185). The sleeve could also be
boldly marked with a graphic to indicate that the refrigerant is
flammable. The colored plastic sleeve or cap would have to be installed
in such a way as to require that it be forcibly removed in order to
access the service tube. This would alert the technician that the
refrigeration circuit that she/he was about to access contained a
flammable refrigerant, even if all warning labels were somehow removed.
EPA is also concerned with ensuring adequate notification of the
presence of flammable refrigerants for personnel disposing of
appliances containing flammable refrigerants.
EPA believes the use of color-coded hoses or piping (including the
use of sleeves), as well as the use of warning labels discussed below,
is reasonable and consistent with other general industry practices.
This approach is the same as that adopted in our previous rule on
flammable refrigerants (December 20, 2011, at 76 FR 78832).
5. Labeling
As a use condition, EPA is requiring labeling of new household and
retail refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, non-mechanical
heat transfer equipment, very low temperature refrigeration equipment,
and room air conditioners that are designed to use one of the
refrigerants subject to the acceptability determinations in this
action. EPA is requiring that the warning labels on the equipment
contain letters at least \1/4\ inch high, and be permanently affixed to
the equipment. Warning label language requirements are found in Section
III.A of this rule, ``Listing decisions: substitutes and end-uses,'' as
well as in the regulatory text. The warning label language is similar
to or exactly the same as that required in the following UL standards:
UL 250 in Section SA6.1 for household refrigerators and freezers; UL
541 in Section SA6.1 for vending machines; UL 471 in Section SB6.1 for
commercial refrigerators and freezers; and UL 484 in Section SA6.1 for
room AC units.
EPA believes that it would be difficult to see warning labels with
the minimum lettering height requirement of \1/8\ inch provided in
these UL standards. Therefore, consistent with the use conditions in
our previous hydrocarbon refrigerants rule (December 20, 2011 at 76 FR
78832), the minimum height for lettering must be \1/4\ inch as opposed
to \1/8\ inch, which will make it easier for technicians, consumers,
retail storeowners, and emergency first responders to view the warning
labels. We understand that UL is considering revising its standards to
be consistent with this requirement.
[[Page 19466]]
D. Venting Prohibition
1. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or
disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes under section 608
of the CAA?
The statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or disposal
of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes are under Section 608 of
the CAA. Section 608 of the Act as amended, titled National Recycling
and Emission Reduction Program, requires EPA to establish regulations
governing the use and disposal of ODS used as refrigerants, such as
certain CFCs and HCFCs, during the service, repair, or disposal of
appliances and industrial process refrigeration (IPR). EPA's authority
to promulgate the regulatory revisions in this action is based in part
on Section 608 of the CAA. Section 608(c)(1) provides that it is
unlawful for any person, in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of an appliance (or IPR), to knowingly vent, or
otherwise knowingly release or dispose of, any class I or class II
substance used as a refrigerant in that appliance (or IPR) in a manner
which permits the ODS to enter the environment.
Section 608(c)(1) further exempts from this self-effectuating
prohibition de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to
recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such a substance. EPA, as
set forth in its regulations, interprets releases to meet the criteria
for exempted de minimis releases if they occur when the recycling and
recovery requirements of regulations promulgated under sections 608 and
609 are followed. 40 CFR 82.154(a)(2).
Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition in Section 608(c)(1) to
knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of any
refrigerant substitute for class I or class II substances by any person
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or IPR.
This prohibition applies to any substitute unless the Administrator
determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing does not pose a
threat to the environment. Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA authority
to promulgate regulations to interpret, implement, and enforce this
prohibition on venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II
substances and their refrigerant substitutes, which we refer to as the
``venting prohibition'' in this action. EPA's authority under Section
608(c) includes authority to implement Section 608(c)(2) by exempting
certain substitutes for class I or class II substances from the venting
prohibition when the Administrator determines that such venting,
release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment.
2. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, releasing, or
disposing of refrigerant substitutes?
Regulations promulgated under Section 608 of the Act, published on
May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a recycling program for ozone-
depleting refrigerants recovered during the servicing and maintenance
of refrigeration and AC appliances. In the same 1993 rule, EPA also
promulgated regulations implementing the Section 608(c) prohibition on
knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II
controlled substances. These regulations were designed to substantially
reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
EPA issued a final rule on March 12, 2004, at 69 FR 11946, and a
second rule on April 13, 2005, at 70 FR 19273, clarifying how the
venting prohibition in Section 608(c) applies to substitutes for CFC
and HCFC refrigerants (e.g., HFCs and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)) during
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances. These
regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. In relevant
part, they provide that no person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or
disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or otherwise release into
the environment any refrigerant or substitute from such appliances,
with the exception of the following substitutes in the following end-
uses, effective June 23, 2014:
(A) Isobutane and R-441A in household refrigerators, freezers, and
combination refrigerators and freezers; or
(B) Propane in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone
units only).
As explained in an earlier EPA rulemaking concerning refrigerant
substitutes, EPA has not promulgated regulations requiring
certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment intended for
use with substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 13, 2005). However, as
EPA noted, the lack of a current regulatory provision should not be
considered as an exemption from the venting prohibition for substitutes
that are not expressly exempted in Section 82.154(a) (id.). EPA has
also noted that, in accordance with Section 608(c) of the Act, the
regulatory prohibition at Section 82.154(a) reflects the statutory
references to de minimis releases of substitutes as they pertain to
good faith attempts to recover and recycle or safely dispose of non-
exempted substitutes (id.).
On May 23, 2014, at 79 FR 29682, EPA exempted from the venting
prohibition three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the specified end-uses:
isobutane and R-441A, as refrigerant substitutes in household
refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers;
and propane as a refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators
and freezers (stand-alone units only). That rule does not apply to
blends of hydrocarbons with other refrigerants or containing any amount
of any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or PFC.
In that action, EPA determined that for the purposes of CAA Section
608(c)(2), the venting, release, or disposal of such hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses does not pose a
threat to the environment, considering both the inherent
characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in
the relevant applications. EPA further concluded that other
authorities, controls, or practices that apply to such refrigerant
substitutes help to mitigate environmental risk from the release of
those three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. For example, state and
local air quality agencies may include VOC emissions reduction
strategies in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) developed to meet and
maintain the NAAQS that would apply to hydrocarbon refrigerants.
3. What is EPA requiring regarding venting, release, or disposal of
refrigerant substitutes, other than hydrocarbons, included in this
action?
This rule regulates the use of HFC-32 in room AC units. All HFCs
are currently subject to the venting prohibition. EPA is not extending
the exemption to the venting prohibition in this action to HFC-32 or
any refrigerant blends that contain HFC-32 or any other HFC. Further,
the exemption to the venting prohibition in this action does not extend
to blends containing hydrocarbons with other types of compounds, e.g.,
blends of HFCs and hydrocarbons. Such refrigerant substitutes are still
subject to the statutory and regulatory venting prohibition.
4. What is EPA's determination regarding whether venting of
hydrocarbons listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the
end-uses in this action poses a threat to the environment?
For purposes of Section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, EPA considers two
factors in determining whether or not venting, release, or disposal of
a refrigerant
[[Page 19467]]
substitute during the maintenance, servicing, repairing, or disposing
of appliances poses a threat to the environment. See 69 FR 11948 (March
12, 2004); 79 FR 29682 (May 23, 2014). First, EPA analyzes the threat
to the environment due to inherent characteristics of the refrigerant
substitute, such as GWP. Second, EPA determines whether and to what
extent venting, release, or disposal actually takes place during the
maintenance, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances, and to
what extent such actions are controlled by other authorities,
regulations, or practices. To the extent that such releases are
adequately controlled by other authorities, EPA defers to those
authorities. In addition, we considered the public comments we received
on the proposed rule on this topic. We received no comments that caused
us to change our proposed conclusion that venting, release, or disposal
of the specified refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses does
not pose a threat to the environment. Therefore, we are finalizing this
portion of the rule as originally proposed.
i. Potential environmental impacts
EPA has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of releasing
into the environment the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that
we are listing under the SNAP program as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in the specified end-uses--i.e., ethane in very low
temperature refrigeration equipment and equipment for non-mechanical
heat transfer; isobutane in retail food refrigerators and freezers
(stand-alone equipment only) and vending machines; propane in household
refrigerators and freezers and combination refrigerators and freezers,
vending machines, and self-contained room air conditioners for
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps; and
R-441A in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone equipment
only), vending machines, and self-contained room air conditioners for
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps. In
particular, we assessed the potential impact of the release of
additional hydrocarbons on local air quality and their ability to
decompose in the atmosphere, their ODP, their GWPs, and potential
impacts on ecosystems.
As explained in Section IV.A, ``Effects on the environment,'' the
ODP of these hydrocarbons is zero, the GWPs are less than 10, and
effects on aquatic life are expected to be small. As to potential
effects on local air quality, based on the analysis and modeling
results described in the proposal and in Section IV.A of this preamble,
EPA concludes that the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes listed
in this action for their specific end-uses are expected to have little
impact on local air quality.
In addition, when examining all hydrocarbon substitute refrigerants
in those uses for which UL currently has standards in place, for which
the SNAP program has already listed the uses as acceptable subject to
use conditions, or for which the SNAP program is reviewing a
submission, including those in this rule, we found that even if all the
refrigerant in appliances in end-uses addressed in this rule were to be
emitted, there would be a worst-case impact of less than 0.15 ppb for
ground-level ozone in the Los Angeles area. In light of its evaluation
of potential environmental impacts, EPA concludes that the four
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the end-uses at issue in this
rule are not expected to pose a threat to the environment on the basis
of the inherent characteristics of these substances and the limited
quantities used in the relevant end-uses (ICF, 2014a).
ii. Toxicity and Flammability
As discussed in Sections IV.B, ``Flammability'' and IV.C.,
``Toxicity and asphyxiation,'' EPA's SNAP program evaluated the
flammability and toxicity risks from the substitute refrigerants in
this rule. EPA is providing some of that information in this section as
well.
Hydrocarbons, including ethane, propane, isobutane and the
hydrocarbon blend R-441A, are classified as A3 refrigerants by ASHRAE
Standard 34-2010, indicating that they have low toxicity and high
flammability. Hydrocarbons in this rule have LFLs ranging from 1.8% to
3.0% (18,000 ppm to 30,000 ppm). To address flammability risks, this
rule contains recommendations for their safe use (see Section III.E.,
``Recommendations for the safe use of flammable substitute
refrigerants'' below) and specified use conditions. The SNAP program's
analysis suggests that the use conditions in this rule mitigate
flammability risks.
Like most refrigerants, at high concentrations hydrocarbons can
displace oxygen and cause asphyxiation. Various industry and regulatory
standards exist to address asphyxiation and toxicity risks. The SNAP
program's analysis of asphyxiation and toxicity risks suggests that the
use conditions in this rule mitigate asphyxiation and toxicity risks.
Furthermore, the Agency believes that the flammability risks and
occupational exposures to hydrocarbons are adequately regulated by OSHA
and building and fire codes at a local and national level.
iii. Authorities, Controls, or Practices
EPA believes that existing authorities, controls, or practices will
mitigate environmental risk from the release of these hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes. Analyses performed for both this rule and the
SNAP rules issued in 1994 and 2011 (March 17, 1994, at 59 FR 13044 and
December 20, 2011, at 76 FR 38832, respectively) indicate that existing
regulatory requirements and industry practices designed to limit and
control these substances adequately control the emission of the
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes listed in this action. As explained
below, EPA concludes that the limits and controls under other
authorities, regulations, or practices adequately control the release
of and exposure to the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes and
mitigate risks from any possible release.
As mentioned above, the determination of whether venting, release,
or disposal of a substitute refrigerant poses a threat to the
environment includes considering the extent that such venting, release,
or disposal is adequately controlled by other authorities, regulations,
or practices. As such, this conclusion is another part of the
determination that the venting, release, or disposal of these four
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, in the specified end-uses and
subject to the use conditions in this action, does not pose a threat to
the environment.
Industry service practices and OSHA standards and guidelines that
address hydrocarbon refrigeration equipment, include monitoring
efforts, engineering controls, and operating procedures. OSHA
requirements that apply during servicing include continuous monitoring
of explosive gas concentrations and oxygen levels. In general,
hydrocarbon emissions from refrigeration systems are likely to be
significantly smaller than those emanating from the industrial process
and storage systems, which are controlled for safety reasons. In the
SNAP listings in Section III.A, ``Listing decisions: substitutes and
end-uses,'' we note that the amount of refrigerant substitute from a
refrigerant loop is limited: 57 g for household refrigerators and
freezers; 150 g for commercial stand-alone refrigerators and freezers,
very low temperature refrigeration equipment non-mechanical heat
transfer equipment, and vending machines; with larger but still limited
charges for room
[[Page 19468]]
air conditioners (1,000 g for hydrocarbon refrigerants). This indicates
that hydrocarbon emissions from such uses are likely to be relatively
small.
Hydrocarbons that are also VOC may be regulated as VOC under
sections of the CAA that address nonattainment, attainment, and
maintenance of the NAAQS for ground-level ozone, including those
sections addressing development of SIPs and those addressing permitting
of VOC sources.
The release and/or disposal of many refrigerant substitutes,
including hydrocarbons, are controlled by other authorities including
those established by OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health's (NIOSH) guidelines, various standards, and state
and local building codes. To the extent that release during
maintaining, repairing, servicing, or disposing of appliances is
controlled by regulations and standards of other authorities, EPA
believes these practices and controls for the use of hydrocarbons are
sufficiently protective. These practices and controls mitigate the risk
to the environment that may be posed by the venting, release, or
disposal of these four hydrocarbon refrigerants during the maintaining,
servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances.
EPA is now aware of equipment that can be used to recover
hydrocarbon refrigerants. While there are no relevant U.S. standards
for such recovery equipment, to the extent that these hydrocarbons are
recovered rather than vented in specific end-uses and equipment, EPA
recommends the use of recovery equipment designed specifically for
flammable refrigerants in accordance with applicable safe handling
practices.
iv. Conclusion
EPA has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the four
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the end-uses in this action, as
well as the authorities, controls, and practices in place for those
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. EPA also considered the public
comments on the proposal for this action. Based on this review, EPA
concludes that these four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in these
end-uses and subject to these use conditions are not expected to pose a
threat to the environment based on the inherent characteristics of
these substances and the limited quantities used in the relevant
applications. EPA additionally concludes that existing authorities,
controls, or practices help mitigate environmental risk from the
release of those four hydrocarbons in these end-uses and subject to
these use conditions. In light of these conclusions and those described
or identified above in this section, EPA is determining that based on
current evidence and risk analyses, the venting, release, or disposal
of these four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in these end-uses,
and during the maintenance, servicing, repairing or disposing of the
relevant appliances or equipment, does not pose a threat to the
environment. Furthermore, EPA is exempting from the venting prohibition
at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses for which these
hydrocarbons are being listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
under the SNAP program.
This exemption does not mean that hydrocarbons can be vented in all
situations at this time. Hydrocarbons being recovered, vented, or
otherwise disposed of from commercial and industrial appliances are
likely to be hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) (see 40 CFR parts 261-270). As discussed in the
final rule allowing for the venting of isobutane and R-441A as
refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and
combination refrigerators and freezers, and propane as a refrigerant
substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units
only), incidental releases may occur during the maintenance, service,
and repair of appliances. Nor would this activity be subject to RCRA
requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste, as such releases
would not constitute disposal of the refrigerant charge as a solid
waste, per se. Disposal of hydrocarbons from household appliances is
also not considered disposal of a hazardous waste under the existing
RCRA regulations and could be vented under the household hazardous
waste exemption. See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). However, for commercial and
industrial appliances, it is likely that flammable hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes would be classified as hazardous waste and
would need to be managed as hazardous waste under the RCRA regulations
(40 CFR parts 261-270).
E. Recommendations for the Safe use of Flammable Substitute
Refrigerants
EPA recommends that only technicians specifically trained in
handling flammable refrigerant substitutes dispose of or service
refrigeration and AC equipment containing these substances. Technicians
should know how to minimize the risk of fire and the procedures for
using flammable refrigerant substitutes safely. Releases of large
quantities of flammable refrigerants during servicing and
manufacturing, especially in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces or in
areas where large amounts of refrigerant are stored, could cause an
explosion if an ignition source exists nearby. For these reasons, it is
important that only properly trained technicians handle flammable
refrigerant substitutes when maintaining, servicing, repairing, or
disposing of household and retail food refrigerators and freezers, very
low temperature freezers, non-mechanical heat transfer equipment (e.g.,
thermosiphons), and room air conditioners. In addition, EPA recommends
that if hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes are vented, released, or
disposed of (rather than recovered), as would be allowed in most of the
specified end-uses in this rule, the release should be in a well-
ventilated area, such as outside of a building.
We are aware that at least two organizations, Refrigeration Service
Engineers Society (RSES) and the ESCO Institute, have developed
technician training programs in collaboration with refrigeration
equipment manufacturers and users that address safe use of flammable
refrigerant substitutes. In addition, EPA has reviewed several training
programs provided as part of SNAP submissions from persons interested
in flammable refrigerant substitutes. The agency intends to update the
test bank for technician certification under Section 608 of the CAA as
we have done previously, and will consider including additional
questions on flammable refrigerants. By adding such questions to the
test bank, EPA would supplement but would not replace technician
training programs currently provided by non-government entities. EPA
will seek additional information and guidance on how best to
incorporate this content through a separate process outside of this
final rule.
IV. What criteria did EPA consider in determining whether to list the
substitutes as acceptable and in determining the use conditions, and
how does EPA consider those criteria?
As discussed above, Section 612(c) of the CAA directs EPA to
publish lists of acceptable substitutes for specific uses. EPA
considers whether the risks to human health and the environment of a
substitute poses less risk than that posed by other substitutes that
are currently or potentially available. EPA also considers whether the
substitute for class I and class II ODS poses lower overall risk to
human health and the
[[Page 19469]]
environment as compared to the ODS historically used in the end-use.
The criteria we review are listed at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). These
criteria are: (i) atmospheric effects and related health and
environmental impacts; (ii) general population risks from ambient
exposure to compounds with direct toxicity and to increased ground-
level ozone; (iii) ecosystem risks; (iv) occupational risks; (v)
consumer risks; (vi) flammability; and (vii) cost and availability of
the substitute.
EPA evaluated each of the criteria for each substitute in each end-
use in this action and then for each substitute, we considered overall
risk to human health and the environment in comparison to other
available or potentially available alternatives in the same end-uses.
Based on our evaluations, we may reach different conclusions about the
same substitute in different end-uses, because of different risk
profiles (e.g., different exposure levels and usage patterns) and
different sets of available or potentially available substitutes for
each end-use.
As we have noted previously, environmental and human health
exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular
application of a substitute--and over time, information available
regarding a substitute can change. See 78 FR at 29035 (May 17, 2013).
SNAP's comparative risk framework does not imply fundamental tradeoffs
with respect to different types of risk, either to the environment or
to human health. For example, in this rule, we considered all the human
health and environmental criteria, and addressed the potential risks
from flammability by imposing use conditions, rather than deciding that
other criteria were more important. EPA recognizes that during the more
than two-decade history of the SNAP program, new information about
alternatives already found acceptable has become available and new
alternatives have emerged. To the extent possible, for each SNAP
review, EPA considers information current at the time of the review
which has improved our understanding of the risk factors for the
environment and human health in the context of the available or
potentially available alternatives for a given use.
A. Effects on the Environment
The SNAP program considers a number of environmental criteria when
evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate effects, primarily based on GWP;
local air quality impacts, particularly potential impacts on smog
formation from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem effects, particularly
from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental
and health risks are discussed below.
The ODP is the ratio of the impact on stratospheric ozone of a
chemical compared to the impact of an identical mass of CFC-11. Thus,
the ODP of CFC-11 is defined to be one (1.0). Other ODS have ODPs that
range from 0.01 to ten (10.0).
All refrigerant substitutes in this final rule have an ODP of zero,
lower than the ODP of ozone depleting refrigerants such as CFC-12 (ODP
= 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP = 0.055); R-13B1 (ODP = 10) and R-502 (ODP =
0.334). The most commonly used substitutes in the end-uses addressed in
this final rule also have an ODP of zero (e.g., R-404A, R-134a, R-410A,
and R-407C).\13\ Some less common alternatives for these end-uses, such
as R-401A, R-414A, and other blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-
142b,\14\ have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.047. Thus, the refrigerant
substitutes in this rule have ODPs lower than or identical to the ODPs
of other available substitutes and of ODS historically used in the end-
uses addressed in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine,
or iodine have an ODP of zero.
\14\ Under EPA's phaseout regulations, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to
service existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-142b
and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may not be used to
manufacture new pre-charged appliances or appliance components or to
charge new appliances assembled onsite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GWP is a means of quantifying the potential integrated climate
forcing of various GHGs relative to carbon dioxide. Each of the
hydrocarbon refrigerants in this final rule has a relatively low 100-
year integrated GWP of less than ten while HFC-32 has a GWP of 675. For
comparison, some other commonly used refrigerants currently listed as
acceptable in retail food refrigeration, vending machines, and
household refrigerators and freezers end-uses are R-134a, R-404A, and
R-407C, with GWPs of about 1,430, 3,920, and 1,770, respectively. In
very low temperature refrigeration, a commonly-used substitute is R-
508B, with a GWP of 13,400. An ODS in this end-use is R-13B1/halon 1301
with a GWP of 7,140. The GWPs of the substitutes in this final rule are
significantly lower than those of other refrigerants currently being
used in the residential and light commercial AC and heat pump end-use,
such as the HFC blend substitute R-410A. In addition, the substitutes
in this rule have lower GWPs than those of ODS in this end-use, CFC-12
(GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); and R-502 (GWP = 4,660) (IPCC,
2007).
As stated above, EPA considers overall risk to human health and the
environment compared to alternatives that are available and potentially
available in a given end-use. Therefore, while the GWP of 675 for HFC-
32 is considered low for the residential and light-commercial AC and
heat pumps end-use, it may not be considered low in other end-uses that
have a larger variety of substitutes with lower GWPs. Among the
acceptable substitutes listed in the residential and light-commercial
AC and heat pumps end-use, only ammonia absorption and the non-vapor
compression technologies evaporative cooling and desiccant cooling have
lower GWPs than the substitutes listed in this final rule in this end-
use.
The total environmental effects impacts of these refrigerants also
depend upon the energy use of appliances, since the ``indirect'' GHG
emissions associated with electricity consumption typically exceed
those from refrigerants over the full lifecycle of refrigerant-
containing products. (ORNL, 1997). If appliances designed to use
refrigerants listed as acceptable in this final rule are less energy
efficient than the appliances they replace, then it is possible that
these appliances would result in higher lifecycle GHG emissions than
appliances using a higher GWP refrigerant or refrigerant substitute.
Conversely, higher energy efficiency of these appliances would lead to
even lower lifecycle GHG emissions.
While we have not undertaken a comprehensive assessment of all
sources of GHG emissions associated with substituting ODS and other
commonly used refrigerants with the refrigerants in this final rule, we
note that energy efficiency standards exist for most of the types of
equipment covered here.\15\ Thus, total energy use with the substitute
refrigerants we are finding acceptable in this action can be expected
to be no higher than that required by the standards for those classes
of equipment.\16\ Further, testing
[[Page 19470]]
data, peer-reviewed journal articles, and other information provided by
the submitters for these substitute refrigerants indicate that
equipment using these refrigerants is likely to have a higher
coefficient of performance and use less energy than equipment currently
being manufactured that uses the most commonly used refrigerants that
are listed as acceptable under SNAP. This indicates that equipment
using the refrigerants listed will have the same or lower climate
impacts than other available substitutes (Daikin, 2011; A.S. Trust &
Holdings, 2012; A/S Vestfrost, 2012; CHEAA, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For example, Department of Energy (DOE) standards apply to
portable air conditioners, room air conditioners, PTACs and PTHPs,
household refrigerators and freezers, refrigerated beverage vending
machines, and commercial refrigeration equipment. See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards_test_procedures.html.
\16\ Refrigeration or air conditioning equipment in the
applicable covered equipment class would still be subject to DOE's
standards, regardless of the refrigerant that the equipment uses. If
a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue
hardship by DOE's regulations, the manufacturer may petition DOE's
Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or
exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA's authority under
Section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as
implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority
to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a
manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause
hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to global impacts on the atmosphere, EPA evaluated
potential impacts of the substitutes on local air quality. Ethane and
HFC-32 are exempt from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see
40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. The other refrigerants, isobutane, propane, and
components of R-441A, including isobutane, n-butane, and propane, are
VOC. Potential emissions of VOC from all substitutes for all end-uses
in the refrigeration and AC sector are addressed by the venting
prohibition under Section 608 of the CAA. Under that prohibition,
refrigerant substitutes (and thus the VOC they contain) may only be
emitted where EPA issues a final determination exempting a refrigerant
substitute from the venting prohibition on the basis that venting,
releasing or disposing of such substance does not pose a threat to the
environment. Based on an analysis described below, EPA estimates that
potential emissions of hydrocarbons if used as refrigerant substitutes
in all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC sector would have little
impact on local air quality, with the possible exception of unsaturated
hydrocarbons such as propylene (ICF, 2014a).
EPA analyzed a number of scenarios to consider the potential
impacts on local air quality if hydrocarbon refrigerants were used
widely. We used EPA's Vintaging Model to estimate the hydrocarbon
emissions from these scenarios and EPA's Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) model to assess their potential incremental
contributions to ground-level ozone concentrations (ICF, 2014a). That
analysis was conservative in that it assumed that the most reactive
hydrocarbon subject to this action--isobutane--was used in all
refrigeration and AC uses even though isobutane was not proposed or
listed as acceptable for use in all refrigeration and AC uses. In
addition, the analysis assumed that all refrigerant used was emitted to
the atmosphere. In that highly conservative scenario, the model
predicted that the maximum increase in the 8-hour average ground-level
ozone concentration would be 0.72 ppb in Los Angeles.
For further information on the potential impacts of this rule and
other decisions we might make, EPA also performed a less conservative
analysis, looking at a set of end-uses that would be more likely to use
hydrocarbon refrigerants between now and 2030. The analysis assumed use
of hydrocarbon refrigerants in those uses for which UL currently has
standards in place, for which the SNAP program has already listed the
uses as acceptable, subject to use conditions, or for which the SNAP
program is reviewing a submission, including those in this rule.\17\ In
addition, the air quality analysis assumed several different
hydrocarbons \18\ would be used based upon those under review by the
SNAP program in the end-uses for which they were submitted. For
example, we assumed use of propane, R-441A, and another hydrocarbon
refrigerant under review in room air conditioners; and isobutane,
propane, and R-441A in vending machines, stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment, and household refrigerators and freezers; but
no use of hydrocarbons in chillers used for AC of large buildings. (For
further information on the specific assumptions, see ICF, 2014a, in the
docket for this rulemaking.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The analysis included stand-alone retail food refrigeration
equipment and coolers; vending machines; refrigerated transport;
water coolers; commercial ice machines; household refrigerators and
freezers; and room air conditioners (window AC, PTAC, and PTHP). The
analysis did not expressly break out very low temperature
refrigeration or non-mechanical heat transfer from commercial
refrigerators and freezers.
\18\ Refrigerants in this scenario included propane, isobutane,
and R-441A in the end-uses where they are listed to be acceptable,
subject to use conditions, among others. Ethane was not expressly
included, since the type of equipment using ethane is not broken out
separately in the analysis. However, ethane is less reactive than
the other refrigerants included in the analysis, so this omission is
expected to result in a slight overestimation of impacts, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this still conservative but more probable assessment of
refrigerant use, we found that even if all the refrigerant in
appliances in end-uses addressed in this final rule were to be emitted,
there would be a worst-case impact of 0.15 ppb ozone in the Los Angeles
area, which is the area with the highest level of ozone pollution in
the United States. In the other cities examined in the analysis,
Houston and Atlanta, impacts were smaller (no more than 0.03 and 0.01
ppb, respectively) (ICF, 2014a). Because both the highly conservative
as well as the conservative but more probable assessments indicated
there would be relatively low air quality impacts of these refrigerants
if they are released to the atmosphere in limited amounts, EPA believes
that these refrigerants would not have a substantially greater impact
on local air quality than other refrigerants listed as acceptable in
the end-uses in this final rule.
Effects on aquatic life of the substitutes are expected to be small
and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of
other available substitutes for these uses. The refrigerant substitutes
in this rule are all highly volatile and would evaporate or partition
to air, rather than contaminate surface waters.
B. Flammability
The flammability risks of the substitutes are of concern because
household and retail food refrigerators and freezers and room AC units
have traditionally used refrigerants that are not flammable. Without
appropriate use conditions, the flammability risk posed by these
refrigerants could be higher than non-flammable refrigerants because
individuals may not be aware that their actions could potentially cause
a fire, and because without the requirements of this rule, these
refrigerants could be used in existing equipment that has not been
designed specifically to minimize flammable risks. In this section, we
discuss the flammability risks posed by the refrigerants in this rule
and explain the use conditions we believe are necessary to mitigate
those risks to ensure that the overall risk to human health and the
environment posed by these substitutes is not greater than the overall
risk posed by other substitutes in the same end-uses. In addition, we
discuss why the flammability risks have led us to find that these
substitutes are only acceptable for use in new equipment specifically
designed for these flammable refrigerants.
Due to their flammable nature, ethane, isobutane, propane, HFC-32,
and R-441A could pose a significant safety concern for workers and
consumers in the end-uses addressed in this rule if they are not
handled correctly. In the presence of an ignition source (e.g.,
[[Page 19471]]
static electricity spark resulting from closing a door, using a torch
during service, or a short circuit in wiring that controls the motor of
a compressor), an explosion or a fire could occur when the
concentration of refrigerant exceeds its LFL. The LFLs of the
substitutes are: ethane--30,000 ppm; HFC-32--139,000 ppm; isobutane--
18,000 ppm; propane--21,000 ppm; and R-441A--20,500 ppm. Therefore, to
use these substitutes safely, it is important to minimize the presence
of potential ignition sources and to reduce the likelihood that the
levels of ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, or R-441A will exceed the
LFL.
To determine whether flammability would be a concern for
manufacturing and service personnel or for consumers, EPA analyzed a
plausible worst-case scenario to model a catastrophic release of the
refrigerants. The worst-case scenario analysis for each refrigerant
revealed that even if the unit's full charge is emitted within one
minute, none of these refrigerants reached their respective LFLs of
1.8% for isobutane, 2.1% for propane, 2.05% for R-441A, or 3.0% for
ethane, provided that the charge sizes were no greater than those
specified in the relevant standard from UL (ICF,
2014b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k). Thus, there would not be a significant risk
of fire or explosion, even under those worst-case assumptions, so long
as the charge meets the use conditions in this final rule. Detailed
analysis of the modeling results are discussed below in the next
section regarding ``Toxicity and asphyxiation.''
EPA also reviewed the submitters' detailed assessments of the
probability of events that might create a fire and engineering risk and
approaches to avoid sparking from the refrigeration equipment. Further
information on these analyses and EPA's risk assessments are available
in public docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748 at www.regulations.gov. Although
the analysis showed no potential for the released refrigerant from one
piece of equipment to reach the LFL, manufacturing and service
personnel or consumers may not be familiar with refrigeration or AC
equipment containing a flammable refrigerant. Therefore, use conditions
are necessary to ensure that people handling such equipment are aware
that the equipment contains a flammable refrigerant and to ensure safe
handling. Because of existing OSHA and building code requirements, we
expect that the equipment manufacturer, who would be storing large
quantities of the refrigerant, is familiar with and uses proper safety
precautions to minimize the risk of explosion. We are including in the
``Further Information'' section of the SNAP listings recommendations
that these facilities be equipped with proper ventilation systems and
be properly designed to reduce possible ignition sources. The use
conditions allow the flammable refrigerants to be used without a higher
risk to human health and the environment than that posed by
nonflammable substitutes.
C. Toxicity and asphyxiation
In evaluating potential toxicity impacts of ethane, HFC-32,
isobutane, propane, and R-441A on human health, EPA considered both
occupational and consumer risks. EPA investigated the risk of
asphyxiation and of exposure to toxic levels of refrigerant for a
plausible worst-case scenario and a typical use scenario for each
refrigerant. In the worst-case scenario of a catastrophic leak, we
modeled release of the unit's full charge within one minute into a
confined space to estimate concentrations that might result. We
considered a conservatively small space appropriate to each end-use,
such as a small convenience store of 244 m\3\ for retail food
refrigeration, a small galley kitchen of 18 m\3\ for a household
refrigerator/freezer, or a small bedroom of 41 m\3\ for a room air
conditioner.
To evaluate toxicity of all five refrigerants, EPA estimated the
maximum TWA exposure both for a short-term exposure scenario, with a
15-minute and 30-minute TWA exposure, and for an 8-hour TWA that would
be more typical of occupational exposure for a technician servicing the
equipment. We compared these short-term and long-term exposure values
to relevant industry and government workplace exposure limits for
ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, and components of R-441A (including
potential impurities). The modeling results indicate that both the
short-term (15-minute and 30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker
exposure concentrations would be below the relevant workplace exposure
limits, such as the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL), the NIOSH
recommended exposure limit (REL), the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) TLV, or in the case of HFC-
32, the manufacturer's recommended workplace exposure limit. In some
cases where there was not an established short-term exposure limit
(STEL), we considered information on short-term exposure such as the no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from available toxicity studies
or the National Research Council's Acute Emergency Guideline Limits
(AEGL).\19\ The respective workplace exposure limits we considered for
the various compounds, including components of the refrigerant blend R-
441A, are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The AEGL limit is an emergency guideline for exposures to
the general population (including susceptible populations) and is
not time-weighted. It also considers the chemical's flammability in
addition to its toxicity. EPA develops a set of AEGL values for
chemical for five exposure periods (10 and 30 minutes, 1 hour, 4
hours and 8 hours). For each exposure period, three different AEGL
values are developed to address different levels of toxicological
impacts. Of relevance for the modeled scenarios is the AEGL-1
(10,000 ppm), which is defined as: ``the airborne concentration,
expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter (pm or
mg/m\3\) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general
population including susceptible individuals, could experience
notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory
effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient
and reversible upon cessation of exposure.'' While permanent
toxicological effects are not expected up to the AEGL-2 value, this
limit is not relevant for this analysis because at that level,
flammability would be a greater concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
n-Butane, a component in R-441A: 800 ppm NIOSH REL on 10-
hr TWA; 6,900 ppm AEGL-1 over 30 minutes
Ethane: 1,000 ppm TLV on 8-hour TWA; 3,000 ppm over 15
minutes
HFC-32: 1,000 ppm manufacturer's exposure guideline on 8-
hour TWA; 3,000 ppm over 15 minutes
Isobutane: 800 ppm REL on 10-hr TWA; 6,900 ppm over 30
minutes
Propane: 1,000 ppm PEL on 8-hr TWA; 6,900 ppm AEGL-1 over
30 minutes
For equipment with which consumers might come into contact, such as
retail food refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, household
refrigerators and freezers, and room air conditioners, EPA performed a
consumer exposure analysis. In this analysis, we examined potential
catastrophic release of the entire charge of the substitute in one
minute under a worst-case scenario. We did not examine exposure to
consumers in very low temperature refrigeration, since such equipment
is typically used in workplaces, such as in laboratories, and not in
homes or public spaces. The analysis was undertaken to determine the
15-minute or 30-minute TWA exposure levels for the substitute, which
were then compared to the toxicity limits to assess the risk to
consumers.
EPA considered toxicity limits for consumer exposure that reflect a
short-term exposure such as might occur at home or in a store or other
public setting where a member of the general public could be exposed
and could then escape. Specific toxicity limits that we used in our
analysis of consumer exposure include:
[[Page 19472]]
n-Butane: 6,900 ppm AEGL-1 over 30 minutes
HFC-32: cardiotoxic NOAEL of 350,000 ppm over 5 minutes
Isobutane: 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes
Propane: 6,900 ppm AEGL-1 over 30 minutes
The analysis of consumer exposure assumed that 100 percent of the
unit's charge would be released over one minute, at which time the
concentration of refrigerant would peak in an enclosed space, and then
steadily decline. Refrigerant concentrations were modeled under two air
change scenarios, believed to represent the baseline of potential flow
rates for a home or other public space, assuming flow rates of 2.5 and
4.5 air changes per hour (ACH) (Sheldon, 1989). The highest
concentrations of the refrigerant occur in the lower stratum of the
room when assuming the lower ventilation level of 2.5 ACH. Calculating
the TWA exposure using 2.5 ACH results in a higher concentration than
calculating the TWA exposure using 4.5 ACH. Even under the very
conservative assumptions used in the consumer exposure modeling, the
estimated 15-minute or 30-minute consumer exposures to the refrigerants
are much lower than the relevant toxicity limits and thus should not
pose a toxicity risk any greater than that of other acceptable
refrigerants in the end-uses in this final rule. Other acceptable
refrigerants pose similar toxicity risks.
For further information, including EPA's risk screens and risk
assessments as well as fault tree analyses from the submitters of the
substitutes, see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748 at
www.regulations.gov.
V. What are the differences between the proposed and final rules?
This final rule lists all five refrigerants as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, in the same end-uses as in the proposed rule. This
final rule retains the same use conditions as proposed for very low
temperature refrigeration equipment; non-mechanical heat transfer
equipment; retail food refrigeration, stand-alone equipment only;
household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator/
freezers; and vending machines.
For room AC units, EPA is retaining the same use conditions as
proposed, with one exception. For portable AC units, EPA is not
applying the proposed charge limits for PTAC, PTHP, and other floor
mounted AC units, which are set forth in Table D. New Table E
establishes charge limits for portable AC units, consistent with the
requirements in Appendix F of UL 484, 8th Edition. This change allows
larger charge sizes for small portable units than in the proposed rule
and limits the charge size to no more than 2.45 kg of HFC-32, 300 g of
propane, or 330 g of R-441A. Proposed Table D was based on a different
section of Appendix F of UL 484, 8th Edition. EPA is making this change
because we agree with commenters that the final rule should incorporate
specific provisions for charge limits for portable units in UL 484,
which is the standard that is the basis of EPA's other charge limits,
as well.
This final rule exempts the four hydrocarbon refrigerants for the
end-uses addressed in the proposed rule from the venting prohibition
under Section 608. HFC-32 remains prohibited from being knowingly
vented or otherwise knowingly released or disposed of by any person
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing appliances containing
HFC-32.
VI. What are EPA's responses to public comments?
A. EPA's Acceptability Determinations
1. R-441A
Comment: The Environmental Investigation Agency-U.S. (EIA), an
environmental organization, and A.S. Trust & Holdings, the submitter
for R-441A, supported the listing of R-441A as an acceptable substitute
in new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment, residential and
light commercial AC, and vending machines. EIA noted the climate
benefits, improved energy efficiency, and reduced flammability for this
refrigerant.
Response: EPA agrees and thanks the commenters for their support of
this listing decision. We are taking final action in this rule to list
R-441A as acceptable subject to use conditions for use in new retail
food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); new
residential and light commercial room AC units; and vending machines.
Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings requested clarification as to
whether EPA is approving the SNAP applications (i.e., submissions) for
R-441A in household window AC units, vending machines, new commercial
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and stand-alone refrigerated
display cases, and new residential split[hyphen]system AC units,
residential heat pumps, and portable (floor) room air conditioners.
Response: This final rule lists R-441A as acceptable, subject to
use conditions, for use in (1) residential and light commercial room AC
units, (2) vending machines, and (3) stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment, including refrigerators, freezers, and
refrigerated display cases. These correspond to the submissions for R-
441A for household window AC units, vending machines, new commercial
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and stand-alone refrigerated
display cases, and the portable room air conditioners portion of the
submission for new residential split-system AC units, residential heat
pumps, and portable room air conditioners. EPA is reviewing R-441A
separately for new residential and light commercial split-system AC
units and heat pumps, and so is not in this action listing R441A as
acceptable in these uses at this time.
2. Ethane
Comment: EIA supported the listing of ethane as acceptable subject
to use conditions for use in very low temperature refrigeration and
non-mechanical heat transfer, and indicated that equipment using ethane
is available that will reduce impacts on climate and cut energy use.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for listing ethane as
acceptable subject to use conditions in very low temperature
refrigeration and non-mechanical heat transfer.
Comment: Hoshizaki America, a manufacturer of commercial
refrigeration equipment, questioned the test methods used to evaluate
ethane's flammability and fire safety.
Response: The commenter provided no support for why they believed
this was necessary or what, if anything else, they question in the test
methods used to evaluate ethane. EPA evaluated flammability risks in
the risk screen included in the docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0748-
0004). This evaluation followed the standard approach for evaluating
health and environmental risks that the SNAP program has used over its
20-year history. The results found worst-case leaks of ethane to result
in concentrations far below the LFL of 30,000 ppmv, showing a lack of
flammability risk. We note that a use condition requires that the
ethane-containing equipment meet the requirements of Supplement SB to
the 10th edition of UL Standard 471 and this use condition will ensure
ethane will be tested and will meet specific safety testing
requirements.
3. Isobutane
Comment: EIA and a private citizen supported EPA's proposal to list
isobutane as acceptable subject to use conditions for the proposed end-
uses
[[Page 19473]]
and noted that it is already available and in use in the United States
and global markets in vending machines and in stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment. Hoshizaki America questioned the listing of
isobutane and does not agree that it should be listed as acceptable
without proper safety analysis.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for listing isobutane as
acceptable subject to use conditions in vending machines and stand-
alone retail food refrigeration equipment. EPA evaluated flammability
risks in the risk screens included in the docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0748-0013 and -0021). The commenter that suggested isobutane
should not be listed provided no support for their statement and did
not explain what they meant by ``proper safety analysis.'' EPA's
evaluations followed the standard approach for evaluating health and
environmental risks that the SNAP program has used over its 20-year
history. The results found leaks of isobutane in stand-alone retail
food refrigeration equipment and vending machines to result in
concentrations far below the LFL of 30,000 ppmv, showing a lack of
flammability risk. We note that a use condition requires that retail
food refrigeration equipment using isobutane meet the requirements of
Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL Standard 471 and that vending
machines using isobutane meet the requirements of Supplement SA to the
7th edition of UL Standard 541. This use condition will ensure
isobutane is further tested in equipment and will meet specific safety
testing requirements.
4. HFC-32
Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings; ComStar, a distributor of R-441A
and other chemicals, and several private citizens expressed concerns
with the listing of HFC-32 as an acceptable substitute in room AC units
due to its toxicity, flammability, and high GWP relative to hydrocarbon
refrigerants. These commenters said that HFC-32's higher GWP, in
combination with its flammability and other characteristics, is reason
for not finding this substitute acceptable. Most of these commenters
were specifically concerned, due to the GWP and toxicity of HFC-32,
that EPA might exempt HFC-32 from the venting prohibition. EIA and
Daikin, the submitter of HFC-32, supported listing HFC-32 as acceptable
subject to use conditions.
Response: EPA appreciates the support from the commenters who
support listing HFC-32 as acceptable subject to use conditions for use
in room AC units.
EPA disagrees with the commenters who suggest that the toxicity,
flammability and GWP of HFC-32 indicate it should not be listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in room AC units. The
GWP of HFC-32 (675) is two-thirds less than that of the most commonly
used alternative for this type of equipment, R-410A (approximately
2,090) and also significantly lower than that of HCFC-22 (1,810) and R-
407C (approximately 1,770). The only currently acceptable alternatives
in this end-use with lower GWP include ammonia absorption and the non-
vapor compression technologies evaporative cooling and desiccant
cooling. However, there are technical limits on the effective use of
the non-vapor compression technologies in different climates, and
ammonia has a higher toxicity that HFC-32 and the other alternatives.
HFC-32 also has a higher GWP than two other substitutes being listed in
this end-use in this final rule--propane (GWP of 3) and R-441A (GWP of
less than 5). However, it is considerably less flammable than either
propane or R-441A. For example, HFC-32 has an LFL of 13.8% and a
burning velocity of 6.7 cm/s compared to an LFL of 2.1% and a burning
velocity of 46 cm/s for propane and an LFL of 2.05% and a burning
velocity of 47.6 cm/s for R-441A (Daikin, 2011; A.S. Trust & Holdings,
2012). EPA's risk screen on the use of HFC-32 in residential and light
commercial AC is available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0748-0005). This risk screen indicates that HFC-32's
LFL is not reached where the charge size is consistent with the use
conditions, so we do not expect a significant risk of fire.
The commenters did not provide any information concerning why they
believed that HFC-32 should be listed as unacceptable based on its
toxicity; the commenters merely provided general information such as
Material Data Safety Sheets (MSDSs) without giving analysis specific to
HFC-32. The potential health effects listed in the MSDSs provided by
the commenters, such as freeze burns, anesthetic effects, and asphyxia,
are common to many refrigerants already in the same end-use, such as
HCFC-22, R-410A, or HFC-134a. Further, these health effects apply to
both HFC-32 and to the two hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that we
are also listing in this action as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in this end-use, and the commenters did not raise concerns
for the health effects for those substitutes. EPA's risk screen
evaluates exposure and toxicity risks. In the End-Use Exposure
Assessment the modeled 15-minute and 30-minute TWA exposures for
consumers were well below the relevant short-term limit, the
cardiotoxic NOAEL for HFC-32, for all charge sizes. Based on the
Occupational Risk Assessment, occupational exposure to HFC-32 is
anticipated to be significantly below the STEL during servicing and
installation.
In addition, as discussed below in section VI.G, ``Venting
prohibition,'' EPA did not propose, nor is it finalizing, an exemption
to the venting prohibition for HFC-32.
5. Propane
Comment: EIA supported listing propane for use in all of EPA's
proposed end-uses (household refrigerators and freezers, vending
machines, and room air conditioners), since hydrocarbons are already
being used successfully in these types of equipment around the world. A
private citizen agreed with the listing of propane specifically for AC
units. Hozishaki America disagreed with the proposed listing of propane
without proper safety analysis.
Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting our decision to
list propane as acceptable subject to use conditions in the proposed
end-uses and agrees that hydrocarbons are already being used safely and
successfully in such types of equipment around the world.
The commenter opposing listing of propane provided no support for
their statements and did not explain what they meant by ``proper safety
analysis.'' EPA's evaluations followed the standard approach for
evaluating health and environmental risks that the SNAP program has
used over its 20-year history. EPA performed risk screens on the use of
propane in household refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, and
room air conditioners which are available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket IDs EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748-0006, -0007, and -0008).
EPA's vending machine risk screen indicates that propane's LFL is not
reached in the typical scenario, and for room air conditioners and
household refrigerators and freezers, worst-case concentrations would
be well below propane's LFL, showing a lack of flammability risk. We
note that EPA is including a use condition that requires that household
refrigerators and freezers using propane meet the requirements of
Supplement SA to the 10th edition of UL Standard 250, that vending
machines using propane meet the requirements of Supplement SA to the
7th edition of UL Standard 541, and that
[[Page 19474]]
room air conditioners meet the requirements of Supplement A and
Appendices B through F of the 8th edition of UL Standard 484.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Similarly, EPA previously listed propane as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in stand-alone retail food refrigeration
equipment, including a condition requiring that such equipment meet
the requirements of Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL Standard
471. December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters suggested that propane should be added to
the list of acceptable substitutes for the very low temperature
refrigeration end-use, particularly since it could be used with the
same UL 471 Standard as for commercial refrigeration equipment.
Response: EPA did not receive a submission and thus has not
evaluated propane for the very low temperature refrigeration end-use.
EPA may consider it in a future rulemaking action.
B. Environmental and Public Health Impacts
1. GWP and Direct Climate Impacts
Comment: The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the
Alliance), California's Air Resources Board (CARB), EIA, the Institute
of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), and private citizens stated that
the proposed list of substitutes is an important step towards
mitigating the industry's environmental impact, specifically by
broadening availability of substitutes that would reduce GHG emissions
from the refrigeration and AC sector. CARB estimates that if the
proposed low-GWP refrigerants replace the high-GWP HFCs in the
identified end-use sectors, nationwide annual emissions of GHGs would
be reduced by between 9 and 11 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (MMTCO2eq). CARB also stated that while the
reductions are a modest three percent decrease from current fluorinated
gas emissions, they believe the proposal is an important step in
mitigating the anticipated growth in emissions of HFCs.
Response: EPA agrees that listing these five substitutes as
acceptable subject to use conditions in the specified end-uses is an
important step towards mitigating GHG emissions and the anticipated
growth in emissions of HFCs. We thank the commenter for the calculated
estimate of the potential environmental benefits associated with this
rule. We do not know if the market penetration for these newly-listed
alternatives will align with the assumptions used by CARB in developing
their estimates. However, we agree that the entrance of these
alternatives into the market and the decrease in use of higher GWP
alternatives will mitigate climate impacts from the end-uses addressed
in this rule.
2. Energy Efficiency and Indirect Climate Impacts
Comment: CARB and EIA stated that the use of low-GWP hydrocarbon
refrigerants also indirectly reduces GHG emissions through decreased
energy use. In contrast, Master-Bilt Products, a manufacturer of
commercial refrigeration equipment, said that some of the proposed
alternatives have poor energy efficiency.
Response: EPA agrees with CARB and EIA that, based on the available
information, the hydrocarbon refrigerants may decrease energy use and
thereby reduce GHG emissions indirectly. Each submission provided
information showing reduced energy consumption when using the
alternative refrigerants listed in this rule (Daikin, 2011; A.S. Trust
& Holdings, 2012; A/S Vestfrost, 2012; CHEAA, 2013). However, we note
that the specific energy benefits will depend on a number of factors
other than the refrigerant, such as the design of the equipment and
efforts made to fine-tune the equipment once it is installed. Master-
Bilt did not submit any specific information regarding energy
efficiency and EPA is not aware of information supporting a claim that
any of the refrigerants being listed have poor energy efficiency.
3. Ozone Depletion
Comment: A private citizen stated that ``hydrofluorocarbon
refrigerants and CHFC [sic] refrigerants all have significant,
demonstrated negative impacts on our atmospheric ozone, while
hydrocarbons have no effect on stratospheric ozone depletion.'' The
commenter also stated that ``[i]t is accepted fact that these synthetic
fluorinated gases including HFC-32 rapidly accumulate in the atmosphere
destroying ozone by breaking molecular bonds of O3'' and
requested that EPA remove HFC-32 from the rule.
Response: The role of HCFCs in ozone depletion is well-documented
(WMO, 2010) and these substances are in the process of being phased out
of production and consumption globally in steps. EPA agrees that
hydrocarbons do not contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion.
However, we disagree with the commenter's statement that HFC
refrigerants have significant, demonstrated negative impact on
atmospheric ozone or that they break molecular bonds of ozone. On the
contrary, HFCs have long been considered to have a negligible impact on
stratospheric ozone depletion (Ravishankara et al, 1994; \21\ WMO,
2010). Thus, EPA considers the impact of HFCs on the ozone layer to be
comparable to those of hydrocarbons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ravishankara, A. R., A. A. Turnipseed, N. R. Jensen, S.
Barone, M. Mills, C. J. Howard, and S. Solomon. 1994. Do
hydrofluorocarbons destroy stratospheric ozone? Science 263: 71-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Local Air Quality Impacts
Comment: Regarding the air quality modeling using CMAQ, A.S. Trust
& Holdings stated that that the assumption of rapid transition to all
hydrocarbon refrigerants (in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3) is not a viable
assumption, and disregards simple market realities. CARB referred to
Scenarios 1 through 3 as upper-bound maximums that are not expected to
occur.
Response: In Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 of the air quality analysis
(ICF, 2014a), isobutane or propylene were assumed to be the only
refrigerant used, respectively, in (1) all refrigeration and air
conditioning uses, (2) all refrigeration and air conditioning uses
except for MVAC, or (3) all refrigeration and air conditioning uses
except for MVAC and large commercial chillers. EPA agrees that these
scenarios are not likely to occur. These scenarios were not intended to
project what is likely to happen in the market, but rather, to provide
screening estimates to see if there would be some level of refrigerant
emissions that could result in unacceptably high increases in ground-
level ozone. The modeling indicated that widespread use of isobutane,
propane, R-441A, and other saturated hydrocarbon refrigerants are not
likely to result in significant increases in ground-level ozone
concentrations. In contrast, the screening estimates in Scenarios 1, 2,
and 3 indicated that there could be significant increases in ground-
level ozone concentrations if use (and emissions) of propylene were
widespread. Thus, further analysis of potential air quality impacts
based on likely use of propylene in the market may be needed for
evaluating propylene or refrigerants containing propylene in any future
action in which EPA considers listing propylene for these end-uses.
Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings commented that the air quality
modeling focuses on only one year (2005) of meteorological data. The
commenter stated it is standard practice in ambient air modeling
studies to focus on typically five years of meteorological data to
provide a more representative sample of conditions on different days
[[Page 19475]]
and thus reduce the uncertainties in the analysis.
Response: It is standard practice to use five years of
meteorological data in regulatory analyses where the assessment is for
a single facility or small group of facilities seeking an air quality
permit, such as a permit for prevention of significant deterioration,
authority to construct, or air contaminant discharge. However, in state
implementation plans or nationwide regulatory impact assessments where
an entire state or the continental United States is modeled, a full
ozone season or a single year of meteorology is generally considered
sufficient (EPA, 2007). In the case of the CMAQ analysis performed for
this rule, modeling was performed based upon refrigerant emissions from
the entire United States and thus, use of one year of meteorological
data was appropriate.
Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings noted that specific hydrocarbon
refrigerants were not separately modeled in the air quality model. This
commenter states that each refrigerant should be assessed separately by
the Agency and that it does not seem reasonable to regulate a single
refrigerant based on a whole family of refrigerants. This commenter
also stated that it is difficult to make any substantial conclusions
regarding propylene without assessing the more realistic Scenario 4.
CARB stated that Scenario 4 of the analysis is a good representation of
anticipated emissions and useful for assessing the potential ozone
impacts of the proposal. This commenter also stated that the small
estimated impact based on national modeling is consistent with its own
estimate of the magnitude of potential emission increases and the lower
ozone formation potential of the hydrocarbon refrigerants.
Response: Scenario 4 is a scenario that analyzed potential air
quality impacts of hydrocarbon refrigerants in a set of end-uses that
would be more likely to use hydrocarbon refrigerants between now and
2030. These included end-uses for which UL currently has standards in
place, for which the SNAP program has already listed hydrocarbon
refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, or for which the
SNAP program is reviewing a submission, including those end-uses
addressed in this final rule. EPA agrees with the second commenter that
this scenario is useful for assessing the potential ozone impacts of
the proposal.
We disagree with the first commenter that EPA should have assessed
each refrigerant separately in Scenario 4 as we did in the bounding
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. We are listing a number of refrigerants as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in several end-uses and we
expect that they all will be present in the market and in the
atmosphere at the same time. The interactions of the different
compounds in the atmosphere are interdependent and are not linear.
Modeling each refrigerant separately would result in a less realistic,
and for some refrigerants an unrealistically low, estimate of
environmental impacts. The current air quality analysis found that the
peak 8-hr ozone increase of 0.15 ppb for Los Angeles is about 75%
associated with the use of propylene as a refrigerant and 21% from
propane under Scenario 4 (ICF, 2014a, p. 10).
5. Trifluoroacetic Acid
Comment: The Australian Refrigeration Association (ARA) stated that
the toxic buildup of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) (which they claimed is
a byproduct of HFC-32 decomposition) in fragile eco-systems is not
reversible. This commenter also stated that if TFA levels are allowed
to build up until algae and plant life is destroyed, it will be too
late to prevent the collapse of the food chain and global catastrophe.
The same commenter also noted that even before catastrophic levels are
reached, crop yields and marine life will be adversely affected.
Response: Available information indicates that TFA is not a
byproduct of the decomposition of HFC-32 (Wellington and Nielsen, 1999,
as cited in ICF, 2015a). We note that even if TFA were a minimal
byproduct of HFC-32, HFC-32 would not pose significantly greater risk
than other available substitutes because TFA is generated by some other
acceptable substitutes used in the same end-uses as in this rule.
C. Toxicity
1. Toxicity of Proposed Refrigerants
Comment: Master-Bilt Products stated that the
non[hyphen]drop[hyphen]in alternatives available and proposed by EPA
have many negative characteristics including toxicity. The commenter
stated that as a result, much more testing is going to be required now
than was required with the switch from CFCs to HFCs. This commenter
stated that before these newly redesigned products can be sold, many
additional steps will need to take place, such as upgrading appliance
manufacturing facilities; training service technicians in using toxic
refrigerants; achieving customer acceptance of having toxic
refrigerants in their facilities, near their employees and customers,
and around their food products; an expansion in capacity of testing
companies such as UL, the Canadian Standards Association, and Intertek;
and updating building codes to allow for toxic refrigerants.
Response: EPA recognizes that steps by industry and government such
as physical upgrades to equipment manufacturer facilities, capital
investments, technician training, third-party testing of equipment, and
revisions to building codes may be needed before manufacturers of
refrigeration equipment and their customers will be able to adopt the
refrigerants listed in this final rule. We also recognize that
finalizing this rule removes regulatory uncertainty about EPA's
requirements for use of these refrigerants in the listed end-uses,
another required step before these refrigerants will be adopted.
Concerning toxicity of the proposed refrigerants, our risk screens
find that even a worst-case release of isobutane or R-441A from stand-
alone retail food refrigeration equipment will not result in exceeding
exposure limits such as the TLVs of 1,000 ppm for isobutane or for the
four components of R-441A or the relevant short-term exposure limits
for these compounds. Similarly, for propane in household refrigerators
and freezers, a worst-case release would not exceed exposure limits
such as the AEGL-1 of 6,900 ppm for propane. For vending machines,
propane, isobutane, and the components of R-441A do not exceed exposure
limits in the typical scenario, such as the AEGL-1 of 6,900 ppm for
propane. We found similar results for the other types of equipment in
this rule, as discussed above in Section IV.C, ``Toxicity and
asphyxiation.'' Thus, the refrigerants that we are finding acceptable
subject to use conditions present comparable toxicity risk to other
acceptable refrigerants already used in these end-uses.
Comment: A private citizen stated that EPA should confirm there is
no health threat to society before approving this rule.
Response: EPA has assessed risks to human health and the
environment--including the flammability and toxicity, considering
exposure to workers, consumers, and the general public of each
substitute listed in this final rule. In addition, we have evaluated
the environmental impacts, including potential increases in generation
of ground-level ozone, impacts on the ozone layer and global climate,
all of which can impact human health. Based on these assessments, we
have determined that the human health risks of the listed refrigerants
are comparable to or less than those from other
[[Page 19476]]
acceptable refrigerants in the same end-uses.
2. Toxicity of Decomposition Products of HFC-32
Comment: ARA and A.S. Trust & Holdings expressed concern about the
potential for HFC-32 to decompose into hydrogen fluoride (HF), carbonyl
fluoride, and other toxic chemicals because it is a fluorocarbon
refrigerant. A.S. Trust & Holdings suggested that HFC-32 should not be
acceptable because of the toxicity of its decomposition products.
Response: EPA disagrees that the potential for toxic decomposition
products from HFC-32, when used consistent with the established use
conditions, creates a risk more significant than the risks posed by
other available refrigerants in the same end-uses. The risks of
decomposition products from HFC-32 in room air conditioners are no
greater than that from currently used refrigerants such as HCFC-22 or
R-410A, all of which contain fluorine. Indeed, the most commonly used
acceptable alternative refrigerant for room air conditioners, R-410A,
is a blend that contains 50% HFC-32.
It is true that hydrocarbon refrigerants do not contain fluorine
and thus do not have the potential for the same toxic byproducts such
as HF or carbonyl fluoride. However, the risk of generating HF only
exists when HFC-32 burns. Even in the worst-case scenario in our risk
screen for use of HFC-32 in room AC units, the concentration of HFC-32
would not exceed 69% of the LFL. Therefore, the flammability risks of
HFC-32, and the related potential to generate HF are extremely low.
Based on analysis of all of the relevant health and environmental
factors, EPA concluded that HFC-32 does not present a significantly
higher risk to human health or the environment than other currently or
potentially available substitutes in the room AC end-use.
D. Flammability
Comment: Traulsen, a manufacturer of commercial refrigeration
equipment, and Hoshizaki America, believed there has been an incomplete
safety assessment for listing flammable substitutes as acceptable. The
North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM)
requested that the Agency reevaluate the safety and enforcement issues
that must be addressed before flammable refrigerants are ubiquitous in
the marketplace. Hoshizaki America requested further testing and
analysis on actual machines to provide more concrete evidence that
there is no significant risk for this use. This commenter specifically
questioned the test method used for the flammability and fire safety
for isobutane and ethane and disagreed with the listing of isobutane or
propane without proper safety analysis.
Response: EPA agrees that flammability is an important
consideration with regard to substitutes evaluated in this rulemaking.
EPA evaluated the safety of these refrigerants prior to issuing the
proposal for this rule. EPA believes flammability risks can be
mitigated to ensure the substitutes can be used as safely as other
available substitutes in these uses. EPA also notes that more than 400
million hydrocarbon refrigerators are in use worldwide, as well as
millions of smaller residential air conditioners using hydrocarbons or
HFC-32. Reports of refrigerator ignition incidents resulting from
leaked hydrocarbons have been rare. To determine whether the
refrigerants would present flammability concerns for consumers or for
workers, including those servicing or disposing of appliances. EPA
reviewed the submitters' detailed assessments of the probability of
events that might create a fire, as well as engineering approaches to
avoid sparking from the refrigerant equipment. EPA also conducted risk
screens, available in the docket for this rulemaking, evaluating
reasonable worst-case and more typical, yet conservative, scenarios to
model the effects of the sudden release of the refrigerants. This final
rule establishes maximum charge sizes for each type of equipment, and
analysis for each of the substitutes revealed that even if the unit's
full charge were emitted within one minute, the concentration would not
reach the LFL for that refrigerant.
The listings of ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, and R-441A as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, will allow manufacturers to
develop equipment that will use these substitutes as refrigerants. It
is not necessary for EPA to pre-test the actual equipment as part of
its threshold analysis of whether refrigerants, used consistent with
the use conditions, will pose a flammability risk of concern. In
addition, we note that the use conditions required by this rule include
testing requirements in the relevant UL standards which are intended,
among other things, to ensure that any leaks will result in
concentrations well below the LFL, and that potential ignition sources
will not be able to create temperatures high enough to start a fire.
EPA believes risks can be mitigated to ensure the substitutes can be
used as safely as other available substitutes.
EPA believes that complying with the use conditions listed in this
final action, as well as with use conditions listed in previous SNAP
rules, reduces overall risk to human health and the environment. These
use conditions will ensure the substitutes are further tested in
equipment and will meet specific safety testing requirements.
EPA believes that (1) these evaluations have followed standard SNAP
methods and showed low risk, (2) our decisions rely on consensus-based
safety standards developed specifically to test and to assure safe use
of flammable refrigerants, and (3) the required use conditions reduce
the flammability risk associated with the listed substitutes. For these
reasons, these alternatives provide lower overall risk to human health
and the environment than other available or potentially available
alternatives in very low temperature refrigeration equipment, non-
mechanical heat transfer, retail food refrigeration equipment (stand-
alone units only), vending machines, room air conditioners and
household refrigerators and freezers. In response to the comment
requesting EPA to ``evaluate the safety and enforcement issues that
must be addressed before flammable refrigerants are ubiquitous in the
marketplace,'' we note that the commenter did not elaborate on what it
meant regarding ``enforcement issues.'' We considered compliance
concerns as we developed the proposed and final rule. For example, EPA
notes elsewhere in this final rule that placing the responsibility on
the manufacturer to design equipment that restricts the maximum
refrigerant charge based upon the cooling capacity needed provides a
better means for EPA to ensure compliance with the use conditions and
thus to ensure that the risk to human health will not be greater than
that posed by other available substitutes.
Comment: Several commenters noted the flammability of HFC-32. A.S.
Trust & Holdings indicated surprise at the charge size allowed for HFC-
32, as provided in the proposed use conditions, given its flammability.
ARA states that HFC-32 is extremely flammable and notes the high
ignition temperature of HFC-32. ComStar believes HFC-32's flammability,
and proposed high refrigerant charges in indoor systems, are compelling
reasons to keep HFC-32 out of all indoor refrigerant applications.
Response: As discussed above in section VI.A.4, HFC-32 is
significantly less flammable than the other
[[Page 19477]]
refrigerants considered in this rulemaking for use in room AC
equipment. The charge sizes are calculated using the same formulas from
UL 484 as those for propane and R-441A. The charge size is larger for
HFC-32 because it has a much higher (safer) LFL.
Comment: Enertech Global, a manufacturer of heat pumps, noted that
one disadvantage of hydrocarbon refrigerants is their flammability.
However, the commenter believes that careful design, manufacturing, and
use can ensure ``safe operation and handling in every step of the value
chain.'' Daikin has sold approximately three million units worldwide
and indicated that it is unaware of any incidents where the refrigerant
ignited during installation, servicing, or removal of these systems.
Additionally, the commenter stated that in Sweden, more than 100,000
packaged heat pumps that use flammable refrigerants have been used in
safe operation for over two decades. Daikin noted that service
technician training materials already developed could reduce
flammability risks associated with hydrocarbon refrigerants.
Response: EPA agrees that the flammability risks of concern with
hydrocarbon refrigerants can be adequately managed through proper
design, controls, and use conditions. EPA also believes that service
technician training materials will help provide protection and minimize
risks associated with hydrocarbon refrigerants. The safe operating
history of millions of HFC-32 AC units and more than 100,000 packaged
heat pumps that use flammable refrigerants is encouraging.
Comment: NAFEM, ICOR International (ICOR), Traulsen, and Hoshizaki
America expressed various other concerns regarding the flammability of
proposed substitutes in the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) industry including: the capital costs associated
with using flammable refrigerants; the need to redesign equipment; the
lack of awareness and training for service personnel and consumers; the
need for proper technician training; and industry codes and standards.
NAFEM and ICOR expressed concerns for the technicians being able to
recognize potential ignition sources.
Response: Refrigeration and AC equipment manufacturers are not
required to use any of the flammable refrigerants listed as acceptable
subject to use conditions in this action; we expect that those who
choose to do so will make appropriate capital investments in their
facilities. For example, EPA would expect private sector investments in
safety upgrades similar to those made when we listed certain
hydrocarbon refrigerants previously for household refrigerators and
freezers and stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment. In
addition, manufacturers would need to invest in training their staff in
safe handling of flammable refrigerants, including how to recognize
ignition sources. For example, technicians need to be aware that
standard refrigerant recovery equipment manufactured for non-flammable
refrigerants should not be used for recovering flammable refrigerants,
because even though it technically is capable of recovering many of
these hydrocarbons at similar pressure levels, such equipment may lack
adequate explosion proofing or non-sparking parts. Further, they need
to be aware that plugging or unplugging either the refrigeration and AC
equipment or electrical refrigerant recovery equipment is an ignition
source. In addition, we note that many of the use conditions, such as
the labeling and colored hoses, are for the express purpose of ensuring
that technicians are aware that the refrigerant is flammable.
Second, EPA believes that greater awareness of the presence, risks,
and benefits of flammable refrigerants among consumers, industry code-
and standard-setting organizations, fire marshals, and first responders
will lead to a smoother, safer transition to flammable refrigerants.
EPA is working with standards setting organizations such as UL and
ASHRAE and with technician certifying organizations to improve the
level of knowledge of technicians. EPA also intends to update the test
bank for technician certification under Section 608 of the CAA, and
could include additional questions on the safe handling of flammable
refrigerants. EPA will seek additional information and guidance on how
best to incorporate this content through a separate process outside of
this rule.
Comment: NAFEM and ICOR expressed concern about what to do when a
leak occurs and a trained technician is not present. NAFEM suggested
that EPA should consider other foreseeable conditions in which
flammable refrigerants are used, and specify precautionary measures in
situations such as a leak where no trained technician is present.
Response: We expect that owners of this kind of equipment will
follow the manufacturer's recommendations for safe use and, for retail
food refrigeration and other commercial equipment, OSHA requirements,
as discussed in our risk screens for each refrigerant and end-use (ICF,
2014b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k). These would assist the owner in planning for
situations where there is a leak of flammable refrigerant but no
trained technician is available. For retail food refrigeration
equipment and very low temperature refrigeration equipment, such plans
could include training staff to recognize signs of leaks (e.g., odors,
sounds, reduced cooling ability, and alarm signals where there is leak
monitoring equipment) and to actively seek steps to remove or avoid
ignition sources (e.g., post signs prohibiting smoking or open flames,
avoid plugging in or unplugging electrical equipment when a leak is
suspected). For household appliances, consumers would have guidance
provided by the equipment manufacturer in the owner's manual. In
addition, we note that the use conditions provide additional safety
measures that make equipment owners, consumers, and emergency first
responders aware of the presence of a flammability risk and that
minimize the risk that refrigerant concentrations would reach flammable
or explosive levels.
Comment: NAFEM noted that some local building and fire safety codes
still do not allow even small quantities of flammable refrigerants and
that manufacturers will be forced to maintain their current use of R-
134a and R-404A until states and municipalities update their codes.
Traulsen believed that all issues regarding codes, standards, safe
handling and venting can and should be resolved before the option to
switch to a flammable refrigerant is the only choice available to a
manufacturer or equipment purchaser.
Response: This current rule expands rather than limits the
refrigerant choices available in each of the proposed end-uses; thus,
no one is restricted to using a flammable refrigerant in those end-
uses. There are multiple acceptable nonflammable refrigerants available
for use in these end-uses. Government and industry cooperation, such as
the task force formed to examine and work towards updating building
codes to allow use of alternative refrigerants, has begun to address
barriers to revising building codes. However, in the absence of any
flammable refrigerant being acceptable for use, government and other
code-setting bodies may not have an incentive to revise codes to
address the use of flammable refrigerants. EPA supports the concept of
a national training program for flammable refrigerants and welcomes
industry efforts to educate technicians on proper
[[Page 19478]]
refrigerant use and proper service and disposal practices, including
safe handling and venting.
Comment: NAFEM is concerned the rulemaking will result in danger to
the public as flammable refrigerants are forced into certain market
applications.
Response: This rule does not require the use of flammable
refrigerants; other, non-flammable refrigerants remain available for
use in each of the end-uses addressed in this action. Further, as
discussed in the proposed rule and elsewhere in the preamble to the
final rule, this action requires that when the listed flammable
refrigerants are used in the specific end-uses, they will be used under
specific conditions that will mitigate the flammability risks.
Comment: Hoshizaki America requested that refrigerants used in the
commercial refrigeration sector be from the A1 group. The commenter
noted that refrigerant manufacturers are in the phase of gaining
approval of nonflammable refrigerants that have low GWPs. The commenter
claims that these refrigerants would be near drop-in replacements with
added efficiency benefits. Structural Concepts, a manufacturer of
commercial refrigeration equipment, requested EPA to approve R-448A, R-
449A, and R-450A (nonflammable refrigerant blends of HFOs and HFCs) for
the stand-alone, supermarket, and condensing unit end-uses.
Response: There are multiple non-flammable A1 refrigerants listed
as acceptable for commercial refrigeration (retail food refrigeration
and vending machines), including CO2 and, as mentioned by
the commenter, R-450A, a non-flammable refrigerant blend that performs
very similarly to HFC-134a but with a lower GWP. As of the writing of
this final rule, EPA was still reviewing submissions for R-448A and R-
449A.
Comment: Hoshizaki America noted that stand-alone refrigeration
equipment is well-known for having low probability of field leaks as
leaks in such equipment would prevent the equipment from maintaining
safe temperature for food. Due to low probability of leaks, the
commenter believes the evaluation of commercial refrigeration products
should be considered separate from other fields which exhibit larger
leakage to the atmosphere.
Response: EPA agrees that stand-alone refrigeration equipment is
less likely to leak than other types of refrigeration equipment, such
as remote systems. This final rule lists a number of flammable
refrigerants acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in stand-
alone refrigeration equipment such as stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment, very low temperature refrigeration equipment,
and household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator/
freezers. We note that for purposes of our review, we consider each
end-use separately.
E. Use Conditions
1. New Equipment Only; Not Intended for Use a Retrofit Alternative
Comment: Traulsen, ISRI, and Hudson Technologies, a refrigerant
reclaimer, supported limiting the use of the substitutes to new
equipment.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for our proposal to establish
use conditions to limit the use of the substitutes to new equipment
only and agrees with the commenters. EPA is including this use
condition in this final action.
2. Compliance With UL Standards
Comment: AHRI, DuPont, and GE Appliances stated that the UL 484
Standard (for room AC units) is being revised to match the fourth
edition of IEC 60335-2-40, and that these revisions will likely include
a reduced allowable charge level for flammable refrigerants. According
to the commenters, this reduction was determined to be necessary for
safe use by a group of U.S. experts. The new limit is determined by the
equation ``Charge limit = 3 m\3\ x LFL, where LFL is the lower
flammable limit in kg/m\3\ for the refrigerant used.'' The commenters
noted that the charge level is small enough that restriction based on
room size is not necessary. As such, the commenters recommended that
EPA modify the methodology used to determine maximum charge level and
revise the 3rd paragraph of use conditions as follows:
``The charge size for the entire air conditioner must not exceed
the maximum refrigerant mass determined according to Appendix F of UL
484, 8th edition for the room size where the air conditioner is used.
The charge size for these three refrigerants must in no case exceed 918
g (32.4 oz or 2.02 lb) of HFC-32; 114 g (4.0 oz or 0.25 lbs) of
propane; or 123 g (4.3 oz or 0.27 lb) of R-441A..'' [The previous
sentence is in place of the proposed statements, ``The charge size for
these three refrigerants must in no case exceed 7960 g (280.8 oz or
17.55 lb) of HFC-32; 1000 g (35.3 oz or 2.21 lb) of propane; or 1000 g
(35.3 oz or 2.21 lb) of R-441A. The manufacturer must design a charge
size for the entire air conditioner that does not exceed the amount
specified for the unit's cooling capacity, as specified in Table A, B,
C, or D of this appendix.''].
The commenters note that they expect the next revision to UL 484 to
be published by the end of 2014 or early 2015.
Response: EPA understands that the consensus-based standards that
are the basis of the use conditions in the proposed rule are under
review and may change in the future. This is true for all standards
controlled by an active organization such as UL. EPA does not believe
that it would be appropriate to adopt use conditions to reflect
standards that are not yet final and may still be subject to change.
EPA believes the consensus-based standards it relied upon are
protective of human health, rest upon sound science and reflect the
currently used and accepted guidelines in the appliance industry. Our
risk screens found that equipment that met EPA's proposed charge limits
based on the current, 8th Edition of UL 484 did not exceed the LFL or
exposure limits for each of the three refrigerants proposed for use in
room AC units, even in relatively small spaces. If UL 484 is revised in
the future, or if other information becomes available that would
support a change in charge size limits, particularly to address
specific risks, EPA remains open to revising the charge size use
condition and/or the specific edition of the UL standard, whether in
response to a petition or in an action initiated by EPA.
Furthermore, the commenters did not provide any technical support
for the changes they anticipate will be made to the UL 484 Standard,
nor do they provide information demonstrating that the charge sizes we
proposed present unacceptable risks. We also note that while the
commenters suggest that the charge size they anticipate will be
included in a revision to the UL 484 Standard will be small enough that
no restrictions based on room size would be needed, our understanding
is that the current UL 484 standard includes formulas for charge limits
based upon a peer-reviewed study (Kataoka et al., 2000) and the IEC
60335-2-40 Standard (EPA, 2015).
By relying on the existing UL standard, EPA remains consistent with
our approach in listing other flammable refrigerants acceptable,
subject to use conditions, including charge size limits (76 FR 78832;
December 20, 2011) as set forth in the applicable UL standards at the
time of our final listing action.
We believe that reliance on current standards, developed with a
focus on U.S. products and applications, are more appropriate than
potential future standards that have not yet been
[[Page 19479]]
adopted. We believe reliance on existing standards provides certainty
for manufacturers, while reducing the flammability risks that may exist
due to use of the flammable refrigerants listed in this action. While
charge size limits may change in the future, EPA cannot anticipate the
timing or extent of such changes.
Should a manufacturer seek UL approval of their equipment in a
possible future where the standard has changed, they would need to meet
both the use conditions EPA has finalized today and meet the presumably
more restrictive requirements of the UL standard applicable at the time
they are seeking UL approval. We also note that should a manufacturer
choose to adopt one of the refrigerants covered by today's action, they
must decide what charge size they will design their equipment for and
may choose any charge size equal to or below the maximums set under
today's action.
Comment: The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and
the Alliance stated that EPA should work towards a harmonized
international standard. UL noted their organization's work towards
harmonizing standards through the introduction of the UL 60335-2-40
Standard. This commenter suggested that EPA allow compliance with both
the UL 484 and the UL 60335-2-40 Standards. UL also clarified that the
UL 484 Standard will eventually be withdrawn and replaced with the UL
60335-2-40 Standard, possibly in 2020.
Response: EPA appreciates information regarding efforts that may
result in the withdrawal of UL 484 and its being replaced by UL 60335-
2-40 perhaps by 2020. As provided in the previous response, however,
EPA believes it is appropriate to rely on the existing UL 484 Standard
in this final rule. If UL 484 is replaced with UL 60335-2-40 in the
future or is otherwise modified, EPA remains open to revising the use
condition, whether in response to a petition or in an action initiated
by EPA. Regarding the comment that the use condition allows compliance
with either UL 484 or UL 60335-2-40, we note that today there are some
differences in labeling requirements and in the specific tests to be
performed that could lead to confusion and difficulty in enforcing
requirements of two standards simultaneously. Moreover, as noted in our
previous response, EPA's consistent practice for flammable refrigerants
has been to base the use conditions on the applicable UL standard.
Comment: Daikin notes a discrepancy between UL 484, which allows
for limited ducts used in PTAC installations, and the EPA footnote 10,
which indicates that no ducts can be used for PTACs using HFC-32. This
commenter believes that the UL 484 standard should be followed, as
ducts present no additional fire risk in systems with hermetically
sealed refrigerant loops.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that UL 484 does allow for
limited ducts in PTAC installations, contrary to footnote 10 in the
preamble to the proposal. In this final action, we are clarifying by
correcting that footnote to be consistent with the 8th edition of the
UL 484 standard by removing the statement about ducts.
Comment: Traulsen recommends that EPA consider that equipment being
manufactured specifically for markets outside the United States is
governed by the applicable standards and guidelines of those countries.
The commenter states that the proposed use conditions would restrict a
manufacturer's ability to place a product on the market in another
country. The commenter encourages the EPA to allow flexibility for
products to be sold into global markets, providing that such equipment
is clearly marked for export purposes only. For example, Traulsen
requested that equipment manufactured exclusively for export only be
subject to the charge sizes in regulations applicable to the
destination country.
Response: Under Section 612 of the CAA and EPA's implementing
regulations in Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82, the SNAP program is
applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate
commerce. This applies to the introduction into interstate commerce of
any appliances produced in the United States, including appliances that
will be exported. EPA has previously responded to comments about the
applicability of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most
recently, in a final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a
comment concerning whether appliances manufactured for export should be
allowed to have larger charge sizes than those being sold in the United
States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being
established in that rule). EPA stated that:
Under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is
applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate
commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: The
distribution or transportation of any product between one state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another
state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the
sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points
for which the product is introduced into interstate commerce are the
release of a product from the facility in which the product was
manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic
manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at
the site of United States Customs clearance. This definition applies
to any appliances produced in the United States, including
appliances that will be exported. (76 FR 78846)
The commenter has provided no new information that would cause us
to reverse our earlier decision.
We believe that compliance with these final use conditions,
including the specified UL standards and charge sizes, does not
restrict or prohibit manufacturers from exporting to other markets. For
most of the uses addressed in this rule, international standards
regarding charge size are the same as those we are establishing in the
use conditions.
In the case of household refrigerators and freezers, the charge
size requirement in our regulation is more stringent (57 g vs. 150 g)
than the comparable international standard. Even in this case, however,
the use condition would not restrict or prohibit the export of products
to international markets. Rather, the manufacturers could export
products so long as they complied with all of the use restrictions,
including the charge size of no more than 57 g.
3. Charge Size Limitations
Comment: EIA stated that the propane charge limit size of 57 g for
household refrigerators and freezers, set by the UL 250 standards,
should be increased to 150 grams, matching the IEC 60335-2-24
standards. The commenter notes that this is consistent with European
policies, and corresponds to an R-22 charge size of 300-350 grams.
Response: As discussed in our previous final rule that required a
charge size of 57 g for R-441A and isobutane in household refrigerators
and freezers, ``EPA does not have sufficient information supported by
safety testing data at this time from other commenters, industry, U.S.
national safety organizations, or non-governmental organizations to
support a charge size limit different from one based on UL 250, such as
the 150-gram limit in IEC 60335-2-24.'' (76 FR 78845; December 20,
2011). Further, our risk screen analysis of potential exposure at end-
use for a household refrigerator/freezer indicates that in a worst-case
release scenario, a charge as small as 104 g could result in consumer
exposure above the STEL of 6,900 ppm for propane (ICF, 2014h). The
commenter did not submit any technical
[[Page 19480]]
information showing that a charge size of 150 g could be used in this
end-use without posing a significantly greater risk than other
available substitutes.
Comment: UL believes that the lowered charge limits suggested by
the Joint Task Group (JTG) and Standards Technical Panels (STP) from
the 2011 Flammable Refrigerant Stakeholder Forum are especially
important for safety in room AC units, given that many room air
conditioners are removed from wall or window sleeves annually and
placed in storage, potentially increasing the risk of ignition in the
presence of flammable refrigerants.
Response: EPA recognizes that many room air conditioners are
removed and placed in storage, for example when changing from warmer,
summer temperatures to colder, winter temperatures. This fact was
understood when the current charge limits set in UL 484 were developed.
While we recognize that an annual removal/replacement cycle could
increase the risk that refrigerants in such products might leak, we are
not aware of, nor did we receive comments providing a safety assessment
that would give an analytical basis on which to set charge size limits
different than those proposed. EPA does not believe that the commenter
fully justified the need or reason to change our proposed charge size
limit, which are based on the existing UL 484 Standard (8th edition),
to a charge size recommended by the JTG and STP, but not yet formally
adopted.
Comment: Enertech Global believes that the proposed charge
limitations for propane found in Table 4, Maximum Design Charge Sizes
for Packaged Terminal AC Units and Heat Pumps and Portable AC Units,
are set too low and that it is not feasible to manufacture a unit with
the specified cooling capacity using the small refrigerant charges
listed. De' Longhi, another manufacturer of AC equipment, stated that
under relevant standards, there is a specific formula with higher
charges allowed for portable AC units in IEC 60335-2-40 Clause gg.8 and
UL 484 Appendix F Clause F.1.7 (e.g., 300 g for a capacity of 12,000
BTU/hr instead of 160 g under the proposal). This commenter states that
there are additional safety requirements specifically for portable AC
units that allow for larger charge sizes.
Response: EPA is establishing a use condition that sets charge size
limits based on the need to ensure the risk to human health and the
environment posed by propane is not significantly greater than that for
other available substitutes, not on the feasibility of manufacturing
specific products. The charge sizes in the proposed and final rule are
based upon the UL 484 Standard, 8th Edition. For portable AC units, the
use condition establishing charge size relies on the provisions of UL
484 Appendix F Clauses F.1.7-F.1.14. Clause F.1.7 allows non-fixed,
factory-sealed units, which for purposes of this rule we define solely
as portable room AC units, to follow the formula:
Mmax = 0.25 x A x LFL x 2.2
Where,
Mmax is the maximum charge size in kg,
A is the room area in m\2\ and
LFL is the lower flammability limit in kg/m\3\.
The formula applies only to units with a refrigerant charge M that
is less than or equal to twice the value of ``m1,'' which in
turn is defined as four cubic meters multiplied by the LFL in kg/m\3\.
Similar to the use-conditions set forth for other room air-
conditioners, EPA is setting additional charge size limits according to
the normal rated capacity of the unit. For portable room air
conditioners, these maximum charge sizes in terms of capacity are in
Table E (also described above in Section III.C.3, ``Charge size'').
Comment: Daikin stated that the charge limits in UL Standard 484
are sufficient to protect the safety of all involved in the use and
maintenance of relevant equipment, and that any further limitations
would cause the commenter ``to revisit EPA's justifications for any R-
32 charge size limits.'' The commenter agreed with the guidance to use
linear interpolation to determine maximum charge size if the capacity
lies between two values in EPA's tables and believes that it would not
be beneficial to add any more values to the tables. The commenter also
states that a requirement for manufacturers to match charge size to
design cooling capacity in flammable refrigerant systems would not
significantly reduce fire risk.
Response: EPA is finalizing charge size limits for room air
conditioners as proposed, including a linear interpolation, as
supported by this commenter. EPA notes in its response to other
commenters that if and when charge sizes are updated, EPA remains open
to revising the charge size use condition, whether in response to a
petition or in an action initiated by EPA. EPA also believes that the
use condition requiring manufacturers to meet charge size limits based
on design cooling capacity may allow for more appropriate selection of
unit sizes by the end-user than the use of room area, as well as
greater enforceability.
Comment: ComStar opposed the use of HFC-32 as a refrigerant in
indoor applications because of its proposed high charges, as well as
its toxicity, flammability, and GWP over 600. The commenter remarked
that the use of R-32 in indoor applications is counter to ``the
direction foreign governments, science, and OEMs are heading.''
Response: Charge sizes are higher for HFC-32 under this standard
than for propane or R-441A, the other refrigerants proposed for use in
room air conditioners, because HFC-32 is far less flammable and has a
much higher LFL. Based on the safety testing available in the record
for this action, we believe that meeting a charge size that is no
higher than that provided in the use conditions, HFC-32 does not pose
significantly greater risk than other refrigerants in the room air
condition end-use. This testing addressed flammability and toxicity
risks. Moreover, HFC-32's GWP of 675 is two-thirds less than that of
the most commonly used alternative for this type of equipment, R-410A
(approximately 2,090) and also significantly lower than that of HCFC-22
(1,810) and R-407C (approximately 1,770). The only currently acceptable
alternatives in this end-use with lower GWP include ammonia absorption
and the non-vapor compression technologies evaporative cooling and
desiccant cooling. However, there are technical limits on the effective
use of the non-vapor compression technologies in different climates,
and ammonia has a higher toxicity that HFC-32 and the other
alternatives.
Regarding the direction of foreign governments, we note that EPA is
setting requirements for appliances that enter interstate commerce in
the United States. The European Union (EU) regulations addressing
fluorinated substances allow use of refrigerants with a GWP of up to
750 for split residential AC, which includes the potential for HFC-32
to be used, while their regulations do not allow for refrigerants with
a GWP higher than 150 in ``moveable room air-conditioning appliances,''
which would exclude HFC-32 for that type of equipment. The EU
regulations also include a phasedown schedule with a plateau and not a
complete phaseout of HFCs. Thus, it does not appear that the EU F-gas
regulations are moving in a direction away from allowing for HFC-32 for
all end-uses. EPA based charge size limits on UL 484, which is the same
approach used for other refrigerants which this commenter supports.
The listing of HFC-32 acceptable subject to use conditions
contained in
[[Page 19481]]
today's action does not prevent OEMs from choosing a different
refrigerant; it only provides an option for those who wish to pursue
it. Further, EPA notes that the submission under SNAP for the use of
HFC-32 came from an OEM that supports its use in United States as well
as in other markets around the world.
Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings stated that they are surprised by
the high charge amount for HFC-32, given its flammability. Further, the
commenter provided charge information for R-443A and has noted that the
LFL of R-441A is nearly identical to that of R-443A, such that the
maximum allowable charge per room volume for a portable AC unit charge
with R-441A could be determined via the similar chart for R-443A.
Response: EPA set the charge size limits for HFC-32 using the same
approach as used for the other refrigerants listed as acceptable
subject to use conditions for self-contained room air conditioners.
Charge sizes are higher for HFC-32 under the UL 484 standard than for
propane or R-441A, the other refrigerants proposed as acceptable for
use in room air conditioners, because HFC-32 is far less flammable and
has a much higher LFL. As discussed above, we have set the charge sizes
for R-441A based upon the formulas in UL 484, including new charge size
limits for portable AC units.
Comment: Traulsen stated it agrees with the necessity of charge
sizes, but requested that these limits be continually revisited and
updated as applicable standards update safety information.
Response: EPA notes that charge size limits within consensus-based
standards are under constant revision and updating. In fact, several
commenters supplied information about one or more revisions that are
under consideration. If and when charge sizes are updated, EPA remains
open to revising the charge size use condition, whether in response to
a petition or in an action initiated by EPA.
Comment: Panasonic Healthcare, a manufacturer of very low
temperature refrigeration equipment, stated that the maximum charge
size for propane in commercial refrigeration applications should be 150
g per circuit, matching the level described for ethane in commercial
refrigerators and freezers, given that both are subject to the 10th
edition of UL 471.
Response: In a previous rulemaking (76 FR 78832; December 20,
2011), EPA found propane acceptable subject to use conditions,
including a charge size limit of 150 g as specified in the 10th edition
of UL 471, in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment. EPA did
not receive a SNAP submission, and did not address in its proposed
rulemaking, the use of propane in very low temperature refrigeration.
Comment: Master-Bilt Products stated that the 150 g charge limit
will allow for only 25% of its self-contained models to be used, as the
BTU/hr capacity required for larger models cannot be achieved at the
charge limit. The commenter also noted that it is unclear if multiple
systems can use the 150 g charge in one larger model.
Response: EPA recognizes that a charge size limit, regardless of
what it is, could restrict the types of products that could be
manufactured with these refrigerants. Manufacturers may choose to
pursue these refrigerants for smaller BTU/hr capacity equipment and/or
investigate technologies that could extend the use of these
refrigerants to larger equipment while still meeting the 150 g use
condition. Consistent with previous actions, (76 FR 78832; December 20,
2011), the charge size limit applies to any sealed refrigeration system
in a product, and some products could employ two or more separate
sealed systems. EPA notes that if more than one sealed system is
employed, each must meet the charge size limit (i.e., 150 g each).
Having multiple sealed systems is of less concern than having a single
system with the same combined charge since the probability of two
sealed systems leaking simultaneously is lower than that of any one
system leaking. See 76 FR at 78845.
4. Color-Coded Hoses and Piping
Comment: Daikin stated that HFC-32 is unique in being a ``lower
flammability'' refrigerant in the A2L category of the ASHRAE standard
and in being subject to venting restrictions, as opposed to the other
four substitutes that are ``higher flammability'' refrigerants in the
A3 category of the ASHRAE standard and that are to be exempted from the
venting restriction. In light of this, the commenter requested the use
of ANSI Safety Yellow PMS #109 for HFC-32 and continued use of red PMS
#185 for the other four substitutes. The commenter asserted that this
change will avoid confusion and inadvertent venting of HFC-32 by
installers and technicians.
Response: Red coloring is understood to represent ``hot,''
``stop,'' or ``danger,'' and red coloring will provide technicians,
consumers, and emergency responders with an unambiguous signal that a
potential hazard is present. The latter two groups in particular are
more likely to be familiar with the meaning of red coloring and to
consider that color as a warning of danger. Yellow coloring could
communicate the flammability risks less clearly than red, and use of
two colors for different flammable refrigerants may both increase
confusion and dilute the effectiveness of the coloring as a warning.
EPA is finalizing a requirement to use red PMS #185 coloring on hoses
and tubing for equipment charged with HFC-32, R-441A, or propane in
room air conditioners. This is the same color specified in AHRI
Guideline N-2012, ``Assignment of Refrigerant Container Colors,'' to
identify containers of flammable refrigerant, such as propane,
isobutane, and R-441A (AHRI, 2012). We believe the purpose of the
coloring is to communicate the presence of a flammable refrigerant and
that this purpose can be accomplished best by using the same coloring
for HFC-32, propane, isobutane, and R-441A. EPA may consider whether
there should be added markings to communicate when a refrigerant may or
may not be vented in a future rule.
Comment: Traulsen agreed that the colored hoses and piping may
increase attention.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter.
Comment: Traulsen stated that the benefits of colored hoses and
piping have not been proven relative to the cost of burden in any
studies. Additionally, the commenter noted that if a product is
serviced, there is a risk that the sleeve or cap may not be properly
replaced unless EPA establishes a ``safe practice'' for servicers.
Response: EPA does not believe that this requirement will impose a
burdensome additional cost. The only commenter to raise this point did
not provide any information about what such costs might be and why the
commenter thought they would be burdensome. EPA believes that the use
of a sleeve or cap is consistent with the use condition as long as the
requirements of the use condition (use of PMS #185, location, and
dimension) are met. However, in order to remain in compliance with the
use condition, a technician who removes a sleeve during servicing is
required to replace the sleeve on the serviced tube.
The purpose of the colored hoses and tubing in this case is to
inform service technicians, consumers and emergency responders that a
flammable refrigerant is in use and to enable technicians to take
additional precautions (e.g., reducing the use of sparking equipment)
as appropriate to avert accidents when servicing the appliance. Color
coding is particularly useful in the event that labels are no longer
legible. The air-conditioning and refrigeration industry
[[Page 19482]]
currently uses distinguishing colors to identify containers of
different refrigerants. Likewise, distinguishing coloring is used
elsewhere to indicate an unusual and potentially dangerous situation,
such as the use of orange-insulated wires in hybrid electric vehicles.
The labeling requirement discussed in Section III.C.5 will
complement the color-coding requirements by providing a more precise
warning of the potential hazards and necessary precautions. Further, it
is possible that labels, particularly those on the outside of the
appliance, may be removed or fall off or become illegible over time;
adding red coloring on tubing inside the appliance provides additional
assurance that technicians will be aware that a flammable refrigerant
is present.
5. Labeling
Comment: Traulsen, ISRI, Daikin, and Hudson Technologies expressed
support for the requirement for warning labels. Traulsen stated that
because equipment is designed for multiple markets with different
languages, the warning symbols and colors should be sufficient to allow
for \1/8\-inch lettering in the UL standards as opposed to the \1/4\-
inch proposed.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for the requirement for
warning labels. Regarding the lettering size, EPA continues to believe
that it would be difficult to read warning labels with the smaller \1/
8\-inch lettering stipulated by UL 250 and UL 471 and is finalizing the
\1/4\-inch minimum height proposed, making it easier for technicians,
consumers, retail store-owners, and emergency first responders to see
the warning labels. The color markings would be inside the equipment
where technicians could see them, but not consumers, retail store-
owners, or emergency first responders. The warning symbol appears in
fewer locations than the warning labels and provides less information,
and thus is not a substitute for an easily readable set of warning
statements.
6. Unique Service Fittings
Comment: The Alliance, Hudson Technologies, and ISRI, supported the
use of unique service fittings for flammable refrigerants, in response
to EPA's proposal to recommend, but not require, such fittings. Hudson
Technologies and ISRI stated that EPA should require unique service
fittings. Traulsen agreed with the decision to not require service
ports for self-contained equipment given the increased risk of system
leaks. The commenter acknowledged that requiring a different service
port for non-flammable refrigerants may establish a ``safe practice,''
but noted that it does not guarantee servicing companies will safely
work on installed equipment. The Alliance stated that separate fittings
for flammable refrigerants, in addition to color coded hosing and
piping, will be an effective warning system to alert technicians to the
presence of flammable substances. ISRI stated that these fittings will
be useful for the future recovery of refrigerants by recyclers.
Response: EPA agrees with commenters that service ports and unique
fittings should not be required for self-contained equipment given the
increased risk of system leaks. EPA also agrees that separate fittings
for flammable refrigerants, in addition to color-coded hosing and
piping and warning labels, can be an effective warning system to alert
technicians to the presence of flammable substances, and that these
fittings would be useful for the future recovery of refrigerants by
recyclers. We disagree with the commenters that suggested we require
unique fittings as a use condition. While there are some benefits to
unique fittings, there are also concerns. As we recognized in our
December 2011 rule, these concerns include that: Installation of
fittings at the time of manufacture is not appropriate for certain
appliance types; additional fittings present an increased leak risk;
the ease of circumventing the requirement; and inconsistency with UL
and international standards. In particular because the types of
equipment in this rule are self-contained and have a hermetically-
sealed refrigerant circuit, installing fittings at manufacture would
increase the risk of leakage and thus increase potential of a fire.
Also, the UL standards that are incorporated by reference in the use
conditions do not allow for equipment to be constructed with an access
port (which would be where unique servicing fittings would be installed
on the equipment). Therefore, this final rule continues to recommend,
but not require, only if someone chooses to add an access port that
they do so with separate servicing fittings for flammable refrigerants
and that they only consider this where it is not prohibited by the
required UL standard.
F. Technician Training
Comment: A number of commenters stated that technicians should be
properly trained in handling flammable refrigerants, with Traulsen,
NAFEM, ICOR, Hudson Technologies, and the Alliance commenting that
training should be mandatory. Daikin, the Alliance, and DuPont
expressed concern that technicians could be confused if EPA exempts
certain refrigerants from venting requirements. Hoshizaki America
commented that U.S. technicians are not properly trained in servicing
appliances with flammable refrigerants, EPA does not explain the risk
of explosion well, and that U.S. industry and consumers might not be
aware that a unit contains flammable substances. ARA includes a list of
questions about MSDSs that HVACR contractors can ask to improve safety
with any refrigerant.
Response: While EPA appreciates the concerns raised by the
commenters, we have been exempting certain refrigerant substitutes from
the venting prohibition since 1995. EPA already exempts certain
refrigerants used from the venting prohibition including propane (in
retail food refrigeration--stand-alone units only), and isobutane and
R-441A (in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination
refrigerator/freezers). Therefore, we do not believe that continuing
with this established practice should cause confusion.
The Agency understands that over the past 20 years there have been
numerous developments in this industry and that often training programs
are developed to familiarize technicians with these changes, including
the introduction of new refrigerants. EPA is aware of such continuing
education programs offered by vocational schools, unions, trade
associations, equipment manufacturers and other entities that provide
technicians information on a range of technology developments.
Therefore, the Agency recommends that anyone servicing appliances with
a flammable refrigerant receive appropriate training and follow
industry best practices. Given the extent of technical knowledge
available within the industry and the presence of voluntary training
programs, we believe that it is not necessary for EPA to require
training at this time in order for these newly listed refrigerants to
be used as safely as other refrigerants currently available.
EPA is not requiring training through today's action. EPA notes
that the Agency does require technician certification under Section 608
for technicians servicing, maintaining, or repairing appliances
containing ozone-depleting refrigerants, but does not require any
specific training and the certification program is limited in its
scope, as it is not intended to replace vocational training. The goals
of the Section 608 technician certification program reflect the need to
reduce emissions during servicing,
[[Page 19483]]
maintenance, repair, and disposal. The complete requirements are
included at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. Currently the regulations
require anyone who services, maintains or repairs appliances containing
an ozone-depleting refrigerant to be tested and certified. However, the
Agency is undertaking a review of the Section 608 technician
certification requirements--including whether to address flammable
refrigerant substitutes--through a separate process.
G. Venting Prohibition
Comment: ISRI and a number of private citizens support EPA's
conclusion that venting hydrocarbons does not pose a threat to the
environment. One commenter notes that other countries allow venting of
hydrocarbons. In contrast, Hudson Technologies believes intentional
venting to the atmosphere to be poor environmental policy and that the
low GWP of hydrocarbons does not justify their exemption from venting
prohibitions.
Response: For the reasons discussed in section III.D, ``Venting
prohibition,'' EPA agrees that venting, release, or disposal of the
following hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the following end-uses
and subject to the use conditions listed in this action does not pose a
threat to the environment: (1) Isobutane and R-441A in retail food
refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); (2) propane in
household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and
freezers; (3) ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment
and equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer; (4) R-441A, propane,
and isobutane in vending machines; and (5) propane and R-441A in self-
contained room air conditioners for residential and light commercial
air conditioning and heat pumps. EPA's decision is based on
consideration of multiple environmental characteristics and not just
GWP. The comments do not give us sufficient reason to change our
proposed conclusion that these refrigerant substitutes in these end-
uses, subject to the required use conditions, do not pose a threat to
the environment or to change this final rule so that they would not be
exempt from the venting prohibition.
In addition, EPA's exemption from the CAA venting prohibition of
these substances in these end-uses is consistent with how other
countries, including Australia, Japan, and those in the European Union,
regulate the venting of hydrocarbons.
Comment: ARA and some private citizens asserted that HFC-32 has a
significant impact on the environment, with a 100-year GWP of 675,
raised concerns about its toxicity in the context of venting, and
stated that it should not be exempt from the venting prohibition.
Response: EPA did not propose to create an exemption to the venting
prohibition for HFC-32 and is not establishing such an exemption in
this final action. Therefore, the venting prohibition under Section 608
and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1) on knowingly
venting, releasing, or disposing of refrigerant substitutes still
applies to HFC-32 (and all other fluorinated gases), including in the
end-use for which we are taking final action today under SNAP (i.e.,
room AC units).
Comment: Traulsen, Hoshizaki America, NAFEM and DuPont expressed
concern about the potential confusion from and safety consequences of
EPA's proposal to exempt certain substances from the venting
prohibition. DuPont states that the differential treatment of
refrigerants in such a manner could be misunderstood and could lead to
unintended venting and environmental consequences from the release of
ozone-depleting refrigerants.
Response: EPA has evaluated the environmental and safety
considerations of venting in: (1) Isobutane and R-441A in retail food
refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); (2) propane in
household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and
freezers; (3) ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment
and equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer; (4) R-441A, propane,
and isobutane in vending machines; and (5) propane and R-441A in self-
contained room air conditioners for residential and light commercial
air conditioning and heat pumps. After this review, EPA has determined
the exempted releases do not pose a threat to the environment and thus
that it is appropriate to exempt these refrigerant in these specific
end-uses and subject to these use conditions from the venting
prohibition under Section 608(c) of the CAA. The comments do not
provide sufficient grounds to compel us to change that conclusion.
While EPA appreciates the concerns raised by the commenters, the agency
has been exempting certain refrigerant substitutes from the venting
prohibition since 1995. Therefore, we do not believe that continuing
with this established practice should cause confusion. Also, as
discussed above, the Agency is undertaking a review of the Section 608
technician certification requirements--including whether to address
flammable refrigerants--through a separate process.
Comment: CARB was concerned with the potential increase in ground-
level ozone formation resulting from venting hydrocarbons, especially
in non-attainment regions in California such as the South Coast Air
Basin and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. CARB commented that their
own modeling results agree with the conclusion of Scenario 4 of EPA's
air quality modeling results.
Response: EPA has assessed the possible increase in ground-level
ozone formation and believes it is appropriate to finalize the
exemption from the venting prohibition as described in this action. We
found that even if all the refrigerant in appliances in end-uses
addressed in this rule were to be emitted, there would be a worst-case
impact in the Los Angeles area of less than 0.15 ppb. Further, this
estimate is likely to be higher than the impact resulting from actual
emissions due to venting of the refrigerant substitutes listed in this
rule in the specified end-uses, because the estimate includes emissions
from a more reactive refrigerant substitute that is not listed and not
allowed to be vented under this rule. Because of the relatively low air
quality impacts of these refrigerants if they are released to the
atmosphere in limited amounts, as well as the factors discussed above,
such as their low GWP, zero ODP, and lack of aquatic effects, EPA is
concluding that these four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the
end-uses and subject to the use conditions do not pose a threat to the
environment. For more detail, see Sections III.D, IV.A and VI.B.
Comment: Two private citizens state that hydrocarbons are non-toxic
and therefore venting of hydrocarbon refrigerants into the atmosphere
would be an acceptable practice.
Response: While the hydrocarbons being listed as acceptable in this
rule are generally low in toxicity, they can lead to asphyxiation and
other adverse health effects in high enough concentrations. Therefore,
EPA considered exposure limits and potential exposure concentrations
when assessing the safety and the acceptability of hydrocarbons under
SNAP. This analysis found that the listed refrigerant substitutes, when
used according to the required use conditions, would not exceed the
relevant exposure limits (e.g., TLVs, STELs, or AEGLs), indicating that
toxicity is not a significant risk for the specific refrigerant
substitutes in the end-uses listed when used according to the required
use conditions. See
[[Page 19484]]
Sections III.D.4.ii and IV.C for more detail on EPA's toxicity
assessment of these refrigerants during servicing and disposal. Thus to
the extent that this information is relevant to EPA's determination
under Section 608(c)(2), EPA does not believe that toxicity
considerations preclude finalizing the exemption from the venting
prohibition in this action.
Comment: Traulsen, Hoshizaki America, NAFEM, ICOR and DuPont
expressed concerns about the flammability of hydrocarbon refrigerants
and the adequacy of safety measures during venting. DuPont stated that
because of the low minimum ignition energy of hydrocarbon refrigerants,
these refrigerants are easily ignited by static electricity. This
commenter stated that venting in an uncontrolled environment could lead
to unsafe conditions. NAFEM and ICOR mentioned that use of a class B
fire extinguisher would not be sufficient to avoid an explosive
condition.
Response: Because of safety concerns, EPA has required numerous use
conditions for appliances using flammable refrigerants as part of the
SNAP listings. A discussion of the SNAP use conditions and EPA's
assessment of safety, which considered a full release of the charge
within one minute, is available in the risk screens released with the
proposal. When it comes to servicing, the charge size limit and the
labeling requirements (e.g., visible warning statement and red coloring
on the pipes, hoses and devices which contain refrigerant) will reduce
the risk of a fire significantly. However, additional precautions are
recommended, like ensuring proper ventilation and avoiding ignition
sources during servicing.
Concerning the risks of fire from static electricity, EPA notes
this concern about the ignition of hydrocarbon refrigerants was
discussed in the 2011 SNAP rule, in which propane was evaluated for use
in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and R-441A and
isobutane were evaluated for use in household refrigerators and
freezers, and were determined to be acceptable, subject to use
conditions, under SNAP. In section ``B. Flammability'' of part IV of
that SNAP rule, titled ``What is the basis for EPA's final action?''
the Agency describes the evaluation and conclusion for approving those
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes for the specific end-uses under the
use conditions. The 2011 SNAP rule explains that, ``when the
concentration of a flammable refrigerant reaches or exceeds its LFL in
the presence of an ignition source (e.g., a static electricity spark
resulting from closing a door, use of a torch during servicing, or a
short circuit in wiring that controls the motor of a compressor), an
explosion or fire could occur'' (76 FR at 78837). The 2011 SNAP rule
continues by stating that, ``To determine whether the three hydrocarbon
refrigerants would present flammability concerns for service and
manufacture personnel or for consumers, EPA reviewed the submitters'
detailed assessments of the probability of events that might create a
fire, as well as engineering approaches to avoid sparking from the
refrigeration equipment. EPA also conducted risk screens, available in
the docket for [that] rulemaking, evaluating reasonable worst-case
scenarios to model the effects of the sudden release of the
refrigerants. The worst-case scenario analysis for each of the three
hydrocarbons revealed that even if the unit's full charge were emitted
within one minute, the concentration would not reach the LFL for that
hydrocarbon'' (id. at 78839). EPA's risk screens evaluating the
environmental, toxicity and flammability risks of the refrigerant
substitutes and end-uses in this action came to similar conclusions
that the LFL would not be exceeded. Thus, although end-users should
take precautions to reduce sparking from static electricity, this
concern is not sufficient to cause EPA to prohibit use of these
refrigerant substitutes or to decline to exempt these refrigerant
substitutes in the specified end-uses when used according to the
required use conditions.
Use of a Class B fire extinguisher would not prevent a fire or
explosive condition from occurring, as the commenter suggested; but if
there is a fire, it is important to use a Class B extinguisher that is
intended for use with hydrocarbon fires, rather than a Class A
extinguisher intended for use with fires from wood, paper, or other
ordinary combustibles. The statements in the ``further information''
column for each listing, including the recommendation for having a
Class B dry powder type fire extinguisher available, are not intended
to be a comprehensive set of all precautions needed, but rather basic
guidelines or areas of consideration that users should consider as they
develop their own safety programs. The Australian Institute of
Refrigeration, Air Conditions and Heating (AIRAH) provides useful
guidance on safety precautions technicians can follow when servicing
equipment containing flammable refrigerants. This document is included
in the docket for this rule (AIRAH, 2013).
Comment: DuPont stated that the presence of lubricants during the
venting process can potentially increase risk of ignition, and is not
sure whether EPA fully evaluated these potential risks.
Response: EPA has evaluated this potential risk and taken it into
consideration in this action. Most lubricant will remain in the unit,
along with a small amount of hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes.
Typical compressor oils have flashpoints over 130 [deg]C, which is well
above both ambient temperatures and the flashpoint of the hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes in this rule. Thus, the presence of compressor
oil should not have a significant effect on the flammability of the
refrigerant-oil mixture. Our risk screens available in the docket for
this rulemaking find that even if the full charge is lost in one
minute, the LFL of the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitute is not
reached. Having said that, the Agency recommends technicians working
with hydrocarbon refrigerants follow proper safety precautions, such as
ensuring their workspace is well-ventilated and removing ignition
sources.
Observance of OSHA requirements could further limit concentrations
and attendant flammability risks associated with those oils. For
example, OSHA has a PEL for one class of compressor oil, mineral oil
mist, of 5 mg/m\3\ of air, as well as rules for respiratory protection
and personal protective equipment that apply. EPA additionally notes
that the very small amount of dissolved compressor oil expected to be
used in the small hydrocarbon charge size required by the use
conditions will significantly mitigate the amount and the impact of any
release into the environment of lubricants dissolved in the hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes that may result from any venting, release or
disposal that may occur under this final action. EPA also notes that
many of the lubricants used with hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as
alkyl benzene and polyalkylene glycol, are considered environmentally
acceptable because they biodegrade easily, as noted in EPA's document
on environmentally acceptable lubricants, available in the docket.
EPA received a similar comment on the rule exempting isobutane and
R-441A, as refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators,
freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers, and propane as a
refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers
(stand-alone units only) (see 79 FR
[[Page 19485]]
29682). EPA considered such studies and the influence of lubricant on
the LFLs of the hydrocarbon refrigerants in the specific end-uses in
that rule when finding them acceptable subject to use conditions under
the SNAP program (see December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832, sections ``D.
Charge Size Limitation (Household Refrigeration)'' and ``E. Charge Size
Limitation (Retail Food Refrigeration)'' and discussions of Standards
UL 250 and UL 471 regarding lubricant oil). We believe that same
analysis and the same results are applicable here.
Comment: A private citizen states that replacing old refrigerants
with new ones decreases the risk of toxicity yet increases a risk of
combustion. This commenter asked who would be responsible for fires due
to use and disposal of these refrigerants (e.g., junkyard owner,
appliance owner) and whether EPA and appliance manufacturers are
responsible for ensuring that the end user is aware of risks from the
usage and disposal of flammable refrigerants.
Response: In this rule, EPA is exempting certain hydrocarbon
refrigerants in specific applications from the venting prohibition, not
making a determination of fault for individual incidents such as fires,
which global experience indicates can be prevented with appropriate
precautions. Thus, the commenter's point about who would be responsible
for fires is outside the scope of this rulemaking. With respect to the
commenter's concerns about the end-user's awareness, in the Agency's
risk screen, we have assessed a worst-case scenario for consumer
exposure (available in the docket for this rulemaking). Even in that
worst-case scenario, the charge size for these approved applications is
small enough that if the complete charge is lost within one minute in a
confined space, the amount released does not reach the LFL, and
therefore, a fire would not occur. Further, charges in the analyzed
scenarios do not exceed the relevant exposure limits, and therefore,
there should not be a significant toxicity risk. Since junkyards, scrap
yards, and other facilities disposing of or recycling small appliances
are already bound by the venting prohibition, they should already have
a system in place to determine whether an appliance contains an ODS or
substitute refrigerant. EPA believes that the required labeling of the
product and prominent red marking on the refrigeration circuit will
help these facilities to identify that the appliance contains a
flammable refrigerant. Thus, these facilities likely have procedures in
place to identify and appropriately handle flammable refrigerant
substitutes, whether or not they are subject to an exemption from the
venting prohibition. See also EPA's guidance in the further information
column in 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, Appendix R, concerning appropriate
personal protective equipment (PPE), type of fire extinguisher to use,
use of spark-proof tools, use of recovery equipment designed for
flammable refrigerants, and releasing refrigerant to well-ventilated
areas.
Comment: Traulsen and NAFEM stated that EPA should reevaluate the
suggestion that venting should be conducted outside of a building
because of local codes, lease terms, or logistical concerns that may
make outdoor venting disruptive or even impossible. One of these
commenters, Traulsen, also is concerned that EPA has not yet outlined
what a network of properly trained service professionals to handle
venting practices safely would consist of, yet assumes that one will
exist.
Response: EPA is not requiring that flammable refrigerant
substitutes from appliances be vented, nor that they be vented outside.
We recognize that outdoor venting may not always be feasible and that
such activity may be restricted by fire codes. Venting outdoors is
likely to allow sufficient ventilation to reduce concentrations and
mitigate flammability risks, but sufficient ventilation could also be
provided by engineered ventilation systems. Some manufacturers and end-
users may instead choose to recover flammable refrigerants rather than
venting. While the use conditions under SNAP finalized by this action,
in particular charge size, will minimize safety risk, other precautions
are recommended, like ensuring proper ventilation and avoiding ignition
sources during servicing. These would also be appropriate guidelines,
whether venting or recovering the refrigerant. AIRAH provides useful
guidance on safety precautions technicians can follow when servicing
equipment with flammable refrigerants. One of those practices is to
connect a hose to the appliance to allow for venting the refrigerant
outside. This document is included in the docket for this rule. We note
that at least two organizations, RSES and the ESCO Institute, already
offer training for handling of flammable refrigerants, which is the
first step to building a network of properly trained technicians.
Similarly, equipment manufacturers and end-users that have sent EPA
SNAP submissions for flammable refrigerants have indicated that there
is technician training for their own staff and for contractors
responsible for servicing appliances. Also, the Agency intends to
update the test bank for technician certification under Section 608 of
the CAA as we have done previously, and will consider including
additional questions on flammable refrigerants. By adding such
questions to the test bank, EPA would supplement but would not replace
technician training programs currently provided by non-government
entities. We will seek additional information and guidance on how best
to incorporate this content through a separate process outside of this
final rule.
Comment: Traulsen has not found a solution regarding EPA's question
about an industry standard for hydrocarbon recovery units and their
availability in the U.S. market. No other commenters provided
information on such an industry standard.
Response: EPA is not aware of an industry standard for hydrocarbon
recovery equipment, but encourages industry to develop one. However,
the agency is aware of the existence of some hydrocarbon recovery
devices. One of those recovery devices uses activated carbon to assist
in the safe removal of hydrocarbons from appliances. A canister
containing activated carbon is pulled to a 25 in.Hg vacuum. The
canister is then filled with nitrogen up to 10 psi and pulled to a
vacuum again to bring oxygen levels below 0.1% in the cylinder, thereby
preventing conditions that might allow ignition. The canister is then
attached to the appliance containing a hydrocarbon refrigerant. The
hydrocarbon refrigerant is pulled from the appliance into the canister
and the canister is then sealed off. This can be done with no pump or
other electrical equipment near the equipment containing the flammable
refrigerant. The carbon within the canister bonds with the hydrocarbon,
eliminating its ability to oxidize or burn. Once the process is
complete, the hydrocarbon can be recovered from the canister and
appropriately managed for reuse or disposal. Given the lack of
additional information on standards for recovery equipment for
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, and our finding that release of
the specific refrigerants in the specific end-uses identified in this
rule do not pose a threat to the environment, we continue to believe
there is reason for allowing venting of the hydrocarbon refrigerant
substitutes in the specified end-uses as an alternative to recovery.
Comment: ISRI seeks clarification on how 40 CFR 82.156(f) applies
to the recycling of appliances with exempt substitutes that may be
vented pursuant to 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).
[[Page 19486]]
Response: Under 40 CFR 82.156(f), the person who takes the final
step in the disposal process (including but not limited to scrap
recyclers and landfill operators) of a small appliance, room AC, MVACs,
or MVAC-like appliances must either recover any remaining refrigerant
in accordance with the regulations or verify that refrigerant has been
evacuated previously. Since the current definition of refrigerant
excludes non-ozone-depleting refrigerant substitutes, these
recordkeeping requirements do not presently apply to the hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses that are the subject
of this action. The only requirement under 40 CFR part 82 Subpart F
that would have applied is the venting prohibition. However, since EPA
is exempting those hydrocarbons for the specific uses from the venting
prohibition in this final rule, that prohibition would no longer apply.
Moreover, as this action does not change the applicability of other
environmental regulations, other applicable environmental regulations
would continue to apply (e.g., under RCRA).
Comment: ISRI notes that in the last rule exempting isobutane and
R-441A as refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers,
and combination refrigerators and freezers, and propane as a
refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers
(stand-alone units only) (see 79 FR 29682), EPA stated that certain
hydrocarbons could be characterized as hazardous waste due to their
flammability (as defined under the RCRA regulations; see 40 CFR
261.21). The commenter notes that the agency also stated that
incidental releases of these hydrocarbons ``would not be subject to
RCRA requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste as the release
would occur incidentally during the maintenance, service and repair of
the equipment, and would not constitute disposal of the refrigerant
charge as solid waste, per se,'' (79 FR 29687). ISRI seeks clarity on
whether full venting is allowed if flammable refrigerants have been
exempted from the venting prohibition at 40 CFR 82.154(a). The
commenter also seeks clarity on whether hydrocarbons would be
considered hazardous waste under RCRA. The commenter suggests that EPA
could create a new exclusion from hazardous waste at 40 CFR 261.4(b)
for an acceptable ignitable refrigerant substitute, or determine that
an acceptable ignitable refrigerant is equivalent to household waste
under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1).
Response: In this rule, EPA is exempting from the venting
prohibition under CAA Section 608(c) certain hydrocarbons in certain
end-uses listed as acceptable subject to use conditions under SNAP.
Specifically, EPA is exempting from the venting prohibition the
following refrigerant substitutes in the following uses: (1) Isobutane
and R-441A in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units
only); (2) propane in household refrigerators, freezers, and
combination refrigerators and freezers; (3) ethane in very low
temperature refrigeration equipment and equipment for non-mechanical
heat transfer; (4) R-441A, propane, and isobutane in vending machines;
and (5) propane and R-441A in self-contained room air conditioners for
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps.
The commenter's request to modify the hazardous waste regulations
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, since it focuses on Sections
608 and 612 of the CAA. However, as discussed in the final rule
exempting from the venting prohibition isobutane and R-441A, as
refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and
combination refrigerators and freezers; and propane, as a refrigerant
substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units
only); incidental releases that occur during the maintenance, service,
and repair of appliances would not be subject to RCRA requirements for
the disposal of hazardous waste because this would not constitute
disposal of the refrigerant charge as a solid waste, per se (see 79 FR
29687).
The commenter raises questions about how the hazardous waste
requirements under RCRA apply at disposal (or in the case of scrap
metal recycling, disassembly) of an appliance. Under the RCRA
requirements at 40 CFR part 261, it does appear that certain
refrigerants, like hydrocarbons, could potentially be subject to
regulation as hazardous wastes if they exhibit the ignitability
characteristic.
In the case of household appliances, repair and disposal of
hydrocarbons would not be considered hazardous waste management because
the appliance is exempt from the hazardous waste regulations under the
household hazardous waste exemption at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) (although
States may have more stringent regulations). The refrigerant could
therefore generally be vented without triggering RCRA hazardous waste
requirements.
On the other hand, for commercial and industrial appliances that
are not generated by households as defined in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1),
ignitable refrigerants would be subject to regulation as hazardous
waste (see 40 CFR 261.21) subject to a limited exception if the
ignitable refrigerant is to be recycled. Ignitable refrigerant that has
been used and has become contaminated through use would fit the
definition of a spent material under RCRA (40 CFR 261.1(c)(1)) if it
must be reclaimed prior to its reuse. Spent materials that are
reclaimed are solid wastes per Section 261.2(c). However, if the
hydrocarbon refrigerant is recovered for direct reuse (i.e., no
reclamation), it would not be classified as a solid or a hazardous
waste (40 CFR 261.2(e)). EPA believes that recycling of these materials
would require cleaning before they are reused.
H. Cost and Economic Impacts
1. Equipment Redesign
Comment: NAFEM and Hoshizaki America stated that refrigeration
equipment manufacturers would incur capital costs in switching to
flammable refrigerants because they would need to redesign equipment
and facilities to eliminate ignition sources to reduce the risk of
fire. Hoshizaki America stated that manufacturers would have to go
through considerable and costly staff training to understand the risks
of explosion for the proposed list of substitutes. Master-Bilt Products
stated that the large expenses for upgrading factories and additional
testing to meet different standards will slow innovation for their
business as well as other small businesses.
Response: EPA agrees that manufacturers choosing to use one of the
refrigerants listed in this rule may need to make capital investments
in their facilities, including the redesign of equipment to handle
flammable refrigerants, and may need to invest in training their staff
to handle flammable refrigerants safely. These investments would be
needed for safe use of these refrigerants and would be needed
irrespective of use conditions established by EPA in listing these
refrigerants as acceptable subject to use conditions. Therefore
manufacturers may decide, based on their own business considerations,
whether to pursue hydrocarbon refrigerants. This rule does not restrict
nonflammable substitutes currently in use nor does it require
manufacturers to use any of the flammable substitute refrigerants
listed through this action.
Comment: Master-Bilt commented that if multiple systems using the
150 g charge can be used in larger models, propane could potentially be
used in some larger equipment, but the cost would go up approximately
25-50% and the systems would be more complex.
[[Page 19487]]
Response: The 150 g limit applies to each refrigerant circuit and
multiple circuits could be used in the same piece of equipment, as
discussed above under section VI.E.3. We agree with the commenter that
the cost for models that have multiple circuits could be higher and
that the systems would be more complex. We are not requiring
manufacturers to use propane or any of the substitute refrigerants
listed in this action.
2. Market Options
Comment: Traulsen believes this rule will give the industry more
flexibility to explore market options. EIA believes the rule will allow
U.S. businesses to sell international products domestically and
encourage foreign businesses to expand their manufacturing operations
and distribution in the United States.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters. Whenever the Agency
expands the list of acceptable substitutes it provides industry,
including manufacturers, with more flexibility and options.
3. Recycling
Comment: ISRI is concerned that EPA may not have adequately
considered the impacts of the proposed rule on the recycling industry.
The commenter stated that, for example, the recycling industry (NAICS
423930) was not even identified as potentially affected in Table 1 of
the proposed rule.
Response: EPA has added the recycling industry in Table 1 in this
final rule. Further, EPA has performed research to consider impacts of
the rule on the recycling industry more fully (ICF, 2015b). We
investigated the impacts of use of flammable refrigerants in waste
streams of other countries using these refrigerants. This analysis
found that it is not anticipated that the recycling industry will
experience additional risk if appliances containing hydrocarbon
refrigerants are sent to recycling facilities prior to the refrigerant
being properly vented or evacuated. This analysis suggested that
recycling facilities should vent or otherwise remove the refrigerant
(consistent with other requirements like RCRA) before any mechanical
processing of the appliance (e.g., shredders, choppers, magnets), due
to the potential presence of ignition sources. Further, based upon
experience with flammable refrigerants in Europe, Australia, and Japan,
there are best practices for handling flammable refrigerants at
disposal, such as those provided by AIRAH (2013).
I. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Comment: Traulsen stated that EPA's rule adding to the list of
acceptable SNAP substitutes may not be affected by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), but any requirement related to the removal of a
previously approved substance would violate the RFA. Traulsen expressed
concern about the potential future impacts on small businesses if
flammable refrigerants, including the proposed refrigerants, become the
only refrigerant options available, combined with uncertainties such as
building disparities and placement and installation of equipment.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that this final rule, which
adds to the list of acceptable substitutes, is consistent with
requirements of the RFA. The commenter raises a concern that actions
that remove substitutes from the list of acceptable substitutes could
have implications for the RFA. EPA will address the RFA in any action
proposing and finalizing a decision to remove one or more substitutes
from the lists of acceptable substitutes.
Comment: Traulsen commented that although this rule adding these
substitutes may not be affected by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) or Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), subsequent SNAP rules may.
Response: EPA will address how these Acts apply to any subsequent
action in that separate action.
Comment: Traulsen stated that it supports the Agency's adoption of
well-known and developed safety standards like those issued by UL and
other organizations under the application of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA).
Response: EPA appreciates the support for this aspect of the rule.
Comment: Traulsen expressed interest in EPA's statement regarding
the position of deferring to agencies with jurisdiction in other areas,
with regards to Executive Order (EO) 13132: Federalism and 13175:
Tribal Governments. Specifically, the commenter is interested in how
those orders apply to the installation of equipment in localities where
the substitutes are regulated under different authorities, including
VOC and building occupancy codes.
Response: This regulation does not impose direct requirements on
state, local, or tribal governments, nor does it preempt state, local,
or tribal law, the major concerns of EO 13132 and 13175. When using the
refrigerants in this final rule, technicians, end users, and
manufacturers would need to comply with the requirements in this final
rule and must also comply with state, local, or tribal laws. For
example, if local occupancy codes do not allow intentional release of
hydrocarbons on the premises, or if a state regulation limits VOC
releases, a technician may not be able to release hydrocarbon
refrigerants to the atmosphere, even if they would be permitted to do
so by this rule.
J. Relationship With Other Rules
Comment: NAFEM, Master-Bilt Products, and private citizens raised
concerns about the relationship between this rule and the proposed
rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for
Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program (August 6, 2014, 79 FR 46126). Among the concerns expressed are
that available alternatives to comply with the other proposed rule are
not commercially available drop-in replacements, thus requiring
redesign of equipment, additional testing, training, and cost; the
compliance date proposed in the other rule is too short; the potential
for detrimental effects of alternative refrigerants on energy
efficiency demanded by Department of Energy (DOE) standards; and the
charge size restrictions in this rule will mean many types of equipment
will not be able to use the refrigerants listed in this rule to comply
with the Change of Listing Status proposed rule.
Response: The concerns raised by these commenters concern the basis
for certain decisions in the Change of Listing Status proposed rule,
including whether alternatives other than those we propose to list as
unacceptable are available and what is the appropriate date on which a
substitute is no longer acceptable for use. EPA will address these
issues concerning the Change of Listing Status proposed rule when we
take final action on that proposal. As discussed above in section
VI.B.2, ``Energy efficiency and indirect climate impacts,'' available
information supports reduced energy use with the refrigerants being
listed in this final rule. We note that we are continually reviewing
and listing additional alternatives for the various end-uses at issue.
Comment: NAFEM stated that their industry has been inundated with
various DOE energy standards rulemakings, as well as this rule and the
proposed rule concerning changing the listing status of some
alternatives. The commenter mentioned the timing and cumulative impacts
of other government actions and requested a 60-day
[[Page 19488]]
extension to the comment period for EPA's proposal to change the
listing status of certain alternatives.
Response: This comment concerns the comment period on a separate
rule. EPA responded to this request to extend the public comment period
on the proposal to change the listing status of certain alternatives by
granting a 14-day extension. For further information, please see EPA
Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198, ``Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant
New Alternatives Policy Program.''
K. Timing of Final Rule
Comment: Daikin, EIA, and some private citizens requested EPA to
move forward with the final rule as quickly as possible, while NAFEM
requested that EPA delay both this final rule and the final rule to
change the listing status of certain alternatives. Commenters in favor
of finalizing the rule as quickly as possible cite environmental
reasons and point out that hydrocarbons are already widely in use
around the world. Commenters in favor of delay note the separate
proposal concerning the change of status of certain substitutes and
requested that EPA extend the compliance deadline to ensure adequate
training.
Response: EPA appreciates the support from those commenters
requesting rapid promulgation of this rule. We agree that finalizing
this rule promptly allows for earlier use of the lower GWP refrigerants
in this rule and allows earlier and greater climate benefits than
delaying issuance of the rule. Training would be more useful for
technicians and manufacturer personnel if it addresses the requirements
of this final rule as set forth in the use conditions. We disagree with
the commenter who suggests that this rule should not be finalized, and
thus the substitutes should not be acceptable for use, until there is
``adequate training.'' Some companies have already begun training and
are prepared to use these refrigerants now. As we discussed in section
VI.F, ``Technician training'' above, we are not including a requirement
for technician training as a use condition. Further, we believe that
issuing this final rule with a delayed date of compliance would
increase risk to manufacturers and the public. A number of submitters
have provided EPA with the required 90-day notice prior to introducing
these substitutes into interstate commerce; therefore, delaying the
compliance date would not delay introduction of these substitutes, but
it would allow some equipment to be manufactured without meeting the
use conditions of this rule, which we believe are necessary to mitigate
risk sufficiently for these substitutes to be acceptable. If the
commenter is instead referring to delaying the date of compliance of
the Change of Listing Status Rule, we will address that compliance date
when we take final action on that rule.
L. Other Comments
1. Propylene
Comment: A.S Trust & Holdings commented that propylene, a component
of the refrigerant R-443A, is not toxic and included an industry
standard reference to prove this. This commenter also stated that they
thought EPA was confusing propylene with propylene glycol.
Response: EPA has not proposed action on propylene or on R-443A in
this rule and is not taking action on propylene or R-443A at this time.
We included propylene in our analysis of air quality effects because
EPA has received a submission for R-443A, a blend containing propylene,
for use in residential air conditioners, including portable AC units.
In order to consider the potential ground-level ozone impacts of all
refrigerants under review for the end-uses in this rule, we analyzed
the potential impacts of propylene along with other hydrocarbon
refrigerants. However, our review has not progressed to include review
of R-443A's toxicity.
We note that in our reviews of toxicity, we do not characterize
substances as ``toxic'' or ``non-toxic.'' Rather, EPA considers
exposure limits and potential exposure concentrations when assessing
the toxicity and determining whether a substitute should be listed as
acceptable and, if so, whether a use condition is necessary. For
example, for propane, EPA evaluated whether long-term exposure would
exceed a TLV of 1,000 ppm and whether short-term exposure would exceed
an AEGL of 6,900 ppm. If EPA uses the same approach for other
refrigerants mentioned by the commenter, we might use industry exposure
limits that are more difficult to achieve (e.g., TLV of 500 ppm for
propylene).
2. R-443A
Comment: A.S Trust & Holdings commented on certain assumptions that
EPA mentioned as its likely approach to assessing R-443A, including
worst-case assumptions. This commenter referred EPA to his own risk
assessment provided to the Agency, as well as a sizing guide.
Response: EPA has consistently evaluated alternatives through a
risk screen process that begins with a highly conservative worst-case
scenario, such as where the entire refrigerant charge of a window AC
unit leaks out rapidly in a specific room size. If a substitute's
concentrations remain below the LFL and relevant toxicity limits in the
worst-case scenario with highly conservative assumptions, we do no
further assessment. If the substitute's concentrations exceed the LFL
or a relevant toxicity limit in the worst-case scenario, then we
consider more typical scenarios based on less conservative assumptions.
EPA will consider the submitter's risk assessment and recommended
charge sizes as part of our ongoing review of R-443A. EPA has not
proposed action on R-443A in this rule and is not taking action on R-
443A at this time.
3. Reductions of HFC Emissions Under Other Sections of CAA Title VI
Comment: CARB urges EPA to continue to use its existing authority
under the CAA Sections 608 and 609 to reduce HFC emissions from all
sources, including stationary refrigeration and AC, insulating foam,
consumer product aerosol propellants, and MVAC.
Response: The comment's suggestions go beyond the scope of this
rule. Separate from this rulemaking action, EPA is considering input
from various stakeholders about possible actions under Section 608 and
other parts of the Act to address impacts of HFCs and would welcome any
comments the commenter would care to provide on this subject.
4. Refrigerants for Retrofit
Comment: Hudson Technologies suggested that the determination that
a substitute is acceptable for use as a retrofit refrigerant for
existing equipment should be more highly scrutinized by EPA, even when
dealing with non-flammable substitutes. This commenter recommends that
EPA limit listings for acceptable refrigerants to use in new equipment
unless the substitute has a lower GWP and the use of the substitute in
existing equipment will not result in loss of efficiency.
Response: This comment goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
This final rule establishes use conditions limiting the five
refrigerants listed to use in new equipment designed for that
refrigerant. EPA evaluates each submission on its merits and where a
submitter requests that a substitute be listed as acceptable for use in
retrofit equipment, we
[[Page 19489]]
consider such requests based on the same criteria that we consider in
reviewing all SNAP submissions.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0226. This final rule contains no new requirements
for reporting or recordkeeping.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule.
Today's action allows equipment manufacturers the additional
options of using ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, and R-441A in the
specified end-uses but does not mandate such use. Because refrigeration
and AC equipment for these refrigerants are not manufactured yet in the
U.S. for the end-uses (with the exception of limited test-marketing),
no change in business practice is required to meet the use conditions,
resulting in no adverse impact compared to the absence of this rule.
Provisions that allow venting of hydrocarbon refrigerants in the uses
addressed by this rule reduce regulatory burden. We have therefore
concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all small
entities that choose to use one of the newly listed hydrocarbon
refrigerants.
The use conditions of this rule apply to manufacturers of household
and commercial refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, non-
mechanical heat transfer equipment, very low temperature refrigeration
equipment for laboratories and room air conditioners that choose to use
these refrigerants.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O.
13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action do not
present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and
risk assessments are contained in Section IV.C of the preamble and in
the risk screens in the docket for this rulemaking.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Available information indicates that
these new systems may be more energy efficient than currently available
systems in some climates.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action includes technical standards. EPA has decided to use
standards from UL in the use conditions for the five listed
substitutes. EPA is incorporating by reference portions of current
editions of the UL Standards 250, ``Household Refrigerators and
Freezers'' (10th Edition, August 25, 2000), 471, ``Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers'' (10th Edition, November 24, 2010), 541
``Refrigerated Vending Machines'' (7th Edition, December 30, 2011), and
484 ``Room Air Conditioners'' (8th Edition, August 3, 2012), which
include requirements for safe use of flammable refrigerants. This final
rule ensures that these new substitutes for household and commercial
refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, non-mechanical heat
transfer equipment, very low temperature refrigeration equipment, and
room air conditioners do not present significantly greater risk to
human health or the environment than other available substitutes. These
standards may be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue;
Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: 2000.com">orders@comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1-888-
853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1-415-352-2168);
Internet address: http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ or www.comm-
2000.com.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because this action provides human health and
environmental protection for all affected populations without having
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. This final rule provides refrigerant substitutes that have
no ODP and lower GWP than other substitutes currently listed as
acceptable. The reduction in ODS and GHG emissions assists in restoring
the stratospheric ozone layer and provides climate benefits. The
results of this evaluation are contained in sections III. and IV. of
the preamble.
[[Page 19490]]
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
VIII. References
This preamble references the following documents, which are also in
the Air Docket at the address listed in Section I.B.1. Unless specified
otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the
Federal Docket Management System, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748.
AHRI, 2012. AHRI Guideline N-2012: Assignment of Refrigerant
Container Colors. 2012.
AIRAH, 2013. Flammable Refrigerants--Safety Guide. Australian
Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating. 2013.
ASHRAE, 2010. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE). Standard 34-2010 (supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 34-2007): Designation and Safety Classification of
Refrigerants. 2010.
A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2012. Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency for R-441A in retail food refrigeration.
A/S Vestfrost, 2012. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for
isobutane in retail food refrigeration.
Climate Action Plan, 2013. The President's Climate Action Plan.
Executive Office of the President. June, 2013. Available online at
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
Chinese Household Electrical Appliance Association (CHEAA),
2013. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency for Propane (R-290) in
residential and light commercial air conditioning and dehumidifiers.
Daikin, 2011. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for
HFC-32 in residential and light commercial air conditioning.
EPA, 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. April 2007.
EPA, 2015. Derivation of Charge Limits for Room Air
Conditioners. Staff memo to Air Docket. 2015.
ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants on Ground-Level Ozone Concentrations.
ICF, 2014b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22 and
R-502 in Retail Food Refrigeration; Substitute: Isobutane (R-600a)
ICF, 2014c. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22 and
R-502 in Retail Food Refrigeration; Substitute: R-441A
ICF, 2014d. Risk Screen on Substitute for CFC-12, CFC-13, R-
13B1, and R-503 in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration and Non-
Mechanical Heat Transfer; Substitute: Ethane (R-170)
ICF, 2014e. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and R-502 in
Vending Machines; Substitute: R-441A
ICF, 2014f. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and R-502 in
Vending Machines; Substitute: Isobutane (R-600a)
ICF, 2014g. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and R-502 in
Vending Machines; Substitute: Propane (R-290)
ICF, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and HCFC-22 in
Household Refrigerators and Household Freezers.; Substitute: Propane
(R-290).
ICF, 2014i. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in
Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps;
Substitute: Propane (R-290)
ICF, 2014j. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in
Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps;
Substitute: HFC-32 (Difluoromethane)
ICF, 2014k. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in
Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps;
Substitute: R-441A
ICF, 2015a. Potential impacts of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)
generated from HFC-32 in room air conditioners. January, 2015.
ICF, 2015b. Potential Impacts of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants during
Recycling and Disposal of Appliances. January, 2015.
IEC 60225-2-40. Safety of Household and Similar Electrical
Appliances, Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat
Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. 5th Edition. December,
2013.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen,
M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
This document is accessible at www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/
ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
Montzka, S.A., 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations,
Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2013.
NOAA emissions data on HFCs. Available online at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL), 1997. J. Sand, S. Fischer, and V.
Baxter, ``Energy and Global Warming Impacts of HFC Refrigerants and
Emerging Technologies,'' 1997, Oak Ridge National Lab.
Ravishankara et al., 1994. Ravishankara, A.R., A.A. Turnipseed,
N.R. Jensen, S. Barone, M. Mills, C. J. Howard, and S. Solomon. Do
hydrofluorocarbons destroy stratospheric ozone? Science 263: 71-75.
1994.
Sheldon, 1989. Sheldon, L.S., et al. 1989. ``An Investigation of
Infiltration and Indoor Air Quality.'' New York State Energy
Research & Development Authority, Report 90-11. As cited in ICF,
2014h, Risk screen for propane in household refrigerators and
freezers.
UL 250. Household Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition.
Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing
a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. August 2000.
UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition.
Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing
a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. November 2010.
UL 484. Room Air Conditioners. 8th edition. Supplement SA:
Requirements for Refrigerated Venders Employing a Flammable
Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. August 2012.
UL 541. Refrigerated Vending Machines. 7th edition. Supplement
SA: Requirements for Room Air Conditioners Employing a Flammable
Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. December 2011.
UL 60335-2-40. Safety of Household and Similar Electrical
Appliances, Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat
Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. First Edition. November,
2012.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2010. Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and
Monitoring Project--Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland,
2011. This document is accessible at www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2010/ozone_asst_report.html.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
Dated: February 27, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended
as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart F--Recycling and Emissions Reduction
0
2. Amend Sec. 82.154 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 82.154 Prohibitions.
(a)(1) * * *
(iii) Effective June 9, 2015:
[[Page 19491]]
(A) Isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A in retail food refrigerators and
freezers (stand-alone units only);
(B) Propane (R-290) in household refrigerators, freezers, and
combination refrigerators and freezers;
(C) Ethane (R-170) in very low temperature refrigeration equipment
and equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer;
(D) R-441A, propane, and isobutane in vending machines; and
(E) Propane and R-441A in self-contained room air conditioners for
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps.
* * * * *
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
0
3. Appendix R to Subpart G is revised to read as follows:
Appendix R to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions Listed in the December 20, 2011, final rule, Effective
February 21, 2012, and in the April 10, 2015 Final Rule, Effective May
11, 2015
Substitutes That Are Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further
End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household refrigerators, Isobutane (R-600a) Acceptable subject These refrigerants Applicable OSHA
freezers, and combination Propane (R-290)... to use conditions. may be used only requirements at
refrigerators and freezers. R-441A............ in new equipment 29 CFR part 1910
(New equipment only)............ designed must be followed,
specifically and including those
clearly at 29 CFR
identified for 1910.106
the refrigerant (flammable and
(i.e., none of combustible
these substitutes liquids),
may be used as a 1910.110 (storage
conversion or and handling of
``retrofit'' liquefied
refrigerant for petroleum gases),
existing 1910.157
equipment (portable fire
designed for a extinguishers),
different and 1910.1000
refrigerant). (toxic and
These refrigerants hazardous
may be used only substances).
in a refrigerator Proper ventilation
or freezer, or should be
combination maintained at all
refrigerator and times during the
freezer, that manufacture and
meets all storage of
requirements equipment
listed in containing
Supplement SA to hydrocarbon
the 10th edition refrigerants
of the through adherence
Underwriters to good
Laboratories (UL) manufacturing
Standard for practices as per
Household 29 CFR 1910.106.
Refrigerators and If refrigerant
Freezers, UL 250, levels in the air
dated August 25, surrounding the
2000. In cases equipment rise
where the final above one-fourth
rule includes of the lower
requirements more flammability
stringent than limit, the space
those of the 10th should be
edition of UL evacuated and re-
250, the entry should
appliance must occur only after
meet the the space has
requirements of been properly
the final rule in ventilated.
place of the Technicians and
requirements in equipment
the UL Standard. manufacturers
The charge size should wear
must not exceed appropriate
57 g (2.01 oz) in personal
any refrigerator, protective
freezer, or equipment,
combination including
refrigerator and chemical goggles
freezer in each and protective
circuit. gloves, when
handling these
refrigerants.
Special care
should be taken
to avoid contact
with the skin
since these
refrigerants,
like many
refrigerants, can
cause freeze
burns on the
skin.
A Class B dry
powder type fire
extinguisher
should be kept
nearby.
Technicians should
only use spark-
proof tools when
working on
refrigerators and
freezers with
these
refrigerants.
Any recovery
equipment used
should be
designed for
flammable
refrigerants.
Any refrigerant
releases should
be in a well-
ventilated area,
such as outside
of a building.
Only technicians
specifically
trained in
handling
flammable
refrigerants
should service
refrigerators and
freezers
containing these
refrigerants.
Technicians
should gain an
understanding of
minimizing the
risk of fire and
the steps to use
flammable
refrigerants
safely.
[[Page 19492]]
Household refrigerators, Isobutane (R-600a) Acceptable subject As provided in Room occupants
freezers, and combination Propane (R-290)... to use conditions. clauses SA6.1.1 should evacuate
refrigerators and freezers. R-441A............ and SA6.1.2 of UL the space
(New equipment only)............ Standard 250, immediately
10th edition, the following the
following accidental
markings must be release of this
attached at the refrigerant.
locations If a service port
provided and must is added then
be permanent: household
(a) On or near any refrigerators,
evaporators that freezers, and
can be contacted combination
by the consumer: refrigerator and
``DANGER- Risk of freezers using
Fire or these
Explosion. refrigerants
Flammable should have
Refrigerant Used. service aperture
Do Not Use fittings that
Mechanical differ from
Devices To fittings used in
Defrost equipment or
Refrigerator. Do containers using
Not Puncture non-flammable
Refrigerant refrigerant.
Tubing.''. ``Differ'' means
(b) Near the that either the
machine diameter differs
compartment: by at least 1/16
``DANGER--Risk of inch or the
Fire or thread direction
Explosion. is reversed
Flammable (i.e., right-
Refrigerant Used. handed vs. left-
To Be Repaired handed). These
Only By Trained different
Service fittings should
Personnel. Do Not be permanently
Puncture affixed to the
Refrigerant unit at the point
Tubing.''. of service and
(c) Near the maintained until
machine the end-of-life
compartment: of the unit, and
``CAUTION--Risk should not be
of Fire or accessed with an
Explosion. adaptor.
Flammable
Refrigerant Used.
Consult Repair
Manual/Owner's
Guide Before
Attempting To
Service This
Product. All
Safety
Precautions Must
Be Followed.''.
(d) On the
exterior of the
refrigerator:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion.
Dispose of
Properly In
Accordance With
Federal Or Local
Regulations.
Flammable
Refrigerant
Used.''.
(e) Near any and
all exposed
refrigerant
tubing:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion Due To
Puncture Of
Refrigerant
Tubing; Follow
Handling
Instructions
Carefully.
Flammable
Refrigerant
Used.''.
All of these
markings must be
in letters no
less than 6.4 mm
(1/4 inch) high.
The refrigerator,
freezer, or
combination
refrigerator and
freezer must have
red,
Pantone[supreg]
Matching System
(PMS) #185 marked
pipes, hoses, or
other devices
through which the
refrigerant is
serviced
(typically known
as the service
port) to indicate
the use of a
flammable
refrigerant. This
color must be
present at all
service ports and
where service
puncturing or
otherwise
creating an
opening from the
refrigerant
circuit to the
atmosphere might
be expected
(e.g., process
tubes). The color
mark must extend
at least 2.5
centimeters (1
inch) from the
compressor and
must be replaced
if removed.
[[Page 19493]]
Retail food refrigerators and Isobutane (R-600a) Acceptable subject As provided in Room occupants
freezers (stand-alone units Propane (R-290)... to use conditions. clauses SB6.1.2 should evacuate
only). R-441A............ to SB6.1.5 of UL the space
(New equipment only)............ Standard 471, immediately
10th edition, the following the
following accidental
markings must be release of this
attached at the refrigerant.
locations If a service port
provided and must is added then
be permanent: retail food
(a) On or near any refrigerators and
evaporators that freezers using
can be contacted these
by the consumer: refrigerants
``DANGER--Risk of should have
Fire or service aperture
Explosion. fittings that
Flammable differ from
Refrigerant Used. fittings used in
Do Not Use equipment or
Mechanical containers using
Devices To non-flammable
Defrost refrigerant.
Refrigerator. Do ``Differ'' means
Not Puncture that either the
Refrigerant diameter differs
Tubing.''. by at least 1/16
(b) Near the inch or the
machine thread direction
compartment: is reversed
``DANGER--Risk of (i.e., right-
Fire or handed vs. left-
Explosion. handed). These
Flammable different
Refrigerant Used. fittings should
To Be Repaired be permanently
Only By Trained affixed to the
Service unit at the point
Personnel. Do Not of service and
Puncture maintained until
Refrigerant the end-of-life
Tubing.''. of the unit, and
(c) Near the should not be
machine accessed with an
compartment: adaptor.
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion.
Flammable
Refrigerant Used.
Consult Repair
Manual/Owner's
Guide Before
Attempting To
Service This
Product. All
Safety
Precautions Must
be Followed.''.
(d) On the
exterior of the
refrigerator:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion.
Dispose of
Properly In
Accordance With
Federal Or Local
Regulations.
Flammable
Refrigerant
Used.''.
(e) Near any and
all exposed
refrigerant
tubing:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion Due To
Puncture Of
Refrigerant
Tubing; Follow
Handling
Instructions
Carefully.
Flammable
Refrigerant
Used.''.
All of these
markings must be
in letters no
less than 6.4 mm
(1/4 inch) high.
The refrigerator
or freezer must
have red,
Pantone[supreg]
Matching System
(PMS) #185 marked
pipes, hoses, and
other devices
through which the
refrigerant is
serviced,
typically known
as the service
port, to indicate
the use of a
flammable
refrigerant. This
color must be
present at all
service ports and
where service
puncturing or
otherwise
creating an
opening from the
refrigerant
circuit to the
atmosphere might
be expected
(e.g., process
tubes). The color
mark must extend
at least 2.5
centimeters (1
inch) from the
compressor and
must be replaced
if removed.
[[Page 19494]]
Very low temperature Ethane (R-170).... Acceptable subject This refrigerant Applicable OSHA
refrigeration. to use conditions. may be used only requirements at
Non-mechanical heat transfer.... in new equipment 29 CFR part 1910
(New equipment only)............ specifically must be followed,
designed and including those
clearly at 29 CFR 1910.94
identified for (ventilation) and
the refrigerant 1910.106
(i.e., the (flammable and
substitute may combustible
not be used as a liquids),
conversion or 1910.110 (storage
``retrofit'' and handling of
refrigerant for liquefied
existing petroleum gases),
equipment 1910.157
designed for (portable fire
other extinguishers),
refrigerants). and 1910.1000
This refrigerant (toxic and
may only be used hazardous
in equipment that substances).
meets all Proper ventilation
requirements in should be
Supplement SB to maintained at all
the 10th edition times during the
of the manufacture and
Underwriters storage of
Laboratories (UL) equipment
Standard for containing
Commercial hydrocarbon
Refrigerators and refrigerants
Freezers, UL 471, through adherence
dated November to good
24, 2010. In manufacturing
cases where the practices as per
final rule 29 CFR 1910.106.
includes If refrigerant
requirements more levels in the air
stringent than surrounding the
those of the 10th equipment rise
edition of UL above one-fourth
471, the of the lower
appliance must flammability
meet the limit, the space
requirements of should be
the final rule in evacuated and re-
place of the entry should
requirements in occur only after
the UL Standard. the space has
The charge size been properly
for the equipment ventilated.
must not exceed Technicians and
150 g (5.29 oz) equipment
in each circuit. manufacturers
should wear
appropriate
personal
protective
equipment,
including
chemical goggles
and protective
gloves, when
handling ethane.
Special care
should be taken
to avoid contact
with the skin
since ethane,
like many
refrigerants, can
cause freeze
burns on the
skin.
A Class B dry
powder type fire
extinguisher
should be kept
nearby.
Technicians should
only use spark-
proof tools when
working on
equipment with
flammable
refrigerants.
Any recovery
equipment used
should be
designed for
flammable
refrigerants.
Any refrigerant
releases should
be in a well-
ventilated area,
such as outside
of a building.
Only technicians
specifically
trained in
handling
flammable
refrigerants
should service
equipment
containing
ethane.
Technicians
should gain an
understanding of
minimizing the
risk of fire and
the steps to use
flammable
refrigerants
safely.
[[Page 19495]]
Very low temperature Ethane (R-170).... Acceptable subject As provided in Room occupants
refrigeration. to use conditions. clauses SB6.1.2 should evacuate
Non-mechanical heat transfer.... to SB6.1.5 of UL the space
(New equipment only)............ Standard 471, immediately
10th edition, the following the
following accidental
markings must be release of this
attached at the refrigerant.
locations If a service port
provided and must is added then
be permanent: refrigeration
(a) On or near any equipment using
evaporators that this refrigerant
can be contacted should have
by the consumer: service aperture
``DANGER--Risk of fittings that
Fire or differ from
Explosion. fittings used in
Flammable equipment or
Refrigerant Used. containers using
Do Not Use non-flammable
Mechanical refrigerant.
Devices To ``Differ'' means
Defrost that either the
Refrigerator. Do diameter differs
Not Puncture by at least 1/16
Refrigerant inch or the
Tubing.''. thread direction
(b) Near the is reversed
machine (i.e., right-
compartment: handed vs. left-
``DANGER--Risk of handed). These
Fire or different
Explosion. fittings should
Flammable be permanently
Refrigerant Used. affixed to the
To Be Repaired unit at the point
Only By Trained of service and
Service maintained until
Personnel. Do Not the end-of-life
Puncture of the unit, and
Refrigerant should not be
Tubing.''. accessed with an
(c) Near the adaptor.
machine Example of non-
compartment: mechanical heat
``CAUTION--Risk transfer using
of Fire or this refrigerant
Explosion. would be use in a
Flammable secondary loop of
Refrigerant Used. a thermosiphon.
Consult Repair
Manual/Owner's
Guide Before
Attempting To
Service This
Product. All
Safety
Precautions Must
be Followed.''.
(d) On the
exterior of the
refrigerator:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion.
Dispose of
Properly In
Accordance With
Federal Or Local
Regulations.
Flammable
Refrigerant
Used.''.
(e) Near any and
all exposed
refrigerant
tubing:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion Due To
Puncture Of
Refrigerant
Tubing; Follow
Handling
Instructions
Carefully.
Flammable
Refrigerant
Used.''.
All of these
markings must be
in letters no
less than 6.4 mm
(1/4 inch) high.
The refrigeration
equipment must
have red,
Pantone[supreg]
Matching System
(PMS) #185 marked
pipes, hoses, and
other devices
through which the
refrigerant is
serviced,
typically known
as the service
port, to indicate
the use of a
flammable
refrigerant. This
color must be
present at all
service ports and
where service
puncturing or
otherwise
creating an
opening from the
refrigerant
circuit to the
atmosphere might
be expected
(e.g., process
tubes). The color
mark must extend
at least 2.5
centimeters (1
inch) from the
compressor and
must be replaced
if removed.
[[Page 19496]]
Vending Machines................ Isobutane (R-600a) Acceptable subject These refrigerants Applicable OSHA
(New equipment only)............ Propane (R-290)... to use conditions. may be used only requirements at
R-441A............ in new equipment 29 part 1910 must
specifically be followed,
designed and including those
clearly at 29 CFR 1910.94
identified for (ventilation) and
the refrigerants 1910.106
(i.e., none of (flammable and
these substitutes combustible
may be used as a liquids),
conversion or 1910.110 (storage
``retrofit'' and handling of
refrigerant for liquefied
existing petroleum gases),
equipment 1910.157
designed for (portable fire
other extinguishers),
refrigerants). and 1910.1000
Detaching and (toxic and
replacing the old hazardous
refrigeration substances).
circuit from the Proper ventilation
outer casing of should be
the equipment maintained at all
with a new one times during the
containing a new manufacture and
evaporator, storage of
condenser, and equipment
refrigerant containing
tubing within the hydrocarbon
old casing is refrigerants
considered through adherence
``new'' equipment to good
and not a manufacturing
retrofit of the practices as per
old, existing 29 CFR 1910.106.
equipment. If refrigerant
These substitutes levels in the air
may only be used surrounding the
in equipment that equipment rise
meets all above one-fourth
requirements in of the lower
Supplement SA to flammability
the 7th edition limit, the space
of the should be
Underwriters evacuated and re-
Laboratories (UL) entry should
Standard for occur only after
Refrigerated the space has
Vending Machines, been properly
UL 541, dated ventilated.
December, 2011. Technicians and
In cases where equipment
the final rule manufacturers
includes should wear
requirements more appropriate
stringent than personal
those of the 7th protective
edition of UL equipment,
541, the including
appliance must chemical goggles
meet the and protective
requirements of gloves, when
the final rule in handling these
place of the refrigerants.
requirements in Special care
the UL Standard. should be taken
The charge size to avoid contact
for vending with the skin
machines must not since these
exceed 150 g refrigerants,
(5.29 oz) in each like many
circuit. refrigerants, can
cause freeze
burns on the
skin.
A Class B dry
powder type fire
extinguisher
should be kept
nearby.
Technicians should
only use spark-
proof tools when
working on
refrigeration
equipment with
flammable
refrigerants.
Any recovery
equipment used
should be
designed for
flammable
refrigerants.
Any refrigerant
releases should
be in a well-
ventilated area,
such as outside
of a building.
Only technicians
specifically
trained in
handling
flammable
refrigerants
should service
refrigeration
equipment
containing these
refrigerants.
Technicians
should gain an
understanding of
minimizing the
risk of fire and
the steps to use
flammable
refrigerants
safely.
[[Page 19497]]
Vending Machines................ Isobutane (R-600a) Acceptable subject As provided in Room occupants
(New equipment only)............ Propane (R-290)... to use conditions. clauses SA6.1.2 should evacuate
R-441A............ to SA6.1.5 of UL the space
Standard 541, 7th immediately
edition, the following the
following accidental
markings must be release of this
attached at the refrigerant.
locations If a service port
provided and must is added then
be permanent: refrigeration
(a) On or near any equipment using
evaporators that this refrigerant
can be contacted should have
by the consumer: service aperture
``DANGER--Risk of fittings that
Fire or differ from
Explosion. fittings used in
Flammable equipment or
Refrigerant Used. containers using
Do Not Use non-flammable
Mechanical refrigerant.
Devices To ``Differ'' means
Defrost that either the
Refrigerator. Do diameter differs
Not Puncture by at least 1/16
Refrigerant inch or the
Tubing.''. thread direction
(b) Near the is reversed
machine (i.e., right-
compartment: handed vs. left-
``DANGER--Risk of handed). These
Fire or different
Explosion. fittings should
Flammable be permanently
Refrigerant Used. affixed to the
To Be Repaired unit at the point
Only By Trained of service and
Service maintained until
Personnel. Do Not the end-of-life
Puncture of the unit, and
Refrigerant should not be
Tubing.''. accessed with an
(c) Near the adaptor.
machine
compartment:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion.
Flammable
Refrigerant Used.
Consult Repair
Manual/Owner's
Guide Before
Attempting To
Service This
Product. All
Safety
Precautions Must
be Followed.''.
(d) On the
exterior of the
refrigerator:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion.
Dispose of
Properly In
Accordance With
Federal Or Local
Regulations.
Flammable
Refrigerant
Used.''.
(e) Near any and
all exposed
refrigerant
tubing:
``CAUTION--Risk
of Fire or
Explosion Due To
Puncture Of
Refrigerant
Tubing; Follow
Handling
Instructions
Carefully.
Flammable
Refrigerant
Used.''.
All of these
markings must be
in letters no
less than 6.4 mm
(1/4 inch) high.
The refrigeration
equipment must
have red,
Pantone[supreg]
Matching System
(PMS) #185 marked
pipes, hoses, and
other devices
through which the
refrigerant is
serviced,
typically known
as the service
port, to indicate
the use of a
flammable
refrigerant. This
color must be
present at all
service ports and
where service
puncturing or
otherwise
creating an
opening from the
refrigerant
circuit to the
atmosphere might
be expected
(e.g., process
tubes). The color
mark must extend
at least 2.5
centimeters (1
inch) from the
compressor and
must be replaced
if removed.
[[Page 19498]]
Residential and light-commercial HFC-32............ Acceptable subject These refrigerants Applicable OSHA
air conditioning and heat Propane (R-290)... to use conditions. may be used only requirements at
pumps--self-contained room air R-441A............ in new equipment 29 CFR part 1910
conditioners only. specifically must be followed,
(New equipment only)............ designed and including those
clearly at 29 CFR 1910.94
identified for (ventilation) and
the refrigerants 1910.106
(i.e., none of (flammable and
these substitutes combustible
may be used as a liquids),
conversion or 1910.110 (storage
``retrofit'' and handling of
refrigerant for liquefied
existing petroleum gases),
equipment 1910.157
designed for (portable fire
other extinguishers),
refrigerants) and 1910.1000
These refrigerants (toxic and
may only be used hazardous
in equipment that substances).
meets all Proper ventilation
requirements in should be
Supplement SA and maintained at all
Appendices B times during the
through F of the manufacture and
8th edition of storage of
the Underwriters equipment
Laboratories (UL) containing
Standard for Room hydrocarbon
Air Conditioners, refrigerants
UL 484, dated through adherence
August 3, 2012. to good
In cases where manufacturing
the final rule practices as per
includes 29 CFR 1910.106.
requirements more If refrigerant
stringent than levels in the air
those of the 8th surrounding the
edition of UL equipment rise
484, the above one-fourth
appliance must of the lower
meet the flammability
requirements of limit, the space
the final rule in should be
place of the evacuated and re-
requirements in entry should
the UL Standard. occur only after
The charge size the space has
for the entire been properly
air conditioner ventilated.
must not exceed Technicians and
the maximum equipment
refrigerant mass manufacturers
determined should wear
according to appropriate
Appendix F of UL personal
484, 8th edition protective
for the room size equipment,
where the air including
conditioner is chemical goggles
used. The charge and protective
size for these gloves, when
three handling these
refrigerants must refrigerants.
in no case exceed Special care
7,960 g (280.8 oz should be taken
or 17.55 lb) of to avoid contact
HFC-32; 1,000 g with the skin
(35.3 oz or 2.21 since these
lbs) of propane; refrigerants,
or 1,000 g (35.3 like many
oz or 2.21 lb) of refrigerants, can
R-441A. For cause freeze
portable air burns on the
conditioners, the skin.
charge size must A Class B dry
in no case exceed powder type fire
2,450 g (80.0 oz extinguisher
or 5.0 lb) of HFC- should be kept
32; 300 g (10.6 nearby.
oz or 0.66 lbs) Technicians should
of propane; or only use spark-
330 g (11.6 oz or proof tools when
0.72 lb) of R- working on air
441A. The conditioning
manufacturer must equipment with
design a charge flammable
size for the refrigerants.
entire air Any recovery
conditioner that equipment used
does not exceed should be
the amount designed for
specified for the flammable
unit's cooling refrigerants.
capacity, as Any refrigerant
specified in releases should
Table A, B, C, D, be in a well-
or E of this ventilated area,
Appendix. such as outside
of a building.
Only technicians
specifically
trained in
handling
flammable
refrigerants
should service
refrigeration
equipment
containing these
refrigerants.
Technicians
should gain an
understanding of
minimizing the
risk of fire and
the steps to use
flammable
refrigerants
safely.
[[Page 19499]]
Residential and light-commercial HFC-32............ Acceptable subject As provided in Room occupants
air conditioning and heat Propane (R-290)... to use conditions. clauses SA6.1.2 should evacuate
pumps--self-contained room air R-441A............ to SA6.1.5 of UL the space
conditioners only. 484, 8th edition, immediately
(New equipment only)............ the following following the
markings must be accidental
attached at the release of this
locations refrigerant.
provided and must If a service port
be permanent:. is added then air
(a) On the outside conditioning
of the air equipment using
conditioner: this refrigerant
``DANGER--Risk of should have
Fire or service aperture
Explosion. fittings that
Flammable differ from
Refrigerant Used. fittings used in
To Be Repaired equipment or
Only By Trained containers using
Service non-flammable
Personnel. Do Not refrigerant.
Puncture ``Differ'' means
Refrigerant that either the
Tubing.''. diameter differs
(b) On the outside by at least 1/16
of the air inch or the
conditioner: thread direction
``CAUTION--Risk is reversed
of Fire or (i.e., right-
Explosion. handed vs. left-
Dispose of handed). These
Properly In different
Accordance With fittings should
Federal Or Local be permanently
Regulations. affixed to the
Flammable unit at the point
Refrigerant of service and
Used.''. maintained until
(c) On the inside the end-of-life
of the air of the unit, and
conditioner near should not be
the compressor: accessed with an
``CAUTION--Risk adaptor.
of Fire or Air conditioning
Explosion. equipment in this
Flammable category
Refrigerant Used. includes:
Consult Repair Window air
Manual/Owner's conditioning
Guide Before units.
Attempting To Portable room air
Service This conditioners.
Product. All Packaged terminal
Safety air conditioners
Precautions Must and heat pumps.
be Followed.''.
(d) On the outside
of each portable
air conditioner:
``WARNING:
Appliance hall be
installed,
operated and
stored in a room
with a floor area
larger the ``X''
m\2\ (Y ft\2\).''
The value ``X''
on the label must
be determined
using the minimum
room size in m\2\
calculated using
Appendix F of UL
484, 8th edition.
For R-441A, use a
lower
flammability
limit of 0.041 kg/
m\3\ in
calculations in
Appendix F of UL
484, 8th edition.
All of these
markings must be
in letters no
less than 6.4 mm
(1/4 inch) high.
The air
conditioning
equipment must
have red,
Pantone[supreg]
Matching System
(PMS) #185 marked
pipes, hoses, and
other devices
through which the
refrigerant is
serviced,
typically known
as the service
port, to indicate
the use of a
flammable
refrigerant. This
color must be
present at all
service ports and
where service
puncturing or
otherwise
creating an
opening from the
refrigerant
circuit to the
atmosphere might
be expected
(e.g., process
tubes). The color
mark must extend
at least 2.5
centimeters (1
inch) from the
compressor and
must be replaced
if removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The use conditions in this appendix contain references to certain standards from Underwriters Laboratories
Inc. (UL). The standards are incorporated by reference, and the referenced sections are made part of the
regulations in part 82:
1. UL 250: Household Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and
Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. August
25, 2000.
2. UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators
and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
November 24, 2010.
3. UL 484. Room Air Conditioners. 8th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Room Air Conditioners Employing a
Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System and Appendices B through F. December 21, 2007, with changes
through August 3, 2012.
4. UL 541. Refrigerated Vending Machines. 7th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerated Venders
Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. December 30, 2011
The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of UL Standards 250, 471, 484 and 541 may be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000; 151
Eastern Avenue; Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: 2000.com">orders@comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or
Canada (other countries dial +1-415-352-2168); Internet address: http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ or
www.comm-2000.com.
You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA's Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington DC or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For questions regarding
access to these standards, the telephone number of EPA's Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 19500]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AP15.002
[[Page 19501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AP15.003
[FR Doc. 2015-07895 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C